31 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718Importance is a relative thing. Those people are important to whom? Solomon may be more important than me to most people, but there is a small number for whom the opposite is true. And that is enough for me.
Confucus, Mohammed, Moses, Solomon. Despite there accomplishments, they were just people, just like us. Maybe in the universal sceme of things, we are just as imporntant as they are.
😏
Everybody is important to someone.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718You're right they were just people. Jesus however was different. He wasn't just a person, he was also God.
Confucus, Mohammed, Moses, Solomon. Despite there accomplishments, they were just people, just like us. Maybe in the universal sceme of things, we are just as imporntant as they are.
😏
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by rwingettAnd for that reason, one can probably argue that relative to 'the universal scheme of things' the word holds no meaning. ie we are not 'equally important' we simply cannot be measure on the 'importance scale' without a given reference.
Importance is a relative thing.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf God were to become a man or woman, which man or woman in human history do you think acted the closest to how we might expect God to act ?
Uh, no, I'm pretty sure that he was just a person too.
A serious response please. No jokes.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywill"IF" is the operative word in that sentence. Even if Jesus were the most perfect human, he was still just a human. I don't think the first christians thought he was 'divine' either. I think that was a later fabrication.
If God were to become a man or woman, which man or woman in human history do you think acted the closest to how we might expect God to act ?
A serious response please. No jokes.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't believe there is a 'universal scheme of things.' There are billions of individual schemes, all interacting with each other.
And for that reason, one can probably argue that relative to 'the universal scheme of things' the word holds no meaning. ie we are not 'equally important' we simply cannot be measure on the 'importance scale' without a given reference.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by rwingettI think we are in agreement. My point was that unless one of those individual schemes is specified then our importance cannot be measured.
I don't believe there is a 'universal scheme of things.' There are billions of individual schemes, all interacting with each other.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillI seriously don't know of anyone. But then again, I don't know enough about your definition of God, to make a good guess anyway.
If God were to become a man or woman, which man or woman in human history do you think acted the closest to how we might expect God to act ?
A serious response please. No jokes.
There are a number of people I greatly respect including Ghandi, Mandela, and even the fictional Jesus, but they all had failings too which I would not expect from God unless that was part of his plan in which case just about anyone would fit the bill.
When it comes to 'messengers of God' I think Mohamed is a far better fit. He gave a complete written dictation from God, which is generally far more internally consistent that the Bible, and is much clearer about things such as how to live and govern.