Religion vs. Evolution

[Toxick]

I guess that means that women were not created in the image of God?

I find this entire line of conversation to be stupid fluff, and I'm not a Literalist when it comes to the Creation....

However, if I were a literalist: the bible does not say woman was created in the image of God. Adam was created in the image of God, and Eve was carved from a his rib.


Sans pee-pee.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It's just kind of funny that you assume God must have a penis in order to maintain you ideas about scripture. It seems like you've created God in your image (assuming you have a penis). I guess that means that women were not created in the image of God?

Women was created by God from man and not in the image of God. Remember, I believe the Bible in all respects.

Genesis 2:18-25

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

23The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

I find it humorous that you ask such things when they are plain to read straight from the Bible.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I find this entire line of conversation to be stupid fluff, and I'm not a Literalist when it comes to the Creation....
...

I think I said something similar.

...
But what differences does that make? None. It is irrelevant distraction from proclaiming Jesus.

It seems that many are only interested in the distractions.

 

[brendar buhl]

I think I said something similar.


It seems that many are only interested in the distractions.

You are being silly. It is no distraction at all. I said you wouldn't like it. My wife is under the impression that she has been created in the image of God. I don't think that the creation story is in the Bible to tell us how God made stuff. I believe it is there to tell us who God is and who we are. I believe that the difference between us and animals is that God breathed life in to mankind (no just man). We are like God, we reason, we choose, we do what we want to do just like God does as he pleases. Our bodies are no more than dust that God picks up into his hands and breathes life into. If I take that scripture literally it means that God only did that with Adam because I know that my body was spun together in my mother's womb. If I can take it figuratively it means that God breathed life into me too, not just Adam. This body of mine is made up of atoms that have existed since creation, atoms that have been part of other things in the world for a long time but there is more to me than just those atoms, more than instinct and reflex, there is spirit and soul and mind and that is the image of God.

God created matter, God is not made of matter. In the creation story God spoke and matter came into existence, same thing with light (energy). When Jesus was born God took on a body, Jesus was the "image of the invisible God". That which is seen was created by that which is not seen.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You are being silly. It is no distraction at all. I said you wouldn't like it. My wife is under the impression that she has been created in the image of God. I don't think that the creation story is in the Bible to tell us how God made stuff. I believe it is there to tell us who God is and who we are. I believe that the difference between us and animals is that God breathed life in to mankind (no just man). We are like God, we reason, we choose, we do what we want to do just like God does as he pleases. Our bodies are no more than dust that God picks up into his hands and breathes life into. If I take that scripture literally it means that God only did that with Adam because I know that my body was spun together in my mother's womb. If I can take it figuratively it means that God breathed life into me too, not just Adam. This body of mine is made up of atoms that have existed since creation, atoms that have been part of other things in the world for a long time but there is more to me than just those atoms, more than instinct and reflex, there is spirit and soul and mind and that is the image of God.

God created matter, God is not made of matter. In the creation story God spoke and matter came into existence, same thing with light (energy). When Jesus was born God took on a body, Jesus was the "image of the invisible God". That which is seen was created by that which is not seen.

Thanks. It is silly and a distraction in my opinion. Apparently I am not alone in that opinion.

The difference between our beliefs is expressed in the words we choose. You say, "creation story" and I say, "account of creation." That choice alludes to the seriousness we attribute to what we read. You take the account of creation as a story to be interpreted and picked apart. I believe the account of creation is just the way it happened. I believe if just one part of the Bible is not trustworthy, none of it is trustworthy. You seem to want to pick and choose what you want to believe as the truth from the Bible. I believe all of the Bible is the truth.

We see the Bible from entirely different viewpoints. You think I am silly. I think you are engaging in distractions. I think you are trying to justify or explain Spiritual things in the understanding of man. The simple truth is things of the Spirit are not understandable by those not of the Spirit and even those of the Spirit see unclearly.

I don't see where further discussion on this is profitable.

 

[brendar buhl]

Thanks. It is silly and a distraction in my opinion. Apparently I am not alone in that opinion.

The difference between our beliefs is expressed in the words we choose. You say, "creation story" and I say, "account of creation." That choice alludes to the seriousness we attribute to what we read. You take the account of creation as a story to be interpreted and picked apart. I believe the account of creation is just the way it happened. I believe if just one part of the Bible is not trustworthy, none of it is trustworthy. You seem to want to pick and choose what you want to believe as the truth from the Bible. I believe all of the Bible is the truth.

