Creation vs. Evolution

[Earth]

[It's not shaky at all. The process of atoms conglomerating into life took several billion years. A few atoms came together in the just the right way to form molecules, which in turn came together in just the right way to form complex organic molecules, which then came together in just the right way to form the simplest single-cell organism. It does seem highly improbable until you consider the time scale involved, which allows an event with small probability to become almost certain. It took 3 billion years for this to happen, an amount of time which no person on earth can comprehend.

That entire post should replace the current definition of shaky in dictionaries.

[The "bleh" part of your idea is that there is an ever-existing, infinitely-powerful entity who lives "outside of time",

OK

simply willed the entire universe into existence,

1. The Bible does not say how he started it. But clues in the Bible point to a logical way in which he could have did it.

and is still micro-managing it to this day.

God is 'resting'. Think of creation as a factory. God made it. Now he's watching it work.

Now THAT is "really, really shaky stuff".

Hey, can you honestly say to me, face to face, that you came from a single cell? It sounds fancy and intelligent when this theory is submitted by big name scientists, but as for you, on an individual level, do you really, REALLY believe that? Can you honestly say, without ANY doubt, that shrews and fish were your ancestors? I'm sure you will say that I dont have a clue how evolution works, or I dont understand 'millions' of years. But do YOU really understand millions of years? Or do you accept it as truth because it seems to be the most likely scenario?

It really does.

Your thoughts and interpretations are coloured by a presupposed conclusion - that God did it. We have no presupposed conclusions - maybe God did do it. Maybe a different god did it. Maybe it happened naturally because of "Physics". Maybe we need to write some new physics based on the discovery. Who knows? We don't, that's for sure.

If something becomes to complex to understand, I say it's too complex for me to understand. You say "God". If there's something we just don't know about the universe, I say "We just don't know". You say "God".

It may for others, but it doesnt for me.

The idea that someone designed the Universe makes me want to learn about it even more. As Einstein wanted to know God's thoughts , I want to know just how it works. It makes it more interesting. When studying the Universe you could think "I'm studying the result of an explosion" Or you could think "I'm studying the handywork of an extremely intelligent being". The latter is more interesting IMO.

I dont think there is much in the world that happens because of miracles of God. Maybe a prayer answered here and there, but as far as science, which is the study of God's creation, I think most of it can be explained by natural laws that God put into place. The idea that things can be figured out is great. It's not randomness but rather it can be explained. It's logical. Think about the table of elements. Scientists were able to figure out what kind of elements were missing before they were even found thanks to orderliness. Thank God for that.

I enjoy the understanding of our world that science has brought to us. At times, it is true that I may say "They'll never figure that out. Maybe they will believe now." But it doesnt mean I dont want them to look. Turn your telescopes to the sky. Look beyond 13 billion years into the past. Find out whats out there. I want to know. You want to know. I may say dark energy and dark matter has something to do with God, but you say it will be explained naturally eventually. Even if it is explained naturally, the orderliness, beauty, and the fact that the Universe IS explainable points to a great God.

What does this picture say about his personality?

http://www.denbeauvais.com/two_d/2d_images/WILDLIFE/humming_bird.jpg

 

[Famine]

He made one bird able to fly backwards as a pisstake?

 

[Danoff]

Hey, can you honestly say to me, face to face, that you came from a single cell? It sounds fancy and intelligent when this theory is submitted by big name scientists, but as for you, on an individual level, do you really, REALLY believe that? Can you honestly say, without ANY doubt, that shrews and fish were your ancestors? I'm sure you will say that I dont have a clue how evolution works, or I dont understand 'millions' of years. But do YOU really understand millions of years? Or do you accept it as truth because it seems to be the most likely scenario?

If he could honestly tell you, face to face, that he believed he came from a single cell, that there was not a shred of doubt in his mind... then he hasn't thought about things long enough. But if you can tell me, the you believe without a shred of doubt that there is a God, then you haven't thought about things long enough either.

The idea that someone designed the Universe makes me want to learn about it even more. As Einstein wanted to know God's thoughts , I want to know just how it works. It makes it more interesting. When studying the Universe you could think "I'm studying the result of an explosion" Or you could think "I'm studying the handywork of an extremely intelligent being". The latter is more interesting IMO.

What difference does it make whether it's more interesting one way or the other. We're talking about what happened, not what would be nice.

It's not randomness but rather it can be explained. It's logical.

Have you taken quantum mechanics?

I enjoy the understanding of our world that science has brought to us. At times, it is true that I may say "They'll never figure that out. Maybe they will believe now." But it doesnt mean I dont want them to look. Turn your telescopes to the sky. Look beyond 13 billion years into the past. Find out whats out there. I want to know. You want to know. I may say dark energy and dark matter has something to do with God, but you say it will be explained naturally eventually. Even if it is explained naturally, the orderliness, beauty, and the fact that the Universe IS explainable points to a great God.

Why does it point to a God?

What does this picture say about his personality?

Nothing, it's a bird.

 

[PS]

Earth, you need to seriously take a look at what you say sometimes. Do you honestly think we didn't come from a single cell? What is a sperm? Or an egg?

[edit]

Not sure if an egg is one cell or not.

 

[Earth]

If he could honestly tell you, face to face, that he believed he came from a single cell, that there was not a shred of doubt in his mind... then he hasn't thought about things long enough. But if you can tell me, the you believe without a shred of doubt that there is a God, then you haven't thought about things long enough either.

I already said there are shreds of doubts in my mind. There should be doubts in all our minds. If there isnt your either lying to yourself or not human or just plain stupid.[/quote]

What difference does it make whether it's more interesting one way or the other. We're talking about what happened, not what would be nice.

It makes a difference. Think about it some more.

Have you taken quantum mechanics?

No. Are you talking about the perceived randomness in quantom mechanics?

Why does it point to a God?

Nothing, it's a bird.

Exactly why you say there is no proof of him. You call star making factories in space 'pillars of creation' yet you see them as a random chance. You call conception and birth a miracle. You gaze in awe at a sunset. You enjoy life everyday. You are staggered by the complexity of the human brain. Yet you never look up. You never wonder 'if'. It's like an ant who spends its entire life running around gathering food, doing this, doing that, but it never looks up. It never takes notice of the world around it. It could care less about the world around it. Please, develop and maintain a holy curiosity.


Question.

I would like evolutionists to explain to me just how they think plants got their start. I have some idea of what they said the first jelly fish and trobylite came from (bacteria and algae) but I havent a clue what they think plants came from.

edit

Earth, you need to seriously take a look at what you say sometimes. Do you honestly think we didn't come from a single cell? What is a sperm? Or an egg?

[edit]

Not sure if an egg is one cell or not.

Interesting

I will have to think about this. I really hope you think about some of the things I say too.

 

[Famine]

Yet you never look up.

And in dan's field, that's a problem. You're never quite sure where the rocket is going - or where it's landed.

I would like evolutionists to explain to me just how they think plants got their start. I have some idea of what they said the first jelly fish and trobylite came from (bacteria and algae) but I havent a clue what they think plants came from.

Are algae not plant forms now?

 

[Earth]

Are algae not plant forms now?

OK. I remember seeing that they found algae in the earliest layers of rock along with bacteria. So all plants evolved from algae. And all ocean dwelling creatures evolved from bacteria?

More details, please

 

[PS]

I already said there are shreds of doubts in my mind. There should be doubts in all our minds. If there isnt your either lying to yourself or not human or just plain stupid.

It makes a difference. Think about it some more.

It doesn't matter if it's nice or not, we want to know what "it" actually did.

Exactly why you say there is no proof of him.

..because there isn't.

You call star making factories in space 'pillars of creation' yet you see them as a random chance.

Um, no "we" don't. I see them as a probability of 1/1 occuring some time, somewhere in our universe, simultaneously.

You call conception and birth a miracle.

Or the result of a Sperm:egg meetage.

You gaze in awe at a sunset.

I don't. I'd go blind. Maybe that's why you're in awe when you stare at it?

You enjoy life everyday.

Heh, well not every day. But, generally, I appreciate living.

You are staggered by the complexity of the human brain.

Personally, I couldn't care less, and I wouldn't make either assumption of danoff unless he has explicitly said he's staggered by its' complexity.

Yet you never look up.

Do it all the time. Billions upon billions of dollars are invested in space analysis and exploration.

You never wonder 'if'.

We always wonder "if", but then we keep comming to another [logical] conclusion.

It's like an ant who spends its entire life running around gathering food, doing this, doing that, but it never looks up.

Mmmhmm...?

It never takes notice of the world around it. It could care less about the world around it. Please, develop and maintain a holy curiosity.

Erm, right. You're calling us ignorant because because we're maintaining an objective/unbiased view of things...right. Well, that was, *ahem* strange.

 

[Famine]

OK. I remember seeing that they found algae in the earliest layers of rock along with bacteria. So all plants evolved from algae. And all ocean dwelling creatures evolved from bacteria?

More details, please

That's an interesting, if unsupported, premise you have conjured up.

ALL life on Earth arose from "archaeabacteria" - which I should add are not the same things as the bacteria (eubacteria) you know today.

All of it.

 

[Grand Prix]

What do these pictures say about God's personality?

 

[ledhed]

I am curiouse how many of you would consider yourself a deist ? Or believe in deism ?

What is the basis of Deism? Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God.

Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

Do Deists pray? Only prayers of thanks and appreciation. We don't dictate to God.

How do Deists view God? We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Is Deism a cult? It's impossible for Deism to be a cult because Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to "question authority" no matter what the cost.

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

What's Deism's answer to all the evil in the world? Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.

Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, we just claim to be on the right path to those answers

Jefferson and Ben Franklin were famous deist .

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thomas Paine,
Age of Reason

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

 

[ledhed]

Religion and Reason
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan


Advanced study has shown that there is more to life than meets the eye; all the great realities of life lie beyond our comprehension.

In ancient times, water was just water. Then with the 19th century came the invention of the microscope. When water was placed under it, the startling discovery was made that it contained countless live bacteria. Similarly, the stars that could be seen with the naked eye were supposed to be all the heavenly bodies that existed. Now the skies have been scanned with powerful telescopes and information has been sent back from space probes, with the result that the true immensity of the universe is at last being understood.

These two examples show the difference in thinking in ancient and modern times which has been brought about by modern technology. Other types of research in different fields have shown with certainty that there are many more realities than had ever been imagined by man when he was limited to the sphere of simple, unaided observation. But these new discoveries so excited the discoverers that they felt justified in claiming that reality was definable as that which could be directly observed, and that what we could not experience or observe was mere hypothesis and did not, therefore, exist.

In the nineteenth century, this claim, made with great enthusiasm, was most damaging to religion. The fact that religious creeds are based on a belief in the unseen, that their truths are neither observable nor demonstrable led many people to the conclusion that religious dogma was hypothetical and, therefore, untrue.

Twentieth century research, however, has completely reversed this position, advanced study having shown that there is certainly more to life than meets the eye: in fact, all the great realities of life lie beyond our comprehension.

According to Bertrand Russell there are two forms of knowledge: knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. Only things can be directly observed: truths can only be understood by indirect observation. Or in other words, inference. The existence of light, gravity, magnetism and nuclear energy in the universe is an undisputed fact, but man cannot directly observe these things. He knows them only by their effects. Man discovers certain things, from which he infers the existence of truths.

This change in the concept of knowledge which occurred in the twentieth century changed the whole situation so radically, that man was forced to accept the existence of things which he could not directly see, but only indirectly experience. With this intellectual revolution the difference between seen and unseen reality disappeared. Invisible objects became as important as visible objects. Man was compelled to accept that indirect, or inferential argument, was academically as sound as direct argument.

In our own times, divine reasoning has become truly scientific. For instance, the greatest argument for religion is what philosophers call the argument from design. Nineteenth century scholars, in their zeal, did not accept this reasoning. To them it was an inferential argument and not therefore, academically tenable. But in the present age, this objection has been invalidated. Nowadays man is compelled to infer the existence of a designer of the universe from the existence of a design in the universe, just as he accepts the theory of the flow of electrons from the movement of a wheel.

A statement made by Bertrand Russell throws some light on this matter. In the preface to his book, Why I am not a Christian, he writes: I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. With very few exceptions, the religion, which a man accepts, is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question. It is true that Scholastics invented what professed to be logical arguments proving the existence of God, and that these arguments, or others of a similar tenor, have been accepted by many eminent philosophers, but the logic to which these traditional arguments appealed is of an antiquated Aristotelian sort which is now rejected by practically all logicians except such as are Catholics. There is one argument that is not purely logical. I mean the argument from design.

This argument, however, was destroyed by Darwin; and, in any case, could only be made logically acceptable at the cost of abandoning God’s omnipotence.

Arguing the existence of a designer from design is, as Russell admits, a scientific argument in itself. It is the very argument which science itself uses to prove anything. Russell then proceeds to reject this argument by citing Darwin’s theory of evolution. This rejection would be acceptable only if Darwin’s theory had itself been scientifically established. But scientific research has proved Darwinism to be mere hypothesis, rather than established scientific fact. It is Russell’s first statement, therefore, concerning the validity of the argument from design, that must prevail. His rejection of that argument on the basis of Darwinism is groundless.


To me this is a reasoned argument .



Source:
http://www.alrisala.org/intro_page_links/article_categories.htm

 

[PS]

I suspect there are some pretty serious flaws in what that guy said. After all,

"Bullsh t baffles brains".

 

[ledhed]

I said it was reasoned not right . it sounds better than " its true because the bible said so ".

 

[Touring Mars]

More developments from the media in the Creation v Evolution debate...

After reading this weekend's Guardian newspaper, I heard about this new film called "The March Of The Penguins", which is already being claimed by some to be evidence for 'Intelligent Design'... I wondered if anyone has seen it yet (it's not out in the UK for a while sadly )

The film is also being hailed by Christian groups for championing traditional (human) values of monogamy, selflessness and child-rearing, despite recent evidence to the contrary. Here is an article from last week's Independent, which C v E arguments aside, had me laughing my head off... here's some text from the article that I found particularly funny..

Christiananswers.net, for example, is currently displaying a series of critiques of the movie. Its helpful categorisation of the film's qualities include: "PROFANITY: None. SEX/NUDITY: Penguins mate during the film, but it is understood, not shown. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: One year in the life of an emperor penguin is a great indication of the existence and character of God."

Yet bizarrely, it is barely nine months since penguins were being used as the exemplar of a somewhat different set of values.

At Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany, earlier this year, tests were carried out on five pairs of Humboldt penguins which had not succeeded in breeding, and three of the pairings were found to be homosexual.

When the zoo imported four female birds from a Swedish zoo to try and get breeding started, it was deluged with protests from gay groups in Germany and elsewhere, outraged at the attempt to "cure" the gay birds. In the end the gay penguins ignored the females and remained faithful to their partners. They became gay icons.

gay penguins...?! oh dear... I guess this should serve as a warning to get your facts right before making too many unsubstantied claims

Anyway, gay penguins or family values aside, I doubt seriously that penguins are 'evidence' for intelligent design at all...

I reckon the rationale behind these claims are that the penguins have to endure such a rough time, and the chances of their survival are so ridiculously low, and their mechanisms for survival so unique, that they must have been designed.

But as one observer claims, "If the penguins had an intelligent designer, and they knew where he lived, they'd probably break his windows." (for making their lives/mating rituals so difficult)

 

[Earth]

I also found some information .

According to a study less than a year old, only 13% of Americans believe God had nothing to do with the appearance of life.

Quote from article on the study:
"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

So according to this study, the 13% of people who believe there is no God are more educated than the 87% who do believe. Thats bad news for America. So many ignorant people. We must put uneducated believers into higher education so they will drop their outdated belief in God.

 

[Danoff]

I also found some information .

According to a study less than a year old, only 13% of Americans believe God had nothing to do with the appearance of life.

Quote from article on the study:
"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

So according to this study, the 13% of people who believe there is no God are more educated than the 87% who do believe. Thats bad news for America. So many ignorant people. We must put uneducated believers into higher education so they will drop their outdated belief in God.

Here's how we pick apart these statistics:

What does "had nothing to do with the appearance of life" mean?

Does it mean they believe there is no God? Not necessarily. Does it mean that the people who think God had something to do with the appearance of life are creationists? Not necessarily. So what can we get out of this number?

Well we know that less than 13% of Americans do not believe God exists at all. But we don't know what the actual number is.

We know that more than 82% of Americans believe that God exists, but we don't know that number either.

We know that less than 82% of Americans are creationists. That more than 13% of Americans are convinced by evolution.

Anyway what was the point of your post? That scientists (ie: educated folks) are convinced by evolution theory? We already knew that.

 

[tabs]

I also found some information .

According to a study less than a year old, only 13% of Americans believe God had nothing to do with the appearance of life.

Quote from article on the study:
"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

So according to this study, the 13% of people who believe there is no God are more educated than the 87% who do believe. Thats bad news for America. So many ignorant people. We must put uneducated believers into higher education so they will drop their outdated belief in God.

Is this article available online?

 

[Earth]

Anyway what was the point of your post? That scientists (ie: educated folks) are convinced by evolution theory? We already knew that.

4-10 American scientists believe in a personal God. I read that somewhere, so I dont have a link. Believe it or not. I dont see why it is unbelieveable, though.

Tell me, if God were to reveal himself tomorrow, what would do? Could you honestly tell him that there wasn't enough evidence of his existance to warrant a search for him? Could you tell him that you ignored him all this time because you had good reason to do so?

Is this article available online?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

 

[Grand Prix]

Do you believe that God is a big friendly giant with white hair and a beard?

 

[(G)]

Earth... I don't quite get what point you're getting at... if you even are getting at one.

 

[Earth]

Do you believe that God is a big friendly giant with white hair and a beard?

That's how he is portrayed on the Simpsons

The truth from the Bible is that he cannot be seen by humans. His power is too great for any human to look upon him and live. Just think about that for a minute. This is a Being who brought into existance billions and billions of galaxies, billions and billions of stars. He designed the atom, as well as supergiant stars.

That is why making an image to represent him (golden calf) is gross disrespect. It is a disgrace to try and make a representation of God out of wood and stone, or out of ink and paper. Doing so in the Bible brought judgement.

How He looks like, we will never know. But his personality and attributes we can come to know.

Exodus 33

[18] And [Moses] said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

[19] And [God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

[20] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

[21] And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

[22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

[23] And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Earth... I don't quite get what point you're getting at... if you even are getting at one.

Do you own, or drive a car, (G)?

 

[(G)]

Do you own, or drive a car, (G)?

Nope.

 

[Earth]

Nope.

I like to get to know about people. Their thoughts, beliefs, even if they differ from mine.

I was heading toward an illustration, and your reply to it would tell me alot about you and your beliefs, but if you dont drive than it won't work.

 

[Danoff]

That's how he is portrayed on the Simpsons

The truth from the Bible is that he cannot be seen by humans. His power is too great for any human to look upon him and live. Just think about that for a minute. This is a Being who brought into existance billions and billions of galaxies, billions and billions of stars. He designed the atom, as well as supergiant stars.

That is why making an image to represent him (golden calf) is gross disrespect. It is a disgrace to try and make a representation of God out of wood and stone, or out of ink and paper. Doing so in the Bible brought judgement.

How He looks like, we will never know. But his personality and attributes we can come to know.

Exodus 33

[18] And [Moses] said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

[19] And [God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

[20] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

[21] And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

[22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

[23] And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.



Do you own, or drive a car, (G)?

Why would God care if we wanted to make a statue of him in the shape of a gloden calf - or of a bird - or of a man? Why does it make a difference to the almighty supreme being how we symbolize him? We know he made us in his image right? So what's the problem? We make a dude, and we call it the symbol of God. God should be cool with that.

 

[Famine]

That's a bloody good point. If making something in the image of God is "gross disrespect", are we grossly disrespectful as a species, since we were made in the image of God?

He handily forgot "thou shalt not kill" when he wiped out all life on the planet, but for a single boat.


Then again, the Crucifixion washed away the Ten Commandments, so we can freely make whatever images we fancy.

 

[Swift]

Why would God care if we wanted to make a statue of him in the shape of a gloden calf - or of a bird - or of a man? Why does it make a difference to the almighty supreme being how we symbolize him? We know he made us in his image right? So what's the problem? We make a dude, and we call it the symbol of God. God should be cool with that.

That's easy. Two scriptures.

Exdus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

That's why God doesn't want pictures of what we think he looks like all over the place.

 

[Danoff]

That's easy. Two scriptures.

Exdus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

That's why God doesn't want pictures of what we think he looks like all over the place.

I'm not getting it. Why does he care whether we make images or likenesses of anything that is in heaven? You can still be worshipping the "Father" in spirit and truth even if the image you made isn't quite as good as the real thing.

God can look like anything right? So what's to say the idol isn't prefectly correct?

 

[Swift]

I'm not getting it. Why does he care whether we make images or likenesses of anything that is in heaven? You can still be worshipping the "Father" in spirit and truth even if the image you made isn't quite as good as the real thing.

God can look like anything right? So what's to say the idol isn't prefectly correct?

You just answered your own question. God is spirit. If you get your eyes fixed on idols, it is easy to forget the God that is "supposed" to be represented by that idol. Just like the hebrews after they left egypt. Moses went up to get the Ten commandments and the people started worshiping a golden calf. After they walked through the Red Sea! That's some quick turn around don't you think?

 

[Danoff]

You just answered your own question. God is spirit. If you get your eyes fixed on idols, it is easy to forget the God that is "supposed" to be represented by that idol. Just like the hebrews after they left egypt. Moses went up to get the Ten commandments and the people started worshiping a golden calf. After they walked through the Red Sea! That's some quick turn around don't you think?

Yea, a little too quick to believe actually.

So do crosses count as idols? What about the crucifix? What about stained glass windows? Would you be willing to rip up a bible? It's just a book afterall, if it's no more than a book you should have no trouble burning it. If it is more than a book, then has it become an idol?

I still don't see how it is necessary that once one has an idol of god or a painting with the likeness of stuff that's in heaven - one loses touch with their "spiritual" connection with God.