Re: A SIMPLE QUESTION

On 28 Nov 2007 22:39:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill M wrote:
>
>> Your information makes sense. I appreciate it.

>> From my stand point, I interpret words as they are defined in the
>> dictionary - not as they are defined by individuals. You have provided
>> evidence he is creating his own personal definitions of words. Either
that
>> or I am completely misunderstanding him

PF is one confused person and his language very obtuse being couched
in religious terminology. A fog that is hard to penetrate.


>But from my recollection this is a fairly recent tack and one which PF
did not
>use eighteen months ago.

Yes I agree. 

>his new line is his efforts to get out of having to prove that his god
exists.
>He can't of course so he adopted this love creation as the next best
thing.

Yes to some extent though I suspect his acceptance that his god is
imaginary is a genuine realisation. All he ever saw about his god is
that it was love. 

A long time ago he said he disregarded the OT and did not recognise
its god as real. He is only concerned with Jesus. I suspect that his
belief is that when Jesus  died he was 'ressurected'  not as a real
god but as an ideal 'in our hearts' to follow and that ideal is love. 

>As I have just asked PF, since his god was supposed to have created the
>universe, without humans on it [they came later] how could he have done
so if
>he required human love in the first place to actually perform as a god?

Yes indeed . This is where I think he is still confused. He cannot
claim his god is just imagination then at the same time claim it
created planets and people. Only something actually existing 'out
there' can do that. 

and if he disregards the OT where does his notion of original
sin come from?


>Over to you PF.