It's quite fair of you to turn the question back at me. Perhaps it is a flaw in my own understanding / practive of Christianity, but I have always had great difficulty separating what God does / has done versus what has simply happened. I have "feelings" about things, but I suppose I don't trust them...what if what I "feel" is simply my will or desire, not God's will?
This is why I say I have always been skeptical of the "experience" claims. I suppose at times I "experience" "good feelings" at church. Sometimes I "feel" things in my life are spiritually right. But what does this really mean? Is it me or is it God? How do those who express God through "experience" of him distinguish that from their "feelings"?
I guess I just don't trust my "experiences" to be anything of or from God. Rather, I simply do my best to try to practice the "essense" of Chrisianity as I believe it was passed down.
Now, this really got me to thinking. Without a 'first-hand' sensory experience, how could one know or even believe that there is anything in the supernatural at all? What is it in the messages that come from, say, holy texts that can be so amazingly convincing that one will choose that one particular theological system/ cosmogeny over all the others that are out there?
Is it the ethical system? As I understand the last paragraph of the quote from bryan above, it's the system that's the important part. (Apologies bryan if I'm mis-understanding.) The "essence" of a religion is more, as I see it, a version of how it's said rather than what's expressly said. Look to the Sunna(h) and Hadith of Islam for an example of this; it's more about how the Prophet 'meant' than what he literally said. In this then, one can't look to the 'literal' interpretation as the convincing element, but something underlying it.
What underlies the literal story/ recording/ laws/ etc. of a theological system? Something that holds it all together; a worldview. The worldview is the interpretation of the individual based on their cognitive map, which is based on their experiences. If the 'thread' of the cosmogeny is similar to the experiences of the individual, they see/ perceive/ feel a better 'fit' with the cosmogeny in question. They accept it as 'right' because their experiences 'fit' the system proposed.
Now, one must recognize that for people 'brought up' within a culture with a particular cosmogeny as the prevalent system, with public expression and sanctions, it becomes obvious that the prevailing system does, in fact, represent the workings of the world, and thus the experiences of the person. Especially at younger ages, when one's cognitive map is still in the formative aspect with no other frames of reference. In such cases, there would have to be observations/ occurrences of discordant actions/ systems to cause a doubt, and thus to make one begin to question the prevailing system.
And, it is just this sort of an occurrence that many religious systems try to avoid, probably to reinforce the 'fit' of their message by trying to keep their adherents from examining other systems. In the organic model that I use in my classes, the systems try to inoculate themselves from other systems by restricting who you can/ can't associate with or marry, or who must convert to which religion after marriage for a mixed religious couple, or in which faith children from such a religion must be 'brought up' in, or how such a system has the 'one truth' and all others are simply products of lies and deceits by the 'bad guy(s)' of the system.
And, a couple of questions to think about for those who have 'searched' outside the religion they've been 'brought up' in:
Please note that I don't think these are necessarily easy questions to answer. We base our choices on so many factors that it may be unknowable from our own immediate perspective. But I would like to know why. That initial question of 'what is in the messages that come from, holy texts that can be so amazingly convincing that one will choose that one particular theological system/ cosmogeny over all the others that are out there,' is, I think, primal to understanding what we can 'know' about beliefs in God(s).
And it is also important for understanding why some people will cling to beliefs even when the evidence is shown time and again to be against such a system.
Thanks!
Is it the ethical system? As I understand the last paragraph of the quote from bryan above, it's the system that's the important part. (Apologies bryan if I'm mis-understanding.) The "essence" of a religion is more, as I see it, a version of how it's said rather than what's expressly said. Look to the Sunna(h) and Hadith of Islam for an example of this; it's more about how the Prophet 'meant' than what he literally said. In this then, one can't look to the 'literal' interpretation as the convincing element, but something underlying it.
What underlies the literal story/ recording/ laws/ etc. of a theological system? Something that holds it all together; a worldview. The worldview is the interpretation of the individual based on their cognitive map, which is based on their experiences. If the 'thread' of the cosmogeny is similar to the experiences of the individual, they see/ perceive/ feel a better 'fit' with the cosmogeny in question. They accept it as 'right' because their experiences 'fit' the system proposed.
