Top marks for teaching me two new long words I didn't know before, but zero marks for explaining your point properly or explaining why it wasn't a good argument against the comment I was replying to.
Okay, your argument only challenge the idea of a human-like god with human-like values, a physical entity, aka "man in the cloud"-like approaches to religion, which some, but far from all people who might pursue a belief in something called a god, actually believes in. When it comes to the comment you were replying too, the person already said s/he was sarcastic., so...
I'm not really religious, but your argument only combats the idea of an antropomorphic immanencent God.
Top marks for teaching me two new long words I didn't know before, but zero marks for explaining your point properly or explaining why it wasn't a good argument against the comment I was replying to.
Okay, your argument only challenge the idea of a human-like god with human-like values, a physical entity, aka "man in the cloud"-like approaches to religion, which some, but far from all people who might pursue a belief in something called a god, actually believes in. When it comes to the comment you were replying too, the person already said s/he was sarcastic., so...
But the old testament says God made man in his own image. So doesn't this mean God is human-like?
But I take your point that not everyone believes it as literally as that. Only the fundamentalist lunatics do.