1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In God's Image...

Discussion in 'Christianity DIR' started by Hirohito18200, May 5, 2004.

  1. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    i never said I thought the idea of aliens was rediculous... just the idea that they genetically enginered humanity....

    as far as I know Caral Sagan never promoted the idea that aliens made man.... 8)

    niether has Michio Kaku.... 8)

    I personally believe that their is life out there... thats why I run SETI at home.... :mrgreen:

    as for Richard Hoagland well... I'll believe it when he gets real proof.... not a bunch of touched up (brushed up?) photos... Have you seen the new pictures taken in 2001? they eaven got a nice side view... its a mesa... rather dull one really...

    check out....
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
    http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html
    http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hoagie.html
    http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html

    But if aliens did do it then what about the various Hominid species such as the Australopiticines, Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neandertalis ?

    wa:-do
     
  2. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Okey, I like to discuss with you. You're someone who is curious and search. That's positive. I congratulate you. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Sagan and Hoagland in fact teamed together to send Pioneer 10 with mankind message to possible aliens. Sagan in fact had a dubious attitude regarding this, one was the personal and the other was the skeptical image in front of the public.Both of them were closed to Arthur Clark (2001 Space Odysee) as you may be aware. Michio Kaku is reserved regarding his personal point of view but all the examples he did in his book Hyperspace is cos the idea of aliens (he names it Civilization Type I, II, III) is omnipresent in his mind.In fact I sent him a personal letter saying in his examples about Picasso and Dali paintings about hypercubes or Tesseract hyperdimension, he confused the image in the mirror with reality, same mistake done by philosopher Xenophanes he even quoted. Indeed I've been posting in his forum but I was expelled after the moderator couldn't respond my detailed arguments one after another in several issues. They started with ironies and smiling emoticons and then their argument was "this is absurd" with the -expected- general statements without saying what is wrong or why. Really the moderator is an idiot, I'll rather talk with Kaku himself, he's humble enough as we can read between lines in his book.
    More info:
    Mutation happens as an accident and not in organized manner, so evolution had no purpose if it’s based upon mutations. The evolutionist of the century (according to Stephen Jay Gould) was Dr. Dobzhansky who experimented with flies. Mutations is lethal. Are unknown the perfected mutants. The flies which were resistant to DDT are in fact weaker and take more time to develop normally, they are less skilled. Bacteria which are more resistant …due to plasmids (pieces of circular DNA), not because of DNA mutation. The genes don’t change to resist the antibiotic, the solution is already ready from outside. The bacteria resistant to antibiotics in fact are less skilled. Almost 60% of the mutant Echeria Coli resistant to Streptomicine are DEPENDING on it, they don’t grow in areas free from the antibiotic. That means they are destroyed in environment in which required food ain’t available. There are near 6000 genetic diseases set in correspondent genes but no mutation increased the efficacy of a human protein. I won’t use Creationist arguments neither amateur “evolucionist faith”, you need to read Nobel prize winner, biologist researching penicillin , Ernst Chain in his “Was Darwin Wrong?”, 1982, page 50 or let’s say, Dr. Lee Spetner, scientist and professor in John Hopkins University. Not by chance he says “IN ALL READINGS I DID IN SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGY I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE MUTATION WHICH ADDED INFORMATION”, or perhaps you need urgently to read Pierre-Paul-Grasse who thinks pretty much the same. Errors in copies can’t increase information. Graham Cannon in his “The Evolution of Living Things” can help you too.
    About 2500 genes form an eye and not by accident, casual in a chain of happy coincidences in the laws scientists trust without Law Giver (!). in 4,5 billion years. In Basel University, 1995, it was proved a gene of a rat was able to produce eyes in flies, therefore there’s a MASTER GENE which commands all the process in arthropods, squids, mammals, etc. But, how was it possible a gene was in the common ancestral of those animals if the own ancestral didn’t have any eyes???? It was a pre-Cambrian bacteria! It didn’t exist even the complex genetic system. Mutations are rare in a single gene, it’s even worst in various genes simultaneously.
    A Professor in Massachussetts University, Lynn Margulis (respected by the theory of mitochondria once was independent cell) always asks in the conferences to molecular biologists an unmistakable example of a new specie created by accumulation of mutations. ABSOLUTE SILENCE is the response of the collegues. According to biologist George Gaylord, even in favorable conditions of evolution the po-si-bi-li-ty or pro-ba-bi-li-ty (attention attention, theory not fact) of 5 mutations in the same nucleus is 1 in 1022. In a 100 million human beings and the rate of 1 mutation per day for each generation, such “favorable” event it would be expected once every 247 billion years or 100 times the age of the Earth. Such process never existed in nature. Check G.G.Simpson “The Major Features in Evolution”, page 96. You can also read the genetic yoke according to H.J Muller (Radiation Damage to Genetic Material), Christopher Willis, (Genetic Load), Scientific American, Volume 222, March 1970, page 98. Murray Eden in “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, Moorhead & Kaplan, 1967, page 71. Encyclopedia Britannica , 1976 (Mutations).
    Perhaps to 99.9 % of the readers swallowing without checking, it's rather easy to convince them about evolution and Darwinism, etc, etc. I’ll rather use my photographic memory and the files I keep on accumulating to “digest” before swallowing. I don’t wanna throw up after. Ignorance ain’t a sin. Sinner is someone who in spite of being ignorant grabs to its orthodox dogmas repeated in books after books and refuses to learn and to think. Refuses to be curious and asks the ones who think they know. All of us are ignorant in different degrees. Happily you are not an imbecil but keep a "reasonable doubt". Yet, there's a thin layer between being sketpical and cynical.
     
  3. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Before I choose something to post, I do my investigation. Hoagland teamed with Sagan and both are probably the most bright minds of our modern times. Hoagland himself was awarded with the honour of Excelence in Science and gave many conferences at Nasa. So, when you post something done by the "usual" critic is indeed something I'm well aware and doesn't surprise. I have a book about Mars by Pathfinder & National Geographic with spectacular 3D color photos with the 3D lens to look at them and I'm very dissapointed they didn't use the zoom to see better the same photograph Hoagland sets in his site in the page 146, the complete sphinx in front of a pyramid "peak". In page 210 they CHOP OFF the photo to hide the tetrahedron and clear pyramids near the "face". In the next page they chose the worst and blurred black and white photograph out of 11 available at Nasa. The things you're showing me about the alleguedly "eroded mountain" is old news, 3 years old in fact. The new photograph shown by Nasa caused even more controversy when it was discovered it's artificial zoo-anthropomorphic cryptography. When you mirror half of the Western side or the Eastern side you can see faces of animals appear just like the sphinx in Egypt and Sumerian winged bulls and hyvrid creatures in India and in fact colective memory of mankind!
     
  4. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oops! I said hyvrid, it's hybrid.
    By the way, I wrote in Kaku's forum (under my name Oscar) as a physicist he is an awful historian and wrote interesting sites about Mars, specifically in case anybody here is interested. You'll see that lacking arguments, Mr. Moderator just shut down the issue not to make evident Kaku overlooked something.
    www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=13289

    If important geologist found as many as 24 anomalies in Martian soil and recent photos show "artifacts" rather than stones, if Nasa admits they are using red filters (giving the false impression the ground is more red than it is and to hide blue and green areas) , if the sky is "martianized", well, I hope you excuse if I allow myself to be skeptical when a non-private but a government organization like Nasa, send a photograph via satelite all around the world at the same time, via CNN (not Reuters, let's say) for the people to believe their eyes or do the same in Irak and Vietnam and so on until light comes evident and final truth....
    Hoagland put his well deserved academic image in jeopardy facing the sharks and defenders of the partial truth. I suppose you know the Freemasons allowing the baptism of names in astronomic places have explained to you why they choose the name "Cydonia" specifically, haven't they?
     
  5. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I posted 20 sites with photographs about what is on Mars really in that forum (so click to find out and check). I have many more available and of course, I can argue forever about .... well, pick a theme... but I'll rather not, I'll better leave you wishing you good night and being both of us (and the rest of fellows...where did they go?) in peace, armony and perhaps something to think about. If what I say is 1% truth, what I came to share is worth it for me. I'll withdraw. Glad to meet you!
     
  6. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hirohito: good point. we reflect God individually, both Divine and human.
     
  7. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    also, the angels had a choice but only one chance to perfectly reflect Our Creator. As in Revelations, Lucifer falls short of imitating God and is given the 666 mark of the beast. 777 is a number for perfection and 888 symbolizes Our Lord who is more than perfect, he is Divine. Lucifer fell and has hated God and us ever since. he has a fee-wil and his will is to only destroy us. when we sin, we reject God's plan of salvation and fulfill the devil's plan of destruction. Our Lord could sin anytime he wants to, he chose Divinity over perfection.
     
  8. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    God chose Divinity over perfection, chooses it now, and will forever choose it. of course he is perfect and we are absolutely sure he will always be Divine.
     
