[Athos]

I guess I'll have to since no one else seems to be able to drum up the courage.

TRANSLATION: "I'm very sorry for the mistake I made. But I won't admit to it so I'll blame others not being able to "drum up the courage.

However, I'm the one without courage because down deep I have terrified little girl tendencies."

This is the only scripture on the subject I know of.

That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,

But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.

but it's hard to say one way or the other.

If you see no reason why it CANNOT be scriptural, then why is it hard to say it IS scriptural?

In other words, you cannot categorically say it IS or it IS NOT "imprinted" on the zygote.

Based on your own standard of proof, you should be categorically able to say it is NOT "imprinted".

It is in no way simply an appendage of the mother.

That's too bad since if it were an appendage, I assume your position would be that it IS imprinted.

That is an impossible argument to make.

No one is making that argument. You are the one who is bringing it up.

Nope. There is no confusion.

Plenty of confusion, evidenced by your back-and-forth above.

You made a claim to know that the zygote does NOT have the image of God. You have no way to know that.

Of course, I know that. Unless you want to argue that everything in the universe has the imprint of God, then ok. If you are arguing that the zygote has some unique imprint of God because you say it is a human being, then no, I don't agree. But that shouldn't be news to you. That's been my position all along.

Your original argument was that Adam was created in the image of God as a fully grown adult.

No, it wasn't. My original argument was about abortion and the beginning of human life. Adam came later.

So I asked if that logic applied to children, toddlers, infants, fetuses. You have declined to answer that.

I don't know what "logic" you're referring to. If you're asking whether God imprints his image on other people the way the Bible says he did to Adam, then no.

You were caught in a trap of your own making and it has you upset.

No, jl, there was no trap. What there WAS was you getting caught in your own word salad as clearly shown in the dialogue above.

Wow. You get so upset when you get asked a question. Rather tragic, I think.

No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound. What DOES get to me however, is some concern and a bit of sadness as I watch you desperately attempting to keep up and embarrassing yourself as you fail miserably. Not totally, every so often you make a good point, but you are far more repetitive than effective. You just don't know when to quit. That is the consensus of the majority here.

But don't worry too much. I answered it above.

I'm glad you did. Gave me a chance to expound.

How long did you stand by your pledge of no more name calling?

More confusion from you. I wonder - will it ever end? I suggested an agreement between myself and tomder - NOT YOU - to stop the insults. There is no point in doing that with you since it's obvious you can't resist snarky comments even in otherwise civil exchanges. I think it's the little girl in you.

I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.

Jl, that's entirely up to you. I hope you will resist the snide remarks and the tendency to cast ad hominems to others.

[Wondergirl]

What IS "the image of God"?

[jlisenbe]

No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound.

Sure it does. That's why you were so quick to answer this last one?

That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!

Can't say that for certain.

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,


But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.

Indeed it is. That's why I hedged a bit in saying, "I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote." It does not say one way or the other. Now perhaps there is a reason why it can't be, but I don't see it.

What IS "the image of God"?

That's a great question. It actually does not read as the "image of God". The text reads, "Let us make man in our image." That is significant. The "image of God" does not seem to be a quality of some kind that is given to us at some point in our development. It is more likely stating that God used Himself as a pattern of sorts for us. Thus we are made in (accordance with) His image, and in (accordance to) His likeness. I've also heard it said that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and man is body, soul, and spirit. However we interpret it, it makes man absolutely unique from all other animal life.

Might add that it's the first reference to the Godhead (us) which is, to me, really interesting, though it is somewhat indirect.

The Amplified version reads in this fashion. "Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]" The reference is to "man" as in "mankind". It is not a specific reference to Adam. I tell the guys at the rehab that it is the basis of our glory and worth. On their worst day they can still say, "I am made in God's image. What a blessing and honor."

[talaniman]

Or just the ability to think and create and articulate above the other species of life on this planet. You don't need a religious book to make that observation even if you're ancient man. As more is revealed, then of course more can be understood and defined so the image of God, and even the image of man will of course be ever changing.