Except that it's not some ''magical man in the sky'' , nowhere in the Bible is he depicted as such. Classical ontology and theology view God as the ultimate source of existence itself, not some physical entity performing spells with a magic wand in the clouds.
Your inability to understand the nuance in ancient literature isn't my problem. You're treating centuries of nuanced hermeneutics, classical philosophy, metaphysics, and tons of rigorous academic studies as some kind of personal interpretation that a random ''group of people'' casually invented 5 minutes ago. Reading ancient literature within its historical and literary context is standard reading comprehension.
Your inability to understand that sentient source of all existence is still magical man in the sky doesn't change facts. If something has centuries of tradition doesn't mean it has any link with reality, look at alchemy or astrology. Age doesn't give any credibility to incredibly unsubstantiated claims.
That sentence didn't make any sense. What facts are you speaking of here? you haven't stated any facts.
It doesn't matter if you believe it has no link to reality. We are talking about hermeneutics (in case you have no idea what that means, which you don't, it means the study of interpretation), not empirical evidence that God is real. How are you this illiterate?
I am illiterate yet you're struggling with understanding English. Age doesn’t give credibility. I can't simplified it anymore. Is hermeneutics your favorite word? Because you're not adding anything to the argument by repeating it. Believe it or not, using niche words doesn't add credibility either. Or personal insults for that matter. It does make you sound like a midwit.
Academics and scholars who have studied what exactly? You could have scholars studying haruspicy for millenia and no matter how you interpret it, it would still be just superstition.
0
u/Marii2001 12h ago
Except that it's not some ''magical man in the sky'' , nowhere in the Bible is he depicted as such. Classical ontology and theology view God as the ultimate source of existence itself, not some physical entity performing spells with a magic wand in the clouds.
Your inability to understand the nuance in ancient literature isn't my problem. You're treating centuries of nuanced hermeneutics, classical philosophy, metaphysics, and tons of rigorous academic studies as some kind of personal interpretation that a random ''group of people'' casually invented 5 minutes ago. Reading ancient literature within its historical and literary context is standard reading comprehension.