  9. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  10. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Here's what I get out of it..
    "God is a spirit" -the bible
    Depending on what usage of Image;
    Image=1. image, mental image -- (an iconic mental representation; "her imagination forced images upon her too awful to contemplate")
    2. picture, image, icon, ikon -- (a visual representation (of an object or scene or person or abstraction) produced on a surface; "they showed us the pictures of their wedding"; "a movie is a series of images projected so rapidly that the eye integrates them")
    3. persona, image -- ((Jungian psychology) a personal facade that one presents to the world; "a public image is as fragile as Humpty Dumpty")
    4. prototype, paradigm, epitome, image -- (a standard or typical example; "he is the prototype of good breeding"; "he provided America with an image of the good father")
    5. trope, figure of speech, figure, image -- (language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense)
    6. double, image, look-alike -- (someone who closely resembles a famous person (especially an actor); "he could be Gingrich's double"; "she's the very image of her mother")
    7. effigy, image, simulacrum -- (a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture); "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln"; "the emperor's tomb had his image carved in stone")

    So with the verses "God is a spirit.." and "Create man in our image.." I would bet the farm that in response to your post that God created Spirit in Adam and Eve. God basicly gave "a piece of himself" to the Adam and Eve.
     
  11. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    As I said before, the plural use in Genesis makes us understand the image and resamblance of men was based upon THEM and not the spiritual invisible Almighty. It doesn't eliminate after all some spiritual qualities were inserted into human beings.
     
  12. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    I think one of the unique attributes from the very beginning of this "religion" was the idea of monotheism -- the belief of a single god. Therefor I can only see the writers using the majestic plural. I believe the "majestic plural" has been documented in the Tell el Amarna
    letters from Canaanite princes, who address Pharaoh as "my gods" or
    something to that effect. I also recall some Phoenician inscriptions using
    the "Majestic plural" as well. Some biblical scholars have concluded that
    the "majestic plural" (Elohim) is an ancient well established form of
    address dating from Late Bronze Age times.
     
  13. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Majestic plural gotta be used in the proper context and the use of singular or plural VERB. That's why we can't translate "in the beginning the gods created..." In Genesis we could use that majestic plural in "elohim" or "adonai" (lord) as "adonim". Yet the texts in Genesis 1:26; 2:22 and 11:7 are definitely simple plural. In fact Jewish account is the version already detailed in Sumerian accounts where the plural gods had number and the creation of the Adamus or Adapas was done in sucesive genetic experiences described with whole lotta detail.
    www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
    www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg
    www.sitchin.com/primate.htm
    www.sitchin.com/genetics.htm
    Last part of this site:
    www.sitchin.com
    www.s8int.com/adamsrib.html
    www.s8int.com/boneyard1.html
    www.s8int.com/dna1.html
    www.s8int.com/giants1.html
    The last two links do have several pages to follow.
     
  14. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Isaiah 44:24 says the LORD created the heavens alone and created the earth by Himself (Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself)

    There was only one Creator according to Malachi 2:10 (Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers)

    Since Genesis 1:26 cannot mean two or more persons in the Godhead, what does it mean?

    On at least one occasion God talked to the angels and requested their opinions in formulating His plans (I Kings 22:19-22: And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ra'moth–gil'e-ad? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him)

    We do know that the angels were present at the creation (Job 38:4-7 where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
    Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


    For those who do not know what majestic or literary plural is I'll tell you. In formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is of royalty. Biblical examples of the majestic plural can be cited to illustrate this practice. For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king" even though Daniel alone proceeded to give the interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:36). King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself "I" in one place (Ezra 7:13) but "we" in another place (7:24)

    I feel that the plural in 1:26 is only harmonized with the singular in 1:27 "So God created man in his own image" and 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man."

    You see the following verses shed light on 1:26 basicly..

    Also in response to Jewish accounts, the Jews have traditionally interpreted it to mean that God talked to the angels at creation. This does not imply that the angels actually took part in creation but that God informed them of his plans and solicited their comments out of courtesy and respect. Other commentators suggest that 1:26 simply describes God as he counseled with His own will with Ephesians 1:11 supporting this view saying God works all things "after the counsel of his own will" Similar to a man saying "Let's see" even when he is planning by himself.

    I however will remain to believe that its a majestic plural although Ephesians 1:11 interests me greatly.
     
