Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,607 Year: 16,643/19,786 Month: 768/2,598 Week: 14/251 Day: 14/23 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Adam Packin' Heat?
ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 49 of 120 (737995)
10-03-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:09 PM


djufo writes:

Yes, God did create Adam in his image after his own likeness.


He created both Adam and Eve in His image:
quote:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:09 PM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:32 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 52 of 120 (738038)
10-04-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by djufo
10-04-2014 11:32 AM


djufo writes:

It doesn't say there he created Adam and Eve in his image. It says he created both, but only him "Adam" in his image.


quote:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In English, "created he him" and "created he them" both refer back to "man". That is, "male and female" refers to "man" so "man" must be mankind - and both were created in God's image.

If the Hebrew says something different, it's a mistranslation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:32 AM djufo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 56 of 120 (738166)
10-05-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by djufo
10-04-2014 3:12 PM


djufo writes:

Monotheism is incorrect.


Which part is incorrect? The "mono" or the "theism" or both?

djufo writes:

Of course sex requires 2 Gods. How do you think our creator came to exist?


If our creator "came to exist" he is not the original god; he's just an alien life-form. Who created his parents?

If God has genitals, you're stuck in infinite regression.

djufo writes:

The ancient knowledge told me so.


Old things tend to fall apart. I think that explains your "knowledge".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:12 PM djufo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 60 of 120 (738421)
10-10-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by djufo
10-08-2014 11:33 PM


djufo writes:

You guys have to read a lot and a lot and a lot of more things to understand....


So tell us what to read. Give us the references. Otherwise, it looks like you're just making it up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by djufo, posted 10-08-2014 11:33 PM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by djufo, posted 10-12-2014 2:09 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 64 of 120 (738690)
10-14-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by djufo
10-12-2014 2:09 PM


djufo writes:

All I know I started it by myself studying theoretical physics, philosophy, ancient civilizations, mythology, religions, applied physics, universal history, etc. Any mortal has the ability to research and uncover our origins. And one of the criticism of an "expert" is the "qualifications" to discuss and argue.


The problem with self-education is that there's often no discipline. You find an intereting idea and you look for more information about that idea. On the other hand, if you get a proper formal education with "qualifications", they force you to read things you don't want to read, like the criticism of your favorite ideas. That's why people with "qualifiations" are less likely to fall for nonsense like pyramidology than people who have "educated themselves" by memorizing the Internet.

I suspect that you're reluctant to give us a reading list because your bias would beome painfully obvious.

djufo writes:

Reason, logic and common sense is not available as a degree anywhere in the world.


Well, reason and logic are certainly part of many degrees.

As for common sense, dirt is common but it isn't necessarily valuable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by djufo, posted 10-12-2014 2:09 PM djufo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 85 of 120 (810871)
06-02-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Davidjay
06-02-2017 11:27 AM


Re: The Lord's beautiful IMAGE and BODY
Davidjay writes:

We are made in His Image not a chimps image or a ape image or a Eucharonta image or a tree shrew image or a inbreed dog image, but the iMAGE of the living God.


But chimps, tree shrews, dogs, etc. all have genitals, so by your logic they're all created in God's image too.

On the other hand, if humans were created in some kind of woo-woo "spiritual image", we might be considered unique.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Davidjay, posted 06-02-2017 11:27 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 5:31 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 92 of 120 (810966)
06-03-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Davidjay
06-03-2017 5:31 AM


Re: The Lord's beautiful IMAGE and BODY
Davidjay writes:

We, humans are made in the image of God, not the animals he created.... we as in us, humans.


Where's the logic in that? It''s just an empty assertion. If genitalia are part of God's image and many animals have genitalia, then why are only humans created in God's image?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 5:31 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 102 of 120 (811148)
06-05-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Davidjay
06-05-2017 11:46 AM


Re: The Lord has a penus and testicles
Davidjay writes:

she does have a sacred internal member both beautiful and functional, as thereIN it is called the Womb of God...


If the Holy Spirit has her own womb, why did she need Mary's to make Jesus?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 11:46 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 12:02 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 105 of 120 (811155)
06-05-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Davidjay
06-05-2017 12:02 PM


Re: The Lord had to come 'physically
Davidjay writes:

Because Mary was a human and Jesus had to be physically....


God made Adam and Eve without using a womb. He was taking a shortcut already by getting Mary pregnant. So it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to have a womb.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 12:02 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 9:49 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 110 of 120 (811260)
06-06-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Davidjay
06-05-2017 9:49 PM


Re: The Lord had to come 'physically
Davidjay writes:

Ringo, thanks for illustrating an insincere question, that you supposedly want an answer to.


Well, I didn't expect an answer. The question was meant to underscore your asinine point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 9:49 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 06-08-2017 10:51 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 113 of 120 (811466)
06-08-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
06-08-2017 10:51 AM


Re: Re:Mathematical proof of Body Design
Davidjay writes:

The Lord had a 'maximus' behind and in front... as Moses saw it.


According to Exodus 33, what Moses saw was God's "glory". Think of a very bright light. You can't look at it directly without damaging your eyesight but if it's pointed away from you - i.e. you're behind it - you can see it reflected from other objects.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 06-08-2017 10:51 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 06-08-2017 7:16 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 115 of 120 (811592)
06-09-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Davidjay
06-08-2017 7:16 PM


Re: Re:Mathematical proof of Body Design
Davidjay writes:

I quess you speak from experience....


I speak from reading the Bible. You should try it sometime instead of making up your own stories.

Davidjay writes:

Anyway, for the sake of READERS and not you Ringo, again note how Jesus was before their eyes and was real, even after his resurrection, witnessed and realised by doubting Thomas.


Why do you accept that story as written but you make up a lot of silly nonsense about the story in Exodus?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 06-08-2017 7:16 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Davidjay, posted 06-09-2017 11:49 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17274
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 117 of 120 (811598)
06-09-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Davidjay
06-09-2017 11:49 AM


Re: Re:Mathematical proof of Body Design
Davidjay writes:

Anyway the Bible is literal....


Some of it is and some of it isn't. Do you think Psalm 23 was written by a literal sheep or a figurative sheep?

Davidjay writes:

As for exodus, the first one was literal....


That's what I'm saying. What the text actually SAYS is nothing about God's naughty bits. You're the one who is adding a fanciful interpretation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Davidjay, posted 06-09-2017 11:49 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019