The flaw in your reasoning is jumping from the assertion that God "desires" a personal relationship with me as a father does a son and assuming that I am required to afford Her that personal relationship.

If we must engage in this silly parental analogy, many, many biological parents do not deserve and are not entitled to the respect of their offspring. There's a difference between biological parenthood and cultural parenthood.

Your argument is that God, based merely on Her alleged role in creating us, is entitled to be treated as a father. That is false, for the same reason that Eliza Doolittle can reasonably hate Henry Higgins.

But it's even worse than that. Anyone of even minimal human intelligence understands that the act of biological creation doesn't entitle parents to any respect-- that offspring are entirely justified in having no regard for biological parents who abandon them, and in regarding their actual caretakers as their "parents" worthy of respect. God is supposed to be smarter than we are, and yet the God you worship is either an idiot or has the emotional maturity of a 2 year old.

If your God wants a relationship with me, your God can either earn it or go screw Herself. Your God has the moral authority of a deadbeat dad who doesn't pay his child support payments.

That is extremely delusional.

He isn't there.

There is no "personal relationship".

If you ever figure it out, it will be a significant event for you. You will stand in awe at the magnitude of the deception.

Doggg, I do not mean to disparage your faith in any way, but, look, first of all, nobody is hating anyone here, alright? People who do not share your faith do not necessarily hate it.

Secondly, your idea of a "father" God trying to establish a personal relationship with his children does not make much sense. What if I do not feel like a "child," what if I feel that I am a mature grown-up man who is not in need of a father to take care of me? Look, I think you need to see what is problematic about the conception of a "personal God" here. There may indeed exist such a God who created me, but this fact does not mean that he has the right to meddle in my personal affairs and life or to tell me how I should live my life. What if I say, well, God, thanks, but no thanks? If I am an individual with a rationality of my own (however flawed this rationality may be), do not I have the right to live my life according to my own feelings, reason and mind? God may have much vaster and better knowledge than me, so, he may know what is good for me much better than my own self. But, if I am an individual, a grown man with an individuality, I have every right to follow my own path, simply because of the fact that it is me who chose it.

Thirdly, if you say that I will be damned and burn in hell if I do not follow God's way, well then how is that different from saying that God is a dictator and the only reason to follow him is his "power"? Would not it be, in that case, a moral responsibility for every mature men to actually NOT follow the instructions of such a dictator?

In summary, if there is a personal God, then this God is either a benevolent and wise father who is trying to help us, or he is a dictator prick. In the first case, I say, "God, thank you, but I am not a child." So, thanks, but no thanks. In the second case, I simply show him my middle finger (rude, I know, but every dictator deserves it).

Cheers

One of the worst moves of nonuniversalist theists (admittedly, not all theists) is absolving God of any responsiblity for punishing nonbelievers.

The logic is something like this: if your mother is in a burning building, and I refuse to go in and rescue her unless she has sex with me, and she chooses not to have sex with me, I bear no responsibility for leaving her in the building to burn.

If God-- who is supposedly all-powerful-- decides not to save a person, God is responsible for the fate of that person, and God is further responsible for whether the punishment is disproportionate to the wrongful act. And since not believing in God isn't even wrongful at all (and certainly isn't that important compared to other wrongful things a human being can do), that makes the protestant Christian God a completely immoral bastard.

Salvation based on works, or universal salvation, can work within a moral framework. A God who awards salvation based on faith, however, is evil on the level of Hitler. People who worship such a God are doing nothing more than worshiping raw, evil power.

I’m not sure if you realize just how dangerous of a belief this is.

Yeah, I mostly agree. Although I am not quite sure about this whole salvation business, even when it is based on "works". First of all, why would human beings even be in need of salvation in the first place, and what exactly is being saved here? More importantly, saved from whom? What is preventing God from saving everybody regardless of how stupid, or even how evil they might have been? Theists usually gloss over and simplify such questions, I think, simply because they do not understand what eternity is.

A man, let us exaggerate a bit here and call this man "super Hitler", who spends his entire life killing innocent babies and who by the end of his life managed to kill, let's say, 50 million of them, still does not deserve eternal punishment. One could make a case for trillions and trillions of years of punishment, but even that is nothing compared to "eternity."