  15. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have explained when to use majestic plural and the difference between simple plural because of the use of verbs. Jews interpreted quite well there was a talking among other spiritual angels. Moses believed he was talking with God himself and we have this impression through the whole Old Testament but Acts 7:30, 35, 38 gives the detail it was certain kind of angel. This explains why in some texts God talks in the name of God. God is a word meaning "powerful" and it's applied even to Moses in Exodus 7:1, 2, false gods, human judges, etc. Zephaniah 3:4 and Ieremiah 8:8 recognize the Torah (5 first books of the Bible) was adultered by the lier feather of the priests, hence the people should take care in deposit too much faith in the medium -the Scripture- instead of the goal, God. In fact there's evidence Hebrew manuscripsts were based upon older Sumerian tablets even in details like the 7th day of rest, names like Adamu, the serpent, etc. We have to remember Moses compiled many ancient manuscripts that came to him via his father Amram. Yet many things were wrote before by a man whose language and culture was not Jewish. I'm talking about Abraham from Ur (Genesis 11:27-32). So, it's a must to read Sitchin's work and a bit more about Sumer before getting to the conclusion the Bible must be the only source to look upon. There are "colofons" or "epilogs" or "signatures" even in Genesis (5:1; 6:9) meaning Moses took information previously written.
    There's a difference between the Creation of Heavens and Earth in Hebrew. It's used the word "create" (barah) while regarding Adam & Eve it's used the verb "form" or "modelate" (1:26; 2:18,19,22). Create in Hebrew is do something out from nothing while "form" is to do something from what already exists. Even Genesis admits 2:7 admits the formation was with the help of clay or dust elements (inorganics or organics?). The Sumerian text gives all the missing details in Genesis. It was said the Biblical text was more "pure" because the reference to one God but in fact the reference to God talking in plural (and even Almighty consulting humans or showing envious or jealous attitude or even confirming Satan didn't lie) makes clear Almighty didn't create directly the human being. He just let other children of His realm do the task indirectly. God didn't create Doberman and Dolly sheep clone, yet the process of life depends on Him. So the Bible is not contradicting. Many interpretations come to the fact Christians ignore Hebrew key words and want to insert Trinitary dogma of many people in one entity to apply it everywhere.
     
  16. Hirohito18200

    Hirohito18200 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Ratings:
    +16
    Jay1_z: "We are King & Lords made to rule with Him, not under Him"

    The word "with" implies equality. If we are to rule with God, then shouldn't we have an equal say. To say we rule with him would render all rules and regulations useless, becasue, when we die, we could go up and argue with him to get into heaven. :) You were correct in your Sons and Daughters approach. Refer to the the hot topic for details. http://www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?p=4075#4075

    Perhaps wording it: "to rule under God" would solve alot of problems :goodjob:
     
  17. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Certainly it's not me the one who wrote we could or would rule WITH him.
     
  18. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Okay, god gave us flesh, so we don't resemble him physically, and we aren't omnipotent, etc., so we don't resemble him mentally either. How then, are we created in his image? Something is definately missing here--although to say that something is missing is to imply that it was present at some previous time...
     
  19. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please re-read the links I provided in my message before on Wed. May 05 8:02 a.m.
    I'm saying God didn't make a direct creation, He just allowed the curse of events and in doing it so, other creatures already existed before. They were the ones who practice genetic engineering. That's why even the Bible hides the use of plural in some verses in Genesis providing several details. Now if anyone wants to discuss evolution as theorized by neo-Darwinist, welcome....
    Before that, let's remember human females don't have the bodies covered with hair as males while we don't see too much of a difference between males and females in apes. They can't let their hair to grow and have hair like ours. This has something to do with hormons of course but the survival of the "most skilled" was worthless in the hominds who were more "evolved" than apes and yet we have the less evolved with us (monkeys, gorillas, orangotangoes, Rhesus all together with chickens, sharks, mosquitoes, snakes, whales..you name it). The fragments around the world are so scarce that you can put them together in a ping pong table. They were mutants. Yet mutation is a weak argument to explain our existence cos geneticist know much better than Darwin mutants are 99% fiasco. Evolution in reverse or involution. Scientists tried unsuccsesfully to convert flies into spiders with gamma rays but only achieved the changing of color of the eyes, putting eyes on the wings, adding feet...after a while they got back to what they were cos of atavic genetic law. With antibiotic you can see actually the survivals are crippled and the future generations get through cos plasmides but will never see an Echeria Coli transforming hocus pocus into Salmonella or Shigella. The map of DNA code is specific and you can't jump the barriers unless you use genetic engineering and even so, it's very difficult and you have to fight against math odds. The natural limit of hybridation even IN SIMILAR SPECIES like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys is hybridism and sterilization...
     
  20. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In the sites that I quoted you will see HOW clay was used in Adam & Eve experience. The text in Sumerian and Biblical account give extraordinary details like the fact Adam was slept to be operated. The rib was taken out. If you take the rib out leaving intact the periostium, it can grow again like lizard's tail. More important than this is the fact marrow inside ribs and bones create blood and Adam is a name linked to blood. It's said he became a living soul but soul in Hebrew is néphesh meaning also blood and life. This néphesh allows néshama which in Hebrew is breathing and we know it's because of blood that the process hematosis exists, the blood carries the O2 to the cells all over the body.
    The ribs have an area very irrigated with blood and the use of cartilages are important. Christians usually haven't consider the fact Eve was taken from Adam so this is a case of genetic endogamy or genetic INCEST. The very fact she was taken from him explains the reason we know NOW. When you need a marrow transplant whom are you gonna pick? You're gonna choose a CLOSE RELATIVE TO DODGE THE INMUNITY REJECTION. The text specifies Adam's words "this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone".
    The genetic affinity between monkeys and man and Rhesus factor needs to be better explained. So, read again the posting I did in the message on May 05, 8:02 am.
     
Loading...