I don't know why anyone wants me to say that there isn't a god.
What I know is that no one knows anything about it,
and that the same things are important, whether there is or are, any or not:
that the dominance of aggressveness is still tyranny
and consideration is still what morality is.
(also that a universally wonderful strangeness is a very real thing,
that cannot be known, can only be experienced,
and the more we pretend to know about it,
the less often we do.)
To my mind gods are manifestations of the singular into the plural. The concept giving breath to the context. Myriad concepts give breath to the context of a deity. So innumerable are they that I dare not attempt such context without deep study. I will provide a couple of examples of concepts pertaining to the Judeo-christian deiific context and others however. Insofar as I have studied there are three concepts in reference to the manifestation of Yahweh. The first would refer to the context that this deity sprang from the concept of the Egyptian god Ra after a pharaoh determined Ra to be the singular god and was later dethroned. This of course leading to his exile and the beginning of new context. The next would refer to the context of its people's need. Yahweh manifested the way it did to answer the needs of its conceptual forebears. We need law therefore we need context for the law. We need strength in these harsh times therfore we raise up the strong. We are alone therefore we need an everlasting all encompassing companion. The simple beauty of the conceptualization of deity is enough for me. Sorry rambling momentarily. The third is the context that this deity is all there is and all that is needed and the context is enough for serenity. Sadly this context is the one we seem to forget the most. It is the context of Truth, determination, Right, Wrong.....so many beautiful things. Beautiful in their sadness, their joy, their rigid frailty....
what is the problem there, is that the question itself, is a smoke screen away from what really matters. so whether or not they are both right about anything or even everything else, they are both wrong about this.
one who does not speak, being absolutely right not to, offends everyone who believes they have a right to demand attention.
in the real world, so many do, that it is often as dangerous to hold silence, as to risk saying the wrong thing.
i side with the right to remain silent. unfortunately we live in a world dominated by those who call doing so autism and a disease.
I sympathize with your acceptance of right and wrong. To me the determination of Right and Wrong is only meant to be a context to the momentary Self however I certainly get where you're coming from.
Honestly brother you only need know what you determine to know. If our understanding is mutually filled by the context words provide so be it. Knowing is momentary unknowing is limitless.
If you do not speak: how can we know what it is you do know?