>>41291105
I am not a proponent of Christianity.
It is an anthropological definition based on the concept of idolatry, and the traditional Greek/Pagan gods. A good is simply an object of worship.
The christian definition of god is wrong. And the definition I am pointing to is consistent with all gods, given the history of apotheosis. Which is what you would refer to as 'enlightenment'.
The English words represent concepts, and I am simply giving you the English equivalent.
The fallacy of your argument is effectively demonstrated when you substitute 'illusion' for 'god'.
A christian's understanding of illusions are flawed, therefore illusions themselves do not exist. The problem here is that you are ignoring the underlying observed phenomenon and how the concept is applied in practice.
The nuance of it is important because of quantification. How else is one meant to translate such concepts between languages? By it's very principle it is the concept that westerners use to explain the concept of Buddhism as Buddha being an Asian god, an object of worship and veneration.