Charles Darwin believed in a Creator?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

I have just finished reading Origin of The Species. As far as I can see there is nothing that Darwin says that denies a Creator - in fact his last sentence enforces Creation. I agree with his ideas on natural selection etc and that original creation did not involve the thousands of species that we now have.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. 

** NB depending on the definition of 'few'. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Found the scripture for those interested: Colossians 1:15

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.".

and my example above of the Smiths.

"Tom is the image of his father" - meaning Tom looks just like his father and he has the same atributes etc - NOT THAT HE HAS BEEN  SOME WAY MOULDED INTO HIS FATHER

upper case for emphasis only.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

"So according to your belief was Jesus not the son of God i.e God the son? If so then how many gods are there and  If not then who was he exactly.".

According to my belief Jesus was indeed The Son of God. and as the Bible says: (paraphrased because I cannot remember the exact scripture,) The first born of all creation, and through him all other things were made. 

So, let me lay that out for you all -

1. God created a Son - we'll call him Jesus but that no doubt was only his earthly name.

2. They created all the other angels

3. They created the Heavens and the Earth

4. On the Sixth day ' Let US create man in our own image".

son of God is NOT God the Son.

Let's examine that in terms of common understanding.

Bill Smith had a son who he named Tom ie Bill was the father and Tom was the Son. They were both Smith. But they were separate and distinct individuals.

One day Bob Thomas came to town looking for Tom. He asked a man in town, where does Tom Smith live.

The response: "Oh The Smiths. They live at number 6.  Yes, Bill is the father and Tom is his son."

But, Imagine poor Bill's horror if he had been told: "Oh The Smiths. They live at number 6, but Tom is now part of Bob and so too is Bill's wife Sarah - they all merged into one.

Ridiculous right?  And so is the Trinity doctrine - an invention of Rome to make it fit  the Pagan who were used to three gods / godesses in one.

---

My belief is not as simple as this. God is an eternal entity and father of Jesus this does not mean that he creates things like we do. God is almighty powerful, at the whim things can be instantly created. Nothing is greater than our creator, God. He is eternal and never dies, he always exists. God controls multiple dimensions and time lines but God does not live on any of them, but he controls all of them, however he can manifest anything anywhere he likes.

This is my belief.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Found the scripture for those interested: Colossians 1:15

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.".

and my example above of the Smiths.

"Tom is the image of his father" - meaning Tom looks just like his father and he has the same atributes etc - NOT THAT HE HAS BEEN  SOME WAY MOULDED INTO HIS FATHER

upper case for emphasis only.

---

All of which does nothing to answer the question why do you assume a primal creative force responsible for "the big bang" or whateever you like to call it has all the  attributes (including, presumably genitalia) of a human male and impregnates a woman and fathers a son. Isn't this simply creating a God in your own (human) image and likeness?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Found the scripture for those interested: Colossians 1:15

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.".

and my example above of the Smiths.

"Tom is the image of his father" - meaning Tom looks just like his father and he has the same atributes etc - NOT THAT HE HAS BEEN  SOME WAY MOULDED INTO HIS FATHER

upper case for emphasis only.

---

All of which does nothing to answer the question why do you assume a primal creative force responsible for "the big bang" or whateever you like to call it has all the  attributes (including, presumably genitalia) of a human male and impregnates a woman and fathers a son. Isn't this simply creating a God in your own (human) image and likeness?

---

where have I ever said that God is a male? I have always maintained that there is no gender in the Spiritual realm.  Even the scriptures that talk about the First Resurrection state quite clearly that there wll be no marrying or giving in marriage for those ones, they will be like the angels in heaven - ie genderless.

Where God said "Let us create man in our image" - first,  it means man{kind} including male and female and second, it didn't mean in the physical likeness, it meant with the same attributes - eg love, kindness, intelligence, honour etc - the atributes that set man{kind} apart from the other lower creations.

[karliandjacko]

One assumes by the use of HE that you have specified a gender, that gender being male.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@karliandjacko wrote:

One assumes by the use of HE that you have specified a gender, that gender being male.

---

well, one must not assume things must one.

We did discuss this previously in this thread and MANY times in previous threads. Actually, I am sure if someone who understands the ancient languages in which the Bible was written there will be a word that covers both genders - other than 'it' of course.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Where God said "Let us create man in our image" - first,  it means man{kind} including male and female and second, it didn't mean in the physical likeness. 

But presumably He createdJesus, his son, in a physical likeness. If Jesus was the son of God but not God then was he a demigod or fully human? What was his DNA like? Did it all come from his mother or did he inherited half of it from his father? Does God have DNA?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Where God said "Let us create man in our image" - first,  it means man{kind} including male and female and second, it didn't mean in the physical likeness. 

But presumably He createdJesus, his son, in a physical likeness. If Jesus was the son of God but not God then was he a demigod or fully human? What was his DNA like? Did it all come from his mother or did he inherited half of it from his father? Does God have DNA?

---

que? do you mean Jesus during his human existence on earth - son of Mary?

or do you mean his initial creation in heaven? Jesus would have been a spirit being in heaven - unfortunately I have not seen one so I can't tell you what they look like, but I wouldn't think they have wings etc like the paintings. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Where God said "Let us create man in our image" - first,  it means man{kind} including male and female and second, it didn't mean in the physical likeness. 

But presumably He createdJesus, his son, in a physical likeness. If Jesus was the son of God but not God then was he a demigod or fully human? What was his DNA like? Did it all come from his mother or did he inherited half of it from his father? Does God have DNA?

---

que? do you mean Jesus during his human existence on earth - son of Mary?

or do you mean his initial creation in heaven? Jesus would have been a spirit being in heaven - unfortunately I have not seen one so I can't tell you what they look like, but I wouldn't think they have wings etc like the paintings. 

---

Were the initial spirit Jesus in heaven and the subsequent human Jesus the son of Mary two different creations? Was the human Jesus not the son of God? and if he was, did he inherit his father's DNA or only his mother's?

Also, if love, kindness, intelligence, honour etc - the atributes that set man{kind} apart from the other lower creations -  are the image and likeness of our creator, then surely hate, greed, anger, jealousy etc which are also  atributes that set man{kind} apart from the other lower creations must also be the image and likeness of our Creator.

[k0llectable5]

But, Imagine poor Bill's horror if he had been told: "Oh The Smiths. They live at number 6, but Tom is now part of Bob and so too is Bill's wife Sarah - they all merged into one.

(I so understand the seriousness of this topic, but I larfed, rabbitear that was a priceless post.  I dont necessarily agree with everything you say but the way you articulated yourself there was kudo worthy 🙂