It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What does in God’s image mean? He created Adam & Eve without a moral sense.

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Alright, don't really see the point of posting all my quotes
Then you should not demand to have them posted as proof that you really said all that.
What I was saying earlier about your philosophy is that there is no demand whatsoever, in it, of you, in order to be saved.
edit on 11-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Alright, don't really see the point of posting all my quotes
Then you should not demand to have them posted as proof that you really said all that.
What I was saying earlier about your philosophy is that there is no demand whatsoever, in it, of you, in order to be saved.


No, you're misunderstanding. I don't see the point of posting those quotes because none of them remotely come close to matching what you said previously that I allegedly said. I'll keep posting this till it sinks in:



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


Straw Man.


edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


What does "Metakoi" mean in Greek?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Alright, don't really see the point of posting all my quotes
Then you should not demand to have them posted as proof that you really said all that.
What I was saying earlier about your philosophy is that there is no demand whatsoever, in it, of you, in order to be saved.


Saved? Or justified? Be precise. You're lumping 3 different things into one all inclusive word that the Bible uses in the past tense, the present tense, and the future tense in English.

And remember the Greek is absurdly precise.

Edit: I assume since your quoted posts are showing my usage of the term "saved" in the past tense you're referring to our "Justification" in Christ. Then no, there is nothing required of us but faith, it's grace. Grace is unmerited favor bestowed upon us that we neither earned nor deserve.

If we earn it it's "wages" based, if we deserve it it it's "merit" based.




edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical


What does "Metakoi" mean in Greek?

I'll just throw this in here because it touches on Consubstantiation which I brought up in another thread.


The metakosmia (Greek: μετακόσμια, Latin: intermundia), according to Epicurean philosophy were the relatively empty spaces in the infinite void where worlds had not been formed by the joining together of the atoms through their endless motion. Epicurus held that the metakosmia were the abode of the gods, whom he considered to be immortal and blissful living beings made of atoms.
wikipedia - Metakosmia

Although some scholars look mostly to Stoic influence in Paul's thoughts on human nature, resurrection body, and the abode of the blessed changed human body, I detect a very much Epicurean touch to his(Paul's) thoughts.

Mostly from 1 Corinthians 15; the difference between earthly body from celestial body. The gods, according to Epicurus are made of atoms just as humans are. Although I can't think of a reference offhand, I think the idea was that the atoms that make up the gods is of a finer, non-earthly substance, lending them immortality.

Paul uses this cosmology of Earth and earthly life which is incompatible with the heavenly(metakosmia) abode. Therefore, in resurrection and ascension, the earthly atoms are exchanged for celestial atoms, and the new celestial person goes to the "abode of the gods" to live forever.

Right off hand I would say that for Paul "kingdom of God" means the heavenly abode, as opposed to a future or present earthly existence.

This is why I wrote that even if Jesus ascended to heaven, the atoms of his earthly body would have been left here on Earth, and would be present in the bread we eat, and the cup we drink.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

This is why I wrote that even if Jesus ascended to heaven, the atoms of his earthly body would have been left here on Earth, and would be present in the bread we eat, and the cup we drink.
I was wondering about that.
I was thinking that according to your interpretation, he was leaving his earthly body behind. This would explain why he might say that, understanding his risen body would be made of a different substance. But before gaining that new body, his current body had to take a severe trauma to the point of death, and so the broken bread and the poured out wine.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And remember the Greek is absurdly precise.

That is just your opinion, that you are basing on there being various verb forms which indicate how a word is used in a sentence.

If we earn it it's "wages" based, if we deserve it it it's "merit" based.

This is your presentation of a red herring to cause a diversion.
You should find a quote from me that says anything like earning salvation.

Then no, there is nothing required of us but faith, it's grace.
What is?
Faith is what we receive by grace, meaning we can't but faith.
What you do is jump a step in logic to where by receiving faith, then we are then saved.
Then you are making a side step by saying no, we are justified, as if you could be saved without also being justified.
Either that, or you are saying you can be justified without being saved.
Personally, I don't believe in a past tense "saved" because it is not biblical, just a made-up slogan for people who want to feel good and think they do not have to face judgment.
edit on 11-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You're looking way too far into things, when all the information you want is on the surface, in front of your eyes.

Who cares if he believes in Calvinism predestination or whatever intricacies makeup his entire theology.

He has the basic precepts of Christianity spot on.

All true Christians understand the same core concepts, though we tend to bicker and argue on the finer points.

The Holy Ghost guides us all.


Strange then that he did not tell you that any religion based on human sacrifice is immoral.

