28th September 2011

“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.”

David Brooks

5 Responses to “28th September 2011”

  1. archaeopteryx Says:

    Isn’t the term “theological lunacy” a tautology?

  2. Atheist MC Says:

    You beat me to it Arch 🙂

  3. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Absolutely Arch!

    The word “Theological” always struck me as “lack-O-logical”.

    A defintion of lunatic might be: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was.

  4. Jeff Says:


    I think if you read Mathew, M, L, & J closely, he never said that he was God, nor even the son of God. The closest that he came was the “son of Man” comments, the clearest of which is reported in Mathew. The godhead crap was all laid on him afterwards, so we really can’t call the man a lunatic on that basis. Based upon his reported stuff, once you strip away the mystical overlay that was sprinkled on after he was already dead, he was a pretty good guy. Maybe not as enlightened as the Buddha, but not bad for a Hebraic carpenter in that time and place.

    I think the more appropriate formulation might be: Saul knew that he hadn’t seen God, but Paul mistakenly believed that he had.

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    You are of course correct Jeff, I was just trying to be funny: Apparently not funny enough.

    Your correction by inserting Saul into my comment is funnier. And of course Saul was a certifiable Loon!