I was not preaching. And I am tired of the accusation meant to disregard everything I have to say.
you went off on a highly-religiously-charged tangent, pulling bible references and quotes. i call that "preaching," yes. if i ignore what you had to say, i'm sorry, but i'm more interested in debating and learning about the topic -- the origin of these words -- than debating how we are to understand what "taking the lord's name in vain" means, or talking about literal or metaphorical communion, or any of that other stuff.
I was showing the logical connection between what you said, and the Bible. Why do so many of you have this absolute notion that the bible is not logical?
no,
randomly quoting the bible for things that don't apply is not logical. the bible itself is actually quite logical in most areas, but not all appeals or references to it are.
How is one profession of reality preaching and another not?
style and content.
God is not a painting. He is the artist. Nothing random about it... Revelation and inspiration are not arational at all.
no, god and his revelations are someting akin to the inspiration for a painting. we make the painting. we make the thoughts.
They are simple like addition.
if you have understood god to be simple, you have misunderstood all of religion and god himself.
They are super-rational like the higher math.
this is actually ironic -- my father is a graph theorist. i have a decent understanding of how higher math works. the proofs are logical -- but the inspiration for them often isn't. sometimes, it just comes to you.
anyways. topic.
Yes, and that is why 'thea' -to view- is related to 'thea' the -Goddess of sight-.
yes, but do you understand that "theory" then comes from "view" which comes from "goddess of sight?" so it's incorrect to jump from "theory" to "view" to "pagan goddess" to "yahweh?" that's about four logical fallacies in a row.