Now, one must recognize that for people 'brought up' within a culture with a particular cosmogeny as the prevalent system, with public expression and sanctions, it becomes obvious that the prevailing system does, in fact, represent the workings of the world, and thus the experiences of the person. Especially at younger ages, when one's cognitive map is still in the formative aspect with no other frames of reference. In such cases, there would have to be observations/ occurrences of discordant actions/ systems to cause a doubt, and thus to make one begin to question the prevailing system.
And, it is just this sort of an occurrence that many religious systems try to avoid, probably to reinforce the 'fit' of their message by trying to keep their adherents from examining other systems. In the organic model that I use in my classes, the systems try to inoculate themselves from other systems by restricting who you can/ can't associate with or marry, or who must convert to which religion after marriage for a mixed religious couple, or in which faith children from such a religion must be 'brought up' in, or how such a system has the 'one truth' and all others are simply products of lies and deceits by the 'bad guy(s)' of the system.
And, a couple of questions to think about for those who have 'searched' outside the religion they've been 'brought up' in:
Why did you think/feel you needed to search for a different religious system?
What appealed to/ detracted from religious systems that you researched/ encountered?
If you have decided on one now, why did you choose it over all the others?
If you choices were not based on sensory experiences, what were they based on? (And, were those bases based on? Was it from previous experiences/ observations that were sensory-based?)
Please note that I don't think these are necessarily easy questions to answer. We base our choices on so many factors that it may be unknowable from our own immediate perspective. But I would like to know why. That initial question of 'what is in the messages that come from, holy texts that can be so amazingly convincing that one will choose that one particular theological system/ cosmogeny over all the others that are out there,' is, I think, primal to understanding what we can 'know' about beliefs in God(s).
And it is also important for understanding why some people will cling to beliefs even when the evidence is shown time and again to be against such a system.
Thanks!
7 comments:
I think you may misunderstand me slightly. I don't reject all sensory input in the question of God. I think, for me, it probably comes down to a question of "shared" sensory input (i.e., sensory input that all people share). I can't "share" the feelings one may have that God is with them. However, I can "share" with others the sensory input of witnessing and reading that everything comes from something else (or "share" an examination of the vastness of the universe). At that point, it comes down to interpretation of that "shared" sensory input. Does that clarify things any more?
I *do* happen to find the texts of Judaism and Christianity more convincing and worthy of attention than others, and I'll try to go into a more detail when I have time for a full post.
Also, when I talk of the "essense" of Christianity, I mean that I think there are certain foundational Christian truths that were faithfully preserved and passed down to us (partially by tradition but more so by scripture). The truths I would point to are Jesus' summation of "The Law" and that a belief in Jesus' "wrong-atoning" sacrifice saves us from deserved punishment. Although some might debate me on this, I think it is our purpose in life (otherwise, I believe we have no purpose) to believe and attempt to live up to our belief by following Jesus' summation of "The Law" to the best of our very human abilities. It seems to me that most, if not all, of Christianity's message and ethics flow from this "essense". I certainly do not dismiss the rest of the Bible, but I think it may be more difficult (though not impossible) to make a case for its very careful preservation.
As I said, my apologies for misunderstanding.
But, if you have this sensory (or even shared sensory) input about God, then, doesn't some of your knowledge come from 'feelings'? If so, why doubt someone else's choices that are based on 'feelings'? Is it that what they get as knowledge is different from what you get? (Again, please recognize that it's not asked as an attack, but more an exploration of the topic.)
As for the "essence" of Christianity (or any other religion), if there are 'foundational truths', then shouldn't -all- Christians have the same (or at least similar) views as to what's important? I'm thinking here specifically of some of the 'Snake Handling' Holiness Christians who a practice all five signs of the true believer as noted in Mark 16:17-18, including the handling of serpents.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Do they have the 'foundational truths' of Christianity? They are getting them from the Bible, which is the foundation for all understanding of Christianity, right? So why aren't other Christians tossing poisonous snakes at each other or drinking strychnine or putting fingers into live light sockets or holding stoves/ fire containers with bare skin?
