Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[Arx]

Th4DwArfy1:

Why does the interconnection of evolution rule out man being in the image of God? As far as I can tell, it's like saying that we contain proteins and pigs contain proteins, therefore we're not in the image of God.

[TD1]

If everything is interconnected then there's an origin somewhere. This origin would be what Christians would say God made. Were this to be made in the image of God, then every animal would also be made in the image of God. It either means nothing is in the image of God, or everything is.

[TheDarkStar]

If everything is interconnected then there's an origin somewhere. This origin would be what Christians would say God made. Were this to be made in the image of God, then every animal would also be made in the image of God. It either means nothing is in the image of God, or everything is.

The origin is not made in the image of God. We, specifically, are in His image (look like Him, etc). Pigs, while His creations, were simply made in a relatively similar way.

[TD1]

So you're saying that only humans as they are right now are in the image of God? At no point in the past were we in the image of God? Because if you go back to the last branch in the evolutionary tree, you have a fork, one side us, the other a different species, and the original branch before the split. Is the original branch not in the image of God? Why wouldn't the other side of the fork also be in the image of God?

If you avoid this by saying that we are only in his image at this moment in the evolutionary timeline, then what about in the future? And why, precisely, are our fore bearers not also in his image?

[MrWiggles]

Why doesn't religion ever bring humanity forward?

Why can't religion, generally, a profession of truth, ever invent the car, or find reliable means to cure the sick?

What good is there being a God, if it just means hovel in mud is good enough?

[TheDarkStar]

So you're saying that only humans as they are right now are in the image of God? At no point in the past were we in the image of God? Because if you go back to the last branch in the evolutionary tree, you have a fork, one side us, the other a different species, and the original branch before the split. Is the original branch not in the image of God? Why wouldn't the other side of the fork also be in the image of God?

If you avoid this by saying that we are only in his image at this moment in the evolutionary timeline, then what about in the future? And why, precisely, are our fore bearers not also in his image?

We don't know exactly where the dividing line is between "in His image" and "not in His image". Now, a question for you: When did pre-human primates become human? Why are all of our distant ancestors not human, too?

[Orange Wizard]

Why can't we just say that God controls biology and therefore anything produced by biological processes was made by God?

...

Why doesn't religion ever bring humanity forward?
Why can't religion, generally, a profession of truth, ever invent the car, or find reliable means to cure the sick?
What good is there being a God, if it just means hovel in mud is good enough?

This isn't really appropriate for the purposes of this thread.

[MrWiggles]

Why can't we just say that God controls biology and therefore anything produced by biological processes was made by God?

...

Why doesn't religion ever bring humanity forward?
Why can't religion, generally, a profession of truth, ever invent the car, or find reliable means to cure the sick?
What good is there being a God, if it just means hovel in mud is good enough?

This isn't really appropriate for the purposes of this thread.

How is it not? Its a question of purpose and function. What does it matter of religion, if what makes humanity, better and strives for the better isn't religion? Look at all dat, metalurgy that religion didnt have anything to do with it. What about that internet, that religion didnt do anything with. Where is it in any religious text if P equals nP?

These great texts, these great tomes of truth of what value?

Oh, great, some lady got turned into a pillar of salt. That'll solve the problem of how to preserve meat for the winter.

What about morality then?

Oh yea, well.. yea morality from ancient text, is kinda of horrible isnt?

[Frumple]

This isn't really appropriate for the purposes of this thread.

That.

Though, uh. That said, religious institutions or ones related to or supported by religious institutions, actually have been the vehicle for a great deal of technological and methodological advancement over the centuries. Islam in particular is known for its advancements in mathematics and medicine some few hundred years back, iirc, and it was the religiously trained that kept quite a bit of european knowledge transmitting and advancing during great swaths of history. Church hasn't been doing much directly nowadays (barring a great deal of religion-backed investment into medicine, anyway. Well, and all the church-going scientists/engineers/etc., of which there are many.), but that's quite untrue for most of written history.

Credit where credit is due, for all that religious institutions have had their conflicts with scientific advancement, they've also had a great deal of interrelation and cooperation. It's incredibly far from a simple picture when it comes to that sort of thing.

[TD1]

Why can't we just say that God controls biology and therefore anything produced by biological processes was made by God?

