18 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo: take 2 on Armstrong

  1. Just to be unfun about it, I’d note that for Plato the point of the words and instruction is in order to attempt to turn the gaze of the individual toward the Good. Then again, geometry was in particular supposed to do it (he was considered to be a Pythagorean), and not so much the words about transcendence, the ineffable, etc.

    Also, to say “God exists” isn’t so much a problem for debasing god, it was avoided in order to credit god as the “substance” or basis of existence of everything.

    It is a bit more complicated than a cartoon, iow, although in today’s terms it amounts to so much circularity which can be only broken by empiricism. Many prefer the circularity, however, and fear what empiricism might do to their tidy little solipsism.

    Glen Davidson
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

    1. “I’d note that for Plato the point of the words and instruction is in order to attempt to turn the gaze of the individual toward the Good.” Lucky for him he missed the last twenty four hundred years of disillusionment then, I guess. Is that what you meant?

  2. @Glen: “It is a bit more complicated than a cartoon”

    Me thinks you’re MAKING it a bit more complicated than a cartoon!

    Good luck with discussing whether ‘that of which we cannot speak, not can be said to exist’ .. exists.

    I prefer the cartoon.

      1. Not te mention my WRITING for accuracy! “, NOR can be said ..” etc.
        As for philosophy not being my game: that’s stating the obvious.

  3. I suggest that anyone who uses the word transcendence gets a hard slap on the face.

    Those who use the word mythos and not meaning fantasy should get a slap on both cheeks.

    I think you got it right, Anonym. Armstrong belongs in Deadwood where Swearengen would shoot her after…you know, and then say something about her being nuts.

    1. My comments have to do with common sense. Transcendence, mythos and Armstrong are nothing but fiction. How does that negate philosophy?

  4. Please note that the descriptions of God and whether we can or cannot describe him is usually only relevant when a skeptic challenges a Christian to defend their beliefs.

    My Christian friends believe all sorts of specific things about God, and at moments he seems quite tangible, including arguments for his existence or certain theological points they find important. I only start to get this “indescribable transcendence” stuff when I try to see how their beliefs are coherent, or submit their claims to criticism.

    … so frustrating…

Comments are closed.