In God's Image
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 01:57 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 01:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Rest assured that we understand that religious jerk offs re-define anything embarrassing into something that is not so embarrassing.

I mean if you're going to accuse the religious of redefining the meaning of image of God, perhaps you'd have to enlighten us on the original understanding?

Quote: I doubt that the fucking goat herders who invented this shit were capable of such nuanced thinking

Then perhaps you haven't spent enough time with goat herders.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 02:16 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 12:44 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I still reject this interpretation of being made in God's image for two reasons. First, the wording itself is clear, it says God's "image". It doesn't state he gave man his ability to reason,creativity, emotions, empathy, etc. In what context would you ever say "That child looks like his father, he clearly has the same sense of humor."

Noticed you choose the word look here as opposed to like his father. Where look tends to indicate a physical resemblance, and like often used to indicate similarities in character, like a child's humor, generosity, shyness, etc....

The english word image is just the chosen translation of the word tzelem in Hebrew, which tends to mean a shadow of, or a reflection of. Look wouldn't be an appropriate synonym. You can argue whether or not image is a good rendition of the Hebrew, but it hasn't really been a problem for the religious audience it's directed to, where regardless of reading, no one particularly imagines it to be a physical resemblance. You may be confused by that, most of readers are not.

Quote:The second reason is what I already stated before, other animals have shown great intelligence, empathy, problem solving skills, creativity, etc. If we are so special what did God give to us that is not shared with any other animals?

You mentioned self awareness, other animals are self aware including apes, monkeys, dolphins, etc. Just because humans have created a written language, built impressive structures, and made many technological and medical breakthroughs doesn't automatically mean a God had anything to do with it. A

I would argue that higher thought processes, higher creative capacities including morality, etc... are what makes us unique to other animals. Am I supposed to be bothered by the fact the others animals have such capacities as well, but to a lesser extent, because I'm not? Nor do I call writers of scripture commenting much on the supposed distinctions between man and others animals.

Quote:ll of our progress can also be attributed to evolution and it makes much more sense than just saying "God made us smarter than all the other animals, because he's smart." In reality it was through a combination of natural selection, adaptation, gradual change and lot's of time that Homo sapiens were able to develop brains capable of higher thought processes. There is no God needed to explain our unique nature compared to other animals.

This wouldn't be entirely accurate either. If natural selection, adaptation, etc.. didn't have a genetic code that when organized in certain way had the capacity to produce self-aware creatures, a means for the universe to know itself, a creature with considerable moral and creative capacities, that can recognize concepts like goodness, and pursue truth, than we'd be speaking of an entirely dead end, regardless of how much selection pressures you can throw at it.

We could have been looking at a situation in which at best all it could produce is a variety of different forms of bacteria evolved to withstand a variety of pressures from different ecological niches. But lucky for us this is not the case.

We could have also easily just have been zombies, or perhaps not exist at all. If we could rewind the clock once again, a creature like ourself might not be a inevitable outcome.

You can see it all as some sort of cosmic luck, not just in the circumstances that brought us about, but also in regards to the ingredients preordained before the formation of the world, or believe it was a purposeful outcome. But to each his own.

Yes I did use the word "look" on purpose, as in "image". Let me put it another way "That kid has the same image as his father, he has the same sense of humor." That sentence makes no sense. You do realize I've spoken to many Christians who believe that God does look like a man, it's not until I point out how impossible that is that they change their mind and start saying "Oh yeah, they meant it as like his intelligence and like his morality..or something." I get that most Bible scholars will say that's what it "meant" to say but if that's the case why doesn't it say that? I get that it was translated and a better word may be "shadow" but why doesn't it say shadow?

Fact is any historical scholar will show you a mountain of evidence that almost every God ever conceived had human traits and yes, even looked human so this God Yahweh is no different, just because we know it's nonsensical for a spirit being to look like a physical man whose body is made to work in a physical world to interact with it and eat food, breathe air, etc. they've had to change the interpretation of their own creation story, which makes it more true? I don't think so.

To say that our existence is improbable and could've easily not happened at all doesn't' prove creationism or a God that made us so intelligently and that's why our DNA is so complex and special. You clearly don't understand evolution, there is no need for a creator to explain life at all. If we were to take one aspect of a human and follow backward through time we can clearly see how it changed, adapted and finally got to it's current state and in fact we are still changing. If you want to learn more about how ridiculous the "irreducible complexity" argument is you should read this:
Irreducible Complexity

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 02:12 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  You do realize I've spoken to many Christians who believe that God does look like a man, it's not until I point out how impossible that is that they change their mind and start saying "Oh yeah, they meant it as like his intelligence and like his morality..or something." I get that most Bible scholars will say that's what it "meant" to say but if that's the case why doesn't it say that? I get that it was translated and a better word may be "shadow" but why doesn't it say shadow?

So you know Christians who believe that the “Image of God” means a physical resemblance to God? I mean I know christians who believe that men road on dinosaurs, and the earth is a few thousand years old, yet I don’t know a single one who believes the concept of the “image of God” in Genesis means a physical similarity

With a population of 2 billions, there possibly is some. But I don’t care what denominations you belong to, none of them are likely to hold that it means a physical resemblance. When evangelicals, fundies, catholics, mainline protestant, even Jews can agree on that much, it's likely to mean something.

