Jesus ‘n’ Mo: take 2 on Armstrong

The Jesus and Mo artist is, as always, au courant with the theological debates simmering on our blogs.   To those accommodationists who say they’re funnier than we are: where’s YOUR Jesus and Mo?2009-09-15

h/t: ennui

18 Comments

  1. Oded
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Very accurate drawing of the cover of “The Greatest Show On Earth”! I’m impressed

  2. Paul Claessen
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    “God is not limited by logic”

    He appears to have this in common with Karen Armstrong!

  3. JefFlyingV
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Always on target.

  4. Posted September 15, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    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

    • CW
      Posted September 15, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      “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?

    • Michael K Gray
      Posted September 15, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      Appeal to authority?

  5. Anonym
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Overheard in Deadwood:
    ‘Say, Mr. Swearengen, what’d’ya think ’bout that Armstrong dame?’

  6. Paul Claessen
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    @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.

    • Posted September 15, 2009 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      Let’s put it this way, Paul, philosophy isn’t your game–nor is reading for accuracy.

      Glen Davidson
      http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

      • Paul Claessen
        Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:15 am | Permalink

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

  7. NewEnglandBob
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    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.

    • Paul Claessen
      Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      NE_Bob, I guess that philosophy isn’t your game either? Maybe we should start a club! ;-)

    • NewEnglandBob
      Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:29 am | Permalink

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

      • Paul Claessen
        Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink

        I was just kiddi.. oh never mind! Philosophers *sigh* Do you always HAVE to be ‘unfun’ about things?

      • NewEnglandBob
        Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink

        NEB has a degree in engineering and is a retired software executive and is far from being a philosopher.

      • Michael K Gray
        Posted September 15, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

        I agree with Feynman’s take on the ultimate utility of philosophers.

  8. Posted September 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Mo wants Jesus to be apophatic, but nooooooooo.

  9. Evolution SWAT
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    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…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: