Concepts of God and Religion

[SarahM32]

54. Now that's funny.

Actually, I have to thank you. As I was reading your comment I had the biggest belly laugh I've had in quite some time.

But, to be serious and just to set the record straight and provide a reminder to you, I never said I cannot define truth. What I said was that you play a semantic game with the word, and I won’t play by your rules or meet your demands.

To be exact, I said: “I don’t have to define what ‘a truth’ is to meet your rather silly demand. To even try to do so would obviously lead to problems with semantics, which you make as a game to play to appear clever.”

In response, you came out of left field and state: “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.”

That, as I see it, reveals your propensity toward distortion and misrepresentation, and it is yet another misinformed and false attempt to try to portray me as a follower of a cult leader.

I do not belong to a cult, and the Coalition I belong to has no leader.

The author of the message I promote has never been, is not, and never will be, a leader.

The Coalition has no organization, and no leadership whatsoever. Members of the Coalition are encouraged to act independently, promoting the message that promotes independence, liberation, and empowerment of the individual. Members do not know who the author of the message is, and they do not know who any other members are. And the author of the message will probably die before the message is widely recognized and accepted.

You make the claim that: “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.”

Your claim assumes that I “follow a faith.” But that shows that you have failed to understand what I’ve been saying. I am a Deist, and while I have faith, I do not “follow a faith.”

In my post #38 I wrote that the message “merely points out how and why there are very similar, universal truths expressed in each, seeking to foster Interfaith understanding and Interfaith dialogue -- while at the same time exposing and rebuking theocratic hypocrites and bigots who masquerade as "religious" Jews, Christians and Muslims, who fight to rule in the name of religion.”

You have completely failed to understand any of that, and you continue to try to misrepresent what I have said, and what the message means.

Granted, there ARE and have been cult leaders who have been and are dangerous, but I am just as much against them as you are. You just don't get that.

The only thing you’ve said that is completely true, as I see it, is where you said this: “You are a human and as likely to be inspired or to fall victim to deceit as any other human.”

That’s true of me, and you.

Unfortunately, you preceded that statement by saying" "You thinking of me as superior actually exposes a feeling in yourself that you are inferior in some way."

It's very telling that you would assume I think of you as superior. That's really funny. I don't. It's very apparent that you think you are superior, and you proved that by the psychobabble in your statement that is very condescending and has an obvious implication.

As for the discussion of wisdom and the rest, see my comment below on Response to critics and skeptics.
.