Are we made in God's image?

[Xelasnave.1947]

1) Similarly, I sighed when I read your post ... you missed the point.

In these discussions that is what we do so to be polite let's me say that I am sorry and thank you for a wonderful reply.

2) A truism with open bigotry welded onto the end of it.

Nice but again I choose to miss the point.

3) Do try making sense, next time.

Why?

4) The statistical reality is whatever it is, but that's still your problem.

I didn't realise there was a problem other than we all tend to generalise.

The thing is, the topic post can't get any more specific than, "theists", because it's author isn't capable of being any more specific.

OK ...should I start specific threads one for each version of god mythology?

You needn't read it through, or anything; just look at what it is and maybe peruse a couple creation tales to understand how they are recorded and compiled. Normally, I find myself pointing out that creation stories tend to deal with the people who tell them; it's actually surprising how often people haven't stopped to think about that point.

Select something specific and then go on and generalise ...I get it now.

Understanding religions of course is so much to do with the economy of the inventors... but we know that... although a generalisation, to look at how a group of humans put food on the table often will lend understanding as to why their god was invented and so often that god specifically tailored to fit their enterprise.

But you must know all that.

More to our context in the moment, though, something else you might notice in creation tales is that often, the Creator spirit, while broad in function, is not a monotheistic godhead.

Well no I have not noticed that but then our discussion here covers only the invention of Jan and he is not at all specific but at least he works with one god.

And as you read through other various scriptures and lores from around the world, you will find much seemingly implicit sentiment that the ultimate reality is what it is, and the stories deal with mundane questions of daily life. It seems worth reminding that, in history, philosophy has, at times, been something of a luxury; the underlying philosophies of religion are, generally, even more esoteric than those of politics, economics, or history. Among the Salish tibes, for instance, not much has changed about the old religion. And where Shaker Christianity found inroads, it's much more experiential than philosophical.

If there was a point I missed it.

To wit: Compared to daily life, it seems worth noting that if Francis Barrett was apparently born to a humble family, he was of sufficient means to fail repeatedly at attempted balloon flight, in addition to translating and speculating on Qabalistic and Christianist-metaphysical manuscripts. Moreover, if Éliphas Lévi was born to a shoemaker, he also abandoned Seminary and became a political philosopher of the sort who earned repeated prison terms for offending the Catholic Church. Say what we will of luxury and political philosophers°, but it only took the priesthood washout turned Christian socialist, and the 1st Baron Lytton°°, to bring the failed balloonist's book to more influential notice among the sort of folk who did, indeed have the luxury of education and opportunities of association, being a Freemason, sitting around royal libraries translating and speculating on old manuscripts, marrying into prominent literary and political circles, and, well, y'know, running the Golden Dawn. Because, really, if the Salish people don't happen to have finely resolved and metaphysically determined tables describing which angel has what authority over which day of the week, and, furthermore, the daily schedules of diverse angels given which authority over what hours on any given day of the week, there might be a reason. I'm pretty certain they also never invented an invisible college, either; and if there was ever a 1st Earl Nisqually, it wasn't a Squalliabsch appointment. If there is no Nisqually angel of three o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, it does not seem so much to hope the reasons why are apparent.

I will frame this paragraph so if asked for the meaning of verbosity I can reach up take down your words hand them to my enquirer and say this is perhaps the best example I can offer.

• See those people over there? They're wrong.

Now you get it and I know you are right.

Still, though, why does it matter? Oh, they're causing harm? To others? And themselves? And, y'know, we care, right? And go ahead and dissent at this point; harm to self and others, and caring about people, is a pretense offered me by this guy I know, in justification of his own behavior toward those people over there, because he, like us, knows they're wrong.

Sure but they are wrong so please focus.

When you go out of your way to disqualify them from the discussion you pretend to want to have, how do you expect they will respond?

Well here is the thing and let us remember this is all about Jan...to think there is a discussion available in a climate of lies and dishonesty would be a grave mistake and so for my position I would think that I have made it very clear that any engagement I do not take seriously and merely play with a troll who is intent upon avoiding discussion and here for no other reason than to frustrate and anyoy anyone who would offer a reality that Jan wishes would just go away.

And I don't have to go out of my way nor does anyone else to find Jan is confronting science in a dishonest manner and holding onto ingnorance as it were a virtue above all others.

But what about you, or anyone else? There's the part where your beliefs are your beliefs, and other such platitudes, but when you declare that, "none of them can employ objectivity", what, aside from the ephemeral thrill of judgment and contempt, does that statement intend to accomplish?

Merely to state the obvious fact.

OK I make a claim and I should give evidence in support but you know it's one of those things that is just part of the game, that although not a rule is a fundamental that has been present for so long no one stops to give it a second thought..in a traffic matter the prosecution refers to the offence taking place upon a public road and although available no one calls upon the prosecutor to prove that the road was indeed a public road...it is more appropriate if a defendant wishes to claim that the offence was not on a public road that he prove such...Is it not reasonable to say that, using the loose term, theists, do not employ objectivity.

[
Alex...mtc

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

To be clear: My side, or factions, in politics recently won a tenuous legalistic victory over dangerous American Christianism, and there are many other groups of people who need this much relief at least. What makes our victory tenuous is that the opposition is powerful, enraged, and entrenched. And, to be certain, there are influential organizations, and individuals with such luxury as spend their days in high office or invented colleges to reinterpret and speculate about philosophy and the historical record. Away from those, on the proverbial front lines of the culture wars, where people struggle through questions affecting mundane life, say what anyone will about the flock needing to think for itself, but going out of one's way to present the all too easy examples of the opposition they are told to be wary of for having nothing to offer save uneducated, self-gratifying mockery is only going to reinforce Christianists' fears about the dangers of those other ways of looking at things. What this tenuousness means is consequential backlash; and if right now, the only thing we can do to assuage those Christianists over there is destroy ourselves in order to give them everything they want, that just isn't going to happen, and if there is ever a way to get beyond that impasse, it is possible for people like you, or that guy I know, to become a problematic circumstance I must in some way account for.

I see your point but I doubt that me being your version of a bigot requires that you stand up to offer some explanation. Moreover I reject the label of bigot when most all of what I do is basically call for evidence, seek the truth that Jan claims he knows, call him out for lieing, call him out for trolling, call him out for unwarranted rejection of science, call him out for evasive conduct where he demonstrates all he seeks to do is be a smart arse.

And you say you wonder why Jan becomes the focus when people should not care and I agree totally...all you offer in critism has some validity but it is not that complex... Jan is a lieing troll with an agenda ..I am an old man who finds fun in telling Jan he is a lieing troll.
It is that simple.

And complain about those examples all you want, the simple point is these are among the obstacles to breaking an old cycle.

True.

Flouride, vaccines, condoms, sex ed, LGBTQ, needle exchanges and addiction treatment, now societal prophylaxis. Research toward potential cures. Censorship of books and music and movies. Supremacist favor and exclusion at the grocery store or lunch counter, or hospital or courthouse. In questions mundane on through mortal, there are certainly reasons to attend what certain theistic believers actually believe and say and do.

And in that context, some outcomes really are problematic. This isn't mysterious. An atheist's reasons for wanting cheap, dysfunctional religious iterations to entrench, endure, and even synthesize, however, are as human as they come. Some mysteries are answerable, except we're human.

I assure you I am capable of deeper thought and I know where you are coming from, I think I do at least, ....
Thank you for your post and I apologise for a somewhat casual engagement and I know that I should afford these " theists" much more respect if for the only reason to rise above them, but I choose not to in so far as specifically it is Jan that annoys me and certainly his general dishonesty ..he is the troll I am there to bite..maybe I will just ignore him...that would be smart.

Thanks again.

