The bolded questions fall into the realm of most religious frameworks. Maybe engaging in discussions about "traditional theism" (whatever you mean by that) aren't useful, but it might be useful to consider engaging other elements of the existing religious frameworks if those are the questions that you have.

When did you realise this forum wasn't going to enlighten you with regard to these?

That wasn't meant sarcastically btw though I understand it may be read as such. It's just that RGT has encouraged me to interrogate my own beliefs to the point that my own answers to these questions no longer involve god. But I suspect you've known you're unlikely to have credible answers to these questions presented here for longer.

Indeed they do. But religious frameworks rely on false* revelation which gets turned into dogma and is therefore a poor quality framework.

I said traditional theism as a nod to dereds (a non-traditional theist/deist) to indicate that I'm not having a pop.

As for the second part of this response, see above. Secular (and more importantly, thought-based not dogma-based) philosophy is the better framework to tackle these questions.

* Assuming I'm right, of course.

Yeah, I feel much the same. I started a thread on RGT and politics a while back that didn't hit the mark (despite secular government being a topic with active concerns, from both directions).

Another topic that kept me interested for quite some time was presuppositional apologetics (a form of transcendental argument), but in the end the interest turned out to be about philosophy (epistemology, and simple questions which I had never really thought about before) more than religion, and I was also fascinated in how those that thought it was a good apologetic could possibly think it was.

Despite Doggg's persecution complex, I think RGT would be more interesting (at least in theory) if there were more theists active, including non Christians - or if the current theists would open up more about their personal thoughts. But to echo the previous post, I'm not sure there is much I haven't already heard in one form or another.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the extent to which "reason alone" (in the complete absence of anything that can be construed as a dogma) can address the "big questions" you've raised.

Last 9-10 months I guess.

But I'm not asking for concrete answers to hard questions. Just for theistic thought to be in the top handful of competing theories for at least one hard question.

"reason alone"

Didn't say this.

"in the complete absence of anything that can be construed as a dogma"

Or this.

If you are prepared to take my words at face value and have a question I'll be happy to answer it.

If you're not building your framework on "reason alone" then it's "reason" plus what?

What secular assumptions are you willing to accept? How would such a framework of secular assumptions be superior to a religious framework?

I'm trying to take them at face value. You are proposing that the "big questions" are answered using a "thought-based" secular framework because it's superior to a "dogma-based" religious framework. But if you accept that the "thought-based" secular framework carries assumptions that can be reasonably construed to be dogma (base assumptions that are to be taken as true), why do you have such a strong objection to dogma?

Why are your assumptions better than someone else's assumptions?

Reason, evidence, a willingness to change one's mind etc.

There is an important difference between assumptions and dogma that you are incautiously glossing over. Assumptions are tentative and dropped if they turn out to be fruitless or contradicted by evidence. Dogma, by definition, is incapable of such epistemic humility.
I didn't say "answered".

See above.

Again, check the definitions of the words you are equivocating.

How do you feel about the exchange of one dogma for another or those who ignore/reject it? People reject specific dogma all the time while still associating themselves to a particular religious perspective. There are Catholics who use contraceptives (though I'm not sure that's a dogma, but rather a consequence of a dogma). So individuals work within various individualized frameworks which allow them to reject certain statements as part of their belief system. Practically speaking, dogma is questionable in the same manner you suggest. (Formally, you would be hard pressed to find proper dogma in most Protestant expressions of Christianity.)

True. You didn't use any word associated to the questions. You simply you were "interested in the big questions." I presumed that meant that you were interested in the answers to the big questions, but it could be that you're merely interested in asking them.

What about the big questions interests you?

I dont feel relief. Free the trash.

I think the problem is that the objections to theistic thought in specific domains apply to the others. It's a problem of theistic epistemology.

I do miss the better discussions, there was a core of pretty interesting posters that I learned a lot from though I'm not sure how much they were learning from each other.

Given that you have a well-known and well-earned reputation for feigning not to understand people's point (in order to side-track on some pedantic and uninteresting tangent) I'm going to ignore this diversion, despite being easy to answer, and wish you well.

You are free to disengage if you choose, but I'm finding your position to be a little strange. For example, if you consider the Buddhist 8-fold path:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

Such a framework is objectionable to you because it's religious and the result of revelation? (Note: Buddhist conceptions of revelation are different from theistic conceptions of revelation.)

And this framework can be construed to be a dogma in the sense that this is what Buddhism teaches, and if you teach something else it's not really Buddhism any more.

This is a PM I got a while back (name withheld):

My interest in theism debates is now essentially zero anyway... do you really think I'm going to be interested in playing silly buggers with you of all people?

No, but you might. It's your choice.

Buddhism isn't a theistic belief, but it's still considered to be religious. The general "success" of religious frameworks suggests that there's something there. ("Success" here means that people all over the world are making sense of some of the "big questions" you've listed through such frameworks.) It seems strange that if those questions are of interest to you that you would uniformly shut out those perspectives.

Would you be willing to share any names of these posters? I don't usually post a lot, but I do read every thread and i'm curious as to who you have in mind. Just ignore this if you don't want to name anyone.

A quick question: Some may recall that I undertook to read the Bible (NRSV). I got through Job (great, great book, that one), got impatient, and have started the New Testament which, being Jewish by birth, is completely new to me. The question is: Over what period of time does what plays out in Matthew take place? I ask bec it reads as if it can not have taken more than a month or two (and that's being generous) which is very fast. OTOH, maybe I'm reading it wrong and would like to be informed.

The adult ministry of Jesus lasted about 3 years.

Thanks, that's very helpful. A lot of goings on packed into relatively few pages make it seem that it all happened very quickly. I guess I could've tried Google but I'm likely to come back w/ more questions so it's better that ppl know why I'm asking. There are no time references in the book at all (or at least very few), neither do I see any in the part of Mark that I've read. Do the NT scholars address that at all?

You should at least read Ecclesiastes, which will make you wonder how it got included in the Bible and is very interesting before quitting the Old Testament. Also, some of the Psalms are quite beautiful if you are into that kind of thing.

I'm not sure what there is for them to address.

You'll find this is common in other books of the Bible. The book of Judges spans something like 400 years, but it kind of feels as though everything happened all at once.

Also, I second that you read Ecclesiastes (slowly). Proverbs is a good book that you can pick up and put down pretty easily.

Address how they determine that it took 3 years.

I'm going to finish reading the entire Bible, I just got impatient since there is so much further to go.

Mostly from John, which (if I remember correctly) has three passovers.