I often see Trump supporters call his detractors "Trump haters" as if our judgment is clouded by some irrational emotion, as if our mere dislike of him is itself evidence that we aren't capable of any sort of objectivity or reason. — GRWelsh

In typical fashion the Trumpsters they gets things backwards, as if it were because he is hated that he cannot be seen for who he is. The truth is, because they cannot see him for who he is there is a good chance he will win the election.

Tyrants want to be loved. Above all else they desire recognition. Trump's gold toilets and other ostentatious signs of wealth are nothing more than a means to this end. This is why he claimed, contrary to the evidence, that his inauguration was the biggest ever. It is an essential factor in his attempt to overturn the election and the claim that he won the popular vote. His neediness is tangible. This is the source of both his weakness and his danger.

What does it mean to be like "one of us" and to whom is that God speaking? — Athena

What it means is having knowledge and not dying. This is elaborated on in the story of the Tower of Babel where God's concern is that man will be able to do whatever he wills to do.

I take it he is speaking to the other gods. Note how in Genesis one notice the shift back and forth from the singular to the plural with regard to both man and god.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ...

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:26-27)

I want to know more. Which philosophers did your class examine?

In the Chinese philosophy class we read:

Kongzi (Confucius), Mozi, Mengzi (Mencius),Laozi (“The Daodejing”), and Zhuangzi.

The Daodejing is perhaps the most popular. Kongzi is quite different but also popular. My favorite is Zhuangzi. I will be starting a thread on him soon.

In the Japanese philosophy course, from what I remember, we read Dogen and Hakuin. Although not primary sources we read on the topics of Bushido, Wabi-sabi.

There are others that I forgot. I will be away from my books until the spring.

But mind you, until relatively recently I have done my reading on my own without others to discuss them with

Yes, this is a problem. When someone asks me what they should read I find it very difficult to answer.

I think the quotes you chose make it clear Judaism is a tribal religion, not an explanation of a universal god whose children are equal under the sun.

That was a later development within Judaism. It has a very long history. It is often assumed that it was from the start monotheistic. It was not. The move from "our god" to the only god we worship to the only god in Isaiah happened over that long history.

Oh darn, I am dealing with a mental breakdown. My brain absolutely will not follow the linear process essential to comprehensive thinking.

On the contrary it may be a sign of progress. Perhaps comprehensive thinking is not linear. Wittgenstein said:

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there.

(Culture and Value)

"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment.

I don't think it is so much that they were appointed by Trump but that they were appointed because they held to a conservative political ideology. Ironically, Trump himself is completely devoid of any political ideology. "Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy.

... the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms — Alkis Piskas

Herein lies the problem. Philosophers often use terms in idiosyncratic ways and in ways that are no longer standard. This is not a reason to reject dictionaries but a reason to be cautious about the dictionaries being used. When reading philosophy a glossary of terms related to particular philosophers and schools will be more helpful than a general dictionary. In addition, a definition may be a good starting point, but one must look at the context in which the term is being used rather than insisting that a philosopher means X because this is how the term is defined somewhere.

I think that is likely, but would replace "because" with "based on the excuse that they're too busy".

Philosophy should never be memorizing what was said but always be about understanding concepts and independent thinking. — Athena

It is often a game of wack-a-mole theorizing. Defending and attacking competing theories. Popping up again with modifications only to be wacked back down again.

I want to know so much more about why you chose Asian philosophy. — Athena

It chose me. It is common to ask an instructor to teach courses outside their area. Some instructors will just find a textbook, and let it do most of the work. Some textbooks have teacher editions that discussion questions and sample tests. That is not the way I do things.

I use primary texts. Rather than reading about philosophers and schools we read and attempt to interpret and discuss their work. To keep this short I had to do a lot of reading to prep.

I have a terrible feeling that Christianity has closed out those wonderful sources of wisdom. — Athena

Earlier editions of these works suffered from Christian influenced translation. This is no longer the case. We now have available translations done by scholars who have studied the language and the literature as well as western philosophy.

I don't know exactly how to approach this subject but I hope you say more about that choice. — Athena

You might start with something like this

Reading about what the translator says about translation is often a good clue.

There is no problem getting sources to validate the existence of Abraham. — Athena

The problem is these sources.

