I wouldn’t be a Christian

[Belacqua]

Are you trying to argue that gods based on Christian mysticism and Plato aren't stupid?  

[/quote]

Absolutely yes. 

Okay.  I'm all ears.  Give it your best shot.

No, I don't want to.

I respect the posts you've made on this forum -- I've noticed them -- but the way you phrase this it sounds like a dare. Plato's God, and the Christian tradition that grows out of it, isn't something I'm willing to type out in a sound bite. It's a hell of a lot of work to get it. 

I am no expert, but there are fantastically brilliant people who have examined and believed it. I am not willing to call them stupid. 

But I also don't want to come across here as cagey or unwilling; that's not my intention. It's just a huge topic, which is subtle and -- even if it's untrue -- has given rise in its evolution to powerful, beautiful, and influential thought. So please give me a break and don't ask me to do in 25 words or less.

---

THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN
IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES
TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER
THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual,
it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it,
theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may
secondarily grow.

I like this a lot. I remember why I liked the book so much now.

Maybe James was the first (?) to approach the topic as psychology, as private phenomenology, rather than as theology or church history. Important stuff. 

---

one finds Plato testing the strength of dissimilar ideas... making arguments in one book that are incongruous with arguments he makes in others. To me, this suggests that Plato is more "Socratic" than he is commonly given credit for; ie. his works are more about asking questions than providing answers.

This is crucial to me. We would all do well to approach things in this spirit, I think. 

This is one of the things I harp on about... People today expect all writing to be like journalism or a science text. The idea of a book as a permanent challenge or a life-long puzzle seems to be lost. 

Plato is surely great because he posed more or less the whole range of philosophical questions and was far too wise to think that he could solve them. And he employed -- practically invented -- any and every literary genre that he needed to do the work. I mean, the Myth of Er has "myth" in the title. And as I recall all that about the soul growing wings and the chariots with horses -- he says very clearly "this is kind of what it's like." Our modern writing is often anemic in comparison. As if we think we're really going to find The Truth of things! Ha!

One big question is how much later Christian writers adopted the same approach. For example there's an ongoing debate among Dante experts as to how serious he was concerning what Hell and Purgatory are "really" like. I'm in the camp that says he knew full well about myth and symbolism, and knew that art tells truth in non-literal ways. But I tend to keep quiet about that at conferences, because tempers run hot.

---

As sure as he is of himself sometimes, he knows that he isn't really convincing his reader of anything unless he puts together a sound logical argument.

Well, maybe we ought to do a thread on Plato's God, I don't know. You'd be good at it, and maybe we owe it to Jormungandr. 

As I mentioned before, life has me busy these days, and I might not be able to contribute regularly. But it seems like something that ought to be tackled. 

In addition, it's a fascinating topic to see how the Neoplatonic guys fed into Christian theology. Plotinus, for example was a great genius -- the first ever to posit that people have subconscious parts of their minds. So there's pretty much nothing more interesting. 

But it's up to you... If you're willing to take the snark that people will give you for it.