What if we're all wrong though?

[tackattack]

---

@PR- please I do welcome the comments, as always, and I appreciate the compliment.

My point was as a usefull descriptor of the nature of something it would necessarily need a noun, not a humanistic adjective. For instance "a Clock has gears" or a "clock tells time" as opposed to "the clock is small" or "the clock is extravagant". Love is not an unintelligible concept, nor do I use it to merely lend depth to my concept of God, I read it in a book somewhere . In this instance it's not the imperfect love we experience with our wives (not to belittle that love of course). God's Love gives and sacrifices unconditionally expecting nothing in return. It's patient, kind, does not boast, etc.. I don't think I need to quote it all for anyone. It's also for an eternity and despite the fact people hate him and deny him. It's all also speculation, but it's the basis of the Christian Faith.

A "clock has gears" statement is a definition of the type "entity of type x necessarily contains parts of type y but not necessarily only parts of type y", and adds meaning by defining what entities are of type x, by what characteristic type of part they can be recognized as such and what is contained in what. "God is love" is an identity statement that only switches labels, which fails to add meaning. The fact that this type of definition cannot be seen as adding information to the concept to be defined is usually seen as a sign for non-literal or metaphorical interpretation. As such it fails to have any value in a logical evaluation notwithstanding the fact that love as an observable emotional commitment in the real world between two or more sentient beings, really exists. In short, though love indeed exists in the real world the parasitic relabeling trick does not give rise to a supernatural sentient being that rules the universe.

As to ripping out the OT, I use it for lots of things. I find lots of religious texts useful in teaching. I wish the KJV included the apocrapha. I'm not going to destroy something because I find it less relevant to the main point.

How people somehow manage to euphemize from "genocidal" to "less relevant" in two sentences is what keeps amazing me. Rumour has it that metaphysical belief induces the shutting down of the frontal lobes, the place where critical thinking faculties reside.

---

1-"God is Love: is not a switching of labels or an identity statement. An identity statement contains descriptors. Love in this case is a noun and object, not a descriptor. "God is loving" or "God loves us" would be statements that are ephemeral and only add descriptions as to the possible character of said parts of "type y" wheras the original statement identifies the actual part of type y comprising part of the whole type x. I think you're failing to grasp the concept of God's Love as seperate from the act or human emotion of Love.
2-The OT God was labeled with many acts that were easily explained natural occurances (similar to the bear above). While people of that time probably lived in a lot more fear of God then we do today, I believe that's also a testament to their lack of understanding in what God is about, hence the teachings of Jesus. He may have been personified as a genocidal murdering dictator, but also as a savior, healer, creator and loving father. The fact I've never seen an atheist say the latter seems to be a sure sign of the type of closed mindedness that leads to a greater lack in critical thinking through bias.