>Sure. I mentioned theology in a discussion of philosophical
>conceptions of the nature of God, in which it was twinned with
>Plato's. I think in such a context (next to Plato) what is intended
>is the concept as understood by philosophers/intellectual
>articulators of the religion, not the lay practitioner
What are you the pope? ;-) Discussions move around. Dwayne already addressed this in a response to you:
>There are two threads here. Actually, a thread within a thread.
>
>There's the thread you're pursuing, which is almost entirely
>academic; based on your studies of Christian theology and philosophy.
>
>And then there's the thread being pursued by Thornton and me (and
>maybe Doug too). We're describing things as they're understood and
>felt by people who grew up in Christian homes, went to Christian
>schools and for whom Christianity isn't something they studied so
>much as lived. John mentioned going to Catholic school. I went to
>the Protestant equivalent. In my case, and probably John's too, the
>schools were a formal extension of a wide ranging system of
>reinforced, ground level belief.
>
>Christian ideas were taken like mother's milk.
>
>So, although your philosophical objections may be technically
>correct (for example, your deployment of Aquinas) they're almost
>entirely irrelevant to praxis.
>
>In the "Leninists find Jesus" thread, you mentioned that you
>"...grew up in an aggressively, obnoxiously atheistic, BF
>Skinner-worshiping household." Which means your approach to these
>questions is, as I wrote earlier, 'almost entirely academic'.
>
>In other words, you might have all the facts right but your
>conclusions don't jive with the actual beliefs of a lot of
>Christians -- both practicing and former.
>
>.d.
>
>----------