There may be christians who hold to a view that God does have a physical form, perhaps even looks like a human being, but I doubt even they would say that when the writer of Genesis wrote man is made in the image of God, the writer was speaking of a physical resemblance.

You can look at the entire history of both judaism and christianity on the subject of the meaning of the image of God, the various commenters, and writers, scholars, and non-scholars, past and present, and find almost no support to your reading of it, as meaning a physical resemblance.

Quote:To say that our existence is improbable and could've easily not happened at all doesn't' prove creationism or a God that made us so intelligently and that's why our DNA is so complex and special. You clearly don't understand evolution, there is no need for a creator to explain life at all. If were to take one aspect of a human and follow backward through time we can clearly see how it changed, adapted and finally got to it's current state and in fact we are still changing. If you want to learn more about how ridiculous the "irreducible complexity" argument is you should read this:

I don’t believe in irreducible complexity when it comes to evolution, and in fact said almost nothing at all about evolution per se. But to something that preconfigured it, if the theory of evolution is the process that shaped the clay, I’m referring to remarkableness of the clay itself, it’s capacity to take on it’s forms.

We don’t even have to have an answer why our DNA is so complex and special, we can just acknowledge it is complex and special. That it just is. That the capacities within in to allow for such a multitude of forms, particularly in the form of man, a means for the universe to know itself, is breathtaking remarkable thing. It didn’t have to be this way, it just was that way. Don’t you agree, that’s a pretty astonishing thing?

That matter can organize itself in such a way to create creatures with moral and intellectual capacities, conscious and self-aware, to create novels, and music, and who seek truth, and goodness, is an astonishing thing?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: In God's Image
I always took the "in his image" thing to mean we're almost as juvenile, bloodthirsty, and jealous as he is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mr. Boston's post
29-03-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 02:12 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  You do realize I've spoken to many Christians who believe that God does look like a man, it's not until I point out how impossible that is that they change their mind and start saying "Oh yeah, they meant it as like his intelligence and like his morality..or something." I get that most Bible scholars will say that's what it "meant" to say but if that's the case why doesn't it say that? I get that it was translated and a better word may be "shadow" but why doesn't it say shadow?

So you know Christians who believe that the “Image of God” means a physical resemblance to God? I mean I know christians who believe that men road on dinosaurs, and the earth is a few thousand years old, yet I don’t know a single one who believes the concept of the “image of God” in Genesis means a physical similarity

With a population of 2 billions, there possibly is some. But I don’t care what denominations you belong to, none of them are likely to hold that it means a physical resemblance. When evangelicals, fundies, catholics, mainline protestant, even Jews can agree on that much, it's likely to mean something.

There may be christians who hold to a view that God does have a physical form, perhaps even looks like a human being, but I doubt even they would say that when the writer of Genesis wrote man is made in the image of God, the writer was speaking of a physical resemblance.

You can look at the entire history of both judaism and christianity on the subject of the meaning of the image of God, the various commenters, and writers, scholars, and non-scholars, past and present, and find almost no support to your reading of it, as meaning a physical resemblance.

Quote:To say that our existence is improbable and could've easily not happened at all doesn't' prove creationism or a God that made us so intelligently and that's why our DNA is so complex and special. You clearly don't understand evolution, there is no need for a creator to explain life at all. If were to take one aspect of a human and follow backward through time we can clearly see how it changed, adapted and finally got to it's current state and in fact we are still changing. If you want to learn more about how ridiculous the "irreducible complexity" argument is you should read this:

I don’t believe in irreducible complexity when it comes to evolution, and in fact said almost nothing at all about evolution per se. But to something that preconfigured it, if the theory of evolution is the process that shaped the clay, I’m referring to remarkableness of the clay itself, it’s capacity to take on it’s forms.

We don’t even have to have an answer why our DNA is so complex and special, we can just acknowledge it is complex and special. That it just is. That the capacities within in to allow for such a multitude of forms, particularly in the form of man, a means for the universe to know itself, is breathtaking remarkable thing. It didn’t have to be this way, it just was that way. Don’t you agree, that’s a pretty astonishing thing?

That matter can organize itself in such a way to create creatures with moral and intellectual capacities, conscious and self-aware, to create novels, and music, and who seek truth, and goodness, is an astonishing thing?

I'm not sure I would say that our existence is "astonishing" but it is wondrous. I will agree we don't need to understand it to know it's "special" but you said we could call it "cosmic luck" which isn't correct and you implied if we turned back time and tried it again we may have a different result but there's no reason to believe that to be true as long as nothing else changes we will always be the end result. Even though we humans are great in many ways our behaviors are very much that of a virus, we are currently destroying our planet and will continue do so as we progress and our population grows, why would God create an intelligent species capable of so much destruction? To the point where we may not even be able to survive much longer on the one planet he made for us? Being all knowing that wasn't a very smart move.

