From: lipscomb@lonestar.utsa.edu (David S. Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:19:55 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul27.145056.4598@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>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.
       It is easy to see that this deals with a person's soul and not the
       body.  Since God is a spirit, we are also a spirit with a layer of
       clay to house it for a limited amount of time.

>    # 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