At least it doesn't sound very boring. Remember
Eliot believed boredom to be THE worst torment
a person could endure.


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Gavin
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2004-Nov-05 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Humility or Hubris

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
> 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
> 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
>> even
>> internally consistent, whether their different components agree.  We
can look
>> at them in a historical context for an understanding of whence their
>> doctrines
>> come.  And once you start to peel away all of these layers, you
quickly reach
>> a
>> 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
>> to
>> 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
>> problem.