El lexicografo Noah Webster, por alla en 1788, escribio lo siguiente, puntualizando la gran responsabilidad de mantener(en aras de la 'fe') el lenguaje muy bien medido y depurado:

"We are informed by Ludolph that the Ethiopians, having but one word for nature and person, could not understand the controversy about Christ's two natures. This is not surprising; nations in a savage state, or which have not been accustomed to metaphysical disquisitions, have no terms to communicate abstract ideas, which they never entertained; and hence the absurdity of attempting to christianize savages. Before men can be Christians they must be civilized; nay, they must be philosophers. It is probable that many who are called Christians are in the state of the Ethiopians with respect to the same doctrine; and that they pass through life without ever having any clear ideas of the different natures of Christ. Yet the distinction is constantly made in words; and that distinction passes for a difference of ideas. Such is the influence of language on opinion."

Aparte del valor antropologico/filosofico de este pasaje, centrandonos en su valor teologico: no es cierto, que para efectos del creer*(como el caso particular de la doble naturaleza del cristo, etc...), debe darse primero un cierto confundir*, un cierto sinsabor*, o al decir de Wittgenstein, un cierto mal-uso del lenguaje, con aras de producir un asensacion de misterio e incomprension del dicho tema?

Estan deacuerdo con que para ser cristiano los hombres han de civilizarse primero? O es mas, de confundirse, de entregarse a la alta consideracion filosofica, como los teologos, a menos que deseen ser creyentes, al estilo etiope?

Cuantos etipoes hay por aca?