"no, I'm actually an athiest"

philologos

liah wrote: »

Then how do you reconcile that with the fact that we are meant to be made in God's image? Or maybe a clarification of what that even means would be good, I really can't figure it out, since everything I've read indicates that God is perfect.

Sure. Genesis 1:26-27 is a pretty interesting section. I've always pondered what it means that we are in God's image. Does it mean that I have a godlike appearance? (I wish :pac:) Does it mean that I follow after God? (I generally stumble after Him, so clearly not).

What most Christian and Jewish voices I've read say is that it describes a spiritual likeness. I think there's something in this.

However, I think theres a bit more. I was a bit curious exactly as to what the passage meant, image is a very obscure word. I suspected it was something lost in translation perhaps from the Ancient Hebrew. I decided to pluck up the concordance on some Bible study software I often use. Sure enough, the word in Hebrew was tselem which can also mean reflection. I thought about it a bit more. Perhaps this is describing the ideal for humanity, or describing a duty. We were created with the purpose of reflecting Him in everything that we do.

Sure enough, the New Testament pretty much makes clear that if we are in Christ, He will dwell in us, and we will become more and more like Him on a daily basis (Reflecting Him).

More thought followed. Perhaps it is because of our rejection, and fall from His standard that we become less and less fit for this great purpose that God gives us. We become rusty, out of practice (please don't take this as an insult, it's not intended to be :pac:) not fit for the purpose intended.

Again, more musings, but hopefully in some way useful.

Turtwig

MrStuffins wrote: »

jakkass, i sincerely want to thank you for answering all the questions and giving me a great insight into the mind of a Christian/Creationist.

Also, for your honesty in the fact that you don't seem to see your views as some sort of unbreakable authority and are open to seeing some as "theories".

If all creationists were like you (and, in fact, athiests and the like) there would be noargument, but debate and sharing of knowledge and thoughts.

Eugh Jakkas is not a creationist.:)

philologos

MrStuffins: I'm a Creationist, in the old earth sense and in the sense of holding to the point of view that science (including evolution) is a descriptor of the Creation. I certainly don't believe that the universe is 6,000 years old for example.

Malty T: I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but I am a Creationist in that I believe there is a Creation.

Donkey Oaty

Malty_T wrote: »

Eugh Jakkas is not a creationist.:)

Perhaps he is the chosen one.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

MrStuffins: I'm a Creationist, in the old earth sense and in the sense of holding to the point of view that science (including evolution) is a descriptor of the Creation. I certainly don't believe that the universe is 6,000 years old for example.

Malty T: I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but I am a Creationist in that I believe there is a Creation.

Cherry Picker..

MrStuffins

Jakkass wrote: »

MrStuffins: I'm a Creationist, in the old earth sense and in the sense of holding to the point of view that science (including evolution) is a descriptor of the Creation. I certainly don't believe that the universe is 6,000 years old for example.

Malty T: I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but I am a Creationist in that I believe there is a Creation.

Oh yes i understand this. I used the word "Creationist" in the sense that you believe we are the "product" (for want of a better term) or an intelligent designer or creator!

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but I am a Creationist in that I believe there is a Creation.

My bad I has just glanced through Mr S's post and thought he was referring to you as a Wendy Wright type Creationist. Which is quite simply a huge difference.
Crea-tor, Mak-er *shudders*.:o

philologos

Saganist wrote: »

Cherry Picker..

Not at all. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that the universe was created on the night preceeding October 23rd, 4004BC (I'm amazed at the accuracy, because we have to give estimates with millions of years in possible error even in the modern age) if you want to take the Irishman James Ussher's definition.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that the universe was created on the night preceeding October 23rd, 4004BC (I'm amazed at the accuracy, because we have to give estimates with millions of years in possible error even in the modern age) if you want to take the Irishman James Ussher's definition.

So how long did it take "God" to create the Universe,.. ?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that the universe was created on the night preceeding October 23rd, 4004BC (I'm amazed at the accuracy, because we have to give estimates with millions of years in possible error even in the modern age) if you want to take the Irishman James Ussher's definition.

Pfft, he didn't name the second, millisecond, microsecond or nanosecond. But apparently he did give the time to the hour and minute. Jakkass, it was a moment of personal enlightenment, so there can be no error.:D

MrStuffins

erogonamalu wrote: »

you create your own misery for your own ends

sorry?

Turtwig

Saganist wrote: »

So how long did it take "God" to create the Universe,.. ?

Time is meaningless to God as He is outside. In Human Time it took him no time at all.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that the universe was created on the night preceeding October 23rd, 4004BC (I'm amazed at the accuracy, because we have to give estimates with millions of years in possible error even in the modern age) if you want to take the Irishman James Ussher's definition.

How long did it take God to create the Universe then ?

Saganist

Malty_T wrote: »

Time is meaningless to God as He is outside. In Human Time it took him no time at all.

so God is beyond the realm of reality.

And you believe this because ?

MrStuffins

Saganist wrote: »

so God is beyond the realm of reality.