We can get some idea of the problem at issue from Exodus:

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
(Exodus 3:13-15)

Why is there a question of God's name? There are several different names for gods in the Hebrew Bible. Monotheism is often assumed and following this the names are taken to be different names for the same god, but monotheism was a later development. In other words, the problem Moses faces is which god will the people to heed. The answer avoids names and says instead that the god of your fathers is the same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob. Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews.

It is, however, questionable whether Moses, the great unifier existed either. In fact, the Hebrew Bible is the work of unnamed unifiers.

Are you thinking the story of Adam and Eve is anything other than a story equal to Aesop's Fables? — Athena

I do not know Aesop's Fables well enough to say that they are equal, but some stories are more than just a story.

Both stories are about a god's concern about what humans will do with knowledge but the Greek story does not blame the first man and woman and he does not punish them for doing something wrong ... — Athena

There is a great deal more going on in the story of the first man. For one, he blames Eve and God for giving her to him. A bit more about this gift. In order to make Eve God destroys Adam's unity or wholeness, which results, among other things, in the need to make two one.

Rather than the focus on punishment I take the story to be more about the consequences of having knowledge. God sums it up:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22)

Man should not be allowed to become gods. Death, like life, is both a blessing and a curse. The dualism of blessings and curses in this story should not be overlooked. They go hand in hand. They are tied to the dualism of knowledge. Knowledge is productive. Its fruits are both good and bad. Adam knew Eve.

Socrates was also condemned to drink the hemlock for his impiety. A person arguing the gods are not good does not cancel out the fact that the popular opinion was the gods are good. — Athena

Socrates called himself a midwife for men. He helps them birth their opinions. In the Euthyphro we see what issues from this opinion. As a standard, popular opinion is not always a high standard.

Yeah, that happened about the same time I posted. When I saw I posted an addendum.

At least they were quick to decide not to decide.

I agree with the general idea of moving slowly, but not in a case like this.

Why are Trump and his lawyers objecting to Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court to quickly rule on whether presidential immunity shields Trump from prosecution in the federal 2020 election interference case? If, as he professes, he is innocent we might think he would prefer to have it ruled on quickly to remove doubt in voters minds. In typical fashion,Trump prefers to have things drag on until after the election. Given his bluster and rhetoric, however, it would follow that even a decision against him would only helps him. Perhaps he is not as able to fool himself as he is at fooling the Trumpsters.

The basis of their argument is based on two claims.

First that Smith does not provide a reason for the date proposed.

Second, they say it should be "resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner — not at breakneck speed" and that the justices should not "rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon."

The first argument is weak. If there is nothing special about March 4th then there is nothing special about March 3rd or 1st either. The argument could be used to push for an even earlier date. They have not said what they would consider to be a reasonable date. If the proposed date was April or May 4th the would make the same argument. The only satisfactory date for the is after the election.

The second argument rests on the questionable assumption that in order to comply they would have to proceed without caution in a matter that is deliberative, that they would be have to rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. None of this, of course, is true. As they no doubt know, the way to move forward quickly is by putting it at the top of the list of cases to be decided.

If the court decides quickly and against Trump they can still use this argument in an attempt to persuade voters that the decision was rushed and Trump was treated unfairly. And, of course, the Supreme Court will be added to the list of the enemies of the United States of Trump.

Another fine example of Trump doing what he accuses others of doing, using the courts for political ends.

Added: As I was posting this the court made a decision not to fast track. A cowardly move. They can't avoid dealing with Trump. They are deciding to not decide, a decision that will harm their reputation more than the fear of making the wrong decision.

This is possible because you are already in possession of the meaning, which you are able to supply to the text in order to make sense of it — NOS4A2

If you are already in possession of the meaning of a word then you would not have to look it up to find out what it means. It makes no sense to say that we go to a dictionary to supply meaning to the words we look up to find the meaning of.

If meaning was in the words, learning the language would be unnecessary. — NOS4A2

You have done a good job of convincing anyone who did not already realize it that you do not know how words work. Learning a language involves learning the meaning of words in that language. You stubbornly and ignorantly cling to the false idea that words are just marks and sounds devoid of meaning.

It was my understanding that you believed words transport meaning from A to B ... — NOS4A2

No. I used your term 'transport' . It is not a term I would use in this context, but we work with what we have. In any case, to transport is to convey, and meaning is conveyed through words. In this case, from a dictionary to the reader. So close enough.

