Philosophy Now Forum

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

Greatest I am wrote: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

You need to move on.
There is no sense in the Bible.
You don't get the truth. You don't even get coherence from a book written by committee.
Leave it alone.
Find something else.

God is all-encompassing. Therefore God is Order and Chaos at the same time. But chaos is just the absence of perceiving order, it is not the lack of order, as order is not true or false, it isn't existing or non-existing, it is an application of the mind giving structure and pattern to things. When it is gone you can bring it back. I guess that's the job of priests also, to give order to where people see chaos, to give God to where people see hopelessness, completing the unity of Gods ying with providing his yang (or vice-versa).

Btw I'm a carelessist, so I'm not religious. But lack of other forums with interesting chats lead me here.

The Voice of Time wrote:God is all-encompassing. Therefore God is Order and Chaos at the same time. But chaos is just the absence of perceiving order, it is not the lack of order, as order is not true or false, it isn't existing or non-existing, it is an application of the mind giving structure and pattern to things. When it is gone you can bring it back. I guess that's the job of priests also, to give order to where people see chaos, to give God to where people see hopelessness, completing the unity of Gods ying with providing his yang (or vice-versa).

Btw I'm a carelessist, so I'm not religious. But lack of other forums with interesting chats lead me here.

Impressed.

attofishpi wrote:Impressed.

thought so also... scary huh?

The Voice of Time wrote:... I'm a carelessist ...

As in, "I couldn't care less"?

Arising_uk wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:... I'm a carelessist ...

As in, "I couldn't care less"?

supposed to, at least. I just thought the answer was so easy I couldn't bare myself not to give it. It was purely a stimulative intellection!!!!!!! I only used the word "God" twice and it was a purely logical explanation, no religious gibberish! I had just heard that God was supposed to be all-encompassing so if god is all-encompassing he must be anything and since I already knew that order and chaos where just different aspects of the same reality... a quite common philosophical epistemological point of view, it was just sooo..... easy....

Watching movies and being forced to church when you're young, I guess, does put marks on you. But I'm still a carelessist, I'm like a guy who just had sex with a very religious person because I knew the right words to say. But I was just in it for the sex! Ehm, I mean, intellection, nothing more....

The Voice of Time wrote:supposed to, at least. ...

Thanks, thought it was and I liked the phrase.

Welcome to the forum by-the-way, I read your posts with interest as whilst I can't understand some of them I appreciate an obvious philosophical thinker, especially in the young and more especially when they are willing to change their mind through discussion.

Arising_uk wrote:I appreciate an obvious philosophical thinker.

Exactly what does that mean, can you elucidate?

Last time I talk to you bob.

VoT has obviously read some philosophy and thought about it. You have read none.

Read his posts then read yours. That is the difference and what I meant.

Arising_uk wrote:Last time I talk to you bob.

VoT has obviously read some philosophy and thought about it. You have read none.

Read his posts then read yours. That is the difference and what I meant.

As usual, you can't put shit into words, which is understandable since you can't understand shit (case in point: Ouzo).

Arising_uk wrote: VoT has obviously read some philosophy and thought about it. You have read none..

Thought more than read. Never been able to read a full original piece of work (find them too boring), but read a lot of introductions and comments, the interesting bits in my opinion, since most philosophers are ancient or centuries old and full of out-dated ways of thinking (in my opinion). The closest I've ever come to fully reading an original is Aristotles "Politics" which is weird since politics rarely bothers me directly.

Unless I point out a source specifically I'll just say whatever comes to my mind. It has a tendency of looking professional(ish) but it's not because it is any more professional than to the person absorbing the thought thinks, I guess however looking good kinda makes it good in this business, as there's a reason why the literature titled "philosophy" is quite narrow whereas philosophic thinking can be taken out of any book if you have the right perspective to it.

Just another example of Arising talking out of his/her ass (care to name your sex?).

bobevenson wrote:Just another example of Arising talking out of his/her ass (care to name your sex?).

Meh. I still have read a lot. My favourite being an out-of-the-ordinary history of philosophy book by a Norwegian philosopher called Arne Næss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_N%C3%A6ss).

He brings up all of the most important philosophers (excluding only those who made indirect influence, like Arthur Schopenhauer and those who are less philosophical but more theoretical/practical like Rousseau) and gives you a feeling afterwards that you have just analysed the process of "making" philosophy. Remembering it I think it's almost as if he gives you the recipe to think for yourself and generate ideas. He takes out the garbage and doesn't care too much about what made history, it was what made philosophy he's interested in, and to him the philosophy is the person who thought it not the ideas blank on paper.

So if you want people on this forum to pour out sentences from weird Latin titles or quotes on essays on this and essays on that you'll not find it from me. I make philosophy, my own thoughts,, I don't copy-paste if I can avoid it. Try thinking which is the most useful: quotes and weird titles or using your own brain.

The Voice of Time wrote:I make philosophy, my own thoughts, I don't copy-paste if I can avoid it. Try thinking which is the most useful: quotes and weird titles or using your own brain.

Excellent observation, my friend.