I mean....eternity...for God's sake; and these little bunnies and lambs who call themselves "Christians" are eager to grant such punishment not only to our "super Hitler" but to perfectly ethical and good family men whose only crime is not to "believe" in the Christians' celestial fairy. I mean "belief" or "lack of it" in exchange for eternity... What a concept! One could only shudder thinking about the nature of the "true evil" residing in the deep darkness of the hearts of those so called early Church fathers who invented these concepts. I am wondering what type of hatred and ill-will and pure ressentiment moved them to invent such things as eternal punishment, hell and other non-sense and to wish those things for their "enemies" whose only crime, it seems, was to "not believe" in those non-sense.

God help the Christians (this, without a hint of irony). I sincerely think that if God exists these so-called Christians will be in deep trouble. Maybe we can even make a case for an eternal punishment for these Christians (this with a lot of irony). So, there you go: Christians will burn in hell for eternity for inventing and spreading truly evil beliefs, misrepresenting God, and ruining the lives of billions of innocent men and women. Fair game, huh?

As for the heaven and eternal life, I do not even want to talk about the stupidity of the concept of an eternal life and reward for mere "belief." It is beneath my dignity.

Cheers

I've said this before, but as a sociological matter, one can totally see why the concept of hell was attractive to people thousands of years ago. There was little justice, either in the natural world (disease could debilitate or kill completely innocent, good people) or the human realm (there was little redress for acts of extreme violence; often punishment wss inflicted on the innocent, the rich and those who could afford a posse could oppress peasants). A belief system that said that all these bad people who were getting away with things in this life would get theirs in the next one was highly attractive to people living in those times.

What I don't really get is why hell is still attractive to believers now. It's like they want God to fry all the people who said that they were wrong.

I don't know why the ungodly are so hung up on hell.
I read the scriptures every day, and it is rare that I come across a verse pertaining to hell.
Eternal judgment never came into my consideration to step out in faith.
But I have certainly met men who probably deserve to go to hell, or to be cast out into outer darkness.
My personal opinion is that we in the western world live such sheltered lives, that we are hardly ever exposed to evil, in any form.
We are hardly ever exposed to anything resembling a real life, as men have lived for most of recorded history, in a community or tribal situation, in daily, direct contact with friends, family and foes and enemies.
The following quotation confirms this to me. Listen to its language. You would think this person exists within a really good world. Perhaps even a utopia:
Furthermore, I am not the judge.
I trust that God will be fair in his judgments.
Furthermore, unbelief is one thing, but seeking to destroy, upset and ruin the right-standing that others have with God is another thing.
From what I've seen of unbelief, there is no such thing as a soft variation.
Many atheists act like possessed men, or frothing droolers (to use poker terminology).
I can't tell you how many times, in person, I will evangelize to a person, and if they profess to be an atheist, they begin to display violent tics, and begin to pace, or their voice cracks, or they visibly shake as I calmly share the scriptures.
I don't believe atheism can lead to a good place for the human soul.
I've never seen good fruits grow from that tree.
I never saw it in my own life.
Peace and joy and fulfillment came through Jesus Christ.

I'm going to work, and so will post more later tonight.
Not purposefully ignoring any comments.

Very quickly, though, whenever Jesus spoke about hell, he did it within a certain context.
This context is certainly relevant here.

In Matthew 5, Christ wraps up hell within the context of adultery.
But you can see a clear pattern, a clear message, that those in danger of "hell" cause others to sin, or offend those who walk with God as children.

You think this because, in your mind, it is unfathomable to think that someone genuinely doesn't believe in your god... Maybe you really did believe the whole time you were an unbeliever, but I can say with confidence that your story is not representitive of the whole. In fact, that might explain why a bible passage (as an unbeliever) had such an effect on you. From reading a lot of posts from you it just seems like you were searching for something all along.

So you want the right to preach your truth but you dont want non believers preaching theirs. And when non believers do speak they are destroyers and when you do you are building. Martyr complex much? Got to love that good old fashion Christian sense of fairness and justice. You even through in atheists cant have peace, joy and fulfillment for good measure. Err....

They believe that God is reading their minds. If they allow themselves to question any of their handed-down beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are, God will know.

That is how insidious the process is.

They dont have to question their beliefs. Just dont express your beliefs and evangelize and then condemn non believers as evil destroyers when they do the same. It bugs me....its that cake and eat it too thing.

Pooter, here's some more scripture and notes on the subject to think about in the meantime. I'll try to make time tomorrow to address your posts specifically. I had a few beers at my bday party, so video games before bed are calling to me!

ESV study Bible notes on Matthew 6:25-30

Matt. 6:25 Therefore … do not be anxious. If one makes the right choices (see vv. 19–24), there is (“therefore”) no reason that one should be anxious. Jesus gives two a fortiori (“how much more”) examples—“look at the birds” (v. 26), “consider the lilies” (v. 28)—to show that, since God cares even for the birds and the lilies, how much more will he care for his own. To be anxious, then, demonstrates a lack of trust in God, who promises that he will graciously care for “all these things” (v. 33; cf. Rom. 8:32). See also Phil. 4:5–6.

Matt. 6:26 Human beings are of more value than animals (cf. 10:31; 12:12) because only humans, out of all God’s creatures, are created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), because God gave the human race dominion over all the earth and all its creatures (Gen. 1:28), and because God loved human beings so much “that he gave his only Son” to die for our sins (John 3:16).

Matt. 6:30 Grass was a natural source of fuel for fire and a common biblical metaphor for human frailty (e.g., Ps. 37:2; 102:4). Little faith implies a deficiency rather than an absence of faith (cf. Matt. 8:26).

[Have No Fear]
“So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
(Matthew 10:26-33 ESV)

And the corresponding study notes for Matthew 26-33

Matt. 10:27 proclaim on the housetops. Up to now Jesus has consistently called for secrecy (see note on 8:4), but the time is approaching when the secret will be proclaimed universally.

Matt. 10:29 Sparrows were customarily thought of as the smallest of creatures, and the penny was one of the least valuable Roman coins (cf. 5:26). apart from your Father. God is sovereign over even the most insignificant events.

Matt. 10:30–31 Fear not, therefore. Since the heavenly Father gives constant sovereign supervision even to seemingly insignificant creatures, surely he will also care for his disciples in their mission to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. more value. See note on 6:26.

Matt. 10:32–33 everyone who acknowledges me before men. A Christian can easily avoid persecution by denying that he or she is Jesus’ disciple. But the true disciple does not fear death (v. 28) and will publicly acknowledge and confess Jesus. whoever denies me. The eternal consequences for those who deny Christ, in fact, will be far worse than the persecution that they sought to avoid.

I am actually most interested to hear more about your believe about god creating us in his image. I may of been a bit trollish in my response but i would love to hear your thoughts on the questions i asked as i think they are valid if you really believe that god is the image of man (well us in his w/e).

I am not saying this to offend but if people really believe we were created in a gods shape/image etc making god human shaped, I think you either a, have not thought about what you are believing in depth or b, are quite insane.

It is more the case of "needs us to belief in him," how else could he be?

So you mean there is not enough *scientific* evidence to justify belief in God. I don't think anyone will dispute that. Then again, not all justified beliefs are justified through science, most notably the belief in science itself.

This is quite wrong. While there are other reasons to accept the results of science (for instance, because the scientific method is theoretically a sound way of arriving at more accurate information), the induction from the fact that science repeatedly produces results such as curing diseases and making predictions consistent with later observation IS a scientifically sound ground for accepting science. Just as the fact that Christianity has a consistent record of 2,000 years of gross and inexcusable error is a scientifically sound reason to reject it.

A gorilla has the same five senses that we have. Would God expect a gorilla to believe?

You can't be serious.

What do you think God has over us? You think God is capable of creating beings that experience pain yet doesn't know what pain is? Or more powerful, doesn't know what it's like to feel pain as an ego?

How does God "run" the solar system ignoring the imaginative life experience that the humans have as a result of her creating?

God doesn't have knowledge?

