[
Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]
I don't think you quite understand my position, so let me clarify. I don't see myself as a Moderator or referee here, simply because I am not. I do see myself as a resource person. I have a Ph.D. in theology and that gives me the advantage of having a broader information base to draw upon than do many other members. That's not being conceited, that's just being honest. My goal is to bring into the discussion resource materials and additional information, if I can, that others may have overlooked and that would enrich their knowledge base.
For example, you raised the important issue of what kind of a God. Now, I'm not going to address that question in this post, as I feel that is off the OP. However, if I were in a discussion on what kind of God, I would want to point out that while many assume there is only one model of God in Christianity, in point of fact there are two a present. I would describe what is called the "classical" or traditional model of God and then how contemporary, "neo-classical" theists, such as myself, have seen fit to revise the model and why.
If the OP were on evidence for God, then I would want to share what I know about the classical arguments for the existence of God and then how these arguments have been revised by contemporary theologians and philosophers. My immediate concern would not be whether I am winning over followers. My immediate concern is how well others know the available material.
When I see blanket claims being made about theists doing this or that, my initial concern is to address the stereotyping that may be involved here. Not all theists think or act alike. For example, fundamentalists have tried to pass anti-evolution bans in 26 states. However, right-wing fundamentalists do not represent the whole of contemporary Christianity. Liberal Christians, such as myself, find such legislation abhorrent.