With regard to deities in human form outside of the Bible. Most biblical scholars would agree that in Genesis 1.26 the high deity is addressing the other members of the divine assembly and most would agree that being made in the image and likeness of the gods, human beings bear a physical resemblance to their own deities.
You don't understand Romans 1, you mean.
No, I don't mean that.
Well, perhaps. But I was alluding to your earlier comments on the apparently mundane, perhaps even debauched, things that Semitic deities (including Yahweh) were supposed to be getting up to, and asking about any comparative evidence that's cited in the recent book you've been promoting. I ask because in the Homeric epics (a natural point of comparison) it's often alleged that the gods come off very anthropomorphically, with our concept of God being much more geistig. But I'm somewhat sceptical of this claim.
I'm afraid it isn't. I'm quite happy to explain further, if you're interested.
Yes it is, and you can post whatever you like.
I'm afraid it isn't, and I know I am. As I say, I'm quite happy to explain further, if you're interested.
Yes, it is, and you can post whatever you like. I'm always up for an atheist's explanation of scripture.
I'm pleased to hear you're interested. I'll pull my thoughts together at some point this week and get back to you.
That is fine.
What do you mean by that?
That's it's perhaps true that "made in the image and likeness of the gods" is primarily a reference to physical resemblance.
Cool. Does Stavrakopoulou discuss Homer?
Indeed, given the supposed physical appearances of other deities from that region.
Only very briefly and when is she citing comments by Xenophanes.
What does she have to say about Xenophanes?
Well I think that the men and women who have given their lives for their country or other such thing were running that which you call a "fool's errand". But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing their bravery and valor nor the sacrifice of the parents. Even if they were misled, what they each did personally is worthy of my respect.
I think that allowing my disagreement with the cause that so many have given their lives for to view them with disdain would be the opposite of thinking clearly.
You recognize, and rightly so, that the churches have nothing to do with the "divine". And yet in your posts you reproduce the ugly beliefs about the divine that they have promulgated over the centuries as a reason to reject the divine. When they are clearly reasons to reject the churches.
The direct events of the fall were: loss of eternal life, sin and being put out of the garden to fend for themselves.
Salvation by God is the central theme of the Bible.
God's power is not at issue. What is at issue is God's right to rule. Since the time of Eden men have asserted their independence from God, that they have the right to rule, that we are better off under human rule than we would be under God's rule. God could have changed this with, as you say, a snap of his fingers, but that would not have demonstrated that his ways are better or that mens ways are worse. Allowing humans a time to rule will show it to be either beneficial or harmful to mankind.
SiInce all three Criteria are nothing but "Theological tenets", and have nothing to do with being a Born Again Christian, bothering with any of it would be a waste if time.
Do you think one can be a Christian either without believing in God, without believing in any afterlife, or without believing Jesus to have at least been the best and wisest of men?