Oops. The missing notation should be [life]. Or something like it.
on 11/8/04 11:02 AM, William Gray at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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
>>> 'answers' that are posited for the question, and we can ask whether they're
>>> internally consistent, whether their different components agree. We can
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> questions that I think are inherently unsoluble--but when they pile on all
>>> the *other* crap and then try to support it by their faith, I think it's a