Zone1 How big is your interest in the Religions of this world?

[ding]

Then don't.


I believe he would say that God as a natural force is amoral, it is man's perception of God that puts him in a moral framework and it is that framework that evolves as societies evolve.

No, that’s not what he was saying at all. In fact he wasn’t making any claim about God. He was arguing men’s perception of God has changed.

Not a personal argument: While his work may prompt discussion on God's morality, this is presented as a historical and psychological analysis of the concept of God rather than his personal theological argument that God is amoral.

But to your point that I shouldn’t respond to your fraudulence, it’s not a binary either or proposition. It only means I have work harder to reveal your incongruities. For instance, this exchange began with your fraudulent statement that you had a perception of God. It’s taken a few pages to walk you to the reality that you don’t. So like I said, It’s hard having conversations with people who are fraudulent. Hard but not impossible.

 

[ding]

Step off chump..... Are you my ******* shrink?

BTW........... up till now I've been humoring you.

So that’s a no? You can’t?

 

[knuckles]

So that’s a no? You can’t?

You are not my interrogator. I don't answer to you. I participate to the degree I care to.

 

[ding]

You are not my interrogator. I don't answer to you. I participate to the degree I care to.

No one said I was or that you did.

 

[alang1216]

That’s not what God is

you have no better idea of what God is than I do, or anyone else for that matter.

and it’s not what Wright was arguing.

I disagree and I read his book.

Like I said before, your perception of God is God is a figment of man’s imagination.

You were wrong before too.

So don’t be surprised if you don’t discover God that way. But the good news is that you will prove yourself right that way and that seems important to you.

Or maybe I already discovered god. The good news is that we'll never really know.

 

[alang1216]

No, that’s not what he was saying at all. In fact he wasn’t making any claim about God. He was arguing men’s perception of God has changed.



But to your point that I shouldn’t respond to your fraudulence, it’s not a binary either or proposition. It only means I have work harder to reveal your incongruities. For instance, this exchange began with your fraudulent statement that you had a perception of God. It’s taken a few pages to walk you to the reality that you don’t. So like I said, It’s hard having conversations with people who are fraudulent. Hard but not impossible.

I think our issue is that we have fundamentally different perceptions of God. I can accept yours but you can't understand mine.

 

[ding]

you have no better idea of what God is than I do, or anyone else for that matter.


I disagree and I read his book.


You were wrong before too.


Or maybe I already discovered god. The good news is that we'll never really know.

Your perception of God is that God is a figment of man’s imagination. You will never discover God that way and that’s the way you want it.

 

[ding]

I think our issue is that we have fundamentally different perceptions of God. I can accept yours but you can't understand mine.

You don’t have a perception of God beyond fairytale.

 

[BreezeWood]

No one said I was or that you did.

could it just be ...

the subtleties and tones in your comments - they may not know your from texas.

 

[ding]

could it just be ...

View attachment 1160203

the subtleties and tones in your comments - they may not know your from texas.

Could it just be…

That your job is to subordinate Christianity?