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

[Drich]

Your God called man a living soul.

...and?

What sins are those?

What are sins?
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin.
Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.

Equality for women and Gays perhaps?

Righteousness says Lying is always a sin.

"Morality" says it is ok to lie to save a your friend's life.

True. If he lived at all, he was a Gnostic and knew that we all have God within us.

He claimed to be the only Son of God so no, you are thinking of Mormonism.

So why are you not correcting it?

I did in my first sentence of my last post.

Criticism without correction is just cruelty according to your bible.

Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion?

Do you not follow it?

Did you not read the first sentence of my first post? Seek your correction there.

Close enough to righteousness for me but if you have a better definition then I will likely agree with it.

Close enough is good enough to describe morality. Now the question turns to who authorizes "close enough?"

Mind you, I am not surprised to see you having a problem with knowing what moral is.

If a teacher asks a student what day was pearl harbor attacked, He is not asking because the teacher does not know.
Conversely i am trying to establish the difference between morality and Righteousness.

They would not have gained or lost anything in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for one and for two, you agree that they did not know good or evil and would not have known that they were doing evil.

By the biblical definition of sin, one does not have to understand or incorporate the malice needed to change sin to evil. Again Not all Sin is Evil but all Evil is sin.
Adam and Eve understood sin. For they knew the consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge.

Do you punish your children when they do something wrong without knowing it is wrong?

Why do you assume Adam and Eve did not understand sin or the consequences of sin? Did you not Read the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden? They both admitted to knowledge of sin independently of each other.

I hope not, so if it is wrong for you then do you not think it should also be wrong for God.
After all, our whole human legal system is based on punishing only those who can recognize god and evil.

You are working with a misunderstanding of sin and Evil (see the previous paragraph for your correction)

Only your Christian system believes it is good to punish the innocent, like Jesus, so that the guilty can walk. That is completely immoral.

You wield the word "morality" like it means something. God identified your "morality" as a filthy rag (Modern translation: saturated sanitary napkin)
So excuse me if I do not rush to drag the name of God down to your beloved standard.

Thanks again for not showing your understanding.

again I started the post with the correct definition.

It is righteous then to have a son murdered when there is no need to?

Fallacy of many questions.

It is righteous is it to use genocide on almost the whole planet when God can just as easily cure as kill?

What are you talking about?

I see God taking the righteous low ground in both instances.
Please shoe how killing is more righteous than curing.

your physical death is your birth into eternity. Why is it better to be confined to this finite existence? Because you are afraid to die? I hate to break it to you that you will die, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Even if God cured you at some point. You will still die. Then you will face eternity. If God saving your body condemned your soul to hell then how was a pocket full of miracles helping you? How is that righteousness?

Can you explain how it makes sense for God to take the moral low ground in both these instances when he has a pocket full of miracles and option to choose from?

"moral low ground" is just a matter of perspective. Your personal sense of righteousness has you believe that your in a position to judge God. When in fact you do not have the proper perspective to even assess the situation. your "morality" preserves: want ,desire, and a healthy life at all costs. When God's goals are served by getting everyone into eternity who wants to be in Heaven for eternity. Even if it means there is suffering and pain in this life.

What is better? to suffer for 70 years? or to suffer for an eternity?

We are comparing your morals and mine at the moment.

Again are you talking about morality or righteousness? Because my "morality" is about as acceptable as your "morality" to God.

That is why we both need atonement to bridge the gap between our ideas of 'morality,' and God's righteousness.

[Whateverist]

Why haven't I put Drich on my ignore list?

Answers on a postcard please.

Good question. I have.

Me too. So easy to do. Now I can read what people who think think without hearing the defensive yet often irrelevant true-believer babble.

[The Grand Nudger]

No sense ignoring an asshole, they'll just get louder.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Mediam. probably has it right but if you want a theological explanation for this I can give it. The explanation is of course bullshit but I've heard it a few times in fundy churches. Here goes: When it says in Genesis that god made man in his image it's talking about the trinity. According to the doctrine humans have a body soul and spirit. God also has a body (Jesus) soul (god) and spirit (the holy spirit). I think this explanation is a cute little trick. It also explains why god refers to himself in the plural (though later on in the bible he doesn't). It's supposedly the trinity getting together in some sort of odd fashon and agreeing to do something.

Disclaimer: As I said before Mediam. has the better explanation. I'm just giving an explanation that's used in some fundy churches. Op, it would be a good idea for you to read up on the development on Christianity from a non fundamentalist perspective. It will provide better answers for you than what you can get from the church.

