Your "feelings" really don't count for much.


I presented my own experiences as justification for what I posted to Nightowl as pertinent advice. Box claimed to know better than I about how my faith works so of course I responded: I was defending his contradiction of my own experiences within my faith. And they were words lacking in authority within that context, too, until his most recent. Would I do the same if he slighted Zoroastrianism? No: I am not a Zoroastrianist.

Certainly box is in no position to say what you did or did not feel, but he's in an excellent position to judge that, to the extent you "felt" that you were actually in personal communication with an invisible anthropomorph modelled after a Bronze Age Bedouin chieftain, you were deluded.


Neither is he in any position to say what I did or did not experience. And, really, neither are you in any position to state your concept of God is correct and mine is not within a faith system you clearly do not adhere to. :-) You could argue quite legitimately that the concept of 'God' is a delusion based on a Bronze Age Beduoin cheftain, but that is a point-of-view from outside Christian theology. Within Christian theology, there are viewpoints as to whether God cares whether we get along in worship, or just wants attention from us. Box's original assertion was that he knows this is the latter and I attempted to dispute his knowledge of this on Christian theological grounds including challenging his authority to dispute such.

Ironic that it gets clearer when I reply to someone else... :-?

Wade.