10 Aug 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI will do my best...to convey what i mean by His Image
Surely image is an external thing rather than internal thing?
Putting that aside for a moment, it still shouldn't stop you answering the second part of my post. Afterall early man would have had an internal side too. Of course knowing exactly what the internal side of earlyman was like is almost impossible to find out. However in principle we could agree or disagree.
The image is a conception of a person, that is formed and retained in the unconscious and influences behaviour. In his image in his likeness......is a formattion in our unconscious which
will influence our behaviour. God wants us to be Loving and Good, when we are, we are in his image. in his likeness,and there is no difference between anyman
with Love and Compassion in our hearts we do goodness.....which is in His image...
whether you "believe " in God or spirituality or you dont
the omnipotent feeling inside......is love.....to some it is God
gil
12 Aug 05
Originally posted by gentlegilTwo points spring to mind
God wants us to be Loving and Good, when we are, we are in his image. in his likeness,and there is no difference between anyman
When god destroyed the world through the flood, when he sent a the plagues to the egyptions so that people starved, when he turned the cities of sodom & gomorrah to ash, and confused the people of Babel and forced them to the four corners of the earth.
All these are, basically acts of Evil and also part of gods image. Therefore dictators such as Hitler or Stalin doing similiar things, would they not also be in his likeness ?
Then going back to the neandertals, would they not be closer to this likeness of god (both good & bad)? Consider they would be blissful unaware of any of todays modern thinking, unfluenced by the 5000 + years of human tradition & religion. Living on planet earth perhaps as god had originally intended, gathering, hunting & mating.
14 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI was only responding with one concept of being created in God's Image.....if God is good, then we were created as so.....as to the stories you mentioned....
Two points spring to mind
When god destroyed the world through the flood, when he sent a the plagues to the egyptions so that people starved, when he turned the cities of sodom & gomorrah to ash, and confused the people of Babel and forced them to the four corners of the earth.
If one doesnt believe in God....then those stories....obvously dont mean anything, for there isnt a God to perform these acts......and if one does believe in God.... God is Good.... those acts couldnt have be performed by God......
gil
14 Aug 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI guess I can not disect the difference between image and likeness. Maybe they mean two different things (probably), but I don't think either one refers to physical or visual attributes.
All very well but the actual text from the bible mentions image & likeness.
[b]Genesis 26:- And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness
I'm prepared to agree with you that the essence of gods character is also part of the description, because it mentions likeness. However image is a word used mostly for describing the w ...[text shortened]... gain this bring us back to the neandertals being a truer representation of god question ?
[/b]
Perhaps (pure speculation), the 'image' referred to was an image that was only to that point imagined in the mind of God. Like; "I have an idea of what man and woman should be like. I think I'll make them in that image!"
Genetic variation is a far cry from evolutionary development. That process demands new information to be added into the system in order for new creatures to be formed. Whereas all of the variations possible within each kind at creation, were possible from the start. All of the information for shades of skin color, for example, were there in Adam and Eve. In fact, we have no idea what color, or colors, they were. All of the skin colors known today could have been found within the first few generations.
But no matter how wide the variations become within the human race, I think that the very first and the very last can equally represent God's image. The divergence from His likeness is really only manifest by expression of our wills. We choose to be 'like' Him or not.
14 Aug 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI beg to differ.
Two points spring to mind
When god destroyed the world through the flood, when he sent a the plagues to the egyptions so that people starved, when he turned the cities of sodom & gomorrah to ash, and confused the people of Babel and forced them to the four corners of the earth.
All these are, basically acts of Evil and also part of gods image. The ...[text shortened]... on. Living on planet earth perhaps as god had originally intended, gathering, hunting & mating.
If you want to compare and contrast God and Hitler, you should at least expound a little on how your examples actually relate.
God judged and punished; Hitler hated and murdered.
God warned Pharoah what would happen if he did not let His people go. Pharoah then, in effect, brought on the plagues by not complying.
14 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58Punishing babies for the acts of a national leader is pretty damn ungodly.
I beg to differ.
If you want to compare and contrast God and Hitler, you should at least expound a little on how your examples actually relate.
God judged and punished; Hitler hated and murdered.
God warned Pharoah what would happen if he did not let His people go. Pharoah then, in effect, brought on the plagues by not complying.
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompIf a baby dies in his innocence (before the age of accountability), and goes directly to heaven, how is that punishing the baby? It is indeed the parents who suffer.
