What does in God’s image mean? He created Adam & Eve without a moral sense.

[Syne]

Done here.

Like I said:

Then why did you abandon every argument you made in your "Lilith or Eve" thread?

 

[Balerion]

What indication is there that these stories should be taken any way other than literally? Also, saying that because one does not believe the Bible to be the literal truth they are disingenuous to say that it is meant to be read literally is a non-sequitur. I do not have to believe the Bible to know that it is meant to be read literally.

 

[Syne]

What indication is there that these stories should be taken any way other than literally? Also, saying that because one does not believe the Bible to be the literal truth they are disingenuous to say that it is meant to be read literally is a non-sequitur. I do not have to believe the Bible to know that it is meant to be read literally.

Really? So you can't apply your reasoning to the Bible just as you would to anything else? It's quite simple. If ANYTHING makes more sense as allegory than literal, a reasonable person assumes it allegorical.

The only reason someone who definitely doesn't believe the Bible has to insist it is solely literal is because they are too lazy to argue based on anything other than simple ridicule. This is a logical fallacy, and not a proper argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

 

[Balerion]

Really? So you can't apply your reasoning to the Bible just as you would to anything else? It's quite simple. If ANYTHING makes more sense as allegory than literal, a reasonable person assumes it allegorical.

The only reason someone who definitely doesn't believe the Bible has to insist it is solely literal is because they are too lazy to argue based on anything other than simple ridicule. This is a logical fallacy, and not a proper argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Oh, I see. So when presented with nonsensical stories of seven-headed dragons and giants and other vestiges of older myths, rather than presume what is most likely, we're supposed to take them to have some other, less-absurd meaning?

You can turn anything into allegory. This alone is no reason to simply assume the more outrageous elements of the Bible were meant to be interpreted that way. They certainly weren't presented that way in antiquity, and there's no reason to assume they should be read as such now.

 

[Syne]

Oh, I see. So when presented with nonsensical stories of seven-headed dragons and giants and other vestiges of older myths, rather than presume what is most likely, we're supposed to take them to have some other, less-absurd meaning?

You can turn anything into allegory. This alone is no reason to simply assume the more outrageous elements of the Bible were meant to be interpreted that way. They certainly weren't presented that way in antiquity, and there's no reason to assume they should be read as such now.

For one, you're going to have to come up with better than things explicitly presented as "visions". It even says that the dragon is representational.

"9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." -Revelations 12​

Unless of course, you've seen a dragon lately.

Guess what? You can also, as you've so aptly demonstrated, take anything allegorical literally. "This alone is no reason to simply assume the more outrageous elements of the Bible were meant to be interpreted that way." When something is explicitly presented as "vision" and explains what it represents there is every reason for a sensible person to assume it allegorical.

So people in antiquity were use to seeing dragons? That would be the only reason for them to take it as other than embellished allegory.


But seriously though, people who claim to be reasonable insisting some old literature is strictly literal is very damning to their credibility.

 

[peters]

In revelation in the Bible "The mystery of God is finished when the seventh trumpet sounds". This occurs when Jesus returns to save the good guys, "as no flesh would be saved alive" if he didn't. So if the mystery is finished then, He will continue to be a mystery till then, says scripture.

 

[Balerion]

So people in antiquity were use to seeing dragons? That would be the only reason for them to take it as other than embellished allegory.

So people in modern times are used to seeing Bigfoot and Nessie? Obviously people have always "seen" mythical creatures, and the existence of such things can even be considered common knowledge. Go out and ask your neighbor if they believe in the Loch Ness Monster, or Sasquatch.

There is simply no reason to assume that the mentions of these ridiculous things are allegorical, and to believe such is more than damning.

 

[Syne]

So people in modern times are used to seeing Bigfoot and Nessie? Obviously people have always "seen" mythical creatures, and the existence of such things can even be considered common knowledge. Go out and ask your neighbor if they believe in the Loch Ness Monster, or Sasquatch.

There is simply no reason to assume that the mentions of these ridiculous things are allegorical, and to believe such is more than damning.

Apparently you completely missed the point of my post, or chose to ignore anything but what you felt you could erect as a straw man to rebut.

Again:

"9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." -Revelations 12​

The Bible EXPLICITLY says this is allegorical, so not only would people in antiquity have to already believe in dragons, but they'd also have to COMPLETELY IGNORE what the Bible literally says. Apparently those ancient people could do better than you.

You're completely blinded by your own bias.

 

[Balerion]

Apparently you don't understand what allegory is. It can't be allegory when it is about the very thing itself. The Dragon "called Satan?" I'm sorry, did I miss the chapter in Animal Farm when Joseph Stalin drives Leon Trotsky out of the Soviet Union?

:facepalm:

 

[Believe]

What does in God’s image mean? He created Adam & Eve without a moral sense.

I take, in God’s image, to refer to God’s and our mental image and not the physical. God does not look like us in any way. He and his form is quite alien to us.

Genesis shows that Adam & Eve were created without the moral sense that would make them like Gods. That being the case, they had to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be in God’s mental image. That is without a doubt a requirement to the development of a moral sense and is confirmed by God after Adam and Eve disobeyed his command to stay dumb and without a moral sense.

If they were created in God’s image then they would have already had the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil and would therefore not have been tempted by Satan to eat of the tree of knowledge because they would have had that knowledge already. This would also mean that God was punishing them unjustly.

One must conclude from these biblical facts, that God did not make mankind in his image.

The only other logical alternative is that God does not have a moral sense and that he too, like Adam and Eve, was basically as dumb as a cow.

Could that be why God is shown as doing other immoral things in scriptures?

The two main ones that come to mind is God having his own son murdered for the forgiveness of sin when there was no real need to and the genocide of Noah’s day.

Does being in God's image mean not having a moral sense?

Regards
DL

The part of you that is made in gods image is your concousness, your own twisted interpritations are not factered into anyone elses opinions.

 

[Greatest I am]

The part of you that is made in gods image is your concousness, your own twisted interpritations are not factered into anyone elses opinions.

My twisted consciousness is what is in God's image.

This would mean that God's consciousness is twisted as well.

That is what I basically said above.

Thanks for agreeing.

Regards
DL

 

[wellwisher]

In God's image has less to do with a picture image or mirror image, but more to do with the concept of a disk image in computing; It is about function not superficial form.

If I installed a disk image from my computer, onto your new computer, your physical computer will not magically begin to look like my computer. Your laptop will not magically become a desktop. Instead, the inner workings will become similar, to mine, since the disk image will be connected to software and operating system.

If God is the source of creation, man in his (disk) image would allow man to also become creative and a source of creation. Man will now alter the world in his own image; civilization. If we want grass to grow there instead of trees, we can will it happen. Cavemen just accept as is. If they want grass they walk over there.They lack the disk image but they have the same model laptop (DNA).

Like the computer analogy, full use of my desktop disk image will be dependant on the hardware within your laptop. If my desktop is quad core with a gig of video ram, and your laptop is single core without a video card, there is a limit with respect to fully using the disk image the same way. It will be similar but much slower and multitask limited.

Adam was considered the first modern human with the disk image in place needed to form civilization; hand on the pulse of creation. It had little to do with a beard or white hair. That is bias of tradition.

 

[Cortex_Colossum]

In God's image has less to do with a picture image or mirror image, but more to do with the concept of a disk image in computing; It is about function not superficial form.

If I installed a disk image from my computer, onto your new computer, your physical computer will not magically begin to look like my computer. Your laptop will not magically become a desktop. Instead, the inner workings will become similar, to mine, since the disk image will be connected to software and operating system.

This is true.

If God is the source of creation, man in his (disk) image would allow man to also become creative and a source of creation.

Could this mean that we are simply endomorphic copies of the One?

Man will now alter the world in his own image; civilization. If we want grass to grow there instead of trees, we can will it happen. Cavemen just accept as is. If they want grass they walk over there.They lack the disk image but they have the same model laptop (DNA).

Thank you for that illustration.

Like the computer analogy, full use of my desktop disk image will be dependant on the hardware within your laptop. If my desktop is quad core with a gig of video ram, and your laptop is single core without a video card, there is a limit with respect to fully using the disk image the same way. It will be similar but much slower and multitask limited.

Perhaps there really is a form of protocomputation or SCSPL language.

Adam was considered the first modern human with the disk image in place needed to form civilization; hand on the pulse of creation. It had little to do with a beard or white hair. That is bias of tradition.

Another great illustration. Perhaps the basis of free will is the ability to tap into perfect harmony with the environment, thereby allowing us to create what is necessary. That would be the "genius" choice.

 

[Believe]

My twisted consciousness is what is in God's image.

This would mean that God's consciousness is twisted as well.

That is what I basically said above.

Thanks for agreeing.

Regards
DL

Your conciousness is only twisted because you allow it to be that way. Hate and bitterness tend to do that to people.

 

[Greatest I am]

In God's image has less to do with a picture image or mirror image, but more to do with the concept of a disk image in computing; It is about function not superficial form.

If I installed a disk image from my computer, onto your new computer, your physical computer will not magically begin to look like my computer. Your laptop will not magically become a desktop. Instead, the inner workings will become similar, to mine, since the disk image will be connected to software and operating system.

If God is the source of creation, man in his (disk) image would allow man to also become creative and a source of creation. Man will now alter the world in his own image; civilization. If we want grass to grow there instead of trees, we can will it happen. Cavemen just accept as is. If they want grass they walk over there.They lack the disk image but they have the same model laptop (DNA).

Like the computer analogy, full use of my desktop disk image will be dependant on the hardware within your laptop. If my desktop is quad core with a gig of video ram, and your laptop is single core without a video card, there is a limit with respect to fully using the disk image the same way. It will be similar but much slower and multitask limited.

Adam was considered the first modern human with the disk image in place needed to form civilization; hand on the pulse of creation. It had little to do with a beard or white hair. That is bias of tradition.

So did God create A & E with a moral sense?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Your conciousness is only twisted because you allow it to be that way. Hate and bitterness tend to do that to people.

Yes. I saw that by your initial response.

Regards
DL

 

[Believe]

WOW, I know you are but what am I. Great comeback.

Don't you get tired of this? Anyone reading this just google search this persons handle, you will find that he/she posts this garbage in as many forums (both religious and not) as he/she can just to get a rise out of people. Nothing but a jerk with no respect for the beliefs of his/her fellow man/women.

Whether you believe or not you don't have to be a dick about it, and most certainly should not be.

This person has nothing better to do with there time then harass others over the internet.

 

[Syne]

Apparently you don't understand what allegory is. It can't be allegory when it is about the very thing itself. The Dragon "called Satan?" I'm sorry, did I miss the chapter in Animal Farm when Joseph Stalin drives Leon Trotsky out of the Soviet Union?

Really?! You're just far too dense.

 

[Believe]

GIA, I think I may post this little fact in all of your future threads. That way no one will be decived into thinking that you are looking for honest discorse, but that you and your loaded questions are mearly looking to harass and inflame.

 

[Balerion]

Really?!

Yes, really. The dragon can't be a symbolic representation of Satan if the dragon actually is Satan. This isn't a difficult concept.