Here's a comprehensive response: http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080.asp
Being created in the Image of God
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
I read half of that and skimmed the rest, but it's nothing I wouldn't already know.
I'm going to be creative here -
Being created in God's image could mean that God had an idea (ie. an "image") and then created according to that idea (and will also judge according to that idea).
That's what creating is.
"Being created in the image of God" could thus be a pleonasm. Which, however, would do away with many problems that otherwise come up when thinking of "being created in the image of God" as 'likeness'.
I'm going to be creative here -
Being created in God's image could mean that God had an idea (ie. an "image") and then created according to that idea (and will also judge according to that idea).
That's what creating is.
"Being created in the image of God" could thus be a pleonasm. Which, however, would do away with many problems that otherwise come up when thinking of "being created in the image of God" as 'likeness'.
it means we have the same qualities (but not the same quantities)
much like a drop of sea water shares the same qualities (ie saltiness) as the ocean
It's a figurative statement that directing our atention that we have qualities and characterisistics such as emotion, a sense of justice and wisdom capable of learning and sentient of our own existance. This is as the bible describes, the image of the invisible.
It is a statement of anthropomorphism. Nearly every human religion, indeed I can't think of single exception, relies on anthropomorphism to create its doctrine. Humans see themselves in all aspects of nature from weather to geology to the stars and, thus, anthropomorphize thunder to create Thor, a mountain to create Apu, and connect the stars to create a pantheon of gods that rule the night.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamo idea of "God" is completely consistent with anthropomorphic projection. We put all the qualities we want or see in ourselves on the god of our choice. Hatred, love, war, peace... it can all be found in the modern mythology of Christian gods like Yahweh, Elohim, Moses, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Satan, and the various minor deities of angels and saints.
In short, Christian gods are created in our image. Modern cults of Christianity and Islam are no different in that respect to cults of the Inca, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, etc.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamo idea of "God" is completely consistent with anthropomorphic projection. We put all the qualities we want or see in ourselves on the god of our choice. Hatred, love, war, peace... it can all be found in the modern mythology of Christian gods like Yahweh, Elohim, Moses, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Satan, and the various minor deities of angels and saints.
In short, Christian gods are created in our image. Modern cults of Christianity and Islam are no different in that respect to cults of the Inca, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, etc.
Actually it's the exact opposite. The bible present that our the flow of attributes proceed from God to man and not the vise versa. Many cultures will exhibit similar thinking mostly due to mans inate ability to personify just about anything. Where as other religions apply a physical appearance to God the Bible maintains that spirit creatures are beyond our range of sight but are capable of manifesting themselves in some form. God however is described as being well beyond our ability to behold.
Using biblical mythology to show biblical mythology is true isn't a valid argument. There is no reason that a reasoned mind would need to accept a supernatural explanation when the supernatural isn't shown to exist. Such thinking is superstition.
The assumption that the testimony in the bible is not true is unsupported and falls short of the expectations of the scientific method. Such thinking is the foundation of a belief system that requires no checks and balances and is only an expression of implicit confidence.
^^^^^^^ bingo
Saquist said:
Given that the supernatural claims of the Bible cannot at this time be tested according to the scientific method, your argument is misplaced. In making such extraordinary claims, you presume the burden of proof.
Such a projection is simply dishonest. Using an extraordinary claim to prove itself true (e.g. Biblical mythology to prove Biblical mythology) leaves us in a conundrum where consistent application of of the principle results in paradox. Any written source can be true. If everything is true, then nothing is true, because everything includes mutually-exclusive contradictions. Thus, the Bible is no more true than Cinderella, or Clive Barker's Weaveworld.
I don't understand why people of faith think that lowering the standard of legitimacy is a useful way to legitimize their faith.
Negative I present them as testimony and only testimony. In a court of law the burden of proof (which is a legal phrase) is upon the prosecution to cross examine and establish as a untrustworthy source. The only possible contradiction would be another eye witness or mitigating facts that suffieciently establish a contradiction of said testimony.
Further the categorizing of biblical testimony as "mythology" without first establishing true falsehoods is sufficient cause to verify the observer as a hostile witness who's perspective is slanted to give the most damaging testimony rather than the most accurate testimony. Hence once the predjudice is identified doubt as to the sources claims can be summarily written off as untruths.
Further the categorizing of biblical testimony as "mythology" without first establishing true falsehoods is sufficient cause to verify the observer as a hostile witness who's perspective is slanted to give the most damaging testimony rather than the most accurate testimony. Hence once the predjudice is identified doubt as to the sources claims can be summarily written off as untruths.