What I denied is that I believe:

You’d just hear the word or say the word, and the meaning would float through the air in the sound-waves, from one mind to the other. — NOS4A2

But all of this has been covered already. It is clear that you are fond of arguing, but since facts, truth, and understanding may bring an argument to its end, you avoid them.

Biology can precede meanings suppose. — Corvus

Yes, and biology can somethings betray what we really mean.

If words had meaning you wouldn’t need a definition. — NOS4A2

In a dictionary words are used to define the meaning of other words. You might need a dictionary to define some of the words used to define the word in question, but it is not an endless cycle. Some may rely on a dictionary more than others but no one can use a dictionary who does not understand the meaning of any of the words.

You’d just hear the word or say the word, and the meaning would float through the air in the sound-waves, from one mind to the other. Except they don’t do what you believe they do ... — NOS4A2

That is not what I believe words do. It does, however, seem to be a picture of your own making that you have either struggled against or set up to knock down.

so you refer to a dictionary, contradicting your own claims. — NOS4A2

Do you mean my claim that:

Words have meaning and the words used in the dictionary inform us of the meaning of the word in question. — Fooloso4

?

Your biology allows for language acquisition, and determines the faculty of language in general. — NOS4A2

Yes, you are agreeing with the first part of what I said above:

Our biology plays a role in our ability to use language ... — Fooloso4

Now address the second part:

...but the fact that I speak English and not Chinese is not determined by my biology. — Fooloso4

Orbán has Trump's back. — jorndoe

Trumpsters see this in a very favorable light. They prefer autocrats to the rule of law.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

They do not and cannot do this without WORDS.

Other than that I can’t follow your non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

There is a difference between your inability to follow an argument and an argument that does not follow from what has already been said. Don't blame the argument for what you are unable to do.

The truth is though that I do think you are able and just resort to claiming non-sequiturs rather than admitting that you are wrong.

f you were asleep, and didn't want to get disturbed by any visitors, then any knocking on the door will disturb you, — Corvus

Well it way the girl of my dreams knocking on my door it would not disturb me, although I might be hot and bothered.

I showed you one sense in which many people (biological organisms) use it, including myself. — NOS4A2

And thus contradict your claims about words. Words have meaning and the words used in the dictionary inform us of the meaning of the word in question. They are then not arbitrary.

They do what you say you cannot believe they do:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B — NOS4A2

The words in the dictionary transport meaning from A to B.

It is determined by your biology. It was your biology that learned, understands, and speaks English and not Chinese. — NOS4A2

My biology did not determine whether I grew up learning English and not Chinese. If I was adopted and grew up in a Chinese family my biology would remain the same, but I would speak Chinese rather than English.

Yes, they’re just words, and it’s superstitious to pretend they have power to manipulate the actions of organisms… but law isn’t just words. — NOS4A2

You have just explained why it is wrong to regard words as meaningless marks and sounds, separate and distinct from a form of life. Legal language is not a combination of laws that have force and words that don't. Words are an integral part of a larger whole.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not "just words". The words establish what the law is. There are no laws without the words, and no words without meaning. Thus the words have force. The words matter. Without them there would be no question of whether Trump is disqualified. Without them there would be no way to settle the question.

Why are you using a dictionary definition? A dictionary is not a biological organism. It is, by your lights, a collection of meaningless marks.

As to your claim that each organism is identical to its biology. The unique experiences that play a role in shaping who we are as individuals is not a matter of our individual biology. Our biology plays a role in our ability to use language, but the fact that I speak English and not Chinese is not determined by my biology.

And each organism is identical to its biology. — NOS4A2

That is simply not true. If you understood the meaning of the term 'biology' you would see why it is not true. If you understood the meaning of the term "convention' you would see that what is by convention is not what is biologically.

But you wouldn't be knocking on your own door. — Corvus

This is more apt than you might have intended. That it was my door did not even occur to me.

One thing I have found, and I am sure others here have as well, is that no matter how clearly and accurately I state something there will be some who think I am saying something else.

I might think that if anyone else was knocking it would be a disturbance but surely not if I was.

Actually, I think that is what the sign said. Is 'this' door the one with the sign or the one the arrow was pointing to?

I told them that I stood there confused until someone came along and opened the door, that if they hadn't I might have missed the class.

Words says what they mean, and no more. — Corvus

The logician Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, would not agree. The March Hare tells Alice:

... you should say what you mean.

To which she responds:

I do — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing you know.

The Hare corrects her:

... you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!

