Man cuts off ears to look like Parrot

Haasrecht said:

Most of them are essentially professed egoists with the trappings of inverted sacrament. LaVey based most of his writings and thought on Ayn Rand.

Click to expand...

That explains so much.

Glass*Soul said:

Do people look like God?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what my answer is, you do not believe in God and there can be no reaching of any common thought. I will answer according to what my believes are, but I know you can not accept any answer from any believer.

(Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We are made in the "image of God"--as to how far the resemblance goes none know. Bear in mind that a Barbie and Ken doll is made in the "image" of man and woman---so is Howdy Doodey, and even a corn cob doll. A stick figure painted on a rock is the "image" of a man.You can paint an image on paper that looks very lifelike--it is still an "image", as is a photograph or even a motion picture that captures the exact look. None can compare to the real, actual thing it depicts. Skin, no matter how close a painting or a replica of it is, is not the real, living skin.

Haasrecht said:

Most of them are essentially professed egoists with the trappings of inverted sacrament. LaVey based most of his writings and thought on Ayn Rand.

Click to expand...

That's only 1/3rd the case. Most of Anton LaVey's plagiarism was derived from the writings of Ragnar Redbeard, a pseudonym for what some think was Arthur Desmond, and his work, Might is Right - Survival of the Fittest.

LaVey also plagiarized Nietzsche. LaVey said of his so called church, it's Ayn Rand with incense and candles.

mmksparbud said:

It doesn't matter what my answer is, you do not believe in God and there can be no reaching of any common thought. I will answer according to what my believes are, but I know you can not accept any answer from any believer.

(Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We are made in the "image of God"--as to how far the resemblance goes none know. Bear in mind that a Barbie and Ken doll is made in the "image" of man and woman---so is Howdy Doodey, and even a corn cob doll. A stick figure painted on a rock is the "image" of a man.You can paint an image on paper that looks very lifelike--it is still an "image", as is a photograph or even a motion picture that captures the exact look. None can compare to the real, actual thing it depicts. Skin, no matter how close a painting or a replica of it is, is not the real, living skin.

Click to expand...

Image can be anything. It doesn't nessecarily mean looks or body type. It might mean being cognative with all the senses to go with that.

I've never really wrapped my head around the idea of God having arms, les and head, since those things, I hardly think he would need.

mmksparbud said:

It doesn't matter what my answer is, you do not believe in God and there can be no reaching of any common thought. I will answer according to what my believes are, but I know you can not accept any answer from any believer.

(Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We are made in the "image of God"--as to how far the resemblance goes none know. Bear in mind that a Barbie and Ken doll is made in the "image" of man and woman---so is Howdy Doodey, and even a corn cob doll. A stick figure painted on a rock is the "image" of a man.You can paint an image on paper that looks very lifelike--it is still an "image", as is a photograph or even a motion picture that captures the exact look. None can compare to the real, actual thing it depicts. Skin, no matter how close a painting or a replica of it is, is not the real, living skin.

Click to expand...

You know. Never mind. I thought it would be interesting to discuss, but sometimes I get really tired of the atheist bashing around here. It's not worth it today.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Image can be anything. It doesn't nessecarily mean looks or body type. It might mean being cognative with all the senses to go with that.

I've never really wrapped my head around the idea of God having arms, les and head, since those things, I hardly think he would need.

Click to expand...

God walked with Adam in the cool of the day, in a garden. God made man in His image. He gave man arms, legs, and Jesus Christ walked on earth. He had arms and legs. As a matter of fact, they were instrumental in nailing Him to a cross by spiking into His hands, feet, the attached appendages, to the cross He was crucified on.

I know you may not agree with what i believe in, but i was just sorta' illustrating how God sees arms, legs, and their importance perhaps, since He's the One Who created them in the first place, and they were created in His image.

Jus' sayin'

What God has or needs no one knows except those that are with Him. There will come a day when all will know--His "image" will be the last thing on their mind just before the lost are thrown into the lake of fire.

εἴδωλον


eidōlon

Thayer Definition:

1) an image, likeness

1a) i.e. whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary

Glass*Soul said:

You know. Never mind. I thought it would be interesting to discuss, but sometimes I get really tired of the atheist bashing around here. It's not worth it today.

Click to expand...

Atheist bashing?--Got to be kidding--that is all you guys do when you come on our threads--bash us, our believes. That is why you choose to come on here. I did not "bash"-I stated a fact. Discussion has not been the intent, ridicule has.

How do you know about that?

mmksparbud said:

I think respect was meant simply because he is a man--however far gone his thinking has become, he is a child of God, though at the moment he has marred that image beyond recognition. To want to look like a created creature instead of the Creator Himself, is not something I can relate too and is certainly not being in the will of God. However, even this poor thing is not beyond the salvation of Christ, though he obviously could care less about that---for now anyway.

Click to expand...

Nithavela said:

How do you know about that?

Click to expand...

How I know about what??--If you mean about him not caring about being saved by Christ--It's an assumption based on his marring of the image he was made in, which is a direct slap in the face to his Creator. But, feel free to disagree.

mmksparbud said:

Atheist bashing?--Got to be kidding--that is all you guys do when you come on our threads--bash us, our believes. That is why you choose to come on here. I did not "bash"-I stated a fact. Discussion has not been the intent, ridicule has.

Click to expand...

I believe this is known as doubling down.

(BTW. I'm not "you guys." I'm just one person.)

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Image can be anything. It doesn't nessecarily mean looks or body type. It might mean being cognative with all the senses to go with that.

I've never really wrapped my head around the idea of God having arms, les and head, since those things, I hardly think he would need.

Click to expand...

How about Yeshua? He was the spirit, being God is said to be a spirit in the scripture, in human form. Arms, head, legs.

miniverchivi said:

How is an "atheistic satanist" even a possibility? The very word atheist means that you don't believe in any supernatural spirit-beings, good or evil.


As far as the dude from the story...to each their own I guess lol...but he looks stupid. He'd better never complain that he can't get a decent job.

...that brings up a valid question, should a person who can't find work be allowed to collect unemployment benefits if they intentionally do something to make themselves look too stupid to hire???

Click to expand...

He does look pretty stupid. An prospective employer would remiss to believe the man is seriously unintelligent or mentally unstable, and first appearances are often what gets a person his/her job.

As for unemployment....IDK about the other 49, but here in KY, to be eligible, you must have worked 10wks/quarter and have been laid off, or fired for reasons other than the commission of a crime, ie stealing, fighting, threatening, harrassing etc.
For instance, if the man works in a warehouse loading trucks from Jan 1 until October 31, and is laid off, he would be eligible for unemployment benefits after his 10th day of unemployment.
If he were fired for unsatisfactory work performance or attendance, again, his eligibilty would be as if he were laid off. If he was fired for stealing, the company could deny his unemployment, at which point he could request a telephone hearing and the burden of proof would be placed on his former employer to prove he was stealing.

As for all that....I think it's a mute point. Judging by the state of his dental hygiene, I would guess he's from the UK.

No offense to my British freinds in Christ

Almighty's humble servant said:

He does look pretty stupid. An prospective employer would remiss to believe the man is seriously unintelligent or mentally unstable, and first appearances are often what gets a person his/her job.

As for unemployment....IDK about the other 49, but here in KY, to be eligible, you must have worked 10wks/quarter and have been laid off, or fired for reasons other than the commission of a crime, ie stealing, fighting, threatening, harrassing etc.
For instance, if the man works in a warehouse loading trucks from Jan 1 until October 31, and is laid off, he would be eligible for unemployment benefits after his 10th day of unemployment.
If he were fired for unsatisfactory work performance or attendance, again, his eligibilty would be as if he were laid off. If he was fired for stealing, the company could deny his unemployment, at which point he could request a telephone hearing and the burden of proof would be placed on his former employer to prove he was stealing.

As for all that....I think it's a mute point. Judging by the state of his dental hygiene, I would guess he's from the UK.

No offense to my British freinds in Christ

Click to expand...

He's a retired shoe factory worker, so I guess he's past worrying about employment. Perhaps had some health issues, or just enough money to get by.

Yeshuas_My_Freedom said:

How about Yeshua? He was the spirit, being God is said to be a spirit in the scripture, in human form. Arms, head, legs.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are talking about Jesus, since I've read somewhere, here that some called him that.Wasn't he here on Earth dealing with the public? Being among us and desiring to teach us, would he not have served him well to cloak himself in the body of a man?

Apparently, as that is what God did. He delivered his words to us as one of us.

mmksparbud said:

How I know about what??--If you mean about him not caring about being saved by Christ--It's an assumption based on his marring of the image he was made in, which is a direct slap in the face to his Creator. But, feel free to disagree.

Click to expand...

Sounds like an assumption one can make, although I guess you'd really have to ask him to be sure.

Nithavela said:

Sounds like an assumption one can make, although I guess you'd really have to ask him to be sure.

Click to expand...

correct.

Yeshuas_My_Freedom said:

Apparently, as that is what God did. He delivered his words to us as one of us.

Click to expand...

When in Rome.......

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

When in Rome.......

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he didn't. That's why they killed him. And when in the presence of the Sanhedrin he didn't do as they wanted either. And that's why they asked Rome to kill him.