ooo.. took you awhile to come up with that one!
You expect me to spend my life on this forum? Please note that I take care to ensure that at least an occasional post of mine contains thought, which you apparently do not trouble with.
Point out where I used different definitions for "magical" "mythical" and "fictional". I don't recall defining fictional (or even using the term in regard to God). I assure you that I was consistent with my usage of magical and mythical respectively, but you go ahead reread my posts if you like.. not sure what good that would do, since you didn't grasp the meanings the first time.
Dysfunction
- Decides its a great way to win an argument.
Redefining terms so that they bear no resemblance to the commonly accepted meaning is a great way to win an argument.
- On God
A magic sky-being who grants his followers' every wish and grants them eternal life
- On God, Magic
Magic
noun 1. The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
- On God, things mythological
mythological
• adjective 1 relating to or found in mythology; mythical. 2 fictitious.
mythical
1 occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales. 2 fictitious.
- On God, magic
I don't consider anything mysterious magic. I consider anything with magical abilities magic. God's abilities clearly fit that particular definition of magic. You may take issue with that definition, but it is childish to take issue with my labeling of 'God' as magical when such a label is perfectly consistent with this very common usage of the term.
- Everything is a myth till proven true/false
Althalus, I suppose we should all stop referring to Zeus as mythical, since none of us have proven he isn't real.
Space CowGirl
- On God, magic, mythology
Arguing over the usage of the words magic and magical is kind of silly. I understand that when people use the word magic they are usually referring to card tricks, and illusions, but magic has a paranormal definition too (although you may not like that definition either) and that definition does fit to a certain degree. In Christian view God has control over the natural world, to a nonbeliever that is magic. It's just semantics.
Humans and the Earth are still here for us to observe, so is my dog.. where are the centaurs? Where is God? They are left behind in the myths that created them, while humans and the Earth (the real parts of the myths) are still here. Myths are just stories created by humans, for whatever purpose, so including humans and a few actual events in them is natural. This doesn't make humans and the Earth mythical.
- On magic, myth
God falls outside the definitions of magic for you because you obviously believe that the bible is historical fact. People who look at the bible as religious propaganda tend to view God as a magical mythical being.
You have acknowledged that it is presence in myth and being fictional that makes something mythical. So far no one (Dysfunction included) has established god as being fictional so use of the term is rather dishonest.
What? Why is it a requirement for one of us to establish that god is fictional? Where is he then? Can you prove that he's real?
The applicable definitions are in bold.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth
myth
Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
\ˈmith\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek mythos
Date:
1830
1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable allegory2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b: an unfounded or false notion3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence4: the whole body of myths
- After failing to define God as magic, mythical, or non-existent you resort to "unverifiable"
I am claiming that God is unverifiable. Unverifiable = myth. You can't rewrite the dictionary to suit your argument. I think I have a much better grasp of the term mythical and therefore I can use it in regards to God. I do not have to establish God as fictional.
Of course these are only the times you define things, as opposed to the many variations in usage.
Now.. let's see you used some mighty big font to point out something pretty obvious. I guess you just don't get rhetorical questions. I wasn't accusing you of saying that Jesus wasn't entirely God, it was a question designed to make you think about what you were saying. You claim that God didn't have a corporeal body. I say that according to Christian doctrine he did and that his corporeal body was Jesus. Now.. either Jesus is God or he isn't, which is it?
The large typeface was used to highlight the concepts that seem to escape your grasp. If at any time you are confused as to what I am saying, feel free to reread those highlighted words, taking as much time as is necessary for their meaning to permeate your cranium. I repeat: Jesus had a body and Jesus is a part of God. However, Jesus is only a part of God, and only a part of God was then in the body of Jesus. I realize that by using these words I assume you have at least a child's understanding of sums and parts, forgive me for this. I will try to simplify this for you.
Jesus = All God
But:
Jesus=/=All
of God.
So:
Jesus =
Part of God.
So Jesus, who is part of God, had a body, but God never had a body. Understand? The traditional Christian understanding of Jesus is as a singular
incarnation of God
Ecco Ignoranti: Behold the idiot.
Aww.. I bet you read that on wikipedia.
How dense are you?
ut cognoscatis quia in eo nullam causam invenio et purpureum vestimentum et dicit eis ecce homo
Or for you to not understad in your own language:
1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
2And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
Ignorati: Latin for idiot.
I called you an idiot, and you think I needed Wikipedia to do it? Don't assume I rest at your level of cognitive retardation. Also note the reversal of status in the that of the accuser and the guilt, did you like that? When it was first said, you were already guilty of the charge. Your response only confirms the claim.
This post is a monument to your ignorance. Respond if you want, but I don't feel like beating a women again.