Friday, May 16, 2014

Stupid atheist tricks for May 5. 2014

 This is one of the most stubborn atheists I've ever faced. He's totally unwilling to see past the end of his nose. He begins with the assumption that "made in God's image" means for the man that he looks physically in his body and face like God looks, and the woman is made in the image of the mythological consort of God that we never really see in the Bible but must have exist "becuase it's just mythology."

Originally Posted by juglans1 View Post
If the first man was created in the image and likeness of Yahveh, and the first woman was created in the image and likeness of his consort (Gen 1:26-7), what did they look like if your claim is true that we no longer look like Yahveh and his consort? Did they look like this, or maybe more like this, and if so, do you think that Jesus resembled any of these?
 Christian apologist (fundamentalist--one of the most so on the board) Junkyard boy tries to take him to task for this:
Originally Posted by junkyardboy View Post
only a fool thinks the image of God spoken of is physical

Why did the writers of Gen 1:26-7 believe otherwise when they created their god(s) in their images and likenesses? Or do you think they were fools, and if so, who did they fool? And what was Abraham and other OT characters physically walking and conversing with, if it wasn't in their physical images and likenesses (eg Gen 18:17-33)? And do you think that Michelangelo and others were also fools? And who was Jesus' biological father, who Jesus inherited his Y chromosome from? Was it Heli's son (Luke 3:23), or a Roman centurion, or the milkman, or Jacob's son afterall (Matt 1:16)? 
He's really loaded in a lot of stuff  here. All it shows he's got his mind all made up about the text and there will be no surprises for him. He making some stupid assumptions without thinking about them. Why couldn't the characters be conversing with a disembodied voice? Why does God tell them not to make a graven image representing him if has a physical appearance and we look like him?

Appealing to Michelangelo is stupid becuase painting is not a documentation of reality but a representation. The artist is not a Bible scholar.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
There is no basis for the idea that Genesis means the literal body as the image. No basis for that at all. God says "I am not a man" numerous times in the Bible. that idea is totally repudiated.

So why did the writers of Gen 1:26-7 contradict what other biblical writers wrote?

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
צֶ֫לֶם, teselem meaning "likeness."

they didn't. the phrase doesn't' mean body. Image does not mean visage per se. There's just no reason why it has to mean literally the way God looks.

why would God tell them not to make a graven image becuase he can't be imaged, then say he has a literal body?

the term means likeness. We are not made in God's physical likeness but in his spiritual likeness that is consciousness. We have spirits, we have minds, we can think we have personal awareness.

So why did the writers of Gen 1:26-7 create their gods in their physical images and likenesses? What is the evidence to support your hypothesis that likeness and image don't mean likeness and image?

Meta: says more of the same

Originally Posted by juglans1 View Post
Alas, you have not proved a thing, except in your imagination.

but neither have you. Since the OT as a whole negates the notion of God as physical it's only fair to assume that this is not what it means in Genesis.

 Originally Posted by juglans1 View Post
It's just imaginary fiction, and if you believe otherwise, then I suggest you consult the authors of Genesis on how they created their god in their images and likenesses. Sadly you are just making things up.
can you say "circular reasoning?" weather or not God is real has nothing to do with weather or not that passage should bread as a physical image. I have given good reason not to see it that way. You have given nothing. Apparently your only reason is that it would screw up the Bible if you saw it that way and that's your only reason. not reason at all.

Originally Posted by juglans1 View Post
That is only your personal opinion based on your subjective interpretations, unless perchance you are claiming to be omniscient, even though the authors of Gen 18 didn't even claim that property for the god they created in their images and likenesses.
the statements in the OT about God not being a man are not my opion they are fact. they are there. One might inter pit them in different ways but one may not inter pit in a way that says God is a man. they clearly without ambiguity say God is beyond our understanding.

that might give me a shaky reason to interpret the passage you still have no reason. your only reason is to screw with belief. that is not a valid reason. so you have no reason and I have one. that means my view is valid is yours is not.

the prefect end to the perfect display of stupidity.

 Originally Posted by juglans1 View Post
Why do you have to be told the same stuff over and over again? The creation stories in Genesis are just imaginative myths and no different to other myths about other gods which were created in the images of the myth creators.
screw your head on. don't you know anything??! you really think just becuase the story in Genesis is a myth that it means the term "image" in the pasage must refer to a physical image? (what in the hell do think liberal means! why am I called liberal genius! do you really think liberals believe in literal Genesis?)

It does not follow that being a myth means it refers to physical image.  

No comments: