IN GOD'S IMAGE?

edited October 1 in Religion
It is written that God created the hu-man in his image, etc. Then who's image is the wo-man created in? Just curious to see what answers float up, etc. Then all human beings, aka: [homo sapien's] look as God would look, etc. Right...

Comments

  • First of all, the image of GOD is not fleshly.............it's SPIRIT. We are Spiritual beings. Secondly, according to scripture,,, God see's neither male nor female as it pertain to fleshly.
  • edited October 15
    Then I can assume that since we are spirtual beings, we are not created in God's image, right? Spirits have no image, etc. Or are we just carbon emergy creatures, etc.. Do i have da meet u in church da get my answer? be back... "GFB"
  • An "image" is a physical representation.
    The reason that believers say it's spiritual is because it would create a problem if they didn't. Anything that doesn't make sense physically they will say it's spiritual. And being spiritual they can simply manipulate the how into whatever causes the least contradictions. And if you disagree they'll say you don't understand spiritual things. You have to admit, it's a good defense.

    It's not necessarily true... but it's a good defense.

    Such defenses do a good job at protecting superstitions of all varieties. I mean how can someone who believes in heaven prove it to someone who believes in reincarnation? Is there any way that either can prove the other wrong? This is how believers get manipulated and reinforced into their beliefs so that they can keep putting money in the offering plate.

    My question is this. As someone who knows the bible, I would ask them, why would the word "image" be used for something as intangible and incomprehensible as "spirit"? In other words, they're trying to say that our "spirits" look or are similar in some way. After all, what "other" spirit could mankind have been made in the image of? So you have to get them to give you their definition and understanding of spirit and really pin them down on that.

    We can talk about the male, fatherly, attribute of God, that only exists in relation to his creations because, according to 1 John 3, my favorite chapter, the children of God are the ones who represent love. They are the righteous. This chapter denies the parent child relationship for humans who represent hate, unrighteousness, bad people. So again... what is spirit? The spiritual relationship between God and his people is conditional. If the seed is good and planted within your heart then you cannot be a bad person. You must be good or else it is not God's seed that is in you but the devil's.

    So this brings up an important point. Was Genesis referring to all of humanity when it said created in God's image? Or just Adam?

    ahhhhh....

    Think about it. Once Cain murders his brother (and this is mentioned in 1 John 3), he became the child, the offspring, of the devil. At this point his life and actions become a tree that produce good and evil fruit. What happens when the seed of evil is planted? Someone else gets those seeds and they grow in other people. In other words... evil is like a virus and Cain was the host.

    Adam and Eve aren't treated the same way. They aren't marked like Cain is. The writer treats them like they made a bad decision that created the environment fertile for Cain to grow but Cain is the eventuality that was somewhat inevitable because of freedom of choice. Adam and Eve exercising their freedom to choose meant they weren't robots and neither would their children be.

    I can be (and usually am) super critical of God in the whole Genesis scenario because I feel like God always treated the scenario as an experiment. He puts the idea in Adam's head, one tree out of thousands that they could have avoided by random chance alone, but let me focus...

    Seems like God just disowns any kid who doesn't obey him. The wild thing is the bible says "Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he gets old he will not depart from it". So if Adam and Eve has some responsibility for the "virus" of sin being unleashed... since we also know that... whoever you believe the Satan character to be, he's not a child of Adam or Eve. So then whoever his dad was is as responsible for his "son" as Adam could ever be (more so because he's wiser and far more powerful in people's belief) so why is it that God is held to a different standard and has no responsibility for evil? He obviously didn't train up Lucifer or whoever. Nor did he train Adam. He treated him like a lab rat. So why then, are humans responsible for sin and it is such a "gift" that God would plan to save us? Why isn't it simply his responsibility as the one who created evil and allowed evil into our world and failed to warn or protect us from it? Adam was warned about the fruit. He was never warned about the serpent. Which was the greater threat?




  • Then I can assume that since we are spirtual beings, we are not created in God's image, right? Spirits have no image, etc. Or are we just carbon emergy creatures, etc.. Do i have da meet u in church da get my answer? be back... "GFB"

    God is a Spirit and according to the bible.....when God breathe life into Adam, Adam became a living spirit/soul, able to discern and comprehend things in the aspect of spiritual being. In order to really ascertain our connection/image as it pertain to God, we have to meet with God on a spiritual level. God only communicates with our Spirit, the Spirit that dwells in our soul.
    Now, if you're an atheist..... all my words fall on deft ears.....*Shrug* I'm cool with that, to each their own understanding.


  • I'll accept that last part, about to each his or her own understanding. "Gfb" ain't no atheist, I am just curious. Did you go to church last Sunday? And was dat you on da back row? easing my tail on up outta hea..... later...
  • ZealotX wrote: »
    An "image" is a physical representation.
    The reason that believers say it's spiritual is because it would create a problem if they didn't. Anything that doesn't make sense physically they will say it's spiritual. And being spiritual they can simply manipulate the how into whatever causes the least contradictions. And if you disagree they'll say you don't understand spiritual things. You have to admit, it's a good defense.

    It's not necessarily true... but it's a good defense.

    Such defenses do a good job at protecting superstitions of all varieties. I mean how can someone who believes in heaven prove it to someone who believes in reincarnation? Is there any way that either can prove the other wrong? This is how believers get manipulated and reinforced into their beliefs so that they can keep putting money in the offering plate.

    My question is this. As someone who knows the bible, I would ask them, why would the word "image" be used for something as intangible and incomprehensible as "spirit"? In other words, they're trying to say that our "spirits" look or are similar in some way. After all, what "other" spirit could mankind have been made in the image of? So you have to get them to give you their definition and understanding of spirit and really pin them down on that.

    We can talk about the male, fatherly, attribute of God, that only exists in relation to his creations because, according to 1 John 3, my favorite chapter, the children of God are the ones who represent love. They are the righteous. This chapter denies the parent child relationship for humans who represent hate, unrighteousness, bad people. So again... what is spirit? The spiritual relationship between God and his people is conditional. If the seed is good and planted within your heart then you cannot be a bad person. You must be good or else it is not God's seed that is in you but the devil's.

    So this brings up an important point. Was Genesis referring to all of humanity when it said created in God's image? Or just Adam?

    ahhhhh....

    Think about it. Once Cain murders his brother (and this is mentioned in 1 John 3), he became the child, the offspring, of the devil. At this point his life and actions become a tree that produce good and evil fruit. What happens when the seed of evil is planted? Someone else gets those seeds and they grow in other people. In other words... evil is like a virus and Cain was the host.

    Adam and Eve aren't treated the same way. They aren't marked like Cain is. The writer treats them like they made a bad decision that created the environment fertile for Cain to grow but Cain is the eventuality that was somewhat inevitable because of freedom of choice. Adam and Eve exercising their freedom to choose meant they weren't robots and neither would their children be.

    I can be (and usually am) super critical of God in the whole Genesis scenario because I feel like God always treated the scenario as an experiment. He puts the idea in Adam's head, one tree out of thousands that they could have avoided by random chance alone, but let me focus...

    Seems like God just disowns any kid who doesn't obey him. The wild thing is the bible says "Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he gets old he will not depart from it". So if Adam and Eve has some responsibility for the "virus" of sin being unleashed... since we also know that... whoever you believe the Satan character to be, he's not a child of Adam or Eve. So then whoever his dad was is as responsible for his "son" as Adam could ever be (more so because he's wiser and far more powerful in people's belief) so why is it that God is held to a different standard and has no responsibility for evil? He obviously didn't train up Lucifer or whoever. Nor did he train Adam. He treated him like a lab rat. So why then, are humans responsible for sin and it is such a "gift" that God would plan to save us? Why isn't it simply his responsibility as the one who created evil and allowed evil into our world and failed to warn or protect us from it? Adam was warned about the fruit. He was never warned about the serpent. Which was the greater threat?



    What you've stated certainly made sense. I have said all alone that since this religious story was originated by man, it couldn't be trusted. While it's true that one can neither prove or dispprove what is written in scriptures, etc. this argument will forever continue, etc. Even though it's torn betwwen science & religion. That is all...

  • ZealotX wrote: »
    An "image" is a physical representation.
    The reason that believers say it's spiritual is because it would create a problem if they didn't. Anything that doesn't make sense physically they will say it's spiritual. And being spiritual they can simply manipulate the how into whatever causes the least contradictions. And if you disagree they'll say you don't understand spiritual things. You have to admit, it's a good defense.

    It's not necessarily true... but it's a good defense.

    Such defenses do a good job at protecting superstitions of all varieties. I mean how can someone who believes in heaven prove it to someone who believes in reincarnation? Is there any way that either can prove the other wrong? This is how believers get manipulated and reinforced into their beliefs so that they can keep putting money in the offering plate.

    My question is this. As someone who knows the bible, I would ask them, why would the word "image" be used for something as intangible and incomprehensible as "spirit"? In other words, they're trying to say that our "spirits" look or are similar in some way. After all, what "other" spirit could mankind have been made in the image of? So you have to get them to give you their definition and understanding of spirit and really pin them down on that.

    We can talk about the male, fatherly, attribute of God, that only exists in relation to his creations because, according to 1 John 3, my favorite chapter, the children of God are the ones who represent love. They are the righteous. This chapter denies the parent child relationship for humans who represent hate, unrighteousness, bad people. So again... what is spirit? The spiritual relationship between God and his people is conditional. If the seed is good and planted within your heart then you cannot be a bad person. You must be good or else it is not God's seed that is in you but the devil's.

    So this brings up an important point. Was Genesis referring to all of humanity when it said created in God's image? Or just Adam?

    ahhhhh....

    Think about it. Once Cain murders his brother (and this is mentioned in 1 John 3), he became the child, the offspring, of the devil. At this point his life and actions become a tree that produce good and evil fruit. What happens when the seed of evil is planted? Someone else gets those seeds and they grow in other people. In other words... evil is like a virus and Cain was the host.

    Adam and Eve aren't treated the same way. They aren't marked like Cain is. The writer treats them like they made a bad decision that created the environment fertile for Cain to grow but Cain is the eventuality that was somewhat inevitable because of freedom of choice. Adam and Eve exercising their freedom to choose meant they weren't robots and neither would their children be.

    I can be (and usually am) super critical of God in the whole Genesis scenario because I feel like God always treated the scenario as an experiment. He puts the idea in Adam's head, one tree out of thousands that they could have avoided by random chance alone, but let me focus...

    Seems like God just disowns any kid who doesn't obey him. The wild thing is the bible says "Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he gets old he will not depart from it". So if Adam and Eve has some responsibility for the "virus" of sin being unleashed... since we also know that... whoever you believe the Satan character to be, he's not a child of Adam or Eve. So then whoever his dad was is as responsible for his "son" as Adam could ever be (more so because he's wiser and far more powerful in people's belief) so why is it that God is held to a different standard and has no responsibility for evil? He obviously didn't train up Lucifer or whoever. Nor did he train Adam. He treated him like a lab rat. So why then, are humans responsible for sin and it is such a "gift" that God would plan to save us? Why isn't it simply his responsibility as the one who created evil and allowed evil into our world and failed to warn or protect us from it? Adam was warned about the fruit. He was never warned about the serpent. Which was the greater threat?



    It is written that God created the hu-man in his image, etc. Then who's image is the wo-man created in? Just curious to see what answers float up, etc. Then all human beings, aka: [homo sapien's] look as God would look, etc. Right...
    It is written that God created the hu-man in his image, etc. Then who's image is the wo-man created in? Just curious to see what answers float up, etc. Then all human beings, aka: [homo sapien's] look as God would look, etc. Right...

    If it was written that the blue whale was created in the image of god, would we be asking who created the wombat.
    It is written that God created the hu-man in his image, etc. Then who's image is the wo-man created in? Just curious to see what answers float up, etc. Then all human beings, aka: [homo sapien's] look as God would look, etc. Right...

    And if it was written god created the blue whale in his image, would we be curious about in whose image the duck was created?
  • wombat indeed.... I am sticking with da script, and da script says nothing about blue whales, etc. LMBO...what about da script...
Sign In or Register to comment.