Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Brian_iiiii · 11-13-2003, 09:31 AM

==============================================
I didn't claim that Amos' idea stems from reading the Bible.
==============================================

Nor did I accuse you of such a claim. I was saying Amos was making that claim.

==============================================
No, the alternative view of the God-image I presented does not present an "exact opposite" belief about God. Radically different, perhaps, but not "exact opposite."
==============================================

Okay, "radically different" then. Doesn't change my argument.

==============================================
Well, that's not what I claimed (that man is god and god is man) either.
==============================================

Nor did I accuse you of such a claim. I was saying Amos was making that claim.

==============================================
Thus, I don't think charging me with being "intellectually dishonest" is called for.
==============================================

I never charged you with that. I charged Amos with that.

My apologies. My ad hominems were directed toward Amos, not to you.

Dalharuk · 11-13-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

The mentality of tribesmen who would stone a woman to death for not screaming while being raped, and such things. Always the womans fault, the man is just being tempted.

11-13-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian_iiiii

My apologies. My ad hominems were directed toward Amos, not to you.

Well Brian, it says in Gen. 1:27 that God created man in his own image and that he created them (plural) male and female but with the potential to become either male or female. If, then, man was created in the image of God man is God and there is no argument possible, and to say that man is not God is equal to calling God a liar.

You must be thinking of humans but fail to understand that our human nature is not of God. In fact, the prefix -hu was added to our God identity here called 'man' to indicate that it is an earthly nature because -hu is from -humi and means 'earthly." If then, you allow me to posite heaven opposite to earth, our man identity is a heavenly nature and therefore of God and redeemable. Moreover it is our mandate to obtain the mind of God and so what would the mind of God want with a temporal body (unless you want to put new wine into old skins, I guess).

In Catholic theology man is basically good and therefore redeemable for if man was a created loser what is there to be redeemed to gain eternal life?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2003, 09:31 AM	#21
Brian_iiiii Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: U.S.A Posts: 63	============================================== I didn't claim that Amos' idea stems from reading the Bible. ============================================== Nor did I accuse you of such a claim. I was saying Amos was making that claim. ============================================== No, the alternative view of the God-image I presented does not present an "exact opposite" belief about God. Radically different, perhaps, but not "exact opposite." ============================================== Okay, "radically different" then. Doesn't change my argument. ============================================== Well, that's not what I claimed (that man is god and god is man) either. ============================================== Nor did I accuse you of such a claim. I was saying Amos was making that claim. ============================================== Thus, I don't think charging me with being "intellectually dishonest" is called for. ============================================== I never charged you with that. I charged Amos with that. My apologies. My ad hominems were directed toward Amos, not to you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.