TRTR(1) Eye Goddesses Wearing Dipthongs

[Paul Mackin]

On 4/11/2011 3:46 PM, David Morris wrote:
> I think your presentation here is a prime example of post-rationalization.
Explaining why something occurred (or trying to explain it)  isn't the 
same as rationalization.

Think of it as if you had the assignment of explaining to Martians what 
the  current appeal of Tea-party-ism is.

You'd try to explain what their thinking is.  And why the fact that some 
of it doesn't make much sense isn't really important to their mission.

Someone wondered the other day if exposing phonies was a 50s thing 
(Gaddis and Salinger).  Well I guess it was.
But the fact that fewer people talk that way now certainly doesn't mean 
that there are any fewer insincere people or errors in logic around than 
formerly.  It's just no longer in style to dwell on such things so 
much.  That's probably why Gaddis often sounds so old fashioned.  Don't 
get me wrong.  He can be great.  Nevertheless he sometimes reminds me of 
the old village atheist who goes around town pointing out to whomever 
will stop and talk all the contradictions in the Bible.  Yes, he is 
right of course but what does it matter.  It's 2011,

P.





> 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