Now, where is that line up that is the profit from God's murder of his innocent son?
Make some noise. I will find you in that immoral line.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrasta
The story of Adam and Eve is actually a jewish folktale, it is not real, the story was made up, really, i have read the story a million times and there are many inconsistencies, and the main idea that a woman brought this world into sin, and also that god created the man before a woman, that is no logical. The story makes women the afterthought, but then human creation needs women at the pinnacle.


Yes. It is a myth for a rite of passage.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlackManIsGod7
The quote you are referring to in the bible reads "let us make man in our image and likeness." The key words here are us and our. These are plural which shows and proves that there were a group of people(men) who were considered God(s). Otherwise, God would have described himself in singular form and would have said let me make man in my image. Adam and Eve don't represent the beginning of human life, but the beginning of the type of people of their kind that came from the people who already existed. The image of God that the bible refers to is the form of man(physically) and the likeness represents the nature of man. Yet if you've read the bible you know they could not keep up with the likeness which is why they were banished to the caves of Western Asia(Europe) as the book of Enoch explains. We must dig deeper than what is face value. Peace.


No argument from me.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


God's murder of His only Begotten Son?

Try MANS murder of there SAVIOR



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


I was thinking that according to your interpretation, he was leaving his earthly body behind. This would explain why he might say that, understanding his risen body would be made of a different substance. But before gaining that new body, his current body had to take a severe trauma to the point of death, and so the broken bread and the poured out wine.

Some of the problems come when we ask ourselves, "Was Jesus an atomist?" Then it matters where you look to answer the question.

"Don’t you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can’t defile him, 19 because it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine.”(Mark 7:18,19) That sounds like he wasn't an atomist.

"7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
. . .
"11) ...In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do?"
-- Gospel of Thomas

These would make it seem that Jesus did hold atomist views.

The bottom line is that much depends on each person's world-view, and how much your world-view is synthesized through the pressure of compliance to what you accept as authority.
1)"Is this man's view superior to my own, and therefore I must submit to his teaching?"
or
2) "I can modify my natural world-view to integrate these ideas that this man proposes."
or
3) "He's totally right, I'm totally wrong, therefore my world-view goes in the trash and I adopt his world-view"

There are 3 approaches to authority I've listed. There are probably many more.

I guess this should have gone into the other thread about "No one size fits all" or maybe your "Anankē" thread.

If you look at Paul's cosmology with the separate spheres (earthly, celestial) a death and resurrection and ascension are required. The Gospel of John view (with God the Spirit working with the Word in this present world*) there doesn't seem to be a requirement for death and resurrection, although those are in the story, probably because that was accepted as biographical.

*

16 For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "“My Father is still working, so I am working, too.”" 18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 Jesus therefore answered them, "“Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. - - John 5


The Gospel of John seems to have the death and resurrection as a temporary interruption of the ongoing work of the Father and the Son on this present Earth. The General Resurrection then is seen as a matter way off in the "Last Day", which I wouldn't particularly look for any time real soon, but rather in some time when the whole world has become motionless (bereft of all life).
edit on 11-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Redevilfan09
God was an alien and made us the way he looked. Or he war a human, had intercourse with himself and presto, Adam was created. I believe the E.T part.

It was more like mixing their DNA with that of a creature already here on the planet, the "stamp of the Gods," this has been called. 18 different species offered their DNA in a grand experiment. I think they wished to see how we would turn out, whether we would take care of our planet and keep it clean, practice birth control, build in harmony, love each other, and practice equality......or, would we turn out to be bloodthirsty barbarians who destroyed the planet and everything in it, pumped out it's blood to run their cars, dug holes in the ground to power their cities.

How have we turned out, folks?
Would YOU be pleased with the results?


Yes actually.

Many markers for evil are the lowest they have ever been. That includes worldwide violent death and war and slavery.

Look again for the first time and stop whining.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by vnmusic
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


GOD's image means:

- our physical body is part of GOD's creation

- our soul is part of GOD



Rather Gnostic and certainly better than the Christian take. Not too good though if you see a creator God.

If God is creating our bodies, one has to wonder why he creates so many defective ones.
Just to amuse himself I guess.

What is that number who die before the age of 5 from disease?
4 million a year I think.
Lots of fun for God in that.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


God's murder of His only Begotten Son?

Try MANS murder of there SAVIOR


Who wrote the plan?
Man or God?

www.youtube.com...

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am


This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

Since I'm here on your thread, I might as well throw in some "from the foundations of the Earth" reference.


