Talk:Univocity of being

"God is vastly in kind"
What does this 'vastly' mean here? Needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuius (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the opening definition, 'Univocity of being is the idea that words describing the properties of God mean the same thing as when they apply to people or things, even if God is vastly different in kind.' Surely it is difference in degree? As the opening paragraph of the article goes onto explain, 'God only differs from us in degree, and properties such as goodness, power, reason, and so forth are "univocally" applied, regardless of whether one is talking about God, a man, or a flea.' So is this a mistake or a confusion that derives from ambiguities in the literature? --Rodmunday (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ecumenism
I found this interesting essay about the subsequent use of univocity by the Protestant Reformers, based on an interpretation of the works of Duns Scotus, and how this interpretation was seemingly opposed to the system advanced by the Thomists. It says that the major difference between Catholics and Protestants is not necessarily theological, but is instead philosophical in terms of univocity, and that a better understanding of this could be helpful in the context of ecumenism. ADM (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Interfaith
Another possible contrast to univocity is the Jewish concept of cultural pluralism. It is a widely established fact in interfaith circles that Catholics prefer agreement and unanimity, while Jews value a culture of discussion, debate and dissent. A common explanation for this is that Jews do not have a centrally organized religious organization such as the Holy See and an associated Magisterium that is accepted by all the existing religious believers. The same thing also holds true for Muslims, who haven't had a centrally organized leadership since the abolition of the Caliphate at the beginning of the 20th century. ADM (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what central organization has to do with it, but it should be incorporated into the article that Scotus and Deleuze are 180 degrees contrary to the doctrine found in both Judaism and Islam that whatever you say of humans cannot be the same for what is said of God. This is "the difference."Beau in NC (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy Trinity
The article should maybe explain the notion of univocity in the context of trinitarian Christian theology. Since God is One, and since he is also Tri-Une, then he obviously must speak with one voice. For instance, it is common for authors to state that the Father is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer, the Son is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer and the Spirit is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer. And since the Church is thought to reflect the mystery of the Holy Trinity, She too must speak with one voice. There are related concepts such as the Christian character of the soul, which some have described as having a trinitarian character, in order to be able to listen and respond to God. ADM (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)