The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Made in God’s image. Yuk. Not me thanks.

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
GreatestIam2 On August 10, 2020




Ottawa, Canada
#1New Post! Jul 22, 2020 @ 20:27:35
Made in God’s image. Yuk. Not me thanks.

Yahweh, it is written, created us in his image.

He is described as a vile genocidal and infanticidal god, a demiurge to us Gnostics Christians, and is responsible for a religion that has become homophobic and misogynous and who grew Christianity by inquisitions and murder.

This is not surprising given that so many of Christianity’s moral tenets are immoral. Christianity lacks moral tenets with which to convert. It takes pressure and force to believe the weird Christian take on the otherwise decent Jewish beginnings of their religion and god. Christians should have usurped some decent god as without Midrash, Yahweh is more like an evil Satan than a good god.

If you think you are created in Yahweh’s image, and able to do his evil and good deeds, are you happy about it?

If you do not think you are up to Yahweh’s evil ways, are you happy about it?

Regards
DL
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 07:51:04
I was always a bit puzzled about this thing: "God created man in his own image." And that image is supposed to be 'perfection'.


Even as a little girl it made me wonder. When the ancient Britons (or whoever) wanted to find a way to move heavy loads over long distances quickly and easily, they invented the wheel.

Which looks nothing like a leg.
dookie 0 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 08:14:11
At the end point of my own Bible reading days my conclusion was that its text was some sort of Rorschach test. Then it occurred to me that it is better to see all reality as such - why pick out just one book?

The problem is that many, seeking to justify themselves, wish the results of their own "test" to be imposed upon all, as some sort of privileged interpretation.



.....for to be is to understand, that is, one is what one understands..... (Dogen)
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 08:28:54
I can't be quite so philosophical. As a biologist I tend to stick to the nuts and bolts of life rather than the end product of (too much..??) deep thought.

At uni, we used to poke fun at the psychology students, teasing them (in good fun, of course) that psychology doesn't really count as a science degree. The responses could be quite amusing at times.

So I've never been one for in-depth philosophy. Sure, it has its place, but I couldn't live my life by it.

Since I got away (escaped) from the clutches of the Roman Catholic Church I've only ever used the Bible for comparative purposes, and whether or not Darwin was right, his version of events has to be a heck of a lot more credible. I'm happy to sit with his line of thinking on where we all come from until something more credible comes along.... and then we'll question that.

Science is an ongoing process and is as enlightening in its mission as the loftier cogitations of the greatest thinkers. Science only loses its way when it thinks it has all the answers.

We all seek answers in our own ways.
dookie 0 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 11:01:41
I've always loved biographies. Often preferred books about someone rather than actually reading of their particular "teachings" or whatever. The person set in the concrete circumstances of their life. Sometimes it gives a whole new perspective on their own works.

Read a few of Charles Darwin. He spent much of his later life studying the humble earthworm. He learnt a lot.
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 11:29:58
@dookie Said

I've always loved biographies. Often preferred books about someone rather than actually reading of their particular "teachings" or whatever. The person set in the concrete circumstances of their life. Sometimes it gives a whole new perspective on their own works.

Read a few of Charles Darwin. He spent much of his later life studying the humble earthworm. He learnt a lot.



Ahhhhhhhh, "On Humus and The Earthworm", or by its other title, "The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through The Action of Worms With Observations on Their Habits". Riveting reading although without an index it's very difficult to cross refer. Lots of post it notes and tape flags needed. That and an encyclopaedic mind for cataloguing-as-you-go.

Not very biographical though.
dookie 0 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 15:10:01
HE learnt a lot!

chaski On 59 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 18:20:57
@Jennifer1984 Said

....whether or not Darwin was right, his version of events has to be a heck of a lot more credible. I'm happy to sit with his line of thinking on where we all come from...



Minor point:

Darwin never actually had a theory of where we come from in terms of the origin of life.

His "origin of species" theory was about what people like to refer to as "evolution", even though he never used that word in his famous book.

And "evolution" is not about the formation of life. Evolution is about how life diversified and adapted (i.e. changed physiologically) over time after it was initially formed.

Life must first be formed (or created), then life changes to adapt; i.e life then evolves.

The religious view of creation, as odd as it seems to some, in no way refutes evolution. It only argues a different starting point from a scientific view of the formation of life.
chaski On 59 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#9New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 18:37:44
Made in God’s image Or "made in Yahweh's image".

These are not necessarily the same thing.

Yahweh was essentially a tribal god (the god of one group of people), and arguably a "war god".

God the creator would necessarily have to be less well defined (less restricted) than humans are capable of presenting. At best humans can posit some general ideas of who/what god is.

Now if god is not as the typical mythological motif (i.e. some old bearded white guy sitting on a throne is a very specific location, which is of course a complete ridiculous idea if one thinks at all of it), then god should/would be a far more universal "being"... entity... force... really no particular word works as each would be far to restrictive for an infinite all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent... etc... god.

But if we go with a more universal infinite god than all things... everything... contains an aspect of god, thus the entire universe and all that is "in" it are made in the image of god. Humans are not special in this regards, we are just stupid enough to be so arrogant as to believe that we are more special than we actually are.

Being made in the image of Yahweh is as good as any other graven image. Of course that would actually make "us" the graven image. And certainly that level of vanity would be one of the greatest sins.


Or something like that.
darkman666 On 16 minutes ago




Saint Louis, Missouri
#10New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 18:49:09
Made in God’s image Or "made in Yahweh's image".

These are not necessarily the same thing.

Yahweh was essentially a tribal god (the god of one group of people), and arguably a "war god".

if mythology was yahweh was god of war. he would be mars, god of war. yahweh would god of evil not good. god of war would represent conflict not peace.
dookie 0 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 20:04:03
Obviously a lot depends upon whatever image of God we have ourselves to begin with.

Meister Eckhart taught:- "Nothing that knowledge can grasp or desire can want is God. Where knowledge and desire end, there is darkness; and there God shines."

Maybe such words show why many progressive Christians, seeking to deepen their faith, are becoming interested in the Mahayana Buddhist teachings of "emptiness" and of what follows from understanding Reality itself as "empty".
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 21:48:04
@chaski Said

Minor point:

Darwin never actually had a theory of where we come from in terms of the origin of life.

His "origin of species" theory was about what people like to refer to as "evolution", even though he never used that word in his famous book.

And "evolution" is not about the formation of life. Evolution is about how life diversified and adapted (i.e. changed physiologically) over time after it was initially formed.

Life must first be formed (or created), then life changes to adapt; i.e life then evolves.

The religious view of creation, as odd as it seems to some, in no way refutes evolution. It only argues a different starting point from a scientific view of the formation of life.



The religious view of creation is about as improbable as any it is possible for the human mind to conceive. Darwin had his views about creation but kept those to himself because he knew that what he actually did publish was revolutionary enough for society at that time to be dealing with. He was very careful not to anger the religious establishment any further by actually, verbally denying the biblical creation.

What he did do was publish something he was very careful to call a 'theory' and let the scientific community loose on it, putting his trust in objective, enquiring minds to pick up the baton and run with it.

And they have done.

Now, some argue that the term "creation" is a bit of a misnomer in biological terms. They argue that the term "creation" suggests something was started from nothing but this can't be true. Life had to start from something. At least two separate things had to come together to begin the process and those two things had to already exist. So, the act of creation was, in reality, an act of evolution itself. Two non-living objects evolving into one living object, albeit at a microorganism level.

Today we have the theory of "Abiogenesis", the process by which life arose from non-living chemical matter. This suggests that a single ancient gene may have used each of its opposite DNA strands to code for different chemical catalysts. Those separate catalysts would both have activated amino acids, which then formed proteins – essential to the production of living cells.

Around 100 years ago the “primordial soup” model of abiogenesis started to gain traction. It suggests that in the Earth’s prebiotic history, simple organic matter was exposed to energy in the form of heat from volcanoes and electrical storms. These created energy that would have catalysed chemical reactions that over a few hundred million years, could have produced self-replicating molecules.

After WWII an experiment was conducted where scientists combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in an attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – which are the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.

This, of course, was a very simplistic explanation and doesn't really work because what would have happened very slowly in the primordial ocean had to be speeded up in the lab. Not really replicating actual conditions. So, back to the drawing board.

Scientists began to work with the most basic building blocks. In living cells, reactions are catalysed by enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. These complex molecules belong to two separate families, or classes. Class I synthetases activate 10 of the 20 amino acids that form proteins. Class II synthetases activate the other 10.

In the experiments, synthetases had all but their essential and universal components stripped away. It was found that the remaining structure, which was called “Urzymes,” were functional. These Urzymes probably resemble the ancestral molecules which eventually gave way to life.

It was discovered that Urzymes within the elaborate modern aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases ignored all the bells and whistles created by evolution. What they did show, however, was that they were fully capable of translating the genetic code.

The genetic code itself is strangely organised. One coding strand forms the outer surface of the protein, while the other forms the core. In other words, the two strands rely on “inside-out” interpretations of the same genetic information.

A way was devised to show experimentally that the two families are related to each other. The experiment showed that the ancestral Class II protozyme was built from exactly the same blueprint as the ancestral Class I protozyme, only the blueprint behaved as if it were written on glass and interpreted from the opposite side. The stunning thing is that both interpretations work equally well in the test tube.

In other words, nature solved the protein production problem by developing a single gene to do two separate jobs. And while the study leaves many questions unanswered, it does provide a “new set of tools” with which to move forward.

No theory is fully accepted until it is proven and abiogenesis still has a long way to go. It aint perfect by a long shot.

But it makes a lot more sense than the Biblical creation.

Want to read more..? Check out Miller-Urey (1952).
chaski On 59 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#13New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 22:50:48
@Jennifer1984 Said


Now, some argue that the term "creation" is a bit of a misnomer in biological terms.



Yes, and thus typically when I discuss the religious vs the scientific I use terms like "the formation of life" vs "the creation of life".

Regardless of whether or not life was formed via some natural process like abiogenesis or some god(s) created life, evolution is not part of it.

There 1st must be life, then there can be evolution.

In fact, regardless of how life came to be, evolution is an absolute.... even if one believes that god created the world 6000 years ago and then wiped out the vast majority of it 4000 years go in a big flood, evolution has happended since that time.

Obviously the theory of life forming by something like "abiogenesis" allowed more time than the biblical version. None the less evolution in either case has clearly taken place.

Again, the formation or creation of life is an entirely different thing from evolution.

The religious are often confused by this point, but their confusion is meaningless.
darkman666 On 16 minutes ago




Saint Louis, Missouri
#14New Post! Jul 23, 2020 @ 23:33:23
the bible say the god rest on the day, after six days, created the universe.

science tell us much longer one day to create anything.

the bible written doesn't give exactly date and time, when events happen in the bible.

if you watching tv show, like "roots " took seven nights on tv to air.

the bible said it took six days to create the universe and everything. then god rest on seven day.

if this event was like tv event, it would seven nights to completely. you have commercials breaks and station breaks to put in.

on the eighth day, god as executive producer of tv event, see how the ratings were for all seven nights. like "roots ", abc that produced got very high ratings.

like abc, god decided that seven of creation, one time deal, and no encore. god didn't need the money to produce the event again.

i heard years ago, that cbs bought the rights from god to produced " the big bang theory ".
dookie 0 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Jul 24, 2020 @ 11:12:34
@darkman666 Said

the bible say the god rest on the day, after six days, created the universe.

science tell us much longer one day to create anything.

the bible written doesn't give exactly date and time, when events happen in the bible.

if you watching tv show, like "roots " took seven nights on tv to air.

the bible said it took six days to create the universe and everything. then god rest on seven day.

if this event was like tv event, it would seven nights to completely. you have commercials breaks and station breaks to put in.

on the eighth day, god as executive producer of tv event, see how the ratings were for all seven nights. like "roots ", abc that produced got very high ratings.

like abc, god decided that seven of creation, one time deal, and no encore. god didn't need the money to produce the event again.

i heard years ago, that cbs bought the rights from god to produced " the big bang theory ".



Obviously (well, obvious to some, if not most) the stories of creation in the Bible are myths. Human speculation. We made them, we can interpret them. I like the idea of commercial breaks.

"All things are led by mind.........Buddhist......."In the beginning God created"......Christian/Judaic/Islamic.

If there is a "Godhead" beyond God (Meister Eckhart's "I pray God to rid me of God" ) then the Godhead is prior to all differentiation. Creation is then the act of differentiation, the "naming of things". In this sense we can see ourselves as "made in God's image."

Why would the mystics wish to go "beyond" such differentiation/naming?

"If you wish to know the truth then cease to cherish opinions" (The Hsin Hsin Ming, or "The Verses of The Faith Mind" )

Perhaps if we can become "nothing" we can then share the "emptiness" of the Godhead. Then differentiation becomes a whole new way of seeing?
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Thu Mar 06, 2014 @ 17:42
28 1077
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Tue Feb 11, 2014 @ 11:20
7 446
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Sun Jul 15, 2012 @ 19:26
69 6058
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Thu Feb 21, 2008 @ 19:47
22 1870
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Fri Mar 09, 2007 @ 07:13
9 811