Man is a Beast.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: iammrhappy86

When God said "let us create man in our image", genesis 1:26, who is 'our'? His brother? Sister? Thats always puzzled me

CLUE: Read John 17:1, 5; Colossians 1:15, 16.

If you can't be bothered to figure it out based on that clue, here's the answer directly (which might be less satisfying than discovering it yourself):

Creation (Insight on the Scriptures)

Jehovah’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” (Pr 8:12, 22-31) In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to His only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image.”​—Ge 1:26.

After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence. This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him: “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth . . . when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” (Job 38:4-7) It was after the creation of these heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him.​—Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9.

The Scriptures, in stating, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Ge 1:1), leave matters indefinite as to time. This use of the term “beginning” is therefore unassailable, regardless of the age scientists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to the various planets and other heavenly bodies. The actual time of creation of the material heavens and earth may have been billions of years ago.

Just to make something clear:

Jesus Christ (Insight on the Scriptures)

Prehuman Existence. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.

That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Joh 6:56, 57.

If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”​—Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.​—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.

Wisdom personified. What is recorded concerning the Word in the Scriptures fits remarkably the description given at Proverbs 8:22-31. There wisdom is personified, represented as though able to speak and act. (Pr 8:1) Many professed Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era understood this section to refer symbolically to God’s Son in his prehuman state. In view of the texts already considered, there can be no denying that that Son was “produced” by Jehovah “as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago,” nor that the Son was “beside [Jehovah] as a master worker” during earth’s creation, as described in these verses of Proverbs. ...

P.S. the animals were not created in God's image (but perhaps someone else already mentioned that).

The article in videoformat below contains some information about the meaning of the expression “in our image” (in short: “morally and spiritually speaking.” Not physically speaking, as in physical appearance, cause God is a spirit, a spirit being, just like angels are spirit beings, having a spirit body, not a physical body). It's in part 2 but it relates to something quoted in part 1 at 4:28:

a reply to: Hecate666

Yeah : us humans are pretty good at patting ourselves on the back.

ATS : The Superior Species.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: nerbot

The same things stars are made of

Humans are made more of what the Earth is made of than just what common stars are made of. Consider that life grows out of the materials of the Earth.

It takes the death of stars (supernovae) and other stellar cataclysms (such as colliding neutron stars) to make all the stuff that Earth and life are made of. A living star does not have all that stuff.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: iammrhappy86

So the beast represents man as just another animal... like hominid wild tigers with a splattering of gnosticism and divine predilections?

What would happen if that "divine nature" still gets driven by that territorial animal behavior?

How does one merge their divine nature with the animal beast in this regard? Could you eradicate the beast with divinity alone or would it be a mask one puts on?

This is very astute of you, and I thank you for this.

However, I would so claim that you've offered two answers to your own question.

Should we give in to our heavenly urges of simple purity?
Should we give in to our earthly animalistic will to survive?

Both can be achieved through Love.


A mask has its purpose, but weighs heavy overtime.

How do we know animals don't have their own religions, or covenants with a deity, whathaveyou?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Oh boy, you used the word "animals" to distinguish animals from humans (as these words have been used for centuries like that, milennia if you count other languages; cause the distinction between the 2 categories of life is fairly obvious after all*). Or at least implied as much...


*: Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs​—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

FOSSILS give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.”⁠1

The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. “Fish jump into the fossil record,” Hitching says, “seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed.”⁠2 Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: “In a sense this account is science fiction.”⁠3

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men. The previous chapter has shown that the fossil record does not support these claims. This chapter will concentrate on the magnitude of the assumed transitional steps. As you read on, consider the likelihood of such changes happening spontaneously by undirected chance.

The Gulf Between Fish and Amphibian

...

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: “It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.”⁠4 David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.”⁠5

The Gulf Between Amphibian and Reptile

...

Much more is needed to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile, but these examples show that undirected chance just cannot account for all the many complex changes required to bridge that wide gulf. No wonder evolutionist Archie Carr lamented: “One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.”⁠7

The Gulf Between Reptile and Bird

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: “Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals.”⁠8

Lecomte du Noüy, the French evolutionist, said concerning the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: “This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution.” He also made the admission that birds have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation”⁠9​—unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.

...

The Gulf Between Reptile and Mammal

Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The very name “mammal” points up one big difference: the existence of mammary glands that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky suggested that these milk glands “may be modified sweat glands.”⁠13 But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young have both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.

...

The Greatest Gulf of All

Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠15

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠16

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

[From the previous chapter concerning what has been termed “the Cambrian explosion”: Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”⁠21 Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.⁠22

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”⁠23

These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”⁠24

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”⁠25]

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”⁠17 For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”

I quoted the stuff from the previous chapter to show where that last term was being quoted from.

References Listed by Chapter

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It takes the death of stars (supernovae) and other stellar cataclysms (such as colliding neutron stars) to make all the stuff that Earth and life are made of

So, the stuff that stars are made of

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Yeah, but Earth is special.

a reply to: whereislogic

A "begotten" son?
Begotten with who, exactly?
His wife?
His mistress?

Begotten implies creation through procreation and surely that takes two?

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21

18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

man is best + demon.
a new kind of monster.

a reply to: iammrhappy86

Buncha filthy hominids.

disgusting,

things crawling upon your scale skin bag.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: iammrhappy86

When God said "let us create man in our image", genesis 1:26, who is 'our'? His brother? Sister? Thats always puzzled me

CLUE: Read John 17:1, 5; Colossians 1:15, 16.

If you can't be bothered to figure it out based on that clue, here's the answer directly (which might be less satisfying than discovering it yourself):

Creation (Insight on the Scriptures)

Jehovah’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” (Pr 8:12, 22-31) In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to His only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image.”​—Ge 1:26.

After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence. This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him: “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth . . . when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” (Job 38:4-7) It was after the creation of these heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him.​—Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9.

The Scriptures, in stating, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Ge 1:1), leave matters indefinite as to time. This use of the term “beginning” is therefore unassailable, regardless of the age scientists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to the various planets and other heavenly bodies. The actual time of creation of the material heavens and earth may have been billions of years ago.

Just to make something clear:

Jesus Christ (Insight on the Scriptures)

Prehuman Existence. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.

That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Joh 6:56, 57.

If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”​—Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.​—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.

Wisdom personified. What is recorded concerning the Word in the Scriptures fits remarkably the description given at Proverbs 8:22-31. There wisdom is personified, represented as though able to speak and act. (Pr 8:1) Many professed Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era understood this section to refer symbolically to God’s Son in his prehuman state. In view of the texts already considered, there can be no denying that that Son was “produced” by Jehovah “as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago,” nor that the Son was “beside [Jehovah] as a master worker” during earth’s creation, as described in these verses of Proverbs. ...

P.S. the animals were not created in God's image (but perhaps someone else already mentioned that).

The article in videoformat below contains some information about the meaning of the expression “in our image” (in short: “morally and spiritually speaking.” Not physically speaking, as in physical appearance, cause God is a spirit, a spirit being, just like angels are spirit beings, having a spirit body, not a physical body). It's in part 2 but it relates to something quoted in part 1 at 4:28:

Thank you for explaining the whole "made in Our image" thing. It seems so obvious now. Thank you again.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: whereislogic

A "begotten" son?
Begotten with who, exactly?
His wife?
His mistress?

Begotten implies creation through procreation and surely that takes two?

The term you are responding to is "only-begotten", which is translated from the Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ, which is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus’ “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nesʹ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”​—Jg 11:34.

The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”​—1Jo 4:9.

The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a “son of God.” (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38) But the Loʹgos, later called Jesus, is “the only-begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures. He is the firstborn and chief one among all other angels (Col 1:15, 16; Heb 1:5, 6), which angels the Scriptures call “godlike ones” or “gods.” (Ps 8:4, 5) Therefore, according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as “the only-begotten god [Gr., mo·no·ge·nesʹ the·osʹ].”​—Joh 1:18, NW, Ro, Sp.

A few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nesʹ the·osʹ and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nesʹ hui·osʹ as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nesʹ the·osʹ as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”

The part of the word translated as “begotten” (ge·nesʹ) simply means created, produced or generated. Notice the similarity between the english word “generated” and ge·nesʹ? The 2nd definition in google for “beget” says:

“cause; bring about.”

There is no bisexual procreation implied in the word mo·no·ge·nesʹ when it is applied to Jesus or the Loʹgos (the Word) in the Scriptures. As discussed in the comment you were responding to, the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.

That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Joh 6:56, 57.

a reply to: Hecate666

Insightful and well said. 👍

"And thou hast forgotten this too, that every man's intelligence is a god, and is an efflux of the deity;"
Anu
youtu.be...

Find me another 'beast' that is able to think 'I Am' on Gaia, then maybe your words will come into better focus .... but right now they are kind of blurry.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Find me another 'beast' that is able to think 'I Am' on Gaia, then maybe your words will come into better focus .... but right now they are kind of blurry.

I wouldn't dare take from you from the pleasure of finding one yourself.

There are two types of humans in our world. One is created and the other is formed from the dust on the ground. Or as genesis chapter 3 verse 23 state. TAKEN.

Is Adam formed from the dust on the ground or Taken from the ground he walked on... ? And then cast back to the ground he walked on after Eve was formed from his ribb....?

Eve was not cast back to tthe ground. Only Adam was cast out. Only He and Him is describes.... In genesis... Not her or Eve.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Find me another 'beast' that is able to think 'I Am' on Gaia, then maybe your words will come into better focus .... but right now they are kind of blurry.

Chimpanzees are self-aware and can anticipate the impact of their actions on the environment around them, an ability once thought to be uniquely human, according to a study released Wednesday.

phys.org...