Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Obviously there are theological disagreements here, but they can be thought of as disagreements about the nature of the same thing, not positing the existence of a separate, different thing.
Two men were walking in the park and saw a man in the distance.
The first man says, "I think that's Joe. JOE! HEY! JOE! OVER HERE! Joe used to work with me until he changed jobs. JOE! JOOOOOOOE!"
The second man says, "No, that's not Joe. That's Bob. BOB! CAN YOU HEAR ME? Bob is friends with my sister and we've hung out a few times. HEEEEEEEY BOB!"
Both people have absolutely different conceptions of the man in the distance. And even though their mental pictures are different, they are talking to the same man.
Note: The word picture intentionally leaves the man's identity completely undefined. It could be Bob, it could be Joe, or it could be someone else entirely. Maybe it's not even a man. It could be a rumpled jacket that someone left on the park bench. It doesn't matter. It also does not say whether the man responds. All it says is that what they claim about the identity of the one they're trying to talk to is irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether they are calling out to the same person.