I would postulate that what any individual sees as 'foundational truths' are still subject to not only how the information is presented, but also their own, individual cognitive map that colors their interpretation of the information. Look at how missionaries in different areas have conveyed differing messages of the same religion. It's not only the messenger's manner of delivery (and hence, what -they- believe the 'foundational truths' to be) but also the cognitive map of the recipients as to how the message will be interpreted and then acted upon.
At some level, I'm coming to realize, I think I must reject the notion that there can be 'foundational truths' in any 'body of believers' if that number gets too great and is spread out in different environments (including social ones, like class/ status). I think that perhaps, with a small enough group, through experiential teaching and guidance a very similar (not identical) set of 'truths' may be possible, but even then I expect that there would be variations in the individuals.
Now, if in fact a deity can simply bypass the senses and reprogram one's mind, then all this is moot.
Thanks for the discussion, bryan, I'm interested in your response.
Hex wrote: "But, if you have this sensory (or even shared sensory) input about God, then, doesn't some of your knowledge come from 'feelings'?"
Perhaps a more concrete way of saying what I believe about "sensory experiences" is that it is the difference between subjective and objective. 'Feelings' and 'emotions', to me, seem mostly too subjective to base anything about the existence of God upon. In other words, one person decides to believe and become a Christian at home on their own with no defining 'feeling' involved. Another person goes to some sort of revival and 'feels' powerful 'emotions' they believe are leading them to become Christian. Should the first person question their Christianity because it was not accompanied by a fanfare of 'emotions' as with the other person who believe those 'feelings' are what ledd them to believe? Feelings just seem too subjective to base anything upon, to me.
On the other hand, we both share sensory experiences of our world. We can both see the vastness of the universe and the smallness of humanity. We can both witness and experience that in our universe everything appears to come from ('is born of') something else, that is, everything appears to have some cause. We can both witness the changes in a person who we believe sincerely and devoutly follows Christ. Etc.
Hex wrote: "As for the "essence" of Christianity (or any other religion), if there are 'foundational truths', then shouldn't -all- Christians have the same (or at least similar) views as to what's important?"
I know "No True Scotsman" will be pulled out here, but without a "true" definition any group will eventually include everyone. The 'foundational truths' I mentioned appear to have been well-preserved textually and to have been believed by the earliest recorded Christians, and I think that most 'Christians' would accept them as foundational to their faith.
Hex wrote: "I'm thinking here specifically of some of the 'Snake Handling' Holiness Christians who a practice all five signs of the true believer as noted in Mark 16:17-18, including the handling of serpents."
You are likely aware that there are interpretations of this that say these gifts were given only for a short time in the history of the early church. In spite of that, you may or may not be aware that the ending of the book of Mark was not as carefully preserved textually as the 'foundational truths' I've mentioned. In fact, there are 3 different endings to the book of Mark that have come down to us. So, in my view, these verses cannot be easily used as 'foundational truths' upon which to base my Christianity.
Hex wrote: "I would postulate that what any individual sees as 'foundational truths' are still subject to not only how the information is presented, but also their own, individual cognitive map that colors their interpretation of the information."
The 'foundational truths' that I mention are pretty well stripped to the basic beliefs a Christian may hold according to ancient tradition and still remain a traditional Christian. The information seems pretty straight-forward to me. Jesus said to love others as you love yourself. It is difficult to do wrong in following this maxim.
Hex wrote: "Look at how missionaries in different areas have conveyed differing messages of the same religion."
If you strip off the more trivial doctrinal differences taught by various missionaries, you will likely still find, in the majority, the 'foundational truths' I mentioned.
Hex wrote: "Thanks for the discussion, bryan, I'm interested in your response."
No problem, Hex. Like I said in my intro, I'm seeking to try and understand my world like everyone else. The things I've mentioned so far, however, pale in comparison to moral arguments for the existence of a God though, to me. It is my opinion that those without God do not really realize that they say they want to be 'good' are bowing to the values established by the majority of the religious around them because there is no 'good' without some measure. Poorly worded, but if you've studied existential philosophy, these issues become very apparent (and 'scary', I might add), especially in Nietzsche.
Bryan’s stuff is in italics here, for ease of response …
Re: ‘Coming to faith’ varieties - Should the first person question their Christianity because it was not accompanied by a fanfare of 'emotions' as with the other person who believe those 'feelings' are what ledd them to believe? Feelings just seem too subjective to base anything upon, to me.
