What if we're all wrong though?

[Purple Rabbit]

@pr- I Attribute some semblance of love to God, despite the fact he is not human, because all I have is my human perspective to view reality and from the natural observances I attribute to God appear to fit the Christian dogma related to God's Love. Does he see it as love ? IDK. If I were to create a society of AI androids, their habitat and laws of physics and felt the need to protect all of that I would just see it as a natural instinct to preserve my creations I guess. So maybe God's love from God's perspective is actually just natural to his attributes as a creator and not love at all. From my perspective I see it as love in it's purest form and it's attributes are defined well in the Bible.

OK, since we're free to attribute on blind faith and poor historical insight all kind of gibberish to some god entity we fail to define in any way, let me do some attributing of my own:

Since, as you explained, we cannot know anything about non-human emotion from experience in any sense, implying therewith that a statement like "god IS love", with or without capitalization of nouns, is utter gibberish, I can only account of love and hate as I know it. From that perspective the god of the bible is a wrathful, hateful son of a bitch as accounted for in Leviticus and as taught in early (as in around relatively close after the death of Jesus) gnostic teachings. Teachings that were rudelessly and systematically stripped from mainstream pauline christian teachings even before was decided about the canonical contents of those teachings. So to say only that god is love and not that god is hate shows nothing but the blindness of faith. We can drivel on about which other attributes to stick on the guy but as blindness prevails it is impossible to arrive at any coherent conclusion and indeed the 7 billion god concepts are a clear indication that pursue of such a task is futile.

The rest idk, I answered your question with 6 simple points and you threw out tons of gibberish that I'm not going to take the time to translate, feel free to restate. Was that just referencing the God is portion only or what?

That's my point, your "definition" equals gibberish.

---

That just is non cognitivism ...not thinking about it. You deny the subject you're supposedly considering. Observance, would you entertain it, could show you a consistent picture of God. Let's not get carried away here and believe what our hang ups dictate.

Since we agree on the fact that your faith is illogical, I see no reason why your words should have any bearing on me. Please feel free though to continue cluttering the blogosphere with random illogical remarks.