A note to all theists participating in this topic
My advice is to let atheists have this topic.
• They are going to say these things anyway
• Maybe if they get it out of their systems, such small issues as we see will cease to be as fascinating
Those who are familiar with my posts know that while I don't give atheists clearance, I don't give religions a whole lot of clearance. Don't believe that? Ask any one of our Christian advocates.
So I would urge you all to perceive this topic in a human context: these are the things that become important according to what theists tell them. These are the riddles that prevent notions of God from making coherent sense to any not predisposed to believe in this or that notion of God.
And as Christians know of compassion, our knowledge can only grow from considering these things honestly.
Beyond their labels, when we speak of what religions do, and what issues they address--abstract issues such as origin and development--these issues are still reflected in the questions posed.
Among notions of God there is a common element best expressed anthropologically and psychologically in the sense that gods tend to resolve issues which human knowledge does not ordinarily contain.
These resolutions, obviously, are inadequate for some just as they suffice for others.
If these resolutions suffice for you at any given moment,is that merely enough? Does this mean that there is nothing left to learn? Can we truly say that the resolutions account for every factor, or are the factors one individually considers the whole of relevant factors?
As such, why would any questions exist at all? Does this state then reflect the idea that the present state of the world is a necessity and the only possible option?
Is compassion something to be given at will or the natural state?
Compassion as a natural state of human association would indicate that one owes such questions honest consideration. That honest consideration includes the
fact that the resolutions upon which one person might rely are inadequate for another.
With compassion, our knowledge only grows.
Admittedly, I find the atheist inquiries generally juvenile. Then again, I find the religious response to reinforce a certain mentality I find within religions that I do consider juvenile. If those atheistic inquiries are truly juvenile, perhaps that's because the terminology has been willfully set there by the beliefs the atheists are examining.
Beyond that, the tone of expression is up to each individual. A lack of sincerity is merely a testament to the fruits of atheism; I say let 'em have at it.
• • • • • • • • • •
Oh, and
GB-GIL--given the form of address, I would never object to your addressing the God of your choice.
That's generally the point. When you want to speak
to God, I'm not going to stop you from addressing the God of your choosing. When you want to speak
of God, it's better if you're more precise about which version of God that actually is. (There's a lot of them, you know.)
thanx,
Tiassa
