[Serious] Christians what would change your mind?

[Tulayhah-Asadi]

One of the crucial differences between my religion (Islam) and Christianity is that the former expresses itself audibly, through the recitation of the Quran and the pronouncing of the Adhan, while the latter expresses itself visually, through paintings, sculptures, stained glass, etc (though Christianity is also audible in its music and chants). Since Islam is highly iconoclastic, it has forbidden those fine arts to close the door to even the possibility of idolatry and visually depicting the Divine.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Yes, though there seems to be some 'Wiggle room' with the pious Arabs using 'Sacred geometry' in the artifice-es (Is that a correct word?) of their buildings.

Cheers.

[GrandizerII]

This painting shows what exactly?

It shows what all paintings in churches show: gods and how Christians perceive them (as sky pixies). You don't think they show Chuck E cheese founder Nolan Bushnell?

No Christian I know of believes God is a wish granting genie. When Christians pray, there is this acknowledgement that everything is at the end of the day according to God's will not to one's own wishes. That's first.

Second, speaking of Catholicism, have you read the Catechism? It's pretty clear there that God is not some limited physical being that is as illustrated in these paintings. Paintings illustrate but do not necessarily show what Catholic Church actually believe.

[Anomalocaris]

It shows what all paintings in churches show: gods and how Christians perceive them (as sky pixies). You don't think they show Chuck E cheese founder Nolan Bushnell?

No Christian I know of believes God is a wish granting genie. When Christians pray, there is this acknowledgement that everything is at the end of the day according to God's will not to one's own wishes. That's first.

Second, speaking of Catholicism, have you read the Catechism? It's pretty clear there that God is not some limited physical being that is as illustrated in these paintings. Paintings illustrate but do not necessarily show what Catholic Church actually believe.

Perhaps relatively few Christians would admit to regarding the primary virtue of the Christian god to be that of a personal wish granting genie.    But had the god they professed to believe In not been said to grant wishes liberally, most Christians would have no use for that god or Christianity.

In their view Professing to believe their god is not a wish granting genie, perhaps even go through the mental contortion to make such profession something of a Genuine intellectual dissonance rather than just an proforma  statement constructed with no regard to its perceived truth value, is just a hoop they have to jump through to make their genie grant wishes.

[Belacqua]

Paintings illustrate but do not necessarily show what Catholic Church actually believe.

There's so much work that has gone into this! The relationship of what can be shown to what is beyond human understanding has a long and fascinating history, and in its way is integral to the development of theology.

The biggest fights took place in the Byzantine world, when iconoclasts and iconodules worked out with involved philosophical arguments what exactly is present in a picture. The iconoclasts were very cognizant of the stricter Muslim ban on images to their immediate east, and took those arguments seriously. 

But in the Western church, also, there was debate and controversy. Catholics, for example, settled on symbolic representations of unknowable levels, but Protestants removed this possibility. That's why Michelangelo could paint God the Father but Rembrandt couldn't -- Rembrandt could only show those things which had manifested themselves to human eyes. 

One of the most interesting movements was the devotio moderna of the 15th century, which enabled van Eyck and others to represent Bible scenes in familiar Flemish surroundings. 

Claiming those paintings as evidence that all Christians believe in magic sky fairy is just stupid, and the kind of bigotry we've come to expect from certain closed-minded atheists. Seeing them read the minds of vast numbers of Christians, living and dead, to declare that Christians don't really believe what they say they believe is about as assholey a thing as can be imagined.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one needs to read christian minds to know what they believe, they're mouthy.

[Fake Messiah]

 Claiming those paintings as evidence that all Christians believe in magic sky fairy is just stupid, and the kind of bigotry we've come to expect from certain closed-minded atheists.

I'm not claiming all Christians but majority and it's not just paintings that show this, it's also places like Lourdes where catholics bathe in magic water for god to grand them wishes - like God is a wishing well.
 
Like, look at the guy at 1 min : 11 sec who is trying to heal his baldness with magical water. And where could he and the rest of Catholics possibly get this idea?
 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What evidence would convince you that th bible is false?

What exactly do you require and on what area?

I was a working historian for years. The Bible fails historiography utterly. Add in that it's about magic men (and one very victimized woman) and there's not much left to believe.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Paintings illustrate but do not necessarily show what Catholic Church actually believe.

There's so much work that has gone into this! The relationship of what can be shown to what is beyond human understanding has a long and fascinating history, and in its way is integral to the development of theology.

The biggest fights took place in the Byzantine world, when iconoclasts and iconodules worked out with involved philosophical arguments what exactly is present in a picture. The iconoclasts were very cognizant of the stricter Muslim ban on images to their immediate east, and took those arguments seriously. 

But in the Western church, also, there was debate and controversy. Catholics, for example, settled on symbolic representations of unknowable levels, but Protestants removed this possibility. That's why Michelangelo could paint God the Father but Rembrandt couldn't -- Rembrandt could only show those things which had manifested themselves to human eyes. 

One of the most interesting movements was the devotio moderna of the 15th century, which enabled van Eyck and others to represent Bible scenes in familiar Flemish surroundings. 

Claiming those paintings as evidence that all Christians believe in magic sky fairy is just stupid, and the kind of bigotry we've come to expect from certain closed-minded atheists. Seeing them read the minds of vast numbers of Christians, living and dead, to declare that Christians don't really believe what they say they believe is about as assholey a thing as can be imagined.

The point is that ‘vast numbers of Christians’ DO believe in the magic sky fairy. This explains the popularity of intercessory prayer. It doesn’t make much of a difference if they’re praying to win the lotto or for famine relief in Africa or for great Uncle Frim’s piles to get better - they’re seeking to have a wish granted (see Bierce). 

To take the position that because Aquinas, Augustine et al didn’t necessarily subscribe to the idea of a wish-fulfilling magician means that the overwhelming majority of rank and file Christians also don’t is to ignore the facts.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Even if we were to remove any and all notions of god granting everyday prayers, it would remain a fact that christianity is a fundamentally intercessory religion. It's not as though aquinas or augustine didn't hope to have at least one wish granted - the wish of eternal life.