@cajax @hidden @une @snacks >god was basically allowed to break his own rules

This is the low IQ way of dismissing the supposed disparity. The actual explanations are more like "Good is univocal with the Divine Nature, God as Good (which is the only thing with ontological essence) can only do Good

Then for specific examples, you'll say something like "God can only be understood analogically, therefore when Scripture says 'Yahweh changed his mind' it's actually got nothing to do with changing his mind, but it's the closest thing to a motivation we can understand."

My problem with this, though, is that if there's infinite dissimilitude, on what basis can you make the analogy? Furthermore, how do you account for attributes like "mercy" especially as they're expressed in the Incarnation, something that isn't exclusively transcendental?