Punishing babies for the acts of a national leader is pretty damn ungodly.
15 Aug 05
If god created man in his own image then we must assume that God has reproductive organs,an anus,and a navel(as dipicted by Michealangelo).There are obvious paradoxes here,are we to belive that God has sexual relations in the conventional sense?Did he do the buisness with Mary Magdolin?Does he need to eat and drink,is it an option or a neccesity?What doe he wipe his bum with?Does he use a bidet.And who is Gods Daddy.
15 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58And the months of agony & pain that that child endures whilst it slowly starves to death ?
If a baby dies in his innocence (before the age of accountability), and goes directly to heaven, how is that punishing the baby? It is indeed the parents who suffer.
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaIt is the guilt of this kind of horror that followed from man's decision to do things his own way. As a people, we continue to disregard the instructions of our designer. All kinds of evil are then perpetrated among us. And it was the weight of this guilt that Jesus carried to the cross. He suffered the punishment we each deserve. And we can each receive the forgiveness that only He is qualified to offer.
And the months of agony & pain that that child endures whilst it slowly starves to death ?
By His grace, when we arrive in heaven after whatever pain and agony we endure here, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."Revelation 21:4
16 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58I disagree, God inflicted it on the egyptians, don't forget that his own people were also being held in that country and presumable would have suffered the same fate. Not to mention the fact that being the supreme being he could have used any number of other solutions to resolve this issue. For example, he could have just had the pharoh killed, and had a more reasonable person take his place. Or he could have appeared before the pharoh, disguised as one of the egyptian gods and persuaded him to follow the new christian god. But no he had to resort to an evil act that caused wide spread suffering to many innocent parties for several years.
It is the guilt of this kind of horror that followed from man's decision to do things his own way. As a people, we continue to disregard the instructions of our designer. All kinds of evil are then perpetrated among us. And it was th ...[text shortened]... for the old order of things has passed away."Revelation 21:4
Why would a God who is supposed to be wholy "good" choose an act that is blatenly a great evil, when perhaps a simpler choice of a lesser evil (such as killing the pharoh) or some other completely good solution, could be made ?
I think that there can be only one answer. His act of choosing a great evil over some other solution indicates that evil is also part of his nature, likeness & image.
16 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhatever you do, don't listen to this heretic! He's trying warp your fragile little minds!
Some people relate the image of god to the golden section. This sacred geometry is expressed in many temples, paintings and so on. The image of god can of course be found in nature too--the idea of god in human form is primitive.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI disagree, God inflicted it on the egyptians, don't forget that his own people were also being held in that country and presumable would have suffered the same fate.
I disagree, God inflicted it on the egyptians, don't forget that his own people were also being held in that country and presumable would have suffered the same fate. Not to mention the fact that being the supreme being he could have used any number of other solutions to resolve this issue. For example, he could have just had the pharoh killed, and had a ...[text shortened]... evil over some other solution indicates that evil is also part of his nature, likeness & image.
I'd say you should read the story a little closer Jay. The Israelites lived in their own section of the territory. The land of Goshen. And they were entirely separated from the plagues, miraculously, as well.
Not to mention the fact that being the supreme being he could have used any number of other solutions to resolve this issue. For example, he could have just had the pharoh killed, and had a more reasonable person take his place. Or he could have appeared before the pharoh, disguised as one of the egyptian gods and persuaded him to follow the new christian god. But no he had to resort to an evil act that caused wide spread suffering to many innocent parties for several years.
I think the real lesson to be learned here, about God, is that He absolutely honors free will. If He started manipulating every one as if they were puppets, we would have actual grievances to bring to the table. Pharoah could say, "I'm supposed to be free to choose to oppress slaves, but you killed me", or "you tricked me by that silly disguise! Not fair!"
Instead, God sent a simple man with a simple message. Pharoah could have simply honored that righteous request (it was not acceptable for him to enslave an entire people was it?). Choosing to do wrong leads to bad consequences. When leaders of nations choose to do wrong, the bad consequences are largely born by those under him.
I think that there can be only one answer. His act of choosing a great evil over some other solution indicates that evil is also part of his nature, likeness & image. [/b]
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompBy the way FS,
Punishing babies for the acts of a national leader is pretty damn ungodly.
What point is there in having a 'national leader' if nothing he does matters? If God were to step in every time a harm would follow the leader's decision, his position would be pointless.
Most of the Kings of Israel were evil men, and when they mislead the country it suffered badly as well.