Concepts of God and Religion

[intaglio]

47. Yes you do have to define "a truth" if you are going to spout about it

If you cannot say what a truth is then you should not use the word. There are other words, just not ones that make your cult seem superior

As to your petulant rant ...

You have entered a forum (BTW check the source of that word) have offered unconsidered waffle up for discussion; doing so you can expect people to criticise that waffle. If possible you should be prepared to defend your beliefs and show that it is not waffle and does contain elements of originality, honesty and worth.

You admit that you cannot define "truth" and, finally, have recognised that semantically it is null, containing no intrinsic meaning and therefore useless in discussion. Despite your statement such semantics are not games for too often people have been told to act in the name of a higher truth and disaster has followed; consider Heavens Gate or Jonestown. If you consider that I am playing games with the word why not wonder for an instant that the leader you follow is not doing the same.

I do not expect you to meet any expectations, for I hold no expectations of you except an honest discussion and that you put thought into what you say not just issue, undigested, the words of your cult. You must, if you follow a faith, be able to open that faith so that you can explain it to other people and to give reasoned responses to their concerns. You have not given reasoned responses - so far.

About superiority, I have only exposed fuzzy platitudes which is just the result of thinking clearly and having abandoned other such platitudes in the past. This does not make me superior, just a little more experienced. You thinking of me as superior actually exposes a feeling in yourself that you are inferior in some way. You are not, you are a human and as likely to be inspired or to fall victim to deceit as any other human.

As to inflated ego, again that is one of those unconsidered phrases, you might want to start thinking about what it means, how you define it and why you are using it.

Now I come to the most worrying parts of your post:

Intellect is puny compared to wisdom, and while intellectual giants usually have wisdom, you clearly don't have it

Ignoring for the moment the pitiful insult you offer in passing you might stop for a second to think what "wisdom" is. Most people treat it like a stat in a role playing game and rightly so for it, again holds no meaning in day to day life. If it does exist as a quality then often it might be a deep concentration on problems and offering more than the knee jerk response. If it is that then it is a good thing. But then you over egg the cake for if intellect is puny in comparison then why did not the wise invent inoculation, or the steam engine, or anesthesia?

You ask who declares that there is a Universal Divine Imperative. It's the man who fulfills prophecies by declaring it

This is frightening, because you, a reasonably intelligent human have place another human on the pedestal of divine or divinely inspired Giving so much credence to a human is dangerous for accepting that person as the voice of the divine means they can ask you to do anything - anything - and you will act without hesitation even if it requires debasing yourself or harming others - for their own good, of course.

Returning to the "insult" I called it pitiful for you obviously have not thought that comparing me to Socrates might - errr - inflate my ego!

Quoted in Plato's Philebus
Although I am not myself wise, I am a bit better off than that fellow -- because I do not think I am wise when I am not