Alex

 

[Bowser]

Do you believe that God made us in his image? If so, what does that mean? How is your God like a human being? What attributes of God are reflected in us? Does this God relate to the abstracted kind of God we tend to hear about from the kinds of theists who are careful to make sure that their God, as they define it, is always a God of the Gaps, used to fill in only what we don't know from science, but otherwise compatible with its findings?

I believe Alex and I touched on this subject once before. My belief is that God is All Things. You share in that reality being a conscious being. Need more be said?

 

[Write4U]

I believe Alex and I touched on this subject once before. My belief is that God is All Things. You share in that reality being a conscious being. Need more be said?

Do you worship it and why?

 

[Bowser]

Do you worship it and why?

Depends how you define worship. Recognition of it in all things is a start. If I bow to you with the greeting of "Namaste," I am bowing to the Divine in you. If I raise my bowl of oatmeal in appreciation, it is done so in recognition of my gratitude.

 

[Write4U]

Depends how you define worship. Recognition of it in all things is a start. If I bow to you with the greeting of "Namaste," I am bowing to the Divine in you. If I raise my bowl of oatmeal in appreciation, it is done so in recognition of my gratitude.

I can understand bowing to another person in recognition of their extra-ordinary status in the biology of the earth. We each are a little god, controlling our own expanded role in the universe. Our laws are based on equal rights for all "persons" , and animals to a lesser degree as being deserving of respect as being survivors of "natural selection" and "evolution".

But nowhere does it say anything about worshiping the universe. You can appreciate the universe, you can learn from universal values and functions and it's enormous. Does the Universe require worship? Naa. Respect? Yess. The Universe is not a "person", t is a mathematical construct.

I like the "celebration" aspect, but "worship". Bowing multiple times a day, having your laws shaped by enforcement of "worship" of an abstract idea?

Personally I am more humble about my existence than comparing myself with the Universe in some non-trivial way. I don't worship the universe, I respect it for it's dynamic power.

The universe does not require our worship, we do!........

 

[Bowser]

The universe does not require our worship, we do!.

I don't believe worship is required but recognition of your source would be kind. Recognition that you are an inseparable part of the greater whole should give you comfort.

 

[foghorn]

I don't believe worship is required but recognition of your source would be kind. Recognition that you are an inseparable part of the greater whole should give you comfort.

Everything is God again. What is not God?
Some bloke (God) on a web forum (God) says I (God) should gives thanks for being part of the Universe (God).

 

[Bowser]

Everything is God again. What is not God?
Some bloke (God) on a web forum (God) says I (God) should gives thanks for being part of the Universe (God).

I will share an excerpt from one of my websites...

Every Breath You Take

Photo by Sachin C Nair from Pexels

Every morning when you open your eyes from slumber, that is Love

Every moment spent getting dressed is Love

Every bite of breakfast is Love

Every sip of coffee is Love

Every word with those at the table is Love

Every goodbye as you walk out the door is Love

Every light, every turn, every mile as you drive to work is Love

Every face you see is Love

Every conversation is Love

Every task is an act of Love



Every sky is, whether bright or grey, Love

Every sun beam or drop of rain is Love

Every Summer or Winter is Love



Every tree is Love

Every blossom of flower is Love

Every mountain or hillside is Love

Every stream, river, lake or ocean is Love

Every show of nature is Love



Every moment with your partner is Love

Every son and daughter is Love

Every brother or sister is Love

Every friend is Love

Every neighbor is Love


Every glimpse of the moon is Love

Every star in the night sky is Love

Every hour of night’s sleep is Love



Every breath you take, that is Love

 

[Write4U]

And do I need God for all of that?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Love,????.....replace love with "life" and it will make sense.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have noticed that some of the definitions that theists have given have essentially defined God as "whatever it was that caused the universe to begin".

I’d be very surprised to hear that definition from a theist. Sounds more like an atheists understanding of how a theist may understand God.

While it is debatable as to whether the universe needs a cause in the first place - something I don't want to discuss in the current thread - this raises a separate question for me.

It is debatable in the sense that everything is debatable.

This version of God, as defined, doesn't appear to describe the God of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) very well at all. It is a sort of abstract god, a god removed from human concerns.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”.

