Is Analysis the Enemy of Inspiration

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Either you believe he is the only begotten son of God or you don't. There is nothing in between...no matter how much you twist it using your critical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's this for some critical thinking: anyone who believes the Incarnation is a rationally comprehensible doctrine is an idiot and probably a heretic.

So "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is meaningful only as a linguistic illusion; it is not a comprehensive trichotomy of possible actualities.

[hitch1978]

Love the Eliot quote, particularly the last sentance below.

TS Eliot wrote, 'it must mean just this, that the speaker or writer is uttering something that he does not wholly understand - or which he may even misinterpret when the inspiration has departed from him.'

What I didn't really like is the way the article linked 'inspiration' with 'religion' as if one is not capable without the other.

I am sure that people who are religious do have an integral link between the two. I mean, if you believe in god, it follows that inspiration would come from him. Inspiration is something in the Ether that we cannot touch, and is in some way mystical (not sure if my definition of mystical is correct, apologies.), and as such a religious person's inspiration would be integrally linked to their faith.

But to suppose that someone without religious beliefs is in some way less capable of inspiration, or are in some way less inspirational, irks me a little.

I am not talking about examples of famous scientists, although many spring to mind, I am talking of myself, and the people I see and immerse myself in.

I know some pretty uninspirational priests, and some inspirational phycisists, just as the opposite is often true also.

I suppose that my point is that we shouldn't feel the need to link virtues with our beliefes, and try and claim ownership of them. Like, I am an athiest, therefore I am capable of logic. Or I am a thiest, therefore I am capable of great inspiration.

Both are capable of great depths of either, and none of the above are mutually incohabitable.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either you believe he is the only begotten son of God or you don't. There is nothing in between...no matter how much you twist it using your critical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's this for some critical thinking: anyone who believes the Incarnation is a rationally comprehensible doctrine is an idiot and probably a heretic.

So "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is meaningful only as a linguistic illusion; it is not a comprehensive trichotomy of possible actualities.

[/ QUOTE ]

My lack of sufficient vocabulary means your post means nothing to me, sorry.

Re-word for an idiot?

[Subfallen]

"God Incarnate" is only a subjectively meaningful idea. Properties such as omniscience, omnipresence, etc. lie beyond the realm of possible actual experience; thus they are not actually meaningful.

Saying that these qualities were incarnated in a Man is not rationally meaningful. Lewis was well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided when he proposed "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" as an apologetic meme.

[hitch1978]

I will out myself here as not knowing what "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" means.

Does your argument not hinge on the fact that Jesus was 'just a human' and the counter argument (not mine) would be that as the son of got he is not subjected to the same boundries as you or I?

I am trying to understand you, and forgivr me if you find my questions hard work, but that is why I am here.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
I will out myself here as not knowing what "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" means.



[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: I can obvioulsy work out what it means, but not sure what the context it is 'usually' understood to come from is. If that makes sense. Which I'm not sure it does. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Subfallen]

Context.

The trilemma's fallacy is that it special pleads that all three possibilities are meaningful in the same "strong" sense: meaningful as descriptions of actual reality.

Because our minds automatically imbue language with subjective meaning, this special pleading is not obvious to the careless reader. However, God-qualities are (by definition) outside the realm of possible experience of actual reality.

Thus "God Incarnate" is not a priori an actually meaningful idea. Treating it as such requires special pleading an idealism that gives metaphysically privileged status to subjective meaning.

Doing this is dishonest, etc, ad inifinitum...if you are not a theist you probably don't care about this...

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]

Doing this is dishonest, etc, ad inifinitum...if you are not a theist you probably don't care about this...

[/ QUOTE ]

Another truth. In a vaccum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Thankyou for your posts. I have nothing valuable to add to them now, it is late and I need to spend some time digesting it all. Thanks for the link. I will have more to add tomorrow.

P.S. What do you do for a living? How did you come you use such a fantastic vocabulary?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. What do you do for a living? How did you come you use such a fantastic vocabulary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if my vocabulary is "fantastic"...luckyme's posts have ten times my content with 1/10 the syllabes. My criticism of the trilemma here comes from my cursory exposure to philosophy: Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche in particular are my favs.

My occupation...failed poker pro? not sure, probably going to join the SEALs within a year at this rate. Meh.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
card carrying members of the Christ bashing club

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody rang?

[ QUOTE ]
To live in the 21st century & sit around reading a bunch of psychology books without something more constructive to do is amazing to me....

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning is for losers! You show 'em, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome back. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]