>>108828305>>108814856>>108814915> Projection errors don’t change God; they’re just human failuresThis concedes the core mechanism. If humans constantly misproject onto God, correction comes through evolving tradition, and that tradition is humanly transmitted, interpreted, and enforced, then at no point do you escape the human feedback loop. You are just deferring projection upward.
You have not shown where unmediated access to an external standard occurs, only where claims of correction occur. A mirror doesn’t stop being a mirror because people polish it.
> Spiritual growth leads to less self-projection, proving God is externalThis confuses directional discipline with objectivity. As people mature within a system, they align more closely with its ideals. That’s true of religious doctrines, political radicals, ethical philosophies, monastic orders, etc.
This proves that the system is effective at reshaping individuals, not that its ideal exists independently of human construction. If anything, the fact that growth requires renouncing oneself to adopt a predefined model reinforces that the model is socially maintained and normatively enforced.
> Euthyphro is irrelevant; goodness is God’s natureThis collapses into semantic equivalence. If “Good” means “whatever God is like”, and God is known only through human moral categories, then “goodness” is still being idealized from human evaluative concepts, then reified. You haven’t escaped idealization, you’ve renamed it “nature” and declared it absolute.
> Kenosis and the Church prove divine authority, not human projectionAgain, this is just an assertion with no evidence to back it up.
Every religious tradition with authority structures claims divine guidance, preservation from error, and correct interpretation. That claim does not demonstrate independence from human cognition; it demonstrates legitimization of authority. Saying “Christ founded the Church and the Spirit guides it” is the claim under dispute, not a premise you get to assume.
The concept of the Christian God functions as a supposedly externalized, idealized moral standard, but whose content is shaped, transmitted, stabilized, and revised through human psychology, culture, and institutions, while being rhetorically insulated from critique by claims of absoluteness. Nothing you’ve said disproves that. You’ve only reiterated Christianity’s internal narrative and demanded it be treated as evidence.
