m_m

No, it wasn't my intent. And if you think that you are free being atheist - all right. You can ask your questions, who will stop you? Scientists have already found an answer for you about the origin of man (human being in your case).

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

No, I still disagree. You are talking from the secular point of view. But I still insist that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are recognized by the Church, because they give the core of life, teaching and death of Jesus. The Greek word for “Gospel” is euangelion, which can be translated as “good news", and you forget the most important thing - what this good news is about.

And not only this verse. In all the Gospels it is said "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So, Peter the Apostle is an open book, very sincere in his mans nature. Also, he recognized Jesus as Messiah. But I don't remember he mentioned this in his Epistle.

Oh, I've understood. Under "Thomas criticized Matthew and Peter?" you mean words of Jesus Christ? Because in Matthew 16:13-23 I read the conversation of Jesus and Peter. No, I don't think that the Gospel of Thomas is non-canonical because of criticism (?). And it's interesting that you wrote this way: Thomas criticized, having in mind the words of Christ. Сriticism? I want to bring to your attention, that we are talking about God. Jesus Christ is God, Who came to this world in the image of man, to show what it means to be man, and Man. But people crucified God, and do this every day. And I think these particular verses 22 and 23 from Matthew 16 explain why. Peter waited for Messiah to be a hero, so to say, and instead Christ says about His suffering. it is so hard to follow God's Word, and to actually love one's neighbor. Though a neighbor has the image and likeness of God.

Criticized? Is this what Christ taught? Though, it's only my thought, i can be wrong. I didn't read the Gospel of Thomas.

I don't know what to answer. Ok, thank you for your opinion.

Ok. No, I don't know anything, I write my observations. But ok.

The question was about people creating "god(s)". And my answer is that our creative power is so strong to the extent that we think that we actually can create "god(s)". I think that the words of some people were inspired by God. And these are not merely "human words". Do you know why there are only four Gospels in the Bible? There are another Gospels, non-canonical. Because the Fathers of the Church, reading these four ones, recognized Christ in them. Whereas other authors more talked about themselves. No, studiot wrote: "The original question asks for an explanation of the difference between an image and a likeness which is a technical question." And I think this question also has it's spiritual side. I didn't get your point, honestly. No, my thinking is not wishful, there is no magic in faith. Faith is hope. But it's very hard to have faith, because you have to diminish your ego and not have false humility at the same time. I think that you have faith, if people looking at you, and your life, remember God. Why do you think that Christians are hypocrite? Aren't atheists hypocrite, trying to find memory at the brain? And then they say, that "AI" is not intelligent. Well, I tried to follow your advice.

How accurate you are about the state of our modern world.

No, you are mistaken. God is incomprehensible to man's mind. As it is said in one book "We must not then dare to speak, or indeed to form any conception, of the hidden super-essential Godhead, except those things that are revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures. For a super-essential understanding of It is proper to Unknowing, which lieth in the Super-Essence Thereof surpassing discourse, intuition and being." And the terms "image" and "likeness" also depend on the point of view. By default meaning that we have our memory just because it is there, at our brain. People didn't create but believed (and still believe) and that's why planets were named after roman gods. I'm keen on to know about people like YOU. People who don't know what they believe in.

People take the image and likeness of God to the extent that they think they create gods. By the way, not only I think that we take these abilities for granted. For example, memory, our ability to remember, we have it by default, don't we? As for me, I thought that it is our creative power. We create things. People think that they create gods. And people have this power to the extent, that they decided to play God, endowing heap of iron with intelligence.

And I answered about my understanding of the term "likeness". I don't preach, I brought a quote from the book of a theologist, because this topic is located in the religion section. Can you please write your understanding of the term "likeness" in a religious sense, since the OP refers to the Bible?

He says "though it be not equal" and "or rather, though it be very far removed from Him". And in the other chapter he also writes "For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind." Indeed, Augustine is right. But notice, that Augustine doesn't list qualities of God, because they will limit God, whereas He is limitless. But he speaks about our being -the Father, our knowledge - the Son, and our love to both - the Holy Spirit. And aren't these words in Genesis "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” likeness? That man can rule over something? We just take all these are abilities for granted. And it is sad.

No, I think he says that man's mind can not comprehend God. And he explains the very fundamental aspects of our existence in terms of Trinity. And I think that the words "to be yet restored" should be emphasized. On my mind Augustine gives a very rich explanation of our being. Because he says that we love our existence and we love the knowledge of our existence. Not only we exist, but we know this! And we love our knowledge. Descartes's "I think.." refers to mind, whereas we not only think, we also feel. Maybe Descartes made his statement, knowing about Augustine, who knows. He just removed heart from his thought. Let's not talk about abstractions? And about physical resemblance, "God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.", John 4:24.

I'm sorry, I can't help myself. What morality are you talking about, if you have to survive?

I watched one video about the book "City of God" by Augustine Aurelius. And in this book Augustine says "And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God,or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,—being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,—is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer resemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it" As an author of the video explains: 1) We have our being 2) We know about our being 3) We love our being and our knowledge of it. And the the book goes "But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am." So, Descartes wasn't original in his statement.

No, Phi for All, you are man. Man is not an animal, man is man. Animals don't have man's cruelty. If "we" are animals, then we live on the planet of apes. Where are people? And I think that intelligence is expression of love in an action, or words. It's a gift, it can't be developed.

exchemist, I can argue every word in your reply, but you don't need it, me either.

Why don't you say I am an animal. Not my friends, not we, but I. The theory of evolution is a theory. You will answer that a theory is the strongest explanation which science can provide. But it is still a theory. There is another point of view, religious. And I think, if you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean, that you can speak for your friends, or for others "we are...". It's very easy to hide behind this "we".

No, he doesn't believe in deity. He just doesn't want to be an animal.

If the world is genuine, how can it be simulated? I think, there is only one option: it is genuine, or it is simulated. Just..if there is a movie, it doesn't mean that this movie explains our world we live in. Our life!! Because if our world is simulated, then robots are alive, and we can't blame people for treating them like animate objects. I found transcripts (thank you, TheVat) for the video above. N.D.Tyson asks James Gates "So, Jim, I got to ask you something. Your discoveries of the checks—error-correcting code within the laws of physics themselves, at the depths that you’re researching them, what I wonder is we live in the age of IT, of information technology. So, we all have a certain fluency. So, it’s in our brains to think that way at some level. Could it be that how the saying goes, if you’re a hammer then all your problems look like nails, and you solve them by hitting them. If now we are in an IT revolution, and you’re finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe it’s just the fad of the moment. And you’re forcing a solution that is either not real, or there’s a better one awaiting in a revolution that has yet to occur. " I think, why do people think about a simulation at all?! If we have computers here, it doesn't mean that computer is "there"! Or that everything is information, or "everything is number". It's like people extrapolate their representations of the world towards something they don't know. And adjust patterns of the Universe to one's ideas. *** I apologize if it is off-topic.

Folks, I'm really glad you liked this video. :) No need. "According to your faith let it be done to you", Matthew 9:29 This version of a simulation exists, and it has its justification. It didn't occur out of the blue, but for some reason. And I believe the reason is the answer. Or in other words, why is there a reason for a simulation? However, it is there. And some people agree with it. I want to ask them: why are you agree with it? As we can see it is a matter of beliefs.

Well, they also discuss quantum computers.

I sincerely recommend you this video And these scientists talk about consciousness. People don't what this is. But if someone preferes to live in a simulation, it is their free will.