Allow me to change your straw man in order to read correctly.
Ah, you see that is the problem, you are changing the parameters (Back to what was originally communicated in the Koine Greek.) By changing the accepted meaning of the word 'love', you are in effect changing (Our pop culture understanding of) God (to what the bible originally stated about God. Forcing all of us who have built arguments around the modern English interpretations of the bible to rethink our positions. And since most of us are only able to parrot back the same old weak arguments over and over again, you have left us angry and defenseless because the only arguments we know are based on what you have made null and void. So rather than address the topic at hand we are desperately trying any old tactic we can to try and manage/combat what we do not truly comprehend. At this point we are simply going on "Faith" that God does not exist.)
[So, let's say you were to tell me that the Hulk (was originally illustrated in a bluish grey,) I'd want to see the comic/cartoon/movie as proof. (But if/when you show me the cover of Hulk #1 know I will quickly retort that I need proof for the existence of the Hulk in real life in order to accept whatever you say.)
Quote:What I am basically arguing is that without proof of God's existence you can just change what ever you want about his nature, start a discussion about it, then demand that people remain within the (original) parameters that YOU (Point out.) Don't you see how manipulative and dishonest a position that is?
Which is why I offered to clarify any misunderstanding you have if you simply go line by line with the parts of the explanation given that you do not understand. and yes I do see how dishonest your argument is. The question should be, can you?
