While persecution is expected and desired by that particular faith, I think you're awful quick hopping to a visceral reaction to religious sources instead of HNs visceral reaction to factual inaccuracy.
> yes. God is love, and God is hope, but those do not constitute the entirety of what God is
This is a reply in the context of an epistemological argument that that word you are using simply cannot mean things if you keep using it like that, and very much not the things you quoted... Not "yes": "NaN" or "undefined symbol" or "mu".
How many liters of god can I pour into my bathtub? How many liters of Coca-cola? ... We used to, but we no longer talk about god as a 'thing'.
"Coca-cola is love, coca-cola is hope, but coca-cola is so much more"...? Sure. Things respond well to metaphor, and simile.
"Hate is love, hate is hope, but hate is so much more"...? No, doesn't work, because hate is a meaningful concept. Meaningful concepts cannot arbitrarily be ascribed other meaningful concepts while retaining their meaning. "God" can though. Despite its framing, like in your post, as something that should not be able to arbitrarily be ascribed to other concepts.
God is itchiness, god is morning sunrises, god is monkey brains covered in dew. God is all, god is nothing, alpha and omega...? That "god" cannot be a god, or GOD. That "god" is both an abstract and meaningless notion. That god is awesome for selling subscription services, tho.
In any case, I wasn't responding to your comment about theological noncognitivism, I was commenting on parent's reference to apophatic theology (theology which emphasizes our inability to know God with our minds) by merely driving the point home with some traits or characteristics commonly used to refer to God but also saying these things are not the entirety of God's being or character. The rest of your silliness doesn't really apply since I was not arguing "God is everything"
> yes. God is love, and God is hope, but those do not constitute the entirety of what God is
This is a reply in the context of an epistemological argument that that word you are using simply cannot mean things if you keep using it like that, and very much not the things you quoted... Not "yes": "NaN" or "undefined symbol" or "mu".
How many liters of god can I pour into my bathtub? How many liters of Coca-cola? ... We used to, but we no longer talk about god as a 'thing'.
"Coca-cola is love, coca-cola is hope, but coca-cola is so much more"...? Sure. Things respond well to metaphor, and simile.
"Hate is love, hate is hope, but hate is so much more"...? No, doesn't work, because hate is a meaningful concept. Meaningful concepts cannot arbitrarily be ascribed other meaningful concepts while retaining their meaning. "God" can though. Despite its framing, like in your post, as something that should not be able to arbitrarily be ascribed to other concepts.
God is itchiness, god is morning sunrises, god is monkey brains covered in dew. God is all, god is nothing, alpha and omega...? That "god" cannot be a god, or GOD. That "god" is both an abstract and meaningless notion. That god is awesome for selling subscription services, tho.