56 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Humans wrote everything you think you know about your god. That rather points to them creating its image and likeness.

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.

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Not sure what you mean by "by default".

By default meaning that we have our memory just because it is there, at our brain.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

People did create gods, unless you think they ALL exist. And it seems to me that it's people like YOU who play god, thinking they know the mind of this supposed creator, and pretending that this worship is any different than thinking metal is smart.

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.

21 minutes ago, m_m said:

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."

Did your god write that? No. More human words. Unlike you, I don't read a whole lot between the lines. I look for what is observable, and try not to make things up based on how I want them to be.

24 minutes ago, m_m said:

And the terms "image" and "likeness" also depend on the point of view.

Convenient. Your point of view, am I right?

25 minutes ago, m_m said:

By default meaning that we have our memory just because it is there, at our brain.

This makes me sad. You take something incredible, that has allowed us to reach the point where at least one species could leave this planet if we needed to, and reduce it to "just because it is there". And instead you prefer wishful thinking where you get to make everything up without a shred of evidence, and pretend your faith in it is stronger than my trust in science.

As you can tell, I'm having a moment with Christians today, since I live in the US where their hypocrisy is reaching new bounds.

31 minutes ago, m_m said:

People didn't create but believed (and still believe) and that's why planets were named after roman gods.

Read that over again and you'll hopefully see where it's wrong. Think hard about how beliefs are created.

32 minutes ago, m_m said:

I'm keen on to know about people like YOU. People who don't know what they believe in.

It's amazing to me how many folks don't mind brandishing their privileged ignorance these days, confident they know what everyone else must think. Try using only what I've written as your guide, it's what I do with your posts.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Did your god write that? No. More human words. Unlike you, I don't read a whole lot between the lines. I look for what is observable, and try not to make things up based on how I want them to be.

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.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Convenient. Your point of view, am I right?

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.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This makes me sad. You take something incredible, that has allowed us to reach the point where at least one species could leave this planet if we needed to,

I didn't get your point, honestly.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And instead you prefer wishful thinking where you get to make everything up without a shred of evidence, and pretend your faith in it is stronger than my trust in science.

As you can tell, I'm having a moment with Christians today, since I live in the US where their hypocrisy is reaching new bounds.

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.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Try using only what I've written as your guide, it's what I do with your posts.

Well, I tried to follow your advice.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by m_m

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

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.

You obviously think highly enough of these mortal human early church leaders to capitalize their names and give them magical recognition powers, which are, again, very convenient for your stance. And if you'd read more than just the four gospels, you'd know that most scholars think the book of John to be partly a response to the book of Thomas. Thomas didn't talk about himself (or rather the author didn't talk about Thomas), he quoted Jesus directly using logia, sayings that are directly attributable. How could the so-called fathers of the church decide Jesus' own words had no christ in them? Could it be because Thomas criticized Matthew and Peter?

But again, it's just humans deciding how they want things to be, not interpreting an all-powerful but unobservable deity's wishes. And you're claiming you understand what your god wants, even though its also inscrutable and can't be comprehended. I think the image you created for this god helps you manipulate your claims so they seem to cover every objection.

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You obviously think highly enough of these mortal human early church leaders to capitalize their names and give them magical recognition powers, which are, again, very convenient for your stance. And if you'd read more than just the four gospels, you'd know that most scholars think the book of John to be partly a response to the book of Thomas. Thomas didn't talk about himself (or rather the author didn't talk about Thomas), he quoted Jesus directly using logia, saying that are directly attributable. How could the so-called fathers of the church decide Jesus' own words had no christ in them? Could it be because Thomas criticized Matthew and Peter?

But again, it's just humans deciding how they want things to be, not interpreting an all-powerful but unobservable deity's wishes. And you're claiming you understand what your god wants, even though its also inscrutable and can't be comprehended. I think the image you created for this god helps you manipulate your claims so they seem to cover every objection.

Ok.

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

16 hours ago, m_m said:

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.

Nope, they were inspired by wisdom, man again I'm afraid; they (the wise) used the idea of God for the people who are afraid of being ripped off.

As @Phi for All said, stop trying to read between the line's, the magic is the lines; like 'don't kill people' and 'don't judge people' and 'forgive people' and etc. it's obvious when you really think about it.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, they were inspired by wisdom, man again I'm afraid; they (the wise) used the idea of God for the people who are afraid of being ripped off.

As @Phi for All said, stop trying to read between the line's, the magic is the lines; like 'don't kill people' and 'don't judge people' and 'forgive people' and etc. it's obvious when you really think about it.

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

Just now, dimreepr said:

like 'don't kill people' and 'don't judge people'

But since we are not supposed to judge people, should we not just simply kill all judges ?

😄

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Could it be because Thomas criticized Matthew and Peter?

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

Edited July 4Jul 4 by m_m

59 minutes ago, studiot said:

But since we are not supposed to judge people, should we not just simply kill all judges ?

