Bridging the gap ...

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 02:09 PM']Dictionaries are by nature behind the times anyway.
[right][snapback]862654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does that say about (religious) language L_D?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 02:32 PM']What does that say about (religious) language L_D? 
[right][snapback]862835[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What do you mean?

Nothing in particular though. Technical language has its own little sphere so if you mean the language of theology I'd have a slightly different answer than if you mean popular religious language.
In light of my other post I suppose I might just say that even the best dictionary of theology (or philosophy) is inaccurate to some degree.

And religious language is hardly immune to the fluid nature of language itself. You could pick any common religious term and find a slew of meanings associated with it. I'd like to see a universal definition of even such basic terms as [i]ousia[/i], [i]hupostasis[/i], or in Latin [i]esse[/i], [i]suppositum[/i], etc. What did the fathers at Nicea mean by [i]ousia[/i], verses the fathers at Chalcedon? Or Nyssa verses Damascene, or Thomas verses Erigena, etc.. I wouldn't absolutize religious language.. Language just isn't an absolute sort of thing.