On the other hand, we both share sensory experiences of our world. We can both see the vastness of the universe and the smallness of humanity. We can both witness and experience that in our universe everything appears to come from ('is born of') something else, that is, everything appears to have some cause. We can both witness the changes in a person who we believe sincerely and devoutly follows Christ. Etc.
The one thing I would point to is that the two people in your example may have fairly divergent understandings of God from the means by which they came to acceptance. As such, the first person’s version of God could be very different from the second’s. And if we’re working toward a knowledge of, (in this discussion) the triune, monotheistic Christian, God then we should be dealing with a singular entity, right? How can we get from the divergent understandings, from differing messages and frames of reference and interpretation to the singular entity that ‘we’ as a collective can have knowledge about?
Now, you sort of answer this when discussing …
Re: ‘Foundational truths’ - The 'foundational truths' I mentioned appear to have been well-preserved textually and to have been believed by the earliest recorded Christians, and I think that most 'Christians' would accept them as foundational to their faith.
The 'foundational truths' that I mention are pretty well stripped to the basic beliefs a Christian may hold according to ancient tradition and still remain a traditional Christian. The information seems pretty straight-forward to me. Jesus said to love others as you love yourself. It is difficult to do wrong in following this maxim.
But how can you get to these and know you’ve got the right ones? There are –lots- of OT messages that contradict NT messages. As I understand it, Jesus’ teaching negate the Mosaic laws, thus Christians –should- only believe in Jesus’ ‘laws’ and not the ‘Ten Commandments’ (or the other 600+ in Leviticus). Yet, there are few explicit statements that could be taken as a ‘core’ of Christianity that you will get Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Pentecostals, and others to all agree on.
Need one be born again? Need one physically experience possession by the Holy Spirit? Need one have a religious specialist to absolve sins? Need one have dietary restrictions at particular times of the year?
Which view of Yahweh (or Jesus) is the correct one? Vengeful? Beneficent? Patriarchal? Active? Observer?
Where –are- these 'foundational truths', and how do you know when you’ve hit on one? Which leads to this discussion …
Re: Book of Mark/ Snake Handler’s interpretations - So, in my view, these verses cannot be easily used as 'foundational truths' upon which to base my Christianity.
So, for Christians, the Book of Mark is –not- the place to go for ‘foundational truths’ because it’s not textually pure/ preserved? This, unfortunately gets into dangerous waters, as, if we discount the Book of Mark, then the Holiness Churches cease to be Christian, yet, they use the Christian Bible as their holy text and recognize Yahweh, Jesus & the Holy Spirit as God.
How about Luke? Acts? Any of Paul’s Letters to various Churches? Wherein does the essential truth for understanding reside? (As a corollary, why bother having the whole book if you can boil it down to the essence?)
If these ‘foundational truths’ are “pretty well stripped to the basic beliefs a Christian may hold according to ancient tradition and still remain a traditional Christian” and subject to textual purity/preservation, then they should be evident in –all- varieties of Christianity just from reading the text.
I have to here point to Shaw’s "Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." If I love myself differently than you love yourself, will you see my actions toward you as loving? Even such an explicit injunction as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself,” is far too personal an injunction for it to be put to any specific set of acts.
One of the reasons I put forth that this is dangerous territory is that once any one person defines the ‘essential’ aspects of Christianity, someone else’s definition will clash. Why? Different people, different interpretations, different areas (geographical, cultural, and/or social) …
Different God(s) … Different knowledge. How does that work in with moving from personal experience to ultimate knowledge? I’m not sure how to reconcile it.
But, one last thing …
The things I've mentioned so far, however, pale in comparison to moral arguments for the existence of a God though, to me. It is my opinion that those without God do not really realize that they say they want to be 'good' are bowing to the values established by the majority of the religious around them because there is no 'good' without some measure.
I’m not sure I agree. Humans –and- primates are altruistic, especially in small groups. I’ve been working on reading ‘The Evolution of Moral Understanding’ by Hallpike, and the aspects of what’s ‘good’ action changes with the scope of society you’re looking at. It tends to shift from corporate (societal) aspects of good to personal aspects of good. Even without a religion, or a deity at all, people do ‘good’.
