walsufnir said:
|
This guy is not god.
He is just a friend of Bruce Wayne.
Watch Batman and you'll know.
walsufnir said:
|
This guy is not god.
He is just a friend of Bruce Wayne.
Watch Batman and you'll know.
First off your concept of God is WAY too limited if you're asking this question. You should ask if Adam was a brother.
Biblically, Man was made in their image: Genesis 1:26 (King James Bible):
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
It's not clear way the use of plural in this one verse. Some theologians suggest he was referring to the heavenly host (angels, etc) so perhaps some of them are brothers.
However, biblically Adam and Eve were four thousand years ago. Evolution of man out of Africa would have been many hundreds of thousands of years ago so the two concepts (God made man in His image, man evoled in Africa) are not compatible.
AbbathTheGrim said:
1) Then I am interested to know in what way you think God created man on His image. 2) Then you assumed beforehand that you would shatter my reality without having certainty that you could actually be able to accomplish such a thing. :P 3) So you think that English is the only language people are "supposed to know properly". That is a very limited way of looking at things. I am not lacking appreciation for your argument, I think you fail to see the seriousness behind my OP to begin with. |
1) I don't think that statement carries any real value. What does it mean? Two arms and two legs? Eyes, nose, mouth... White/Black skin? It doesn't mean anything does it?
2) No. I state that a person adhering to the statement "God created man in His image" would easily have their reality shattered by a little introspection and analytical investigation. So, no, I didn't say that. But now that (it seems) you have indeed ascribed to that viewpoint, I'd have to say yes - your reality is very much in danger of being shattered.
3.1) Very ironic actually (your statement). One of the main problems with most human languages is that they are ambiguous. This is certainly true for English as well. In other words, one string could mean several things due to the inadequacy of the grammar. Your reading of my statement as " you think that English is the only language people are "supposed to know properly" " illustrates this point quite nicely. But NO, that's not what I meant. My statement extends to English websites, and English speaking people. No person who speaks English second or third language would have the audacity to say another is 'trying to sound sophisticated' as you have in this case.
3.2) "I think you fail to see the seriousness behind my OP to begin with. " And I gave you a simple set of arguments to show that the entire premise behind the OP is meaningless in its entirety. I should mention that I thought it was a joke(ish) thread at first.
SxyxS said:
He is just a friend of Bruce Wayne. Watch Batman and you'll know. |
Who else could build such amazing stuff for Batman except god?!


| Gamerace said: First off your concept of God is WAY too limited if you're asking this question. You should ask if Adam was a brother. Biblically, Man was made in their image: Genesis 1:26 (King James Bible): It's not clear way the use of plural in this one verse. Some theologians suggest he was referring to the heavenly host (angels, etc) so perhaps some of them are brothers. However, biblically Adam and Eve were four thousand years ago. Evolution of man out of Africa would have been many hundreds of thousands of years ago so the two concepts (God made man in His image, man evoled in Africa) are not compatible. |
THANK YOU.
Really, on many levels this post is just so full of substance.
EDIT: A hoot if you consdider the statement "I think you fail to see the seriousness behind my OP to begin with." by the OP in our little conversation up there.
Dr.Grass said:
1) I don't think that statement carries any real value. What does it mean? Two arms and two legs? Eyes, nose, mouth... White/Black skin? It doesn't mean anything does it? 2) No. I state that a person adhering to the statement "God created man in His image" would easily have their reality shattered by a little introspection and analytical investigation. So, no, I didn't say that. But now that (it seems) you have indeed ascribed to that viewpoint, I'd have to say yes - your reality is very much in danger of being shattered. 3.1) Very ironic actually (your statement). One of the main problems with most human languages is that they are ambiguous. This is certainly true for English as well. In other words, one string could mean several things due to the inadequacy of the grammar. Your reading of my statement as " you think that English is the only language people are "supposed to know properly" " illustrates this point quite nicely. But NO, that's not what I meant. My statement extends to English websites, and English speaking people. No person who speaks English second or third language would have the audacity to say another is 'trying to sound sophisticated' as you have in this case. 3.2) "I think you fail to see the seriousness behind my OP to begin with. " And I gave you a simple set of arguments to show that the entire premise behind the OP is meaningless in its entirety. I should mention that I thought it was a joke(ish) thread at first. |
1) If you are Christian and you find that that passage where it says God created man to His image has no value, well, I find that interesting. But I am rather interested to know what was meant with those words, what is the similarity that we humans supposedly have in common with God. If you are not a believer but still see no value in that passage, I am interesting as well. Especially if you pretend to analyze the Bible as I would find interesting how you dismiss this part of the Bible which could help give you an idea of how to and not to concept God.
2) If you didn't address me directly then I guess that wasn't meant for me.
3) It seems you are trying to blame the ambiguity that languages do have some times to what you wrote in your previous post. See how well you explained yourself in you follow up post? At least, you worded your thoughts poorly in the previous post.
3.2) If you though it was a "joke(ish)" post to begin with this further helps your argument that the shattering of realities was intended towards me.
@SxyxS:
Correct me if I am wrong but the black race may have not been an usual sight among the people of Jerusalem. Probably they would have kicked him out or something or not considered him one of them.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
| SxyxS said: @dsgrue jesus was jewish at first,his followers were jews, black jews are one of the first jews ever,there were black jews living in jerusalem at that time and today black jews are still living in jerusalem."his people" could habe bern black |
I really don't care to debate what is incredibly obvious, especially when the topic is obsolete to begin with.
Your argument (in a nutshell)
"Hey man, there are white people in Africa so someone in Africa is just as likely to be white as black."
Patently false. We're done here.
| d21lewis said: We had visitors at my job from Africa (South Africa, I think) a few weeks ago. Out of six, only one of them was black. Blew my mind. Apparently, Africans come in a ton of colors. |
You're so naive!
I'm from South Africa (white), and even though there are 50 blacks for every white, the white people are the ones you should expect to be prancing around a nuclear facility since the average level of education for blacks is abso-fucking-lutely woefuLL!
There are hardly any top black scientists/engineers from South Africa.
Ironically, the blacks in South Africa that are highly qualified come from Ethiopia, Uganda, etc.
AbbathTheGrim said:
2) If you didn't address me directly then I guess that wasn't meant for me. 3) It seems you are trying to blame the ambiguity that languages do have some times to what you wrote in your previous post. See how well you explained yourself in you follow up post? At least, you worded your thoughts poorly in the previous post. 3.2) If you though it was a "joke(ish)" post to begin with this further helps your argument that the shattering of realities was intended towards me. @SxyxS: Correct me if I am wrong but the black race may have not been an usual sight among the people of Jerusalem. Probably they would have kicked him out or something or not considered him one of them. |
1) Genesis, aliens (ok giants from the sky), vegetarianism is man's ideal, no-one cares, creation, long-lived humans, floods. Either all of these are true or the whole story falls apart.
2) Sometimes we argue POINTS, not people.
3.1) Everything would be crystal clear to anyone who would take the time to read properly.
3.2) It was directed to the hypothetical person that adheres to the "man in God's image" statement. How many times must I repeat myself.
There's nothing more to be gained here.