Ooh very defensive. It was only a question, with many interpretations, just like some holy books I know of.
You are correct. That response was defensive. Sorry I took the bait, fishy.
I did interpret it as a personal attack, and I realize that I may well have been wrong about it.
So, I will attempt to clear up where I am coming from on that response, minus the defensiveness, but without sugar-coating it.
This is a thread that establishes an assumption of the existence of God in order to discuss certain attributes associated with God. It looks to me like you were selecting from my response an opportunity to take a shot at the reasonableness of a concept of God -- in order to take shots at and ridicule those who hold a concept of God. You used the word
imagining with no understanding of the background of my contemplation of the subject of God. You could not possibly know it, because I have not fullly discussed it on this forum -- much less given any indication of it on this thread. Your use of the word
imagining came across, to me, as an attempt to invalidate holding a belief in God, as if the idea of a God could only mean the unexamined, fanciful notion that came from...who knows where. You seem to assume that anyone that believes in God must be doing so only in compliance with some book. If that is your assumption, you are incorrect.
If I misinterpretted your position or intent, I apologize for that.
If you wish to discuss the
reasonableness of a belief in God, I think that is certainly valid -- but more appropriate in a thread that was not established as a discussion of God's attributes, with an assumption of such an existence. As far as I am concerned, such a conversation would necessarily include a discussion of belief, faith and perspective -- far too lengthy and off topic for this thread.