Print

Print


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
> 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 response
> 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.