And you believe this because ?

Well wouldn't God have had to create Time and Space/ So he was working outside the rhelms of time surely?

philologos

Saganist wrote: »

How long did it take God to create the Universe then ?

How long in the scientific definition did it take for the universe to be formed?

I don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, which skews its original meaning.

This is some of my work on Genesis 1 on my blog in the past. (Speaking of this blog it seems that I may update it with some of the ramblings I've posted here later).

Bill in Alabama may not be too pleased with it, but none the less it is how I understand Genesis.

Helix

Saganist wrote: »

so God is beyond the realm of reality.

And you believe this because ?

because its an easy answer that cannot be disprove, so suits the delusional

Saganist

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well wouldn't God have had to create Time and Space/ So he was working outside the rhelms of time surely?

Surely ? Em, no.. Thats not a rational reason to accept something of the magnatiude of the creation of the universe.

You have just assumed that.

Turtwig

Saganist wrote: »

so God is beyond the realm of reality.

And you believe this because ?

Well no I don't believe it, I made the assumption that you accept the Big Bang Theory. If you accept that theory then you accept the idea that time began at the big bang, so if there was a creator of the universe he/she/it created the Universe outside of what we call "Time". So the question of how long it took a hypothesised creator is meaningless. In Human terms the creator didn't take any time, but also in human terms you can say the universe existed for eternity. All of this based on the standard definition of time and the current accepted model of the Big Bang. No belief required, just acceptance of science.

Marcus.Aurelius

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well wouldn't God have had to create Time and Space/ So he was working outside the rhelms of time surely?

Because that which manipulates the real world must have real world presence to effect such changes.

What exactly is the difference between Yahweh and Zeus?

Why don't you believe in Zeus?

EDIT: I know you're not a Creationist, but this is what I usually say to those I meet who ask such things.

Helix

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well wouldn't God have had to create Time and Space/ So he was working outside the rhelms of time surely?

if he exists he has to exist in something, and he has to be governed by rules. if he isnt, then he cant create anything since hes got no foundations to build on

the "but he can do whatever he wants" doesnt cut it, coz to want something he has to have reference points and the ability to carry things out. unless he exists within something he cant do anything

MrStuffins

Saganist wrote: »

Surely ? Em, no.. Thats not a rational reason to accept something of the magnatiude of the creation of the universe.

You have just assumed that.

You don't have to tell me this, i'm not a Creationist.

I'm just trying to answer your question.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

How long in the scientific definition did it take for the universe to be formed?

I don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, which skews its original meaning.

This is some of my work on Genesis 1 on my blog in the past. (Speaking of this blog it seems that I may update it with some of the ramblings I've posted here later).

Bill in Alabama may not be too pleased with it, but none the less it is how I understand Genesis.

You cant give a straight answer. How you understand Genesis, does not mean something is true. And all the "research" in the world will not prove your case.

philologos

I linked to my blog, because it saves time. If I had blogs on the other subjects I would do the same.

Saganist

MrStuffins wrote: »

You don't have to tell me this, i'm not a Creationist.

I'm just trying to answer your question.

Answering a question with an assumption.. Thanks for the answer.

I'll assume you're wrong, as you gave me no basis to believe it.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

I linked to my blog, because it saves time. If I had blogs on the other subjects I would do the same.

Its quite a simple question. How long did it take Him ?

MrStuffins

Saganist wrote: »

Answering a question with an assumption.. Thanks for the answer.

I'll assume you're wrong, as you gave me no basis to believe it.

But you asked a question. "How long...?"

God would have been working outside of "time" as we know it surely?

So time would have been meaningless?

EG: in relation to the Big Bang theory, how long was the single entity around before the Big Bang created Time and Space? How can you manage something which hasn't been created yet?

Of course i didn't give you a basis for believing it. Why would i? I'm not trying to sell my answer!

Saganist

Malty_T wrote: »

Well no I don't believe it, I made the assumption that you accept the Big Bang Theory. If you accept that theory then you accept the idea that time began at the big bang, so if there was a creator of the universe he/she/it created the Universe outside of what we call "Time". So the question of how long it took a hypothesised creator is meaningless. In Human terms the creator didn't take any time, but also in human terms you can say the universe existed for eternity. All of this based on the standard definition of time and the current accepted model of the Big Bang. No belief required, just acceptance of science.

I accept that the Big Bang is our most accurate explanation to date of how the Universe was created. I just don't see where God comes into it ? Why make the step from the Big Bang, to oh, God must of made it go Bang ? It's a silly argument.

Marcus.Aurelius

Saganist wrote: »

Answering a question with an assumption.. Thanks for the answer.

I'll assume you're wrong, as you gave me no basis to believe it.

Isn't that the very definition of Christianity and why people should just ignore it?

Why don't you believe in Zeus?

Saganist

MrStuffins wrote: »

God would have been working outside of "time" as we know it surely?

This is where I have a problem. How can you know this ? Again, it's an assumption and is where your point falls down !