Perhaps one or both of us lost track of who was responding to whom. Let's see where this conversation went off track. Most likely there were one or more misunderstandings resulting from at least one assumption making asses of both you and me
Author:
You:
This is part of the problem… Until we all acknowledge that rights are agreed to by society — not a god — there will be arguments over whether my god or your god has the final say. Remember, the US is NOT a theocracy. So anyone’s infantile belief in a deity is just as valid as anyone else’s.This is part of the problem… Until we all acknowledge that rights are agreed to by society — not a god — there will be arguments over whether my god or your god has the final say. Remember, the US is NOT a theocracy. So anyone’s infantile belief in a deity is just as valid as anyone else’s.
I misunderstood you to be an athiest. I see now that I misread your statement.
In any event, I responded:
obnoxiously sarcastic — you are right in as far as God stays out of politics and is largely laissez-faire
You assumed a belief on my part to the God of the Old and New Testaments and Koran, and despite the fact that I was agreeing with you on societal vs. celestial construction, you harped on the use of the singular. Then when I said, “any and all Gods,” instead of reacting with positivity that I was not preaching for any particular God, you chose to attack my grammar. At no point was my grammar incorrect — I chose the singular because I misread it as the path of least resistance.
Have I parsed this enough to where we can give each other a nod of our heads and move on?
If you are interested in my syncretist beliefs, and wish to return this discussion to civility, with or without acknowledging your own role in the misunderstanding, you could read the story I embed below and comment, if it pleases you to do so without pejoratives such as infantile, which set me off down the path of misunderstanding.
