I think I followed you all the way to your main point, and then lost you. You say: "It makes for a far better explanation about why can be so insane." Why what can be so insane? Or who?
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/05/04 03:44PM >>>
But it's like a monolithic board of directors. They never work at cross
purposes. In true polytheism one has many deities, often undermining one
another as they pull in different directions. It makes for a far better
explanation about why can be so insane.
on 11/5/04 5:05 AM, William Gray at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> And why the idea of a Trinity is the coolest of all possible scenarios. One
> God and yet more than one. It makes the most sense of the conundrum of the
> many & the one.
>>>> [log in to unmask] 11/04/04 10:43PM >>>
> Which is why these questions never come up in polytheism -- and why it makes
> more sense.
> on 11/4/04 2:11 PM, George Carless at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Even if we cannot answer 'the question', we *can* look at the elements of the
>> 'answers' that are posited for the question, and we can ask whether they're
>> internally consistent, whether their different components agree. We can look
>> at them in a historical context for an understanding of whence their
>> come. And once you start to peel away all of these layers, you quickly reach
>> vague, mystical "God"--an idea that, sure, is "beyond understanding", if you
>> like. I don't honestly mind if people do that--it's as reasonable a response
>> questions that I think are inherently unsoluble--but when they pile on all of
>> the *other* crap and then try to support it by their faith, I think it's a