You can. But this isn't about whether everything was made by God (though I'm sure you can guess what I believe on that subject, ) it's about whether we/animals are made in his image.

So you're saying that only humans as they are right now are in the image of God? At no point in the past were we in the image of God? Because if you go back to the last branch in the evolutionary tree, you have a fork, one side us, the other a different species, and the original branch before the split. Is the original branch not in the image of God? Why wouldn't the other side of the fork also be in the image of God?

If you avoid this by saying that we are only in his image at this moment in the evolutionary timeline, then what about in the future? And why, precisely, are our fore bearers not also in his image?

We don't know exactly where the dividing line is between "in His image" and "not in His image". Now, a question for you: When did pre-human primates become human? Why are all of our distant ancestors not human, too?

Because they're different from what we see ourselves as at the moment. They're the origin for us that, through time, had the rough edges worn a bit. Not all of them are by any means worn off yet though.

My question remains. Why aren't our fore bearers in God's image too? If he didn't create us in his image, then we weren't made in his image. If we're in his image only now, then the next change is going to make us no longer be in his image. If evolution is the tool God used to shape us into his image, it's an unpredictable one. Human evolution hasn't stopped, it's still on-going. Why is God now changing us away from his Image? Has his image changed? Is God then subjective?

Besides that, what in blazes does it mean that we're in the image of the metaphysical? Is God humanoid in form? How can the metaphysical look like the physical?

A lot of things can be read into the smallest detail, can't they

[Helgoland]

Why doesn't religion ever bring humanity forward?

Why can't religion, generally, a profession of truth, ever invent the car, or find reliable means to cure the sick?

What good is there being a God, if it just means hovel in mud is good enough?

What use is art?

[Bohandas]

If everything is interconnected then there's an origin somewhere. This origin would be what Christians would say God made. Were this to be made in the image of God, then every animal would also be made in the image of God. It either means nothing is in the image of God, or everything is.

Maybe God's a giant ameoba

[TheDarkStar]

Why can't we just say that God controls biology and therefore anything produced by biological processes was made by God?

You can. But this isn't about whether everything was made by God (though I'm sure you can guess what I believe on that subject, ) it's about whether we/animals are made in his image.

So you're saying that only humans as they are right now are in the image of God? At no point in the past were we in the image of God? Because if you go back to the last branch in the evolutionary tree, you have a fork, one side us, the other a different species, and the original branch before the split. Is the original branch not in the image of God? Why wouldn't the other side of the fork also be in the image of God?

If you avoid this by saying that we are only in his image at this moment in the evolutionary timeline, then what about in the future? And why, precisely, are our fore bearers not also in his image?

We don't know exactly where the dividing line is between "in His image" and "not in His image". Now, a question for you: When did pre-human primates become human? Why are all of our distant ancestors not human, too?

Because they're different from what we see ourselves as at the moment. They're the origin for us that, through time, had the rough edges worn a bit. Not all of them are by any means worn off yet though.

My question remains. Why aren't our fore bearers in God's image too? If he didn't create us in his image, then we weren't made in his image. If we're in his image only now, then the next change is going to make us no longer be in his image. If evolution is the tool God used to shape us into his image, it's an unpredictable one. Human evolution hasn't stopped, it's still on-going. Why is God now changing us away from his Image? Has his image changed? Is God then subjective?

Besides that, what in blazes does it mean that we're in the image of the metaphysical? Is God humanoid in form? How can the metaphysical look like the physical?

A lot of things can be read into the smallest detail, can't they

Things might make more sense if I clarify that my religion believes that God has a physical body.

[TD1]

If everything is interconnected then there's an origin somewhere. This origin would be what Christians would say God made. Were this to be made in the image of God, then every animal would also be made in the image of God. It either means nothing is in the image of God, or everything is.

Maybe God's a giant ameoba

As likely as anything else.

There are so many different definitions of God that he "dies the death of a thousand definitions."

Can't even remember who said that. Mackie? Hrm, don't think so. Still, someone scholarly said it.

Things might make more sense if I clarify that my religion believes that God has a physical body.

Same answer as I gave above, I suppose. Though I would point out that if God has a physical body, then he isn't really omnipotent. He is constrained. He can't, for instance, literally tap everyone physically on the shoulder if he only has the one localised body himself.

[TheDarkStar]

Tapping people on the shoulder: Cause a force to affect every person's shoulder.