Phat writes:
quote:
As to the topic, i.e., "Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic", the question impresses me as sophomoric and, to the extent that it counterposes "true" and "symbolic", cognitively meaningless.
—ConsequentAtheist
You seem to have no problem with the concept of "Thursday" which is a manmade concept. Every word ever invented has a definition!
What underwhelming insight. The fact remains that not all combination of words are cognitively meaningful. See Ayers.
Phat writes:
quote:
What the hell does that mean? I know of no definition of Pantheism that renders it anything other than superfluous.
—ConsequentAtheist
And thus you in your own legendary mind have deemed any theistic concept (except your ego) to be superfluous!
That incoherent drivel does not even rise to the level of non sequitur.
On what grounds do you insist that my characterization of Pantheism necessitates an identical view of all theistic philosophies? Or do you simply babble to fill some void in your own reasoning? Whatever was behind your inane "thus you ... have deemed any theistic concept ... to be superfluous", most readers will understand that one can have one view of Pantheism, a second of Fundamentalism, an third of process theology, a forth of Kaplan's transnaturalism, etc.
™ Version 4.2