Here is one that my students found amusing. This actually happened. I was running a few minutes late to my class. One of the double doors to the classroom building was not working. It has a sign on it: "Not working. Use other door" and an arrow pointing to the other door. I explained that I was late because I could not figure out whether the arrow was pointing to door that was broken or if the sign was on the door that was broken.

something the biology does. — NOS4A2

Meaning is not something biology does. The location of meaning is found in the practices of certain social biological organisms.

As asked the question of whether words are more than their symbols is ill conceived. Symbols have meaning. 'water' and 'agua' is a symbols 'that have the same meaning. Each of those symbols is made up of other symbols. In each of these cases the meaning is a matter of convention.

Your misrepresentations are the direct reason white spremacists are emboldened and think Trump is their guy. This has been confirmed by a member here who told me his cousins ... — NOS4A2

So, some unnamed member told you that his cousin believed something. Well that settles it.

Funny how you go to such lengths to defend Trump. On the one hand pretending that words have no force, and on the other pretending he does not say what he says. Why? Because words do matter.

As usual, all I have to do is take a gander and look at the context you suspiciously leave out, every single time. He's speaking about more than one "they" and you've simply pretended he is speaking about one. — NOS4A2

It is the immigrants who are poison, not those who let them in. If the immigrants were not poison letting them in would not poison our blood.

On Truth Social he says "illegal immigrants". At the rally he says immigrants not illegal immigrants. This is exactly what I said he would do:

In this way he gets the support of white supremacists but can, and most likely will, deny he said what he said or mean what he said. — Fooloso4

The "they" he was speaking of were his political opponents, for instance "Biden and the lunatic left" and "the radical left democrats". — NOS4A2

Well, you may wish to "endow" his words with that meaning. Although given all that you have said about words, if you are not being hypocritical, it raises the question of why you would even bother to attempt damage control. After all what he says are just words.

When he says:

They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world they’re pouring into our country

it is clear that he is not talking about Biden or Trump's political opponents. Neither Biden or Trump's political opponents are pouring into our country, coming from Africa or Asia.

He falls in love with, marries, and has children with immigrants, so the notion that Trump is implying immigrants qua immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation is just plain stupid. — NOS4A2

No. What is stupid is your attempt to change what he said and argue that because he has a white trophy wife he is not saying what is saying. Note that Slovenia is not Africa or Asia or any of the "shithole countries" he refers to.

In typical fashion he oversteps and overstates. In this way he gets the support of white supremacists but can, and most likely will, deny he said what he said or mean what he said. He might even trot out Melania as evidence that he is not anti-immigration. She might even be coerced to make a public appearance and display her tortured smile before once again retreating from him.

I think you're misreading Frum's quote. — RogueAI

It is, rather, that you are misreading what I have said.

He's not saying border security is a fascist thing. — RogueAI

That is correct.

He's saying that given a choice between fascists who happen to police the border and liberals who won't, Americans will pick the fascists. — RogueAI

Not exactly. It is not as though if Americans were asked to choice between securing the borders or fascism they would choice fascism. He is warning the liberal readers of The Atlantic that immigration must be taken seriously, that if they dismiss such concerns as fascism we could end up with fascism.

In the article he says:

The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind?

As I said above:

The question is how to go about doing that. — Fooloso4

The rise of fascism, however, is not the result of immigration alone. According to the article:

The extremism and authoritarianism that have surged within the developed world since 2005 draw strength from many social and economic causes. Immigration is only one of them.

I understand the words because I’m capable of supplying meaning to the symbols you’ve typed out. — NOS4A2

Do you arbitrarily supply just any meaning?

The fact is, you follow the same conventions the rest of us do. In using language you do not get to have words mean whatever you want them to. That is not how language works.

My experience is limited to the US.

I don't think it's tautological. — RogueAI

If only X will do Y then Y is will be done by X.

Frum is saying that voters value border security so strongly that they'll pick fascists to do it over liberals who won't. That's not true by definition. — RogueAI

As I say in the next sentence, it is wrong to regard anyone who does Y as X. Many liberals recognize the need for border security. The question is how to go about doing that. The problem of thinking that anyone who advocates for border security is a fascist is that it blurs the meaning of the term and opens the door to actual fascists.

Some voters might put it in the hands of actual fascists. I would like to think that most voters would not choose fascism, but I am no longer confident that is the case.

