Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:17 pm
@Axis Austin,
Boogy man = Bokey pirates...I'm not going to say they couldn't do it...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:31 pm
@xris,
xris;110557 wrote:
The invented gods have the appearance of benevolence till they are examined. They serve to comfort us and keep the boggy man from the door. We invented ethics like we invented these gods. God is here to serve our fear of death. As he grows less benevolent we try to attain a more moral value to our lives without the fear of eternal retribution. We cant blame him or praise him, for he is our invention.

The trinity is part and parcel of that invention. We attempt at restructuring the concepts to hide our silly inventions.



As much as I respect your boldness, which I certainly relate to, I think this is a reductionist view of religious myth.

Just as the genitals are also the organs of excretion, so religion also does a double duty. Think of Michelangelo, Bach, Raphael, Romanticism in general - including Nietzsche. All were inspired by Christian myth.

Fichte conceived God as a moral-world-ordering. God as a suprasensible force. This reminds me of Jung. God as a motive energy toward the ideal. And this ideal is flexible. It can call itself anti-christ or scientist. It's the energy in us that does not seek food or sex, etc....
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110619 wrote:
As much as I respect your boldness, which I certainly relate to, I think this is a reductionist view of religious myth.

Just as the genitals are also the organs of excretion, so religion also does a double duty. Think of Michelangelo, Bach, Raphael, Romanticism in general - including Nietzsche. All were inspired by Christian myth.

Fichte conceived God as a moral-world-ordering. God as a suprasensible force. This reminds me of Jung. God as a motive energy toward the ideal. And this ideal is flexible. It can call itself anti-christ or scientist. It's the energy in us that does not seek food or sex, etc....
Michelangeo was driven by the vatican's desire for religious icons not his faith in god. Romantics are driven in the main by beauty not zealots ready to expose god to the masses. Dogmatic religion has its advocates but not I. Im not antichrist, far from it, I admire the man.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:55 pm
@Axis Austin,
Shelley was kicked out of college for an essay called "The Necessity of Atheism." He thought the abolition of God would save the world. He married the daughter of a famous political radical. As he grew older he became more mystical. Many of the Romantics reacted against the mechanistic view of the enlightenment. William Blake offered a powerful critique of the limitations of views such as Voltaire's and Rousseau's, meanwhile explicitly trying to resurrect an improved sort of Christianity/Satanism. His "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" does its best to transcend more primitive views of religion as well as the prejudices of the Enlightenment. Wordsworth and Coleridge also presented quasi-religious experiences of Nature. Romanticism was very much associated not only with beauty, but a revival of religious attitudes in a post-Enlightenment form. Nietzsche's teen hero was Byron, who contributed strongly toward the invention of what is known as the Satanic-Byronic hero -- a clear forerunner of the Superman. Chatterton was a famous influence of the Romantics and he killed himself in an attic with poison. This sort of the tragedy of the sublime individual traces back, in my opinion, to Christ.

regards
recon
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Spirituality was more prevalent than dogmatic faith. Dogmatic faiths never had any real influence in literature or any of the arts, not unless you include monetary interests.
 
Solace
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110631 wrote:
This sort of the tragedy of the sublime individual traces back, in my opinion, to Christ.


Since we can trace nearly all the elements of the biblical account of Christ to earlier stories, ie: Horus, Chrishna, Mithras, etc., then if you can draw a connection to Christ, the connection must, neccessarily, go further back. Christ simply became the popularized version of the same story. I think these sorts of issues have always been with us, in one form or another.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:39 pm
@Solace,
Solace;110648 wrote:
Since we can trace nearly all the elements of the biblical account of Christ to earlier stories, ie: Horus, Chrishna, Mithras, etc., then if you can draw a connection to Christ, the connection must, neccessarily, go further back. Christ simply became the popularized version of the same story. I think these sorts of issues have always been with us, in one form or another.
/QUOTE]


I agree, one can go back further than Christ. Indeed, indeed, And Christ is an import. Have you read Spengler? For him, our Western Christian "Faustian" culture is more similar to the Egyptians than to the Greeks and Romans we took so much from. He thinks our sense of time and history is quite different than that of the classical age. To oversimplify: classical man lived in the present and the spacial. Christian / Egyptian man lived in the past and future, time more than space. He makes a strong case. And the book is sublime in general.

Smile
 
Solace
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Sounds like an interesting read. Is there any particular work of Spengler's that you recommend on the subject?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:52 pm
@Axis Austin,
Decline of the West -- but the English translation of the title makes it sound more gloomy than it is. Smile I think it's one of those under-rated treasures..
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 07:55:49