😄

Why would you do that? 😉

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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

You could try to piece these things together and come up with a logical argument; or you could just say "thanks" in a vacant sort of way...

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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

Are you kidding me?! Read the scriptures again. Jesus was a radical who criticized the hierarchies and hypocrisies of the times, flipping over the tables of moneylenders and admonishing those who were self-serving. Your disciples criticized each other in the canonical Gospels as well, such as in Matthew 16:13–23 where we see Matthew criticizing Peter. Have you read your own Bible? It took me three readings when much younger to reach my conclusions.

Thomas' account was not useful to the early church. It told no stories, just quotes from Jesus and some some admonishments to the other disciples. It's not a particularly moving piece of scripture, but it seems bizarre to use the excuse that the direct quotes of Jesus weren't inspired by his god or father.

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you kidding me?! Read the scriptures again. Jesus was a radical who criticized the hierarchies and hypocrisies of the times, flipping over the tables of moneylenders and admonishing those who were self-serving. Your disciples criticized each other in the canonical Gospels as well, such as in Matthew 16:13–23 where we see Matthew criticizing Peter. Have you read your own Bible? It took me three readings when much younger to reach my conclusions.

Thomas' account was not useful to the early church. It told no stories, just quotes from Jesus and some some admonishments to the other disciples. It's not a particularly moving piece of scripture, but it seems bizarre to use the excuse that the direct quotes of Jesus weren't inspired by his god or father.

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.

7 minutes ago, m_m said:

Under "Thomas criticized Matthew and Peter?" you mean words of Jesus Christ?

No. Thomas thought they were misguided in their focus on the narrative of Jesus' life, rather than his divinity. He criticized their focus on sin as opposed to ignorance (definitely a Gnostic trait). Again, this gospel from a disciple wasn't included because the church found it unhelpful. They didn't want the masses studying to banish their ignorance, they wanted them to feel guilty about their imperfections.

21 minutes ago, m_m said:

Because in Matthew 16:13-23 I read the conversation of Jesus and Peter.

Duh, as written by the author of the Book of Matthew. You don't think Matt was criticizing Pete by highlighting the whole "Get behind me, Satan!" blowup in his gospel? I think Mark mentions it too, but you know who doesn't mention it in his own book? Peter.

28 minutes ago, m_m said:

No, I don't think that the Gospel of Thomas is non-canonical because of criticism (?).

Oh, right, the whole "men can decide what is divine" argument. Makes no sense to me. Leaving Thomas out because his ideas didn't suit the church sounds SO much more plausible.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Duh, as written by the author of the Book of Matthew. You don't think Matt was criticizing Pete by highlighting the whole "Get behind me, Satan!" blowup in his gospel? I think Mark mentions it too, but you know who doesn't mention it in his own book? Peter.

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.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

but you know who doesn't mention it in his own book? Peter.

Also, he recognized Jesus as Messiah. But I don't remember he mentioned this in his Epistle.

13 minutes ago, m_m said:

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.

Stay with me here, remember what we were talking about? It was this comment:

5 hours ago, m_m said:

Criticized? Is this what Christ taught?

You seemed to object when I mentioned this criticism, but now it's OK? I'm trying to show you why the early church rejected the apocryphal books. Not because they were magic and could tell which writings were divine, but rather that they had an edict from Constantine to develop a doctrine that pulled the church together to quell strife in the empire. Above all, they wanted to stop the idea that Jesus was made like the rest of us. They really needed him to be created directly from their god, not just a man that god chose. And lots of those writings of the time talked about how Jesus was just a carpenter's son who thought his own churches had lost their way.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You seemed to object when I mentioned this criticism, but now it's OK?

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.

3 hours ago, m_m said:

the most important thing - what this good news is about

The ability to get large masses of people to voluntarily act like sheep and content themselves with nonanswers to existences most difficult questions?

13 hours ago, iNow said:

The ability to get large masses of people to voluntarily act like sheep and content themselves with nonanswers to existences most difficult questions?

Some of us do, but not everybody wants to... 😁

16 hours ago, m_m said:

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are recognized by the Church,

They were not given those names till the second century, by men. They were just men, church fathers, intellectuals, scholars.

On 7/5/2025 at 3:03 AM, iNow said:

The ability to get large masses of people to voluntarily act like sheep and content themselves with nonanswers to existences most difficult questions?

"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

1 hour ago, m_m said:

"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

That doesn't sound so baaaaaaad!

3 hours ago, m_m said:

"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

If your intent was to reinforce my point, you were quite successful. Thank you.

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

That doesn't sound so baaaaaaad!

Do they eat sheep in heaven and if they do is that cannibalism?

9 hours ago, iNow said:

If your intent was to reinforce my point, you were quite successful. Thank you.

No, it wasn't my intent. And if you think that you are free being atheist - all right.

On 7/5/2025 at 3:03 AM, iNow said:

content themselves with nonanswers to existences most difficult questions?

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).

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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).

Science has found the answer to lot more questions that were not known by the Bible writers and we all have free access to them.

Available to everyone not just atheists.