So wouldn’t it be hubris to assume that the Creator bases his day on our puny planet that hasn’t been yet created?
How do you know how long His “day” lasts? Perhaps his day is measured in billions of years?
How do you know how the Creator created Earth? Perhaps for him it was an instant and for us puny mortals it was measured in millions of years?
Perhaps it involved plasma cooling off, protons, neutrons and electrons forming, followed by hydrogen, helium and so on in the span of one of his “days”?
I cannot even describe how ironic is quoting Machiavelli in a thread such as this
Just when I thought the level of conversation couldn’t sink any lower. Let’s literally believe in the “word of god” but leave it blind faith which words are really god’s? Why then the First counsel of Nicea? How does one choose among murderous rampaging dieties? I guess it comes down to blind faith in whatever description of god (that humans wrote down long ago) you wish to have blind faith in. It’s not even a conversation rational people should be having.
“Machiavelli explains repeatedly that religion is man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it. In The Prince, the Discourses, and in the Life of Castruccio Castracani, he describes “prophets”, as he calls them, like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great, and Theseus (he treated pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people. He estimated that these sects last from 1,666 to 3,000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.[30] Machiavelli’s concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.”
They’re not. Unfortunately, the dominant Christian narrative in the US (ie, the one portrayed in the media) is of the conservative, fundamentalist, anti-science, ‘finger-wagging scolding father’ ilk. There are a great many of us who do not identify at all with that conception of Christianity.
My son used to have a t-shirt that spoke to this issue. On the front was printed Jesus has been kidnapped by right-wing conservatives. On the back was Be a part of the rescue mission.
I had the same thought. OP, you might want to look into Machiavelli a little deeper before quoting him.
Edit: I see @loppar has started that process for you.
But wait a minute… According to what I quoted, Machiavelli isn’t an atheist. He regards fortune to be a female entity…
Plus, perhaps even though he considers religion to be man-made, he still believes in the existence of God. Religion and God aren’t always synonymous after all.
He was describing fortune as in opportunity. That particular section of the prince was regarding the ability of a prince to capitalize on an opportunity when presented, in many cases as a result of being willing to do what other princes wouldn’t.
The Prince is a great read, but should be read in whole, and with the understanding that many consider it satire.
While we’re discussing western philosophers with anti-Christian leanings, Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ” is incredibly hard hitting. I realize people have strong feelings either way about Nietzsche, but this piece in particular is incredibly easy to digest and very focused. Worth the read.
“We will always have questions, but in the two foundational statements of faith – the Apostles’ Creed used at baptism, and the Nicene Creed used at communion – we join Christians throughout the ages in affirming our faith in the one God who created us, redeemed us, and sanctifies us.” [emphasis mine]