Away from chummy optics, another thing I perhaps can’t catch on is the difference mentioned below (to me your idea and ideal of what sth should be aren’t poles apart…):
“These two are both the same quote, with one letter missing in the first one. It’s interesting what a difference that one letter can make.
Man is a dog’s idea of what God should be. Holbrook Jackson
Man is a dog’s ideal of what God should be. Holbrook Jackson”
Wow, a theological question! But seriously, I agree that if you think God must be perfect and loving, then the idea of God (what I think God is) would closely approximate the ideal of God. (what a perfect God would be like).
So to the two quotes, in the first the dog would say, “This man feeds me, walks me, takes me to the vet; this man must be God”
Then in the second, “This man feeds me, walks me, takes me to the vet; I love this man so much and can’t imagine a more perfect being, this man is my ideal of what a perfect God should be.”
Keep in mind that this is only my personal opinion, I am sure some could argue that the quotes are almost identical.
Sounds like of the two, the second dog has broader experience of hanging out with different gods to be able to compare. More sophisticated perhaps.