And, of course, that’s the important thing, as summed up by Angel (of Buffy fame) (Season 2, Episode 16, "Epiphany"): “All I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.”
Need a view without a central deity be scary? Need good have a measure? (Or is that another question to be tackled as a group?)
But how can you get to these and know you’ve got the right ones?
Logical deduction from the texts and traditions, I would say. It involves distilling the texts and traditions to the core. After all, Jesus summed the OT law into two statements. It seems obvious, to me, that this is a major, 'foundational truth'. It is also state that Jesus is the 'way', 'truth', 'life', and that no one comes to the father except by him. This also appears to me to be a major, 'foundational truth' of Christianity. These are things that were also communicated via ancient church tradition.
Again, though the many Christian traditions may disagree on lots of things, most would agree to the above 'foundational truths'. Indeed, the majority agree on much more than these.
So, for Christians, the Book of Mark is –not- the place to go for ‘foundational truths’ because it’s not textually pure/ preserved?
On the contrary, Mark is a great reference. All I think I wrote was that it is difficult to base 'foundational' theology on the ending verses of Mark due to the complex issues of their transmission over time.
As a corollary, why bother having the whole book if you can boil it down to the essence?
Many of the earliest Christians did not have "the whole book". They learned the 'foundational truths' via portions and tradition. We have the luxury of having the 'most and earliest approved' teachings in the Bible, and we can, must of us today, read it.
If these ‘foundational truths’ are “pretty well stripped to the basic beliefs a Christian may hold according to ancient tradition and still remain a traditional Christian” and subject to textual purity/preservation, then they should be evident in –all- varieties of Christianity just from reading the text.
I believe they are evident. I believe most of the denominations you mentioned would agree on what I mentioned as 'foundational truths' of Christianity.
I’m not sure I agree. Humans –and- primates are altruistic, especially in small groups.
Ah, here is a fundamental disagreement in our two worldviews. Something that might be worth exploring. From my experiences, I see humans as purely and wholly selfish. I do not believe in any altruism at all. I believe that absolutely everything a person does, even for others, is to benefit themselves in some way, even in creating a legacy for themselves in dying in some heroic way. This can easily be seen in us all, who as children who must learn not to be selfish. Even when a child gives, it is because they have already been taught that it is a 'good' thing or they have learned that it may benefit them.
Even without a religion, or a deity at all, people do ‘good’.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with this. If there is no God, no all-seeing / judging, entity out there somewhere who sees all we do, then there is no 'good' or 'bad'.
Need a view without a central deity be scary?
I believe it is potentially very scary. Here is my favorite example:
An atheist happens upon very hard times and winds up homeless, living in a dark alley. Every day, he watches as a very wealthy young executive passes him, flashing his gold Rolex and diamond studded cellphone. The wealthy man intentionally ignores the homeless atheist and never helps him in any way. The homeless atheist begins to hate the wealthy man and plots to murder and rob him. The homeless atheist realizes that there is no God to see his private actions, and as long as he is careful the police will not find him out. Even if arrested for the deed, he knows he'll at least have better meals in prison than on the streets, not to mention a roof over his head. It's a no lose situation, for he knows there is no God to punish his unseen deeds at some future time. To him, this murder and robbery is 'good' (and without 'bad') because it eliminates someone hated and provides him with a bit of money for sustenance.
There are many more such examples, even at a larger scale where groups of atheistic people may act in cooperation in the same way toward other groups of people.
Further, what can the atheist point to for what is 'good' besides religion or personal preference? Some will point to 'ethics systems' created in the 19th century. I ask, "What makes those systems created by some now-dead guy any better than my own personal preferences?"
Not sure how much reading you might have done in existential philosophy, but I highly recommend it if studying ethics.
Again, Bryan’s stuff is in italics here ...
Re: But how can you get to these and know you’ve got the right ones?
Logical deduction from the texts and traditions, I would say. It involves distilling the texts and traditions to the core.
And, I guess here, my issue comes from listening to too many preachers/ pastors/ priests of the Christian faith explaining –how- one should get to the ‘core’. The aspect that the Bible is defensible by claiming that some is to be literal and some to be mythical and some to be poetic, and that only one particular translation is the ‘real’ version one should pay attention to … well … I think that I have yet to see a logical deduction that actually gets to anything meaningful and worthwhile. Perhaps it might be best to let this rest for now …
Re: Humans –and- primates are altruistic, especially in small groups.
