A Few Observations

[Medicine*Woman]

Well, a short answer could be that of all creation, man alone would resemble God in any meaningful way. An image is a representation of the source, and likeness is a similarity in appearance, nature or character. So man would not only resemble God in some ways, he was also created to represent Him. This obviously has many implications, such as that man would only represent God while he reflects Him (the difference might then be called "sin"). Consequently, when Jesus was called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Col. 1:15), that carried a lot of meaning.

It's such a core axiom of faith, concerning the relationship between God and man, that it would be impossible to give any comprehensive answer. But I hope this puts it in perspective a little.

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

 

[perplexity]

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

Was there ever anything of your life experience that you know well enough to be true but with no hope to prove it to anybody else, for you were the only one there to witness the fact of it?

And should that then prevent you from sharing your belief of it with us?

I feel deeply sorry for people if they genuinely feel that the validity of the their life experience must be confined to that which is scientifically verifiable. What a shallow sort of lfe that would be, with no instinct, no intuition, no emotion, but for the bleedingly boringly obvious.

--- Ron.

 

[c7ityi_]

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

before someone can prove god's existence, one must know what god is. god means creator, doesn't it??

 

[Jenyar]

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

I wasn't trying to prove God's existence - it wasn't what Vega was asking for.

 

[MarcAC]

I'm not sure it's intended to represent anything. IMO, it's a process and nothing more.

The acquisition of knowledge is a process, fostered from human experience. Experience in many facets of this existence has taught me the reliability of never "placing all your eggs in one basket." Science is one, religion is the other. I'll just wait and see who, if anyone, ends up with the most eggs in the end.

Isn't anybody under 'God's law living under man's law technically an outsider?

Obeying the laws of the society in which you live preclude obeying God's law, I think. If you can't: leave. If you can't leave: stay and obey.

If a legion of people still believe their actions of killing to not be murder than the scrutiny really doesn't matter after the fact.

But it does - I don't think the "war on terrorism" is pointless. It promises to stem any recurrence of the same. At the very least, it draws attention to the act - they are condemned for what they've done, and sanctioned accordingly.