I love that graphic. It's so very true too and so sad. Thanks!
More like cafeteria christian logic, but then, there are probably more christians who pick and choose what of the bible they wish to adhere to than there are those who want to take the whole schmeer and attempt to assert that it all must be followed rigorously.
Loren, I think we should give the latter group what they really want: a theme park where you're allowed to witness the Life of Christ...as Christ. The exit is permanent: when you wind your way through the park a final game has them hammering you up on a cross using three nine inch nails. Students dressed as centurians say in unison, "Truly, he was the son of God." If you are still conscious, you look up and say, "Into your hands, &c."
Hey, they wanna be like Christ? Give 'em what they want and go the entire route! I mean, all we're doing here is:
Just trying to keep my customers satisfied...
-- Paul (Rhymin') Simon
Sorry but cannot remember the context of this one line. Help. I am following a discussion on whether life is without meaning if religion is replaced with reason and my only question was, "Why does life have to be meaningful?" Instead of God I have the benign indifference of the universe. Certainty, not supposition.
Well, seriously, only the fetish and conceit of a personal deity that cares about you and 300 billion other people, personally, allows some fools to "find purpose" in their faith while simultaneously illustrating that their lives actually have NO meaning: take away the delusion, they are without defenses. What they really fear is Truth.
Yes, but only in epistles by that Zealot convert, Saul/Paul, the original sinner. (He did not have a religious inspiration on the road to Damascus, but an entirely commercial one: with Jesus dead, he could invent the myth of resurrection; after all, it had worked for the founders of the Attis myth, the Osiris myth, and a dozen others.) And it must always be borne in mind that psychotherapists identify in the scant bit we know of the historical Paul read together with the gospels themselves, an author who is both a misogynist and a deeply closeted homosexual. Not to mention that, being Jewish, he had to have been influenced somewhat by the admonitions of the Torah. (But then, obviously, God was a homophobe and male chauvinist pig, and He has allowed misogynist homophobes to justify their fear, contempt, and other emotions down through the centuries.) Finally, the Holy Land was a seething sewer of religiousity and itinerant messianicism: why do you think the Book of Acts is so down on the figure of Simon Magus? Let me tell you something: I have read Simon Magus's holy book and he would never have stepped on women's rights or those of the sexual minorities. He was not the vain, evil person depicted in the "Good Book," but a mystic with a message more extraordinary than that of "Jesus." I am led to suspect that Simon was real, Christ a fiction. Simon would have posed a palpable threat to establishment of Christeranity, and for that reason he was dissed by the Tarsan.
The concept of a personal deity in the literal sense is very old indeed. The Hindu pantheon must be in the millions. Even in monotheism, we see angels and cherubim and such. These are the functional equivalent to personal gods, else why do people appeal to them as much if not more than to their deity?