In his image?

[critr]

according to scripture we are a spectacle before the universe 1corinthians 4:9 ,which means other creations of God who haven't "sinned" are watching us besides aren't angels other beings?

As to are we made in the image of God well,isn't Jesus a man who is God and since all was made through and by Him I think that means God has the same phsyical image as us. And since He made the physical enviroments that we have lived in and the laws that govern them,that we know of.I'm sure there is more to learn about what we can and cannot do as humans and I'm sure that when He returns we will have different yet the same body types.

critr

[Satori]

Jedikiller said:

Well, in Mormonism we "know" that life exists on other planets than our own, and that God is their God as well. I personally think that this also means that they have their own Bible, but I'm not so sure.

All I do know is that we are the worst world of them all. We are the evilest, and we are also the most rightous (if that makes ANY sense) which is why God sent his only begotten to THIS world, and why he flooded THIS world.

Interesting. Don't you think the world would have flooded anyway? Melting ice ages and such.

It'll flood again too, and probably burn. How does one separate God's doings from geological doings, or are we to assume that God has a hand in everything?

[MrEusOne]

Areopagite said:

The only time that you could point to God being like us in the physical sense you speak of was when the Word became flesh through the incarnation. Jesus Christ, the second member of the Holy Trinity.

Well, according to Genesis 32:24-30 God wrestles with Jacob, so that would imply that he does have a body, or can manifest himself in a human body. Not to mention that God tries to cheat by throwing Jacob's hip out of joint.

[Areopagite]

Yes, God appeared in human form throughout the Old Testament when He chose to manifest Himself that way (He also appeared as a burning bush, a pillar of cloud, etc.). These are called theophanies. This is different, though, from when God became man by "taking on flesh".

[MrEusOne]

Areopagite said:

These are called theophanies. This is different, though, from when God became man by "taking on flesh".

In what way? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then usually it would be safe to assume that what you are observing is, in fact, a duck.

I looked up theophanies. Seems like some pretty fine hair splitting going on there:

At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Ex. 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty, and at least Moses saw God, not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions.
The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus; compare John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14 above.

So basically, it's not contradictory because the bible says it's not contradictory. That seems to be a pretty circular argument, IMHO.

[MrEusOne]

I should probably attribute that second quote in my last post. I read about theophanies and got the quote from here:

www.carm.org/misc/plurality.htm

[Electron]

Jedikiller said:

It is just as easy to say that God does have the bipedal stance and gave it to us, and created the earth with the limitations that he did. He knew exactly what type of terrain was best for our bodies, and created if for us.

But this tells us that god belonged to a particualr Earth-like terrain, very similar in mass and size - not to mention temperature, atmospheric composition etc.

Look, I don't know about you, but it is HIGHLY suggestive of an oversight by the authors of th OT. Without the benefit of modern engineering knowledge they simply didn't realise what a gaff they were making in this respect.

[Jedikiller]

Satori said:

What do you believe he created the rest of the universe for then?

I believe it was for all of his other children on different planets. I think I posted in more depth about this in another thread.

[Jedikiller]

Satori said:

Interesting. Don't you think the world would have flooded anyway? Melting ice ages and such.

It'll flood again too, and probably burn. How does one separate God's doings from geological doings, or are we to assume that God has a hand in everything?

How I separate God's doings from just natural things is if it had a point and/or purpose. The flooding of the Earth with noah had a purpose, but the Tsunami's (just barely) did not (that I know of) God just let's the Earth sort out it's differences all by itself.

[Areopagite]

Electron said:

Look, I don't know about you, but it is HIGHLY suggestive of an oversight by the authors of th OT. Without the benefit of modern engineering knowledge they simply didn't realise what a gaff they were making in this respect.

I love that flawed notion that just because the ancient writers didn't wear lab coats and carry microscopes everywhere they must be ridiculously stupid. It's an all too typical "modern" notion.

Jedikiller said:

The flooding of the Earth with noah had a purpose, but the Tsunami's (just barely) did not (that I know of) God just let's the Earth sort out it's differences all by itself.

God allowed it to happen, and so there must be some sort of purpose even if you don't know what it is, Jedikiller.

[Electron]

Jedikiller said:

I believe it was for all of his other children on different planets. I think I posted in more depth about this in another thread.

This would seem to be very much at odds with the usual interpretaion of mans relationship with god would it not?

Do I detect evasion of my observation that if god wanted man to resemble himself, he would have to be constrianed by the same contingencies that give rise to this type of bodyplan?

[Areopagite]

Electron said:

This would seem to be very much at odds with the usual interpretaion of mans relationship with god would it not?

Do I detect evasion of my observation that if god wanted man to resemble himself, he would have to be constrianed by the same contingencies that give rise to this type of bodyplan?

Agreed, Jedikiller's interpretation is at odds with orthodox teaching.

I think I'd have to also agree with your point about the fallacy of interpreting "in his image" in a physical sense like Jedikiller has. It would be contradictory for God to be limited in the physical sense we are yet omnipotent and omnipresent.

[Electron]

Areopagite said:

I love that flawed notion that just because the ancient writers didn't wear lab coats and carry microscopes everywhere they must be ridiculously stupid. It's an all too typical "modern" notion.

So you think that they knew back then that you couldn't just scale up a an object to arbitrary proportions, and that the mass and size of the planet are limiting factors, let alone knowing the true mass and size of the Earth?

I made no assesment of intelligence, I only pointed to a lack of knowledge. Your comment runs the risk of revealing an ingnorance about the difference between the two. As a great admirer of every age of human intelect, without exception, I am offended by your grossly exaggerated remark.

[Jedikiller]

God allowed it to happen, and so there must be some sort of purpose even if you don't know what it is, Jedikiller

Not everything has a purpose. Bad things happen in this world for three reasons. First, they happen because you are being punished for sinning. Second, they happen because you are being tested by God, and thirdly, they happen because TEXTbad things just happen!TEXT

[Jedikiller]

Electron said:

This would seem to be very much at odds with the usual interpretaion of mans relationship with god would it not?

Do I detect evasion of my observation that if god wanted man to resemble himself, he would have to be constrianed by the same contingencies that give rise to this type of bodyplan?

God would not have to be constrained by the same limitations. Sure, God might have a liver, I don't know, but that doesn't mean that he HAS to have a liver. That doesn't mean he HAS to have the same muscle tone as we do to walk around on Earth, and not the moon, for example.

He could have given us everything that we need (physically) to support our spirits. Are you saying that our spirits have the same physical limitations as our mortal bodies do?