In that sentence you made a statement, then offered a justification for it, bridging the two clauses with the word "for" in its meaning of "because." I quoted your statement accurately and left out the justification, because I disagree with the statement and that's what I responded to, and omitted the justification because obviously I think it doesn't work or I wouldn't disagree. I don't see that it in any way deranges the view you were putting forward. I'd have made exactly the same point regardless of how much or how little of your sentence I'd cited. You were not misquoted.
Ya think?
bullocks!
What I said was about the fact that no one defines God in any of the great religions.
You went on about understanding , where the the sentence clearly states there can be no understanding.
You cut my sentence in half and used it as a segue into your next posts.
it does derange the sentence due to the fact you are talking about understanding where as I said in the sentence there can be no understanding.
Your causing my OCD to flare up and this is not fun anymore.
lol....
But of course if this is not what you think you did and are being totally honest , fine knock your self out.
go back and reread it from what i am stating and see for yourself.
Full of contradictions, aren't you. Either it IS the only source, or it is not a source. Not being viable puts it in the same realm as my "hallucinations" and would, by extension, not make it a source.
Whether what Jesus Christ said or what is claimed what He said is historic fact or not , does not really matter in the year 2014.
His teachings are ingrained in the Jungian collective unconscious , or just so ingrained in our society it does not matter any more.
One cannot escape His teachings , nor ignore them and their impact on society.
Even societies that don't follow the Man have spin off now and are influenced by His teachings.
what hallucinations? i take it you have had a spiritual experience and you shared them and now they have become the target of ridicule.
Am i right or jumping to conclusions.
anyone ridiculing a person's shared spiritual experience, even if they are atheist is below contempt for me.
There are lines that should not be crossed.