This god, as defined, doesn't have any obvious human-like attributes. It could be just about anything - an abstract force or even a tinkering alien computer programmer creating a virtual world on a whim.

“A tinkering alien computer programmer” could be human. Wouldn’t you say?

If we read the bible, say, then we are told that God created human beings in his own image. But that doesn't sound much like this abstract whatever-it-may-be that is needed to start the universe going.

Is it possible that a computer tinkerer, could get married and procreate with his wife, and have a personal relationship with his family, while being a tinkerer?

Do you believe that God made us in his image?

We don’t have to believe it.

If so, what does that mean? How is your God like a human being?

God can...
See
Hear
Walk
Talk
Think
Will
Feel
Does that answer your question?

Does this God relate to the abstracted kind of God we tend to hear about from the kinds of theists who are careful to make sure that their God, as they define it, is always a God of the Gaps, used to fill in only what we don't know from science, but otherwise compatible with its findings?

No, you’re mistaking God of the gaps with darwinism if the gaps.

 

[(Q)]

God can...
See
Hear
Walk
Talk
Think
Will
Feel
Does that answer your question?

It answers a question for me, the question of how to gauge the honesty (or lack thereof) of theists, specifically when the begin to list definitively the characteristics and traits of their God, often followed by their level of toxicity on never revealing how they know.

 

[Write4U]

Every breath you take, that is Love

How would you rate Cancer? Love or Damnation?

 

[Bowser]

How would you rate Cancer? Love or Damnation?

Death is a universal constant too. If we can accept that, then what remains to be feared? (honest question that awaits your reply)

 

[Bowser]

Love,????.....replace love with "life" and it will make sense.
Alex

One and the same thing, Alex?

 

[Jan Ardena]

It answers a question for me, the question of how to gauge the honesty (or lack thereof) of theists, specifically when the begin to list definitively the characteristics and traits of their God, often followed by their level of toxicity on never revealing how they know.

It doesn’t answer a question for you, as you are predestined to being antithetical to God, or anything relating to God. You will find that you have no problem with anything that is antithetical to God. You will find that all of a sudden you have no questions, or objections to those claims, as has been demonstrated by yourself, countless times, on here.

If you read the op post, you will find that these are responses to the questions asked.

 

[(Q)]

It doesn’t answer a question for you, as you are predestined to being antithetical to God, or anything relating to God. You will find that you have no problem with anything that is antithetical to God. You will find that all of a sudden you have no questions, or objections to those claims, as has been demonstrated by yourself, countless times, on here.

If you read the op post, you will find that these are responses to the questions asked.

Yes, I did read it, hence my response to your less than honest answers. Those answer, btw, have nothing to do with my and everything to do with your lack of integrity, honesty and morals.

If there were a God, there is no way any of us would know if God has those attributes. That's what's called an honest answer. Try it sometime.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, I did read it, hence my response to your less than honest answers.

Show where I have been dishonest in my answers.

Those answer, btw, have nothing to do with my and everything to do with your lack of integrity, honesty and morals.

How so?

If there were a God, there is no way any of us would know if God has those attributes. That's what's called an honest answer. Try it sometime.

Why do you think there would be no way for us to know?
Bearing in mind you already think you know that, and you traipse that false knowledge around as though it is true, common knowledge, and evidential. While at the same time being without, lack of, and disbelief in, the belief in God. How could you know any of this?

 

[paddoboy]

Death is a universal constant too. If we can accept that, then what remains to be feared? (honest question that awaits your reply)

What myths and unsupported deities that theists believe in, are due to the actual finality of death...the end, kaput!! For some reason that finality, that non existence scares and worries them.

No, you’re mistaking God of the gaps with darwinism if the gaps.

Quite an ignorant answer. As most of us know, Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact, and have many, many aspects of evidence making it a fact.
God on the other hand is a putty like substance used to fill in the gaps that as yet to be explained by science.

Show where I have been dishonest in my answers.

The one above?