30 Oct '08 22:44>
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.
😏
😏
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.
😏
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.
😏
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.