Sadly, no, but I imagine that would be a fascinating conversation.
Beautiful!
It’s a freeking miracle!
I don’t care who believes what. I really don’t. But I can’t stand when people can’t keep it to themselves. I don’t know who to attribute this to, because it ain’t mine: He does not believe, who does not live according to his beliefs.
It sounds like something Marcus Aurelius might say…
Nope, Thomas Fuller (Theologian from the 1600’s)
Direct Quote:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasfull106078.html
More Quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_fuller.html
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fuller
Marcus Aurelius Quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marcus_aurelius.html
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
That was pretty cool!
You should post it to Reddit.
Only if you claim it is an objective truth verifiable through observation. There are astrologers who make no such claim, and I don’t ask them to prove anything. There are plenty of Christians who make no such claim, and I also don’t ask them to prove anything.
And regarding your definition of Christianity, you say:
It would be more accurate to call it a pink rhinoceros, inasmuch as your definition has nothing to do with pink rhinoceroi, whereas it’s the complete opposite of an objective standard. Pretty much no definition is objective: they’re the archetypal subjective facts, which is why argument by definition is so trivial. And “objective standard” is one that, again, can be verified by observation of and experimentation on the natural world. What observations of the natural world do you propose to test your definition of Christianity? Fair warning, thought experiments will correctly be laughed out of the thread.
Now, maybe I overstated that case. There is an objective way by which one might find the definition of a word: check how people are actually using it. But that’s exactly the method that you reject.
In other words, you’re actively rejecting objectivity in this case, rejecting observation of the real world, in favor of promoting a set of fantasy beliefs based on what you tought up on your own. Sound familiar?
That might be accurate if you were dealing with Christianity the way it is viewed now. You’re not.
Something just occurred to me about God. It’s been said man creates God in his own image, a reversal of the phrase in the Bible. Does that mean God is human? If he is not, then why do we, particularly Christians, always depict Him as human? We certainly ascribe to him all the qualities of humans, like irritability, jealousy and the desire for revenge, in addition to the good stuff, like the capacity to love. Why would an all powerful God have such petty concerns as humans have?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The phrase is meant kind of ironically, not literally, but you’ve got the gist of it. God – and many of the gods of other pantheons and religions – has a whole lot of very human characteristics, some of which you note.
We, probably by instinct, anthropomorphize nature, putting a human mask on it. Thus, lightning is “Thor’s hammer” and flooding is “God’s wrath.” It’s fairly ordinary projection, coming from our need to try to understand our world.
Theologians wrestle with the issue: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” Why should a God who can create an entire cosmos give two shakes of a rat’s tail for humans? There’s a supernova over there that’s about to wipe out six entire worlds…and God is supposed to intervene in a touchdown when Michigan plays Ohio?
Advanced theologians put it down as one of those mysteries we’ll never really know the answer to.
"
And we pray to our Lord
Who we know is American
He reigns from on high
He speaks to us through many men
And he shepherds his flock
We sing out and we praise His name
He supports us in war
He presides over football games"
– Don Henley
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which reminds me of a great bit from Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
TV Reporter interviewing cheerleader: “And who is the greatest American?”
Cheerleader - flustered from this tough question: “Oh Jesus!”
Reporter: “Great!”
No, it means that God doesn’t exist. The quote is saying that God is something that humans made up, and therefore, imbued with human characteristics.
Not that God doesn’t exist, necessarily, but that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize God, to imagine God in human-like terms.
If the internet is correct (and surely it must be), the origin of the sentiment is this quote from Voltaire: "In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.”
To add nuance, not just in human-like terms, but with the human characteristics they would like him to have. Just as the many different Christian denominations read the same Bible, which undoubtedly exists, but come away with different interpretations.
Yes, good point.
Yes, that’s how I would interpret it. Neale Donald Walsch suggests if you replace the word “God” with “Life”, many things snap into focus. Does life exist? Do you believe in life? Would life continue to exist whether or not you believe in it? Certainly not the Christian view, but it works for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk