That’s just semantics at this point. The definition I gave is just as valid, and using the term reciprocally is well understood. The creator is not taking on characteristics of his creation, and I never implied such a thing; so for you to infer that is essentially grasping at straws.
God said we were made in his image and likeness; I’m merely repeating it. Your argument is based on a logical fallacy that God needs to breathe, eat, and defecate like his creation. He gives the breath of life, and the fruit of the trees for his creation to eat.
You're repeating what you're told, but you don't even understand what that even means.
God said we were made in his image and likeness;
I'm only using your own words to understand the depiction of the god. If we are indeed "made in his image and likeness", I would have to assume the god has utility for all the orifices. And if the god needs to utilize physical orifices, how can the god be all powerful?
On a flip side if the god doesn't need any orifices, how can you say that we are "made in his image and likeness"? Wouldn't we have to resemble an all powerful being, which would render all the physical orifices useless?
I was merely asking you to paint the picture of the god you're referring me to, but you deflected it by saying that it's not the physical form you're talking about. So where does "the image and likeness" fall into? Because "the image and likeness" certainly are not nouns describing an amorphic entity.
You’re just repeating the exact same things I’ve already gone over. You want to argue the use of English words derived from Latin origins based on Hebrew words. Man (adam) was formed from the dust of the earth (adamah) and made in the image and likeness (adameh) of God. When God breathed the breath (neshamah) man became a living soul (nephesh). Adamah and adameh are the same word with a different pronunciation of the ה. This implies that that physical form of man (adamah) is compromised of earthly elements, and spiritual man was made in his likeness (adameh).
Oh so you want to argue it's just completely semantics.
That's cool, too. It makes it way easier. If the spiritual likeness is of the god, is he capable of evil? Because men "sin" as I recall. And if the god is evil, why should I worship him? And if we are indeed in the spiritual likeness of god, why do we need the 10 commandments to follow? We should already be in his "spiritual likeness".
(post is archived)