My headcanon is that the Old Testament was a god specifically of the Jews and some upstart god took over (possibly after murdering him) in the New Testament days and then proceeded to spread his influence to non-jewish people while aggressively eliminating any opposition. Wherease in the old days people believed in various gods, this one started of campaign of montheism, depriving the rest of them of faith and eliminating them one by one. Nowadays he's kicking and screaming because the rise of atheism in many parts of the world which used to be his strongold is depriving him of energy and thus he finally faces annihilation.
You don't need to use the term loosely. All Christians are in the same boat. Some might be on one side of the boat or another. The people at the bow may hate the people at the stern, and they might tell you that they are on your side. But while they might be closer to you than the stern, they're still in their boat and you're not.
It's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and a lot of people make it in order to defend the part of the religious group they like. If you worship Christ, you're a Christian. That's what the word means. It doesn't matter if the Christ you worship has no resemblance to the Christ in the Bible since both of them are fictions even if there was a "real" Jesus in the first century.
I don't even understand it. If you believe there are good Christians, just call them good Christians and the others bad Christians.
There's plenty of Cafeteria Catholics and Unitarians and Lutherans the like who are just in the religious game for the social community. The scriptures and rituals are merely pastiche around a generic call to do "good", with that goodness boiling down to basic compassion and charity and good humor.
they’re still in their boat and you’re not
This is a New Atheist style pitch. But when you get down to where a guy like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris stands on public policy, they all to often fall into the same camp as the Bush Era conservative reactionaries of the late 20th and early 21st century.
I'm sorry, but I'll take a Liberation Theologist over an Objectivist any day. If one's opinions are touched by a bit of magical realism, at least their heart is in the right place. The folks who use godlessness as an excuse to feed their neighbors into a meat grinder are only ever in my boat when they're trying to loot it and throw me overboard.
I like hi ow they know where the wheel was invented when nobody really does. And it was probably invented multiple times independently of each other. But nobody knows since it was so long ago.
It was. There's at least some evidence that the Inca invented the wheel independently, but its application was largely limited to children's toys IIRC.
Wheels are generally only an improvement over carrying stuff (including with pack animals) when you need to move across fairly flat and solid surfaces. The mountains of Peru, being extremely not flat, turned out to be a poor environment for early wheels (slight error here, see FlyingSquid below)
Same reason West Africa adopted and then abandoned the wheel. Turns out that in a lot of the environments there, camels did the job better once we figured out how to domesticate them
To say that it was invented in such place and time only means that we have evidence that a wheel was invented in that place and time. It doesn't mean that it wasn't invented elsewhere independently.
Depends on your definition of "wheel". For example, any ancient perfectly round pottery was made using a pottery wheel (primitive or not). Otherwise, how would you do it?
That's how we know the ancient Sumerians were using pottery wheels as early as 3250 BCE (because we found perfectly round pottery that's that old):