Actually I was just referring to the part of the definition that includes his having created the universe which has specific cosmological implications which is important for it to have meaning. I am not saying that religious people need to have a complete definition for a decent discussion, but they have to include enough of it so you are actually having a discussion about concepts rather than bellying up to the salad bar.
Andrew has made the claim that the dead Jesus love him. No one is putting words in his mouth. He just isn't fessing up to all his odd beliefs, like a good religious moderate. Makes him seem much more reasonable. "Intellectually dishonest" is one of your favorite phrases to sling into an otherwise interesting discussion. I guess it is supposed to change the tone in the Southern direction. It works pretty well. The dismissive "Basta" is a nice touch too. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > Saying that "God is love" is not the complete definition > > of the word "God" or there would not be two different words. > > No need for a straw man. > > The idea that a religious person must have a "complete > definition of God" is the straw man. > > You and Harris want to impose on Sullivan beliefs > about God *you believe* a religious person should hold. > And amazingly enough, those beliefs just happen to be > conveniently easy to refute. > > It's a neat racket. It's also profoundly intellectually > dishonest. > > Basta. >