[Greatest I am]

Your God called man a living soul.

...and?

What sins are those?

What are sins?
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin.
Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.

Equality for women and Gays perhaps?

Righteousness says Lying is always a sin.

"Morality" says it is ok to lie to save a your friend's life.

True. If he lived at all, he was a Gnostic and knew that we all have God within us.

He claimed to be the only Son of God so no, you are thinking of Mormonism.

So why are you not correcting it?

I did in my first sentence of my last post.

Criticism without correction is just cruelty according to your bible.

Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion?

Do you not follow it?

Did you not read the first sentence of my first post? Seek your correction there.

Close enough to righteousness for me but if you have a better definition then I will likely agree with it.

Close enough is good enough to describe morality. Now the question turns to who authorizes "close enough?"

Mind you, I am not surprised to see you having a problem with knowing what moral is.

If a teacher asks a student what day was pearl harbor attacked, He is not asking because the teacher does not know.
Conversely i am trying to establish the difference between morality and Righteousness.

They would not have gained or lost anything in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for one and for two, you agree that they did not know good or evil and would not have known that they were doing evil.

By the biblical definition of sin, one does not have to understand or incorporate the malice needed to change sin to evil. Again Not all Sin is Evil but all Evil is sin.
Adam and Eve understood sin. For they knew the consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge.

Do you punish your children when they do something wrong without knowing it is wrong?

Why do you assume Adam and Eve did not understand sin or the consequences of sin? Did you not Read the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden? They both admitted to knowledge of sin independently of each other.

I hope not, so if it is wrong for you then do you not think it should also be wrong for God.
After all, our whole human legal system is based on punishing only those who can recognize god and evil.

You are working with a misunderstanding of sin and Evil (see the previous paragraph for your correction)

Only your Christian system believes it is good to punish the innocent, like Jesus, so that the guilty can walk. That is completely immoral.

You wield the word "morality" like it means something. God identified your "morality" as a filthy rag (Modern translation: saturated sanitary napkin)
So excuse me if I do not rush to drag the name of God down to your beloved standard.

Thanks again for not showing your understanding.

again I started the post with the correct definition.

It is righteous then to have a son murdered when there is no need to?

Fallacy of many questions.

It is righteous is it to use genocide on almost the whole planet when God can just as easily cure as kill?

What are you talking about?

I see God taking the righteous low ground in both instances.
Please shoe how killing is more righteous than curing.

your physical death is your birth into eternity. Why is it better to be confined to this finite existence? Because you are afraid to die? I hate to break it to you that you will die, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Even if God cured you at some point. You will still die. Then you will face eternity. If God saving your body condemned your soul to hell then how was a pocket full of miracles helping you? How is that righteousness?

Can you explain how it makes sense for God to take the moral low ground in both these instances when he has a pocket full of miracles and option to choose from?

"moral low ground" is just a matter of perspective. Your personal sense of righteousness has you believe that your in a position to judge God. When in fact you do not have the proper perspective to even assess the situation. your "morality" preserves: want ,desire, and a healthy life at all costs. When God's goals are served by getting everyone into eternity who wants to be in Heaven for eternity. Even if it means there is suffering and pain in this life.

What is better? to suffer for 70 years? or to suffer for an eternity?

We are comparing your morals and mine at the moment.

Again are you talking about morality or righteousness? Because my "morality" is about as acceptable as your "morality" to God.

That is why we both need atonement to bridge the gap between our ideas of 'morality,' and God's righteousness.

I see now why the other posters dealt with you the way they did.

Anyone who can say it is better to kill than cure is beyond any sense of morality or righteousness.

Regards
DL

---

Mediam. probably has it right but if you want a theological explanation for this I can give it. The explanation is of course bullshit but I've heard it a few times in fundy churches. Here goes: When it says in Genesis that god made man in his image it's talking about the trinity. According to the doctrine humans have a body soul and spirit. God also has a body (Jesus) soul (god) and spirit (the holy spirit). I think this explanation is a cute little trick. It also explains why god refers to himself in the plural (though later on in the bible he doesn't). It's supposedly the trinity getting together in some sort of odd fashon and agreeing to do something.

Disclaimer: As I said before Mediam. has the better explanation. I'm just giving an explanation that's used in some fundy churches. Op, it would be a good idea for you to read up on the development on Christianity from a non fundamentalist perspective. It will provide better answers for you than what you can get from the church.

I agree completely and have done so.

I know that it all started in Sumer and Egypt.

I have to use Christian teachings though to talk to Christians and to try to show then the right way to think.

Regards
DL