Man in his image.

Post Reply New Topic

Funny you shoud say that...

From Against Heresies by Irenaeus (yes, he was a Church Father, and normally I'd trust what they said about any other belief system about as far as I could spit a rat, but checking up on the surviving Gnostic books proves that in this case he's being more or less accurate):

"On this account, Ialdabaoth, becoming uplifted in spirit, boasted himself over all those things that were below him, and exclaimed: I am Father, and God, and above me there is no-one. But his mother, hearing him speak thus, cried out against him: Do not lie, Ialdabaoth; for the father of all, the first Anthropos, is above you...in order to lead them away and attract them to himself, they affirm that Ialdabaoth exclaimed: Come, let us make man after our image...

For those not familiar with Gnosticism, the general myth - there were many variations - is that the true God, the unknowable Source (here called the first Anthropos, as in, the being in whose spiritual image humans are truly created), emanated a series of beings of which Sophia was the youngest...she tried to emanate another being herself while still too immature to do so, and ended up creating Ialdabaoth, who's a kind of walking abortion - not exactly evil, but half-formed and a bit dumb about how the universe works. Imagine a vastly powerful two-year-old and you have his personality about right. He creates the material world - or according to some modern commentators, the current system of this world, which is why everything is so screwed up - and he goes on to create humans who, however, can only 'squirm along the ground' like worms until Sophia asks the ultimate God to breathe spiritual life into them. It's Sophia who's here reminding young Ialdabaoth that he's not as powerful as he thinks.

To the Gnostics, Ialdabaoth was the god of the Old Testament. Jesus was the spouse of Sophia who came to show us the way back to the light. Hence the vast moral difference between the two. If you're familiar with the works of William Blake, his 'Old Nobodaddy' is roughly the same creature.

Those are all addressed it us, You shall not kill you being us not him. It isn't violating the 10 commandments for god to kill steal or other such things.

16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
(for reference)

These all sound like personal taste, meaning he might hate them and still do them while punishing those beneath him for committing them.(we where after all made in his image and this is a very human thing to do)

Sure they were aimed at us... but it still IS a violation for him to do it himself, even if he's not bound by them.
He does what he says we shouldn't.

That is pretty well my definition of Hypocrisy.... That is why, even were he to exist, i'd spit in his face! Actually, I'd likely be too busy puking in disgust.

No he simply laid down rules for us to follow that he doesn't have to it is completely within his power to do so and thus it is his right. He cannot violate rules he is not bound by.

So it's basically "do as I say, not as I do"? That is pretty hypocritical.

Actually it's a view of God as a chicken farmer. You don't expect a chicken farmer to obey the rules he has for his chickens.

Incorrect god would be our superior and in charge of us meaning he would have to be able to set rules for us without being expected to follow them.

Leaders set good examples or they do not persist as leaders. Notice a rise in atheism in the world?

Except he isn't a leader hes a god.

Even worse then. All the power in the universe to set a good example.. and she doesnt.

And gods a female. I remember as a teen fondling her breasts and thinking "now this is heaven". Dont claim otherwise.

God, I would think, WOULD be bound by His own rules.

God CANNOT steal, for instance. The ability to steal implies that someone else has complete ownership of something. The God of the Bible, however, owns EVERYTHING to begin with. So if God takes something away from us, it is His right to do so. Abilities, for another example. If God gives me the ability to do something and I abuse my power, it only seems fair that God take it away. Money? God requires us to return a "portion" of what He has given us through our ability to do work or provide service to others. If we fail to do so, it only makes sense that God will cause something to harm our prosperity.

If it is God's to give, it is His to take. Therefore, God cannot steal. He can only take back what was given to us (by Him) in trust.

So AngelRho, you are saying that it is okay to take back anything you give to someone?
I hate using terms like "Indian Giver" because of the racist slant, so perhaps we should call the term "deity giver"

The other flaw in the logic of your reply is that you assume god does own everything, but it's an unsubstantiable claim. It's here in my hand... I own it.... I have the receipt, the warranty etc.. I CAN substantiate my claim.

I guess you'll use the same rhetoric to justify his murders? The babes that drowned in his flood?

The chicken farmer analogy is also very weak, because the farmer doesn't demand worship by the chickens, the chickens aren't sentient, and the farmer has only the intent of reaping the chicken's eggs, or worse yet slaughtering and eating the chickens, (which on that last part, maybe it is like the christian god.)

The political analogy is a bit better, but the political leader also doesn't expect worship and veneration from those he leads (save for Kim Jong Il and some other eastern dictators of past and present) If god can't be a role model, a leader, a mentor, then he must fail. Fear can only keep a subservient people in chains so long until that fear is overcome and that leader overthrown.

Ikorak said that god isn't bound by the rules and has the power to set them, and as he has that power, it is his right to do so... Well, I have the power to do a lot of things myself, say... killing an innocent... therefore it is my right to do so, doesn't that also follow from the same logic? Well, it would if the original logic wasn't so flawed... Listening to this logic from people is the greatest way I can to re-affirm my own anti-theism.

Think of it this way: I don't know if you own a house, pay a mortgage, or live in an apartment. I'm fortunate at a relatively young age to actually own my house/land, as modest as it might be.

But I did live in an apartment at one time. When you live in an apartment, which might be owned by a person or a company, you pay "rent" or "lease." You might pay a security deposit, you might pay extra money for utilities, services, and so on. Whatever. But for all intents and purposes, that apartment is "yours."

Let's say you lose a job and can no longer pay the rent. You have certain duties and responsibilities that you MUST keep in order to keep your living space. You have options. Find a new job in your area or pack your bags and get out. In the USA, you might file for unemployment benefits in which you can at least have a roof over your head until you get settled in a new job. You may choose to exchange the apartment for another in another city should you need to move--in which you might get your security deposit back, and so on.

However, if you fail to pay rent, your landlord may begin eviction proceedings to get you out of your apartment. In the US, their are strict laws regulating this--notice has to be given, and after a period of time a landlord can go to court, have a judge sign an order, and serve you with papers in order to have you forcibly removed from "your" property.

There may be other obligations in your contract, certain rules you must adhere to in order to maintain your residence--such as certain types of property maintenance, painting/redecorating to be cleared through the owner, building lofts (or prohibitions against lofts), violations of safety/fire codes, and so on. If you are engaged in activities that damage the property or disrupts the lives of your neighbors, you can be asked to leave, pay fines, and other kinds of penalties before, perhaps, the owner begins eviction proceedings against you. Even if you pay the rent in full and on time, by violating terms of your contract you forfeit any rights you have to the property, which will be taken from you.

What God gives you does not ultimately belong to you--it is given in trust. Therefore, it is His right to do as He sees fit, giving to some and taking from others. Such things are always just and fair, just as it is fair under certain conditions for a landlord to deprive you of your place to live and sleep.

You're also confusing murder with the penalty for sin incurred by mankind. The flood is only one very exceptional example because God did not call upon human beings to exact His vengeance. The conquest of Canaan post-Exodus is the fulfillment of God's covenant with the patriarchs, that the house of Israel will return to Canaan permanently. The slaughter of the Canaanites was justified because those people had plenty of time and opportunity to return to worshiping Yahweh. If you understood the worship practices of the Canaanites, such as ritual child sacrifice and a whole string of sexual immorality (temple prostitution, bestiality, incest), you wouldn't wonder about God's reasoning behind destroying them. The Israelites were actually instructed NOT to have mercy on them--deport them or kill them--and their failure led to the demise of the Israelite (and Judahite) kings and nations. The babies and young children HAD to die as part of this campaign. The first reason is an act of mercy: The children would have no place in Israelite society. The second reason was to ensure the security of the nation of Israel: You really think you could trust these kids after you killed their parents?

They were NOT instructed to kill those beyond their allotted territory. Once the nation of Israel had been established, they could communicate and trade freely with surrounding nations. As such they were a witness and example of God and His preferred morality to the rest of the Near East. In fact, according to the OT, foreigners (travelers, merchants) residing in Israel were obligated to observe Israel's laws and traditions. Beyond the initial conquest of Canaan, there is not recorded any such widespread slaughter and genocide on such a grand scale. Accusing God of wanton murder, genocide, infanticide is unjustified, ESPECIALLY when consideration is taken on humankind's commission of such acts that are NOT part of God's instruction. Indeed, despite what ingratitudes certain Christians have heaped upon the rest of the world, the general idea of mercy according to the teachings of Christ reflect an entirely different attitude in relating to other people.

God made everything there is that makes everything that is his. (just because someone has changed its form doesn't make it theirs) Yes this also justifies the babies death in a world with god, god is justice. I cannot address your chicken farmer statement because i will not guess god's intent. God isn't akin to a political leader because he doesn't draw his power from people so we cant take it away, so no that analogy doesn't work. God set those rules for us not him which is what I'm saying and you don't seem able to comprehend that statement. The reason we can break these rules is because we where given freewill.(the only thing stopping you from killing an innocent is you(assumption) and any laws laid down by your fellow man(assumption)) God has the right to do with us as he pleases because there is no one to tell him he cant and enforce the statement. Now if you wanted to kill an innocent you could it would be your god given right in my opinion but you would likely be hunted down and there is likely no merit in killing an innocent.

@Fuzzy He doesn't have to set a good example he's told us what he wants and we are expected to follow or burn.

(remember we are working from the assumption that a christian god exists while i may not be christian i do intend to follow the ops request to the best of my abilities, some of the things said here might not match up to my real life beliefs)

What about gay guys? Boobs aren't all that good for gay dudes.

I had the gayest boss in the world(though he wasnt the flamboyant type) and he looked at boobs all the time. This one time this patron took her shirt and bra off in front of us and my boss exclaimed "Wow! Nice boobs!"

And of course women look at each others boobs all the time.