TRTR(1) Eye Goddesses Wearing Dipthongs

[David Morris]

I think your presentation here is a prime example of post-rationalization.

There was really never any need, logically, for Jesus to be God.  In
fact being God really devalues any accomplishment, because his
humanity is really little but charade (I mean, really, God locked up
into the body of an infant?).  His mission, logically (and in a manner
which would fit better with Judaism), was to be the "Second Adam," to
succeed where the First Adam failed.  He would be the "Son of God" in
that he was born of "divine seed" (not genetically tainted by Adam's
original sin).  This model is not without holes, but it is at least as
"necessary" as yours.

And speaking of "necesary," how does the Holy Spirit fit that label.
No one has a clue what that part of the Trinity is for.

David Morris

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've always been puzzled by why they thought that mattered so much. Not quite enough to read up on it, but puzzled. I mean, you're positing a tripartite Godhead, right? What practical implications does that have? What religious implications, even?
>
> The Trinity was a necessary religious invention for a cruel and uncaring world.
>
> The world was an awful place for 99 percent of humanity.
>
> Only a fully human, suffering and dying, born-of-woman God could be  counted on to fully understand the plight of humanity in such an unjust world.
>
> But an all-powerful, creator God, someone with clout,  was needed also.
>
> A bit of a contradiction but that was OK. The world was already absurd. (still is)
>
> They settled on "same substance" the most absurd of the three choices. (bite the bullet)
>
>  It was the only one of the three possibilities that slammed the door on arguments over whether Jesus was truly human or truly divine.  (the rationalists wanted things real clear)
>
> Although Christianity had to be based on a contradiction, there didn't seem to be better answer available.
>
> Credo quia adsurdum.
>
> Tertullian or somebody.
>
> P