Anshar calls together a council of the elder gods (including Lahmu and Lahamu) and explains the dire situation by repeating the whole story of Tiamat's army of monsters, Ea's and Anu's failures to stop her, and Marduk's offer to help. The gods' moment of decision is described like this:
There was conversation, they sat at the banquet,

Ate grain, drank choice wine,
Let sweet beer trickle through their drinking straws.
Their bodies swelled as they drank the liquor;
They became very carefree; they were merry,
And they decreed destiny for Marduk their champion. (Dalley 249)

. . .
Marduk returns from creating the universe, leading the captive gods and monsters before the gods. He presents the Tablet of Destiny to Anu and them makes statues of the eleven monsters, setting them up "at the door of Apsu" (Dalley 257). The gods are extremely pleased with Marduk, so they arrange a reception for him at which they all come forward to kiss his feet.


Blood I will mass and cause bones to be.
I will establish a savage, ‘Man’ shall be his name.
Verily, savage-man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
That they [the gods] might be at ease! (Pritchard 36)

Ea suggests a slight alteration to the plan: they should destroy one of the rebel gods and create humans from him. When Marduk asks the gods who "incited Tiamat" and started this war, they answer as one, "Kingu!" So Ea takes Kingu, cuts his arteries, and makes mankind from his blood. Ea then imposes the toil of the gods upon mankind, while Marduk divides the gods up and assigns them their various positions in heaven or earth. In gratitude to Marduk, the gods decide to build Babylon, and set about making bricks and raising Marduk’s temple-ziggurat, called the Esagila. Then they build their own shrines.
Enuma Elish with commentary

So there's a possible reference to a sacrifice from the very beginning of the creation of the savage, "man".
Composed probably during the Bronze Age, the time of Hammurabi or perhaps the early Kassite era (roughly 18th to 16th centuries BCE) well before the Genesis story was ever written.
edit on 11-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



That is just your opinion, that you are basing on there being various verb forms which indicate how a word is used in a sentence.


Okay sure, I know a 35-year Greek scholar who admits he's not got it all down yet, but whatever. Another example:

English has 1 word for "word", Greek has 3. English has 1 word for "love", Greek has 7. Want more examples?


"No element of Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. A variation in meaning exhibited by the use of a particular tense will often dissolve what appears to be an embarrassing difficulty, or reveal a gleam of truth which will thrill the heart with delight and inspiration. Though it is an intricate and difficult subject, no phase of Greek grammar offers a fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped only when one has invested sufficient time and diligence to obtain an insight into the idiomatic use of tense in the Greek language and an appreciation of the finer distinctions in force."


"A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" by H.E.Dana and Julius R.Mantey, p. 176-7


This is your presentation of a red herring to cause a diversion.
You should find a quote from me that says anything like earning salvation.


You'd see the problem if you'd define "grace". It's not a red herring. It's precisely the point.


Personally, I don't believe in a past tense "saved" because it is not biblical, just a made-up slogan for people who want to feel good and think they do not have to face judgment.


Take that up with the Greek writers who used the past perfect imperative for "justified' and "saved", not my fault, don't blame me, blame the monkeys who taught you Soeteriology who were ignorant to Greek.

Now you see why I try to refrain from talking about the act of Justification by saying "saved" or "salvation", it confuses the crap out of people. I fully understand your problem and crisis of theology, but that's your problem, you see to that.

Greek isn't changing anytime soon.


edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Oh snap:

Justified.



1) to render righteous or such he ought to be

2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered

3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be



None of the verses talk about something that happens after we die Jm.


edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
pthena

Thanks for showing us that nothing in Christianity is original and that it is made up from older myths.

Always a good reminder for so called believers.

Regards
DL



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

The General Resurrection then is seen as a matter way off in the "Last Day", which I wouldn't particularly look for any time real soon, but rather in some time when the whole world has become motionless (bereft of all life).
Which would be basically, from a human standpoint, never.
What you call "not any time soon".
The odd-ball item that no one discusses is in 2 Corinthians where Paul talks about what seems to be dying, yet having some sort of heavenly existence. Instead of describing it, he argues that it must be something not all that different than what we experience now.
I would think the reality would be something like Post-Millennialism, but without the millennium. Once the world gets to be a decent place to live, then those who have this heavenly existence go on living on earth in a suitable body for that more material sort of existence.
The "Last Day" being a Jewish hold-over from what was popular when the New Testament was written, and was allowed to just be there in an unobtrusive sort of way, since it really was rather irrelevant other than conveying this concept of a very far off and not precisely understood judgmental event. Probably what is judged as far as a "Day", would be the earth itself, if it gets the approval as an inhabitable planet.
The important judgment as far as we are concerned would be at our point of earthly death, if we will continue on "temporarily" in a heavenly form, where we will await the coming about of a "safe" world.The problem in being able to rightly and easily understand these concepts comes from the interjection of the books that should be rejected, but were allowed by the "official" church bureaucracy, such as Revelation.
Paul, I would be more likely to believe actually went to heaven and lived to tell of it, the writer of Revelation I don't think so and seems to have "borrowed" all his material from other writers.
edit on 12-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join