.

Dear Peter Sells,

.

"I must write a long essay on the failure of reason in defining ethics, meaning and telos."

A short one will do.

But, no hurry. April will be fine.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<May I suggest that you see yourself as a lonesome cowboy riding across life's plains from dawn to dusk, whereas from my perspective, you are sitting on a bandwagon among the rest of the "flock", with religion up front, holding the reigns and the State riding shotgun beside it.>>

Very interesting!

Whenever two orthogonal rays move their perpendicular way, there always is a line (or plane) of perspective from where they seem together (or in-line in 3D).

Thank you for this perspective. I am sure the government itself sees me rather as nuisance, not interested in either following or breaking their laws, not recognising their worldly authority (enforced as you say by their shotgun), instead recognising God as my only true and eternal authority. True they occasionally rub shoulders with institutional-religion, but not with me.

Yuyutsu,

>>” there are many haters of God”<<
>>” For the convenience of haters of God”<<
>>” people who hate God”<<

Oxford Concise Dictionary – Hate: Strong aversion to or dislike of

You see how this is a conscious act and the conscious part is vital in hatred.

Who are these people that hate your ‘God’? It can’t be atheists as they don’t acknowledge the existence of any of the 3,000 gods purported to have existed. That would be like hating bugs bunny which would be nonsense as well as a waste of time.

It can’t be anyone who actually considers your ‘God’ does exist as that would be really stupid because of the imagined known dire consequences.

And please don’t use the height of ignorance and arrogance and say it is those who don’t acknowledge its existence because by doing so they are automatically placed in the list of god-haters. That would be a really dumb thing to say as no conscious effort is expended as needed by the definition of hate.

It can’t be those in your judgemental mind who you consider are ‘sinning’ against your particular ‘God’ if they don’t accept it exists as they do not consciously hate your particular ‘God’ and are not intentionally ‘sinning’ against it. It can’t be people of other religions as they have their own ‘God(s)’ and don’t believe your god exists. There is no conscious part of their thinking that hates your god.

Even those who accept your imaginary god exists don’t hate it even if they are ‘sinning’ against it. Moments of weakness cannot be classed as hatred if not intentional hatred.

Accusing any of the above groups of hating your particular ‘God’ only demonstrates you are deluded. Sorry to be the one to let you know.

So, if you would like to use the language we use on planet earth in sensible communication in an effort to procure a reasonable outcome, how about hop down from your slightly elevated pony and let us know who hates your particular illusory ‘God’? I’m sure it needs you defending it.

David

Nup. That's just plain inconsistent, Yuyutsu.

>>...I have no interest in any later meanings attached to this word over the years like the beard growing on a ship's hull<<

In your excitement, you may not have noticed that you have chosen one of those "later meanings" yourself. Cicero had the first words on the subject , five hundred years before Lactantius came along with a brand new, entirely self-serving suggestion.

What you really mean is that you have rejected the earliest assessment of its Latin root, as well as the later suggestion of St Augustine of Hippo, in favour of the version proposed - with absolutely no scholarship to back it up - by a zealous convert who relied on the patronage of Constantine.

Entirely nothing wrong with that, of course. You are absolutely free to choose any version that serves your own purposes. It just helps your credibility a little if you acknowledge these little things along the way.

Of course, because your version is only one of a number, you will also understand how it tends to weaken your generalizations about what religion "is" or "isn't".

You can still explain what religion means to you, of course, which is interesting in its own way. But because you have tied your explanation to one particular interpretation, out of a number of equally plausible etymologies, it detracts more than a little from your argument.

>>That they wish everyone to believe that this is what 'religion' means, is no big surprise either.<<

Are you now able to see the irony in that sentence?

Religions should be forced to prove their claims and be able to be sued if they can't provide evidence.

If I sold an elixir that I claimed would enable people to live forever I would soon be put out of business and/or put in jail! It's called fraud.

Religions promise all manner of things, yet they can't substantiate any one of them.

It should be a case of no proof, no Xmas pudding.

David wrote :"Who are these people that hate your ‘God’".

I think you'll find that when Yuyutsu refereed to " people who hate God"
he was talking about those who hate the notion of God as well as those who hate all the institutions and ramifications of theism.

You shouldn't take things so literally...maybe that's why you don't understand Genesis. :)