That's just it. I don't make any assumptions about biblical mythology. Anthropologically speaking, there are many truths in the various stories, poems, songs, and myths that contribute to the overall texts. But I need not assume the "testimony" is untrue in order to be skeptical of the many wild and fantastical claims that range from magic to zombies.
Biblical mythology cannot be accepted on face value. Only the superstitious, the truly ignorant, and the intellectually dishonest dare to do so.
This is incorrect. "Burden of proof" is a philosophical phrase borrowed by modern courts of law.
Complete and utter poppycock. Myths are the body of texts or stories associated with a given culture. Their truth value is irrelevant, thus "biblical mythology" is an accurate and objective description. Moreover, biblical mythology is replete with magical and paranormal acts that are described by a superstitious people of ancient culture. That truly ignorant and unreasoned people still allow themselves to be deluded to believe biblical mythology is a "literal truth" and not an ancient set of texts that provide allegorical and literary perspectives of an ancient culture adds nothing to the validity of biblical mythology as a "testimony." As a testimony it only informs the credulous if considered to be a literal truth.
There is no completely satisfactory definition of myth, although many of the world's greatest thinkers have provided partial answers
However the term is consistently used by this and other sources to describe a questionable or disreputable source. Rather than presenting the bible as it presents it'self the attempt here is to denegrate the source without ...again...without establishing the falsehood accurately. The descriptions which follow the term mythology are oriented to disregard the testimony. Since the testimony can't be defined as false or story (which is fictious) the aim is to claim it's falsehood through implicit statments which defy the order of the scientific method.
However the term is consistently used by this and other sources to describe a questionable or disreputable source. Rather than presenting the bible as it presents it'self the attempt here is to denegrate the source without ...again...without establishing the falsehood accurately. The descriptions which follow the term mythology are oriented to disregard the testimony. Since the testimony can't be defined as false or story (which is fictious) the aim is to claim it's falsehood through implicit statments which defy the order of the scientific method.
Negative: borrowed or otherwise was not an observed statement. The origins of the phrase was also not stated therefore no part of your post establishes "incorrect."
I'm using the definition as I stated above.
The Christian bible *is* questionable and it most certainly *is* disreputable. That is without doubt in any reasoned mind, but rarely entertained in the mind of those deluded by its fantasy. Its a shame that there are those unable to see biblical mythology for the literary and cultural beauty it possesses and, instead, seek to apply literal truth to it in a manner that reveals their ignorance and credulity.
The "source" isn't denigrated. And I "present" nothing about the bible. You, however, have attempted to use it in a logical fallacy of circular reasoning to claim your wild and speculative claims of the paranormal to be true. Such claims are stupid, to be blunt, since they only work if you accept that circular reasoning is a valid argument. The "source" isn't denigrated, but those that make the "source" to be something it isn't certainly are. And deservedly so.
There is no requirement for me to "establish falsehood," accurately or even inaccurately. The claim is yours: you say the bible demonstrates that the bible is true. This is, of course, a stupid argument as well as a logical fallacy.
Rather than continue down the avenue of straw men (logical fallacy after logical fallacy after.... that's the only way the superstitious can hold an argument), we can then discard the phrase altogether.
The onus of support is on the claimant. If you make a claim, it is upon you to support the claim. The greater the claim, the greater the requirement for support. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the support for the claim should be.
Therefore, biblical mythology cannot be used as support for biblical mythology. Not if you wish to refer to yourself as either intellectually honest or reasoned in thought.
Your plea to "reasonable minds" is a further establishing of your inability to percieve the Bible as testimony which are followed by implicitly forceful statements yet devoid of any explicit demonstration. The use of an intangible to establish truth of perception is tantamount to insist consensus as the only requirement for a basis of logic.
Surely thus you realize the amount of force or use of remote adjectives to the most crude only solidify your statments as of mere confidence. Further your outprouring of emotion on such an issue illuminates the error through assumption you've made throughout the discussion as well as the futher leaning upon fallacy statements that remain after thoughts to evidence and facts as well as an assuaging yourself of the burdeon of proof following an inability to find true argumentive fault.
Another intriguing perspective into the society of science indeed. Thank you Skinwalker for your opinions on the Bible.
Surely thus you realize the amount of force or use of remote adjectives to the most crude only solidify your statments as of mere confidence. Further your outprouring of emotion on such an issue illuminates the error through assumption you've made throughout the discussion as well as the futher leaning upon fallacy statements that remain after thoughts to evidence and facts as well as an assuaging yourself of the burdeon of proof following an inability to find true argumentive fault.
Another intriguing perspective into the society of science indeed. Thank you Skinwalker for your opinions on the Bible.
Last edited: