by jfgecik » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:25 pm
Wow! You guys don't give up, do you? You actually WANT to display your ignorance? Better to be quiet and learn, rather than let people realize how little you know (factually) and how weird your opinions are.
BMAONE23, you wrote: "In the near/far future humankind might just prove to be the truest label for us as other possible non human races are discovered on planets outside our solar system. To think we are unique in this respect is arrogant at best."
This is sheer fantasy, the kind of thing that some weak-minded people engage in after viewing silly science-fiction junk on TV.
First, in the extremely unlikely event that any living beings exist on other planets, they would almost certainly be merely like Earth's protozoa or plants or animals, not manlike beings with immortal souls.
Second, no matter what those other beings may be like, that would not make the word "mankind" bad to use (or "humankind" better to use).
So you have failed to make a point of any significance.
Next, you wrote: "To think that the reference in the bible to God 'creating man in his own image' states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant ... when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image."
You don't know what you are talking about. The meaning of the statements in the Bible has nothing to do with physical appearance. Our being made in the "image and likeness of God" refers to certain non-physical things -- such as the immortality of divine and human souls, the fact that both God and men have and intellect (ability to remember, to reason, etc.) and a will (ability to choose), etc.. There is nothing "arrogant" about this at all.
Next, you wrote: "lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds 'Mans club' so the language reflects this".
That is a massive "crock," which I've never come across before, in my 54 years of seeing various kinds of crocks. The Bible was not "re-written" in any way. It is a book that has God as its primary Author (men being secondary authors) and, as such, cannot contain any errors.
The fact is that, in the Gospels (of which we have Greek copies from very early centuries), Jesus (both Man and God) dozens of times refers to the first Person of the Trinity as "Father" (and "He") and never as "Mother" (or "She"). Since the Bible is inerrant, we can take this as guidance as to how we are to speak about God.
All the feminist goddess rubbish is junk that was invented since 1960, for Pete's sake! It's part of witchcraft and satanism. The devil loves it when youngsters like you fall for that junk.
Next, you wrote: "I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there."
Why would you "hope" for this, when it really doesn't matter to MANKIND? Who gives a darn about extra-terrestrials (if there are any), since they are totally irrelevant to our lives.
And now for the less childish, but no less obnoxious "fastartceetoo" ...
Thanks for helping me to understand why you are out of touch with certain parts of reality. You identify yourself as a "humanist" (an atheistic "secular humanist," I assume). This puts you in a very tiny minority of misguided people.
You quoted me as ending with, "God bless you," and then you wrote:
"Wow... what a *scary* rant!"
There is no valid point in your comment. I was not trying to be "scary" (a childish term that should be replaced by "frightening"). Nor did I engage in a "rant" (which is an uncontrolled, emotionally shouted complaint.) I calmly stated facts and corrected you people, just as I am doing now. That is not a "rant."
Next, you wrote: "As for God blessing all of us, it might be best for you, jfgecik, if She doesn't exist!"
I have already begun to explain the fallacy involved in using the pronoun, "She," which is non-biblical. But let's go a step farther. God, in His divinity, as the supreme Being who made all things, is referred to as "pure spirit," having no body and thus no sexuality.
Thus, God, in his divine nature, is neither man nor woman. However, in revealing Himself to us through Jesus, God never lets his People (in the Old or New Testaments) use feminine language about Him. He took flesh in a man, not a woman -- and that man (Jesus) speaks of God his Father in heaven -- not of God as his Mother (since His mother was a human being, not a divine one).
God bless you.
John
Wow! You guys don't give up, do you? You actually WANT to display your ignorance? Better to be quiet and learn, rather than let people realize how little you know (factually) and how weird your opinions are.
BMAONE23, you wrote: "In the near/far future humankind might just prove to be the truest label for us as other possible non human races are discovered on planets outside our solar system. To think we are unique in this respect is arrogant at best."
This is sheer fantasy, the kind of thing that some weak-minded people engage in after viewing silly science-fiction junk on TV.
First, in the extremely unlikely event that any living beings exist on other planets, they would almost certainly be merely like Earth's protozoa or plants or animals, not manlike beings with immortal souls.
Second, no matter what those other beings may be like, that would not make the word "mankind" bad to use (or "humankind" better to use).
So you have failed to make a point of any significance.
Next, you wrote: "To think that the reference in the bible to God 'creating man in his own image' states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant ... when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image."
You don't know what you are talking about. The meaning of the statements in the Bible has nothing to do with physical appearance. Our being made in the "image and likeness of God" refers to certain non-physical things -- such as the immortality of divine and human souls, the fact that both God and men have and intellect (ability to remember, to reason, etc.) and a will (ability to choose), etc.. There is nothing "arrogant" about this at all.
Next, you wrote: "lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds 'Mans club' so the language reflects this".
That is a massive "crock," which I've never come across before, in my 54 years of seeing various kinds of crocks. The Bible was not "re-written" in any way. It is a book that has God as its primary Author (men being secondary authors) and, as such, cannot contain any errors.
The fact is that, in the Gospels (of which we have Greek copies from very early centuries), Jesus (both Man and God) dozens of times refers to the first Person of the Trinity as "Father" (and "He") and never as "Mother" (or "She"). Since the Bible is inerrant, we can take this as guidance as to how we are to speak about God.
All the feminist goddess rubbish is junk that was invented since 1960, for Pete's sake! It's part of witchcraft and satanism. The devil loves it when youngsters like you fall for that junk.
Next, you wrote: "I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there."
Why would you "hope" for this, when it really doesn't matter to MANKIND? Who gives a darn about extra-terrestrials (if there are any), since they are totally irrelevant to our lives.
And now for the less childish, but no less obnoxious "fastartceetoo" ...
Thanks for helping me to understand why you are out of touch with certain parts of reality. You identify yourself as a "humanist" (an atheistic "secular humanist," I assume). This puts you in a very tiny minority of misguided people.
You quoted me as ending with, "God bless you," and then you wrote:
"Wow... what a *scary* rant!"
There is no valid point in your comment. I was not trying to be "scary" (a childish term that should be replaced by "frightening"). Nor did I engage in a "rant" (which is an uncontrolled, emotionally shouted complaint.) I calmly stated facts and corrected you people, just as I am doing now. That is not a "rant."
Next, you wrote: "As for God blessing all of us, it might be best for you, jfgecik, if She doesn't exist!"
I have already begun to explain the fallacy involved in using the pronoun, "She," which is non-biblical. But let's go a step farther. God, in His divinity, as the supreme Being who made all things, is referred to as "pure spirit," having no body and thus no sexuality.
Thus, God, in his divine nature, is neither man nor woman. However, in revealing Himself to us through Jesus, God never lets his People (in the Old or New Testaments) use feminine language about Him. He took flesh in a man, not a woman -- and that man (Jesus) speaks of God his Father in heaven -- not of God as his Mother (since His mother was a human being, not a divine one).
God bless you.
John