Gods image.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Did dear Old Harry the Christian Scientist Faith Healer tell you that if according to his religion if one of his family were dying with some ailment and the laying on of hands did not work, if he had his way he would let them die, rather than seek medical help from a real doctor? Did he tell you that Christian Scientists don't accept the Germ Theory of disease, and that all ailments are caused by fear, ignorance, or sin?

 

http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_9.html

 

No as I said he did not lay any of that on me whats so ever and I never heard him say a word against doctors, every thing he spoke about was positive, in fact he was the first person I heard talking about discarding negative vibes, well before flower power and all that nice smoking stuff

 

You see I don't have an answer, I don't to this day understand why it worked, but believe me it did. He sorted me where all others had failed including traction, massage and heat treatment at Boscombe Hospital over a period of several months, I gave it up when I realised it was not working and that the darling little nurse was in fact married

[corydoras]

Your only saying that because you ain't got round to trying it yet give it time

 

I was flying into Tehran in the middle of one hell of a storm, purple runway lights well in sight and we hit one of those drop zones in the storm, down we go with engines screaming obscenities, yes I will admit to throwing around one or two very quick hail Mary's, it's bloody amazing how your attitude changes in situations like those.

Didn't happen to me when my bulk carrier got wrecked on a reef on the jaggy end of the Sinai Peninsula.

[Emma two]

I was flying into Tehran in the middle of one hell of a storm, purple runway lights well in sight and we hit one of those drop zones in the storm, down we go with engines screaming obscenities, yes I will admit to throwing around one or two very quick hail Mary's, it's bloody amazing how your attitude changes in situations like those.

 

Some call that the 'no atheists in foxholes' thing. I don't doubt that you responded as you have reported, however, it's flawed, I have been in situations where the possibilty of my death was very real and present and the very last thing on my mind was praying, self preservation was the main consideration.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Emma two

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Didn't happen to me when my bulk carrier got wrecked on a reef on the jaggy end of the Sinai Peninsula.

 

Maybe you were to busy trying to stay afloat where as I was sat there with seconds on my hands

 

I think it depends whether you are in the driving seat or a passenger, as a passenger you feel totally in adequate, as a driver your resolving or at least trying your up most to resolve things, sounds as if it didn't work in your case

 

I am bitterly disappointed in you at the very least you could have sunk her on the south coast

[GlennB]

I'm a Pastafarian myself, a devout believer in the true God - the Flying Spaghetti Monster - who created the Universe "after drinking heavily".

 

The FSM has exactly as much evidence to support its existence as any conventional deity, and has a much better sense of humour.

[corydoras]

Kleinboet

 

I am glad that you accept the Theory as Evolution as being factual, because this will save lots of other petty little disagreements between us. However it undermines your belief in Christianity.

 

Consider this. Evolution says that Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) and the Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) share a common ancestor.

 

This is a fact. This is something we KNOW. This is how we know it.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/CommonDescent.htm

 

If you also accept this as a fact, then that means that the Book of Genesis is a work of fiction, it means that there is no 'original sin' that needs redemption, no need for Big Daddy, or Junior or the Spook

[corydoras]

I'm a Pastafarian myself, a devout believer in the true God - the Flying Spaghetti Monster - who created the Universe "after drinking heavily".

 

The FSM has exactly as much evidence to support its existence as any conventional deity, and has a much better sense of humour.

I'm a sun worshipper myself. I can see the sun, being able to see your deity makes her more credible and she never has a bad word to say about anyone. Edited October 19, 2008 by corydoras

[kleinboet]

Cory, what's to argue about? We are apes as much as a Chimpanzee or Gorilla - but with one difference that the scientific world are in a tizz about, WHY did man develop the intelligence he has, what "freak" gene caused this to happen. As I said, we were promised that mankind would be in God's image and we aren't!

God does not suffer from Cancer, Aids or any other of the scourges we have in this world, so if his promise is true (and I believe it is!) then we will have to "mutate"a lot more before we are in God's image!

 

Emma - Your dislike of religion comes through in your postings, however - and I ask you to be COMPLETELY HONEST about this - how many times have thought "Christ! not this again", or had a near miss in the car or whatever and said "Oh God"

That is your subconcious and no matter how hard you try, you will never get rid of it!

 

Goodnight all, my bed calls. I'll read this thread in the morning!

Edited October 19, 2008 by kleinboet

[Emma two]

If you also accept this as a fact, then that means that the Book of Genesis is a work of fiction, it means that there is no 'original sin' that needs redemption, no need for Big Daddy, or Junior or the Spook

 

Precisley....

 

I see the bible like this, Image you pick up a book on a subject which you know about but wish to learn more, lets say, hmmmmm...fishin', if one page one it said, 'when loose feeding with sweetcorn, jus' chuck the tin in unopened as all fish carry with them Swiss army knives with tin openers and will soon have the top off', I would tend to disregard everything else in that book as nonsense, whether it were true or not. So if the books of genesis can be written off as highly unlikley even by christians, then why consider other parts of it as the (gospel) truth?

[The Flying Tench]

Precisley....

 

I see the bible like this, Image you pick up a book on a subject which you know about but wish to learn more, lets say, hmmmmm...fishin', if one page one it said, 'when loose feeding with sweetcorn, jus' chuck the tin in unopened as all fish carry with them Swiss army knives with tin openers and will soon have the top off', I would tend to disregard everything else in that book as nonsense, whether it were true or not. So if the books of genesis can be written off as highly unlikley even by christians, then why consider other parts of it as the (gospel) truth?

 

Hi Emma. First of all I had better own up to being a vicar of the evangelical (bible bashing) variety, so I could understand if I am not your favourite type of person after the way your brother was treated, which I think is really terrible - stupid, illogical and unloving - it almost makes me wish I did something else when I hear that kind of thing.

 

A few responses, though. I think your analogy above goes too far. The bible is, after all, 66 books written over hundreds of years. I was at theological college with about 100 other, mostly bible bashing people, and not one of them took Genesis 1 and 2 literally, not one of them was a 7 day creationist either. Actually no-one really takes Genesis 2 literally. No-one believes a snake spoke or that God walked physically in the garden. That is not disbelieving the bible, that is simply taking it seriously. But why would you believe the bible anyway if you are not a christian? I certainly wouldn't. Though I would be willing to consider, critically, the gospels for example as giving some information about the life of Jesus, written by (at least possibly) honest people who were nevertheless biassed.

 

Maybe a fairer analogy would be if someone had put together an anthology of stuff about fishing written several hundreds of years ago. I would want to make some allowance for the fact that it was written a long time ago, but just because one writer wrote horrendous stuff about pike I wouldn't necessarily ignore another chapter by Isaac Walton on chub.

 

Getting back on thread and 'the image of God', it's difficult to argue that the author of Genesis 1 was trying to say that men were more in the image of God than women. First of all the very notion was surely that we are like God - in other words it is meaningful to speak of God in anthropomorphic terms, loving, speaking, grieving - and don't those fairly obviously apply to women as much as men? Second, Gen 1:27 says 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them'. Admittedly some women might object to the use of the word 'man' to cover men and women in the start of the verse, but surely it is clear the author is saying that the bit about being in God's image applies equally to women.

 

John