We see the Bible from entirely different viewpoints. You think I am silly. I think you are engaging in distractions. I think you are trying to justify or explain Spiritual things in the understanding of man. The simple truth is things of the Spirit are not understandable by those not of the Spirit and even those of the Spirit see unclearly.

I don't see where further discussion on this is profitable.

Nope, it won't be profitable to you because you can never see anything from anyone else's point of view. You say that I don't take the Bible seriously because you haven't tried to understand what I am saying.

I think that it is silly to call any discussion about scripture a "distraction". That means that I take the Bible very seriously.

I know that you are familiar with the Bible so I will assume that you are aware that God is refered to in the Bible as invisible. If one part of the Bible says that we have the image of God and another part says that God is invisible and you believe that it all must be literal then we must be invisible.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nope, it won't be profitable to you because you can never see anything from anyone else's point of view. You say that I don't take the Bible seriously because you haven't tried to understand what I am saying.

I think that it is silly to call any discussion about scripture a "distraction". That means that I take the Bible very seriously.

I know that you are familiar with the Bible so I will assume that you are aware that God is refered to in the Bible as invisible. If one part of the Bible says that we have the image of God and another part says that God is invisible and you believe that it all must be literal then we must be invisible.

I have changed my understand many times over the years. I used to think that the Bible was just a bunch of stories. I did not believe the account of creation at all. I believe I became Spiritually smarter; certainly Spiritually more aware.

The discussion about God having a penis is silly and a distraction.

Then how did Moses see God?

Exodus 33:18-23

18Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"

19And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."

20But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

21Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;

22and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.

23"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

God is God. He does as He pleases. He reveals Himself as He chooses and to whom He chooses. He revealed Himself to mankind in human form as Y'shua.

John 14:7-13

7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

8Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

10"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

11"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

12"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

13"Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

 

[brendar buhl]

I have changed my understand many times over the years. I used to think that the Bible was just a bunch of stories. I did not believe the account of creation at all. I believe I became Spiritually smarter; certainly Spiritually more aware.

The discussion about God having a penis is silly and a distraction.

Then how did Moses see God?
God is God. He does as He pleases. He reveals Himself as He chooses and to whom He chooses. He revealed Himself to mankind in human form as Y'shua.

Again, what do you do with the verses that say God is invisible?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Again, what do you do with the verses that say God is invisible?

What don't you understand about:

God is God. He does as He pleases. He reveals Himself as He chooses and to whom He chooses.

God can reveal Himself as visible as when He revealed His glory to Moses. God can take the form of a burning bush. God can become corporal as He did as Jesus. God can be invisible as He is as the Holy Spirit.

It is very simple. God is God. We don't and can't understand God. We only have what He has revealed to us, and we understand that poorly.

Humans have tried to understand or explain God. How does one understand the incomprehensible? How does one explain what cannot be understood?

Man has come up with all kinds of theories to explain away God or creation. God spoke the universe and beyond into existence with His word. He willed it into existence. He is not bound by the laws of physics. He is Spirit, but can be physical.

Again. Simply. God is God.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

Word of the day:


Anthropromorphism

Only if you get paid to do it. Otherwise, it's "anthropomorphism".

 

[brendar buhl]

What don't you understand about:God can reveal Himself as visible as when He revealed His glory to Moses. God can take the form of a burning bush. God can become corporal as He did as Jesus. God can be invisible as He is as the Holy Spirit.

It is very simple. God is God. We don't and can't understand God. We only have what He has revealed to us, and we understand that poorly.

Humans have tried to understand or explain God. How does one understand the incomprehensible? How does one explain what cannot be understood?

Man has come up with all kinds of theories to explain away God or creation. God spoke the universe and beyond into existence with His word. He willed it into existence. He is not bound by the laws of physics. He is Spirit, but can be physical.

Again. Simply. God is God.

Excellent! You and I agree 100% on everything that you have said here. If God can look like a burning bush then he can also look like a monkey. Your point is that God doesn't look like anything unless he chooses to look like something. So man being created in the image of an invisible God who can look like anything he chooses can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. To you it means that evolution must be false (a point upon which you and I disagree).