From my experiences, I see humans as purely and wholly selfish. I do not believe in any altruism at all. I believe that absolutely everything a person does, even for others, is to benefit themselves in some way, even in creating a legacy for themselves in dying in some heroic way.
Well, I know that Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ can account for some of it. Since primates have ‘security in numbers’, an individual that sacrifices itself so that the group as a whole can survive, even if they have no offspring to protect, is working to preserve the survival of the genetic materials of the group.
Now, when we see this in non-human primates, there can be no argument of ‘legacy’, as it could not be communicated. While one could argue that in humans this ‘legacy’ is a potential benefit, for those who sacrifice without surviving family, what good does such a legacy do? What’s the benefit?
And, to bring in my own hearsay counter-evidence, allow me to bring up that I’m living in Buffalo, but wasn’t raised here. Buffalo has many monikers – many know of it as the Nickel City, or the Queen City, but the one that I want to point out is the City of Good Neighbors. Here, when we get a storm, people pitch in and help each other. Altruism or benefit? Well, in the ‘pay it forward’ model, there’s a benefit to helping your neighbor. But only if your neighbor stays nearby and able to help you. Buffalo (especially the area in which I live) has residential districts of rentals, because people here basically rejected townhouses and apartment buildings in favor of having lawns and back yards.
During October 2006’s ‘Arborgedden’ storm, I ran a heavy-duty power cord from our house (once we got power back) across the street to one of our neighbors who had four children and three adults, and whose power connection had been ripped form the house so they had no power. They had no intention of staying in the area, they were of no relation to me, and I knew they would be running electric heaters, lights and probably a refrigerator. They did, indeed move out the following March, and I paid the electric bill for the whole time, not receiving nor expecting any payment from them. Why did I do it? What is my benefit?
Re: Even without a religion, or a deity at all, people do ‘good’.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with this. If there is no God, no all-seeing / judging, entity out there somewhere who sees all we do, then there is no 'good' or 'bad'.
I’m not sure how to approach this then, as I can see something in someone else’s actions being good, even without accepting a ‘all-seeing / judging, entity’. Perhaps this is yet another potential discussion topic …
Re: Need a view without a central deity be scary?
I believe it is potentially very scary. Here is my favorite example:
See, these are where you lose me on this stuff. Sure, I can do the math/ follow the logic trail, but I don’t see the utility of people –doing- this. A better option, to me, would be to (attempt to) rob a bank. Same outcome if caught, but if not caught, our homeless person now has funds. And no-one dies …
Even more, different people in similar situations choose different options. Just because the hypothetical atheist in the situation chose the murder option, it does not mean that all atheists would choose that option, or even view the situation in the same way.
There are many more such examples, even at a larger scale where groups of atheistic people may act in cooperation in the same way toward other groups of people.
Which can, of course, be countered with the atrocities committed by those who are serving a particular deity upon other groups of people. The us/them dichotomy that is so central to anthropological perspectives is often at the root of these things, and good/evil is all relative to those groups.
Further, what can the atheist point to for what is 'good' besides religion or personal preference? Some will point to 'ethics systems' created in the 19th century. I ask, "What makes those systems created by some now-dead guy any better than my own personal preferences?"
And, extending that back, you could ask why any of the ethical system that are intertwined in religions are better than one’s own – or any of the other systems for that matter …
Not sure how much reading you might have done in existential philosophy, but I highly recommend it if studying ethics.
As I mentioned before, I really haven’t been able to get into existential philosophies. I don’t see the utility in them. I don’t follow the ‘blanket’ mentalities, and, doing demographic and spatial modeling of human cultural and biological behaviors, it’s easy to see where not only are people individuals, but also they will fairly often choose choices that –are not- those that are most ‘efficient’ or follow ‘logical trails’.
And, as I look back over this I can see where we’ve moved off the topic of ‘knowledge’ of God(s) and moved into the realm of ethical considerations, good/evil, theist/atheist. Again, another good topic to get into officially in the future?
Thanks again, Bryan.
Back in a week or so ...
Post a Comment