From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:50:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <22750@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:

>>-Simon:
>> Well, we *do* know something, if indeed _The Bible_ is true, about
>> God's image. If you're made in God's image, Terence, when do you next plan
>> to massacre entire populations, children and pregnant women included, as
>> The Good Lord did in Hosea?

[Note -- Oops, He didn't, did He (in Hosea)? Just promised to. Sorry, God.
 Anyhow, my point remains.]

> (1) review my postulation on being in God's image,

OK, here it comes:

    # I consider "being in His image" figuratively more than literally.
    # Why? Image-wise, I think this concerns spiritual matters--a spiritual
    # reflection of the Creator. Behavior-wise, I think this concerns messing
    # with the Creator's creations.  

> (2) I do not understand your question as it pertains to me. If a painting
> reflects Picasso's image, is the painting capable of producing more art?
> Please restate the question.

Cute. But the painting is hardly "created in the image of Picasso" in the way
that you would like to think that Man is created in the image of God. This
seems like usage of "in the image of" which is utterly unrelated to the
spiritual_and_behavioural explanation you gave in your quoted piece above.
One could be forgiven for getting the impression that you're just redefining
things at will in an attempt to obfuscate and to avoid the question.

You believe that humans are created in the image (figuratively, of course!)
of a vengeful slaughterer of nations, babies and pregnant women included.

And you say that this in-His-image business is "a spiritual reflection of the
Creator". This begs the question of the desirability of the spirituality you
would have Man inherit from God. That, and that alone, is the point I am
making.

Here's the bit from Hosea I had in mind (KJV):

* 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her
* God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in
* pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Nice. Let's go get our spiritual and behavioural values (like you said
in_His_image meant) from this guy.

> (3) Excuse me.  The Sodom/Gommorah of pre-1000 BC massacre doesn't happen 
> *in* Hosea which is only a report from around 760 BC. It only mentions the 
> massacre. The rest of it is only Hosea's pleading to the people of Ephraim 
> which makes plenty of sense in its historical contexts. Besides that, what
> do you think is the main point of Hosea Simon?

I didn't think the Hosea quote above referred to Sodom and Gommorah. As
to the main point of Hosea, it seems to be largely about dire warnings
and threats of destruction, torment and violence against those who fail
to follow the One True Religion, since you ask.

>Terence

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK