"And God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.' So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:26-27).

 

So, do I read this right, we are created in gods "image" and god is always refered to in the masculine.

Doesnt that mean that god is a living, breathing MAN with internal organs and human body functions, a physical, touchable guy who bleeds, eats, poops?

 

So then, now I really AM confused.

God created the universe, right? So, what did he do before? What all "life supports" did he have? Must he not have had lungs, a heart, a penis, a stomach?

 

What all stuff is on gods diet?

Does he avoid high sodium and excess fat?

 

Where did his "schematic" for a human female come from?

Was there a "Mrs God" to pattern Eve from?

 

Also, according to the bible, no one has ever seen god (the "father') up close and personal. So, how come he needed to come to earth in the living human form of Jesus

since he already was just a regular dude?

 

What am I missing?

Views: 58

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Clearly I'm dealing with someone with frontal lobes.

To be fair, I never said Jesus had much "wisdom". Matt

Absolutely. I didn't mean that you said it but that the "value of the historical Jesus" is repeatedly "explained" that way. I don't think for a second that you're a closet Christian.

In fact I think when you strip off the layers of myths and legends, what you find Jesus to be is a ranting apocalyptic preacher who banged on endlessly about the imminent end of the world.

I'll give you that an historic personage may be found to exist, but last I heard it hadn't. I'm pretty certain that whatever this hypothetical person was like and whatever he actually said is lost to us. There have been hundreds of sects and thousands of morphs of each over the last two millennia, each with biases they expressed through this amorphous thing called Jesus.
Phenomena like Abrahamic religions have precipitating events. The catalysts need not be profound or even known to describe the phenomena.

The same goes for many other figures throughout history. People always tend to imagine their idols and religious figures to the way they are themselves. We've all seen that.

I agree. What's the point?

You can easily refute Christianity without having to take the extreme position that the 'Jesoid is just a device' and is but a meme without historical basis.

This goes back to the precipitating agent.
The historical basis of JC needs to shown but even if it is, I doubt the nature of the beast can be.

So you shouldn't be surprised when people like me then start asking for nuance and precision.

I do nuance and precision. I was an environmental chemist. I also do relevance and likelihoods. I find the details of the the lives of barely post-stone age peoples to be relatively unimportant to the understanding of current memes.

Two of the most influential and reputable Biblical scholars are Geza Vermes and Paula Frederiksen. Both of them are secular Jews (Paula sort of a deist), and both of them have analysed whether or not Jesus is a historical figure and (when found that the answer is yes) what we can know about him.

If they're truly secular and without a political or religious ax to grind, they may have produced someting to be taken seriously. The question remains, though, how relevant is this data to understanding the current memes?
Hi Phil,

"Clearly I'm dealing with someone with frontal lobes."

That could mean a lot of things, but I'm going to take it as a compliment ;)

"I'll give you that an historic personage may be found to exist, but last I heard it hadn't. I'm pretty certain that whatever this hypothetical person was like and whatever he actually said is lost to us. There have been hundreds of sects and thousands of morphs of each over the last two millennia, each with biases they expressed through this amorphous thing called Jesus."

We don't have to take anything these sects say at face value.
What we have concerning Jesus is three references by historians (not contemporary, but that's not to be expected) and almost a dozen works by his followers which were written in the first several decades after his death. That's actually quite a solid basis for historical analysis.
That doesn't mean we have to take anything these books say on faith (historians never do that anyway), but all these different works gives us ample opportunities to check for similarities, cross-check with different sources to strip off layers of myth, etcetera... It's something historians are very good at, and when we perform these kinds of analysis we find plenty of points which are very likely to have actually happened.

"Phenomena like Abrahamic religions have precipitating events. The catalysts need not be profound or even known to describe the phenomena."

History doesn't necessarily need to help us make sense of modern phenomena. That's not the way it works. Learning about the past has a value in and of itself; if it also helps us understand the present, that's great, but it's not required.
We can also question whether reading Shakespeare gives us the tools for a good description of love, but then, that's not exactly why we read it.

"If they're truly secular and without a political or religious ax to grind, they may have produced someting to be taken seriously. The question remains, though, how relevant is this data to understanding the current memes?"

I can assure you they are secular, and I can assure you that what they produce can be taken seriously. The same goes for other secular Biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman.

How relevant is it to understanding the current memes? Not all that much (though historical arguments are a large part of my personal arguments against Christianity), but again, that's not why I like history in the first place.
Stanley,

That's a very balanced and fair post. I completely agree with it.

Kind regards,

Matt

Well, hell, Matt, we don't seem to disagree on much in the final analysis.

Upper frontal lobes.

I like the observation made by an 8-year-old kid:

 

"If we're made in God's image, how come we're not invisible?"

Which goes to show that they aren't born stupid, it takes intense indoctrination.

Yep, and threatening children with eternal hell fire if they are not good little boys and girls is

child abuse, I dont care how you try to justify it, it should carry the same penilty as any

physical abuse. Jail time!!

Children are not stupid, but they are very trusting, and they will believe (after much hammering) what their parents drill into their impressionable little minds.

Ya'll gotta pound the sense outta them little haids!

"Hallefuckinglujah" brother!!

"If we're made in God's image, how come we're not invisible?"

LOL!! you gotta love the unspoiled, unabashed honesty of a childs mind :)

Right on kid ;)

"And the authors said ' let us make god in our own image' and so they wrote it.  The word became flesh, in their own imagination, and thus they realized they could write anything, no matter how foolish, and people would accept it"

 

-Rogen 4 the lost gospels.

according to the lyrics of Bob Marley you are correct. . .

I'd say the basic underpinning is that it's just a way to hold back the youth from knowledge; yet with the changing generations, away from 'old-world' America; all you have is corporate/faith left to deal with; how ironic the Chinese gov creates their own bishops at the behest of the vatican

 

long live the atheists.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

EducationIsCool posted a video

Welcome to Jesusland (Part 20) - Spirit Science Doesn't Get DNA

Video response to Spirit Science (or TheSpiritScience) and his video, "Spirit Science 11_11 ~ Dna Activation," which you can view below. Spirit Science -- "S...
16 minutes ago
TNT666 commented on sacha's group No Nonsense
1 hour ago
Joan Denoo commented on Davey Lee's group Climate Concerns
2 hours ago
Clarence Dember replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Roundup Ready Corn IS Toxic in the group Atheists who love Science!
4 hours ago
Clarence Dember liked Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Roundup Ready Corn IS Toxic
4 hours ago
Craigart14 replied to Luara's discussion religious magazine in doctors' office
4 hours ago
Hiram replied to Hiram's discussion France Bans the Burqa: The Humanist Poll
5 hours ago
Loren Miller replied to Hiram's discussion France Bans the Burqa: The Humanist Poll
5 hours ago
Christine replied to Christine's discussion Joined the AFA mailing list
5 hours ago
Christine replied to Luara's discussion religious magazine in doctors' office
6 hours ago
Donald R Barbera posted a blog post
6 hours ago
Grinning Cat replied to Luara's discussion Proof of god(s)
6 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service