Our DNA may be complex but it's not perfect and it doesn't look to be intelligently designed, why are there so many diseases and disorders that are literally encoded into our cells? An intelligent designer who was trying to create a being that could understand him and the universe did a very bad job in that case. Yes we can write poetry and seek truth but we just as often war with each other and develop bigger, better weapons. It's all very convenient to focus on the nice stuff God may have given us if creationism is real but he also made us angry, petty and violent. Was that part of his "image" as well? I guess so, according to the Bible God has a very bad case of jealousy, wrath and blood lust.

I never said the Christians I spoke to who think God looks like a man or looked like Adam were scholars or particularly intelligent, these are the same ones who say "If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?" I had a co-worker who was Mormon and they believe God was once a man, a mortal man who became a God so there are some theists who interpret the Bible so literally that the "image" is literal to them, it's not just a metaphor for morality and even if it was it would disprove the idea that only a Christian can be truly moral. If it's already encoded into to us from our origins when God made man it shouldn't matter what anyone believes, we would just be moral.

There is a scientific and evolutionary basis for morality as well, for basic survival we would need to work together and care about the well being of others or we would die out but there are many other reasons that can be explained in a way that requires no God or divine influence so even that interpretation is still false.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
29-03-2016, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2016 09:13 AM by Commonsensei.)
RE: In God's Image
Welcome to the world of apologetics SitaSky.

In this wonderful world words have no meaning. Except when then do. But most of the time they don't. The bible says six days. Not really, because they meant 10 billions years. Did they say clay because they meant DNA. But you should know that.

The bible was written by GOD! Well ok, god didn't hold the pen to paper, or chisel to clay but he had some close buddies write it for him. He trusted them enough that he didn't have to proof read it. I mean after all he's God. If he screwed up he could just blame it on someone or something else, right?

So God had his buddies write the gospels bible. OK maybe not his buddies but people that heard story's from his buddies. ok not really from his buddies but people that sorta kind knew his buddies maybe. But You know god and stuff.

God can be whatever the story...i mean what ever HE wants to be because he's God. Are you keeping up?

So god can be a bush, he can be a soft breeze. He can even be a man. Like Jesus if he really wanted to. Like that time he wrestled Jacob, or walked with Abraham. Oh did I say walk? I meant floated. Because again words don't have any meaning.

Everything in the bible is a metaphor. Except for when it's true. Which the bible is 100% true. Unless it's something that the pope or profets, or the leaders don't agree with then it's not true.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Commonsensei's post
29-03-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 08:25 AM)DerFish Wrote:  Anyone can post any shit they wish to on Wikipedia.

They got me quick when I tried to add Edward Gordon aka Ego® to the list of people who claimed they were God. Their reason for deletion - insufficient documentation

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-03-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 03:31 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Welcome to the world of apologetics SitaSky.

In this wonderful world words have no meaning. Except when then do. But most of the time they don't. The bible says six days. Not really, because they meant 10 billions years. Did they say clam because they meant DNA. But you should know that.

The bible was written by GOD! Well ok, god didn't hold the pen to paper, or chisle to clay but he he had some close buddies write it for him. He trusted them enough that he didn't have to proof read it. I mean after all he's God. If he screwed up he could just blame it on someone or something else, right?

So God had his buddies write the gospels bible. OK maybe not his buddies but people that heard story's from his buddies. ok not really from his buddies but people that sorta kind knew his buddies maybe. But You know god and stuff.

God can be whatever the story...i mean what ever HE wants to be because he's God. Are you keeping up?

So god can be a bush, he can be soft breeze. He can even be a man. Like Jesus if he really wanted to. Like that time he wrestled Jacob, or walked with Abraham. Oh did I say walk? I meant floated. Because again words don't have any meaning.

Everything in the bible is a metaphor. Except for when it's true. Which the bible is 100% true. Unless it's something that the pope or profets, or the leaders don't agree with then it's not true.

You're right, I always end up in these sorts of debates where the interpretation of the Bible is so key to the Christian's argument but it can be twisted and interpreted in so many ways what's even the point anymore? If the Bible never existed what would be the evidence for creationism? There wouldn't be any without this stupid old book and confirmation bias.

I wonder what would happen if every denomination of Christianity edited the Bible and re-wrote it to fit what we currently know scientifically and morally, we would have a lot of wildly different bibles. It's too bad they all have to try to use the same one to fit their specialized version of nonsense.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
29-03-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: In God's Image
In The Beginning, God was Faxing his butt to Satan. Unfortunately, he mistyped the area code for Hell and sent the image to Earth instead.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
29-03-2016, 05:11 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 01:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 01:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Rest assured that we understand that religious jerk offs re-define anything embarrassing into something that is not so embarrassing.

I mean if you're going to accuse the religious of redefining the meaning of image of God, perhaps you'd have to enlighten us on the original understanding?

Quote: I doubt that the fucking goat herders who invented this shit were capable of such nuanced thinking

Then perhaps you haven't spent enough time with goat herders.

[Image: 57e3715d1b442c34fd056605d1aac4a0.jpg]


And still, I prefer goat herders to you.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: