I salvaged this conversation from youtube, during a conversation on what "the image of God" may mean, thought I'd share for anyone seeking possible answers. Some of the comments are no longer in their original posted order, which may explain if some of the comments seem out of sync with the conversation.
November 18, 2009...
Ferdinand Lasalle. I learned of him in Henry C. Sheldon, 1895, "
History of the Christian Church." Sheldon mentions embrace of mild socialist reforms, by Bismarck/German Empire and denunciation of Marxism which demands terrorism and worldwide revolution. Complete meltdown of civilzation. Socialism began with good intent, and corrupted by anti-Christ Marx. Marx' parasitical followers began putting posters of Lasalle w/Marx, to create the false impression Lasalle supported Marx, LEECHING off Lasalle's success.
Aside of Lasalle's success being preyed on, Darwin was also victimized. Gaining widespread notoriety among scientists (I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution) Marx tried wedging into Darwin's success. See
friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/. Darwin refused request for dedication in an Anti-Theist book. Darwin would not associate with Atheist bigots. MARXISTS BEGAN PRINTING POSTERS OF MARX' BOOK ON TOP OF DARWIN AND LASALLE, tho Darwin/Lasalle both had denounced atheist bigotry.
"I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution"
And I read somewhere that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't crazy. lol..
I can tell you that in My Diocese, Karl Marx, Darwin or Evolution are NOT looked upon with kind eyes. We teach from the Gospel, no not the Catholic Bible but from The King James Version. Mass is completely centered on the Bible from the readings to the homily. I don't think most Protestants understand Catholicism and it's a shame because it contains allot of Christian history.
Perhaps then, SOME Catholics are accepting. NC-PBS Evolution: Triumph of an Idea (Carl Zimmer), the Bishop featured to represent Catholicism seemed to feel Evolution was not a problem. For me too, I do not see contradiction. After years of publishing among Darwinists, then converting to Christianity, I went through Genesis 1 verse by verse, and it aligns in perfect chronology with all that science has discovered, including solutions to serious mysteries, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion.
My Darwinist compadres were aghast when I provided concrete evidence, AMG KJV Study Bible, states
"attempts to join the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable... because the order of creation is in direct opposition to modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"-- DO WHAT??
I knew this was a LIE. In fact, the elusive "tree" in Genesis was discovered, Prototaxites. Not angiosperms (flowering), but spores(seed) non-photosynthetic, fruiting fungi 'tree'.
So in essence, if I'm following you correctly, you accept the ideas of people like Cormac Murphy-OConnor?
Heyyyy, that's an insult.
"...During this time it was brought to his attention that a priest, Michael Hill, was a child sexual abuser. Instead of reporting Hill to the police, Murphy-O'Connor allegedly allowed the crime to be covered up..."I found an article by this person Murphy-O-Connor. He has very little understanding of Science or Genesis.
HE WRITES:
"It is a mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook."Hmm.. after years publishing in thick of Darwinists and sometimes peer review of variegated scientists -- I converted to Christianity.
I can only say after all I had learned from science, I read Genesis verse by verse. And, interpreted so, it is SPOTLESS modern science!
No. I do not accept Connor's views. He has no understanding of Science or Genesis.
To make a long story short:
Science teaches earth once was "without form and void". Science teaches plant_ancestors arrived first (algae, fungi, etc).
Most profound truth of all. Science teaches that animal life began in the water and emerged on land. That's precisely what Genesis 1:20 says. God said, "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature."
etc
Genesis is identical chronology w/fossil record.
Ok, cool. My apologies. I thought your views ran somewhat parallel with his. I do see where your coming from now though.
I'm a white Catholic (1/4 Iroquois) but the rest is Euro. I see the depictions society has produced of Jesus or Adam and Eve for that matter and I know they're probably not right. I cannot bring myself to toss out history i.e. time and places of origin. I don't think anyone really has a clue what God looks like. So, did he model Adam and Eve entirely of himself? Or
God is spirit. When I checked the KJV footnotes, I found something very interesting compared to other interpretations (especially Atheist) . . it is written, God said "Let us make man in our image...." and I had to ask what "us" means. In the footnotes, it states (Heb.)"plural, majesty" -- and the "us" is followed by "male and female (plural) created he them".
So in God's image, both male and female.
Sadly, some have tried to teach woman could not be in the image of God...
did he just give free will to the Adam and Eve? What does "in his likeness really mean" I know God didn't create a monkey after his likeness because then that would collide with the evolution of that mammal. I think these questions can only be answered by God. I believe that there is allot missing from the Bible and the New Testament as far as preciseness is concerned. Which is understandable giving the age of such writings. Also, is the Bible Vague on purpose?
Do we really think we could ever understand what God really looks like or sounds like. I don't think so. If we did know these things, that would leave God open to judgment and we know thats not gonna happen.
It was my conclusion, after reading the scripture, where it says let (us=plural majesty) create man in our image, male and female (plural) created he them...
I believe the very words that follow after "in our image," is the explanation:
... 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 creepeth upon the earth... I still cannot say for sure what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details. We have God in us but how much is to exact detail? I'm not sure we can ever truly understand the magnificence of God as earthly beings. I would suppose the quick and easier answer would be that Cro Magnons and the Sons of God reproduced at sometime. Sometimes The easiest answer is the right answer but we are talking about very complex issues here that have been discussed for thousands of years.
Scientists research for signs of animals using "tools". Evidence of intellect that sets man apart from animals.
Man had already achieved great things by the time Adam was created 10,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon were the first to be true artists, leaving cave paintings of Aurochs (cattle that have long went extinct), they carved beads, and even "venus idols". But they did not know how to farm.
People were nomadic hunter-gatherers, until man learned to farm and were then able to create settlements.
Day Six or an "Epoch" (fair Hebrew usage) Heb."Yowm" does not always mean 24 hour day. That word is used often to imply indefinate period of time, i.e., "in that day you eat thereof you will surely die." But Adam lived 900 years. So it was in "epoch" usage of the word, not a 24 hour "day". Adam was created 10,000 yrs ago. In Epoch Six, humans are created. Those were the primitive, early man-kinds that paleontologists continue to find. i.e., homo erectus, sapien, neanderthal, cro magnon, etc
Genesis 1 and 2 aligns PERFECT with science. i.e., Chapter 6 mentions "man of old" (Cro-Magnons who lived 40,000-10,000 which were giant (six ft tall on average), powerful built people, Adam descendants "the sons of God" interbreeded with them.) Genesis says of Adam, there was "no man... to till the ground". He's father of Agriculture, not the first human.
Adam, was the first farmer. Scientists have known Mesopotamia is where farming began at the same time Adam is described being created. But people like O'Connor misinterpreted that it was saying Adam was the "First Human". Genesis only says, "there was no man to till the ground"
Agriculture History
Over the 10000 years since agriculture began to be developed, ..... agriculture in the Middle East was static, and Mesopotamia, for example, ...
adbio com/science/agri-history.htmWell I definitely understand your arguments (Conclusions). I might not agree with every thing but I certainly respect your opinion.
Some gray areas are still present in me as the traditional Christian teachings collide with my God given intellect.
Speaking of the image of God.. when you read about the creation of Adam and Eve. They broke God's commandment, and partook of the knowledge of Evil. Then, they began to populate.. it is not written, "God saw that it was good," (like it was with the earliest man who lived in simplicity and did not harm anyone) but rather, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
That's modern man.
"...what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details..."
The fossil record shows man rose above, and dominated the environment, above all the beasts. And "God saw that it was good". But the one thing man could not do, was farm to settle.
It is written in Genesis 2, "there was not a man to till the ground." So God created the first farmer in Mesopotamia, apprx 10,000 years ago. In God's Image? No, to do continual wickedness.
It is written, God then repents he even made man.
It was my (personal) conclusion, that in the image of God, is explained "to have dominion". Early man developed innovative tools, weapons, spears, etc., mastered his environment.
Of interest too, "I have given you every herb bearing seed...upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Early hominids and humans (i.e., A. Robustus) are believed by Paleontologists to have been vegetarian (due to dentition).
Primitive man are still among us.
Descendants of Adam who took of the knowledge of evil, "their eyes were opened and knew they were naked".
There are still primitive people living to this day in jungles disconnected from modern world and lived nomadic for 10,000's of years. They run around naked, and do not have that perverse "knowledge of evil"... peacefully living as a "tribe". They still hunt and gather foods, and do not farm.
Atomic bombs, Frankenstein genetics... who's the SAVAGE?
Creationism teaches falsely that man (Adam, the fallen one who disobeyed God's commandment), was created in God's image, but it only says "there was no man to till the ground". Only primitive man was described as "in the image of God". Adam' descendants began plundering Cro-Magnon women, who's children were the same "mighty men, men of old," Nephalim, bullies. Continual wickedness; violence. God REPENTED he made man.
In the image of God? No. CRIMINAL man. Man are far more evil than monkeys.
Creationism may teach primitive man coming from apes, is... evil or unbelievable. TELL ME THEN what is so "holy" about modern man? What sets man above animals? Monkeys are better! Gorillas don't crack your skull open for a line of crack cocaine. Chimps don't sell their own mother for a dime. Orangutans don't go pedo on juveniles in the troop.
Animals only kill for food. Wicked man does it for sadistic sport... even preying on humans in the same manner.
It is written, God repented making man.
I don't always know the answers. When I converted to Christianity, I arrived at this conclusion:
Through Jesus Christ... we can read scripture, and the answers we seek will be given. "Knock, and the door will be open to you. "Seek and ye shall find."
Jesus is the only intermediator between a person, and God (The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth) to provide all revelations.
So God must answer you. I cannot.
"So God must answer you. I cannot."
Thats the way I see it also.
I also understand allot has been lost in translation like you bring to attention. Take the simple word "carpenter" that describes Jesus and follow that translation all the back to when that was written. It actually means "one who works with his hands". Giving the era I would tend to think he was more of a stone layer than a carpenter. But in my experience most Christians think of him as a carpenter who built houses.
--
... that's MY belief. The false teaching that man is "holy" or somehow "morally superior" compared to monkeys... as if it were proof against Evolution? No. Genesis describes that God grieved at man's ignorance, evil and criminality. Think pedophiles, armed robbery, violent assault, etc on human nature and ask yourself,
"Are chimps in your neighborhood trying to rape kids?" I'd say monkeys are morally superior to many so-called "humans". Genesis concurs, that
their thoughts were continual wickedness. therefore, a massive flood was sent on Mesopotamia..
Beyond "dominating the earth"... what is left? Every wicked thing under the sun? Image of God?? NO. More evil than many animals.
Man does create God in his own image though.On a positive note, it states further on (it is known God gave them his commandments) they refused to obey... the same wicked men... God broke Israel and Judah and scattered them throughout the Earth.. and said he would yet make a new covenant through his son, (Despite the wickedness and enmity to God), ... see John 3:16
(I've said it 1000x already), "who is the SAVAGE"? When I point out atom bombs, genocide, and other wickedness that is in the heart of man... I guess it troubles inerrantists' and their impression of man's "special" status over monkeys and other creatures. Nope, God created ape, and it was good. God created modern man, and God grieved.
I am all too familiar with the false dogma taught by the churches -- adherents mindlessly nodding their heads in agreement against human Evolution, as if man had something "so special," about him, "so morally superior," ... compared to animals.
Oh, contraire! Genesis is emphatic on this! Emphatic enough, that God flooded the Mesopotamian region, wiping out the hotbed of the human failure called modern man.
Followed by raining down fiery sulphur on Sodom due to their wretched treatment of people. Those fundamentalists nodding their heads in church. When they head out the door with the Bible they never read, they'll play the devil the rest of the week... I have never figured out what makes them believe humans have any moral high ground over animals. From my personal experience, animals make better friends than most humans.
