A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. Jesus.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vPQHVioTh1ft1-dMwxRMELrRTWVolI8N/view?usp=sharing
A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. Jesus.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vPQHVioTh1ft1-dMwxRMELrRTWVolI8N/view?usp=sharing
Platitude of the Day 
One of the reasons I love Gilbert and Sullivan is that, after the supreme silliness of the paradox song, comes this.
LikeLike
When I was young, a long time ago, G&S was boring, old-fashioned and irrelevant. (This might have had something to do with the d’Oyley Carte stranglehold on the copyright.) However, I find that as I mature, or get old, they become more relevant and, indeed, funnier. Do they improve with (my) age or is this a paradox?
I refuse to believe that I was an idiot.
LikeLike
Same here.
LikeLike
Gibberish – as usual.
LikeLike
Jewish literature has always resorted to paradox to illustrate the difficulty in trying to understand an IMF that is actually unknowable. The many examples of paradox that AAA dug up from the Gospels this morning simply confirm their reliance on the much older ‘Hebrew Scriptures’.
One of her sillier assertions was that the genealogy attributed to Jesus was simultaneously kept secret and publicly proclaimed. Neither is true. The genealogies that appear at the beginnings of ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ (but not in either of the other two Gospels) were indeed made up to pretend that Jesus was descended from David; but they were composed decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived; and to serve the purposes of their respective authors. They differ in detail from each other; but they both end up with Joseph.
And one of the USPs of Christianity is that his mum was impregnated not by Joseph, but by the invisible third part of the IMF, so the genealogies are simply irrelevant! Perhaps the authors thought that nobody would notice this particular paradox. Or perhaps they just weren’t very good at constructing a story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The correct use of a paradox is to test the premises on which it is built. Russell famously created a Paradox out of Frege’s set theoretic axioms that ultimately destroyed those axioms, or at least necessitated the addition of an anti-paradox clause. Zeno’s paradoxes led to a new understanding of the infinite. Many paradoxes, like the Heap paradox, challenge our understanding of language.
But religious premises also result in hundreds of paradoxes. So, in order to avoid having to revise those premises, people like Anne Atkins just revel in the mystery. The paradoxical disproof is bent and twisted so much that it becomes, in their hands, almost a proof. The equivalent would be Gottlob Frege writing back to Russell saying, “Whoooa, spooky.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does AAA use ‘paradox’ because it sounds better than ‘inconsistency’ or ‘confusing’ or ‘nonsensical’? I think we should be told.
LikeLike
As usual AAA rams as many diverse ideas into her 165 seconds as possible. Paradoxically, the more she tries to explain her Christian beliefs, the less any of it makes sense.
Imagine her trying to offer comfort to the bereaved by telling them that when they feel the most despair they can experience the most hope?
After my recent bereavements the only card that offered no comfort was the one from the Christian saying that I was in their prayers. That may appear to be a paradox to some, but to me it was no paradox to receive kind thoughts from those who really know me and platitudes from a Christian who didn’t.
LikeLike
Wot, no Shakespeare?
LikeLike