Maybe there's a different kind of knowledge than what you understand. If God explained this different kind of knowledge to you would you be capable of understanding it?

On a prima facie basis alone, belief in science cannot be scientifically justified for the simple reason that circular logic is illegal in science. Statements like "truth detecting method A says method A truthfully detects" are not allowed. Therefore your argument is invalid. As for Christianity having a history of error, I have made this point repeatedly myself. Keeping things Biblical has been a difficult job from the beginning, as Paul would agree.

Good point. Whatever it is that people consider sufficient evidence to believe in God, gorillas don't experience it.

You are confusing your ego with God's.

You are meaningless to the universe. As am I. And you gotta be truly self important to think otherwise.

Maybe he can only be found through proprioception or thermoception

It's not circular logic. It's inductive reasoning. Unlike Christians, who have amassed 20 centuries of error, scientists have repeatedly solved important problems.

Inductive reasoning is not circular.

Sorry to take so long to respond Pooter. I'll leave the discussion of mankind's importance to God alone since you want to focus on man's creation in God's image. Feel free to bring that subject back up again.
At first I didn't think these were especially difficult questions to respond to. I was wrong. This has turned out to be a rabbit hole, and I'm happy I've jumped in. I know this is lengthy, and some scripture is more or less relevant to our specific subject, but I felt like it wouldn’t hurt to put in extra content.

Let us first examine the creation account in Genesis.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:27 ESV)
At first glance I thought ‘Hmmm ok so we look like God. Alright.’ When prompted to think about this in relation to the rest of the Bible, this made less and less sense. How can the God of the Bible with His clearly defined characteristics of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient be limited in such a way?

The word ‘image’ seems to be the problem word here. When looking at the original Hebrew text we can see why. The Hebrew word being used is tselem which is literally a shadow which is the outline or representation of the orginal. So when we read “God created man in his own image” we form a mental picture of our physical bodies and attribute this to God himself. The Hebrews used this word more as a verb than a noun. This passage wouldn’t imply a physical form; it would concentrate on function. With that in mind it would appear that what seems illogical(God’s infinite nature being limited by a physical body), is simply a function of imperfect languages and their translation. With this in mind we can move on to examine more scripture on the subject.

While Jesus was passing through Samaria on his way to Galilee He has a conversation with a woman of Samaria. During this conversation the woman focuses only on the physical, to which Jesus repeatedly offers her much more than the physical things like water that will not quench one’s thirst.
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24 ESV)

I find Colossians 1:15-23 extremely relevant and interesting. Col 15-18 outlines Jesus’ status as God.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Col 1:15-18 ESV)
Right away we can see that God is without physical form, and that Christ is the image of God. How does that make sense? Jesus takes the physical image of invisibility? This tells us that image is not referring to physical form, but to what Christ does. Image in this usage is speaking to His authority, actions, and submissiveness to the Father’s will. This is shown in the subsequent verses.
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:19-23 ESV)
We see that being an image barer of God is not a physical characteristic, but a reflection of God’s glory.

We see more scripture support this in Philippians 2:5-8.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God(1), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped(2), but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant(3), being born in the likeness of men(4). And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient(5) to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 ESV, numbers mine)
1) We are told plainly that Jesus was in the form of God while on the Earth.
2) While fully and equally God in the trinity, Jesus did not grasp for equality.
3) Jesus takes the form of a servant, because...(4)
4) He is on the Earth taking upon himself the likeness of men. This is very important to our subject, because we see that Jesus’ physical body is not a result of being an image barer of God, but being born in the likeness of men.
5) Being born in the likeness of men, while still fully God, Jesus shows us how to be image barers of God by humbling himself to nothing, and obediently submitting to God’s will. Jesus is reflecting God's glory.

I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that “God created man in his own image” does mean a physical image, but an active image. As long as we are acting as His agents, we are exhibiting His image.* We are reflecting God's glory.



Sources:
ESV Study Bible and commentary www.ESVBible.org
http://www.blueletterbible.org/comme...is&ar=Gen_1_26
*http://skipmoen.com/2009/11/17/order-takerorder-maker/
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/40_genesis1.html