I agree with Frum's tautological statement. I also agree that it is wrong to regard anyone who looks to secure the borders is a fascist. But what Trump is saying goes far beyond border enforcement. The borders could be closed today but based on what he is saying the immigration problem would remain. If immigrants are poisoning "our" blood then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is dissolved. What is to be done with them? Sequestered? Deported? What about their children? Are they too poisonous? How many generations back should we go?

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?!

Maybe those who will vote for Trump are not bothered by this because they assume they will be included as "ours". They should not be too certain.

Where are you located?

What meaning has it conveyed? — NOS4A2

If you read my words and are capable of understanding you will find the answer. If you are not capable, that is not the fault of the words. Unlike that word, my words are in English.

My advice is to consider what interests you. Whether that is particular philosophers, particular problems, or particular approaches. Check out the faculty and what areas they write on. Some departments are big enough that you might find a few members you want to work with. It might be a good idea not look to match your interests too closely and expand the way you think about things.

As to continental vs. analytic, the people you are talking to are just showing their biases. The division is not always hard and clear-cut.

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age.

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones ... — Athena

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

By way of comparison, I went on to teach courses on Chinese, Japanese, and Greek philosophy.

But waiting for college is too late! — Athena

Yes, I agree.

... a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners. — Athena

In the section "Reading and Writing" from Zarathustra he says:

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader.

A couple of quotes from Wittgenstein sheds some light on this:

From the preface to Philosophical Investigations:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.

And in Culture and Value:

No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.

Someone can put my hat on but it won't keep my head warm.

Abraham is a human ... — Athena

If you mean he was a real person, a historical figure you will not find much scholarly support. If you mean that these stories had their antecedents then yes, but as they have come to us they reflect other ideas as well.

Here is an interesting commentary on this from Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.

Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes". — Athena

According to Plato's Euthyphro the answer is no. Their less than exemplary behavior is the basis of Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro's misguided piety.

We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true. — Athena

Yup. This is the ambiguity the Sophists exploited, including their present day brethren, lawyers, and all too often philosophers who are skilled at making strong arguments.

What meaning have I conveyed with this word? — NOS4A2

What you have conveyed is your real or feigned lack of understanding how words work. Once again, you have confused words and the form they might take in a particular language.

If it is a word, and if I knew the language, I might know or figure out by context or look it up or ask someone who did know the language what it means.

But sometimes they don’t understand the words in the same way. — NOS4A2

This is quite different from your claim that:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. No one has. No one has looked at a symbol and seen anything called “meaning”. — NOS4A2

If sometimes there is misunderstanding then sometimes there is understanding.

The reasons our understanding of a word rarely aligns is because I meaning something is not the same as the words meaning something. — NOS4A2

As Alice was told:

Say what you mean or mean what you say.

Now you, like Alice, might think that they say or mean the same thing. They don't. If you fail to understand the difference that is not the fault of the words.

One has power, conveys meaning, thinks, speaks, writes, reads—the other is just the fleeting echoes of this being and His activity. — NOS4A2

Once again, one way in which one conveys meaning, and here on this forum the primary way, is with WORDS.

Your inconsistent wavering between the two beings as the conveyor of meaning may satisfy your own understanding, but I cannot get past it. — NOS4A2

There is no inconsistency or wavering. The one conveys meaning via the other. Without words one's power to convey meaning is greatly diminished.

You follow the sentences with your eyes, left to right, top to bottom, according to your understanding, and endow them with your own meaning and at your own leisure. — NOS4A2

This is simply wrong. First, when reading English is do not read left to right and top to bottom according to my understanding. I read them this way because that is the way English is written. It is a convention that I was taught. Second, I do not endow sentences with meaning. Although I am free to give sentences any meaning I wish, that is not the way language works.

And the idea that meaning exists between or external to the beings who mean is fatuous piffle. — NOS4A2

If we endow meaning, then I might endow 'fatuous piffle' with the meaning 'exactly right'.

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good. — Athena

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher.

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche — Athena

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike.

And you can bet your bippy — Athena

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy.

Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God. — Athena

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know.

The God of Abraham is absolute power and control ... — Athena

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being.

who were compelled to do this or that because of logos — Athena

This is not an argument I am familiar with. My impression is that they were compelled by desire - lust and power.

We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think. — Athena

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence.

Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy. — Athena

This is true for some but certainly not for others. Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say.