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? > > Will > > >>>> [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 >>> 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.