This also means that we have intellect, logic and reason JUST LIKE GOD.
And God created us this way...
So then why does he get mad at us for using our reasoning? (which contrasts faith)
GOD MUST LOVE PEOPLE LIKE HIM,
Therefore he must love unbelievers.
So God is either an egoist, selfish and unjust ruler,
Or doesn't exist.
I just do not understand how believers buy into this whole nonsense. Any ideas?
You can't understand the nonsense because it IS nonsense, and you have SENSE!
He also "created us in his own image" and yet we were just "wild animals" (sort of) until having eaten from the tree of knowledge. So either it wasn't "in god's image" or god is a "wild animal".
It's a half-baked creation story at best. As I've said before, The Silmarillion offers a more coherent tale.
"We are made in the image of god" means "humans imagine god exists as humans exist". How can it be any other way? Each continent, each religion, each culture has its own image of god/s and comes from the minds of man. Man creates god, not the other way around. The direction of causality becomes confused in the minds of people who do not understand existence. As we gain understanding, i.e. gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc., the "gap" fills in leaving behind further mysteries. "God of the gaps!" "God explains that we do not understand!" For me, god of the gaps consists of those who believe the existence of god.
If you'd like an intriguing view of how god, the devil and a second-generation Job looked to a modern-day science-fiction writer, I heartily recommendJob: A Comedy of Justice. God doesn't show up until the end of the book ... at least not the god we know as Yahweh ... but a few of his associates (associates?!? Ohyas ... ASSOCIATES!) are in the mix in different guises through a healthy portion of it.
Job is terse and funny and infuriating and poignant and sexy ... and it should have been Heinlein's fifth Hugo. It's also in a tie with Stranger in a Strange Land for my fave Heinlein.
I really liked Childhoods End by Arthur C. Clark. Benevolent aliens arrive but don't show themselves for decades and during that time they help us turn earth into a utopia. When they do show themselves guess who they looked like?
Alan Watts had this idea that we're made in the image of God through our consciousness. That consciousness is the reflection of our higher self. That it's not the body. As in the dream, you can have the illusion or impression that you're a body being wandering through an environment, but of course, if you become truly lucid, you realize that's not the case at all. You are only consciousness.
So, if you extrapolate from consciousness, you arrive at what Watts called "the which than which there is no whicher.” Hindus call it "Brahman," but that is only because they have dialectic methods within their disciplines and in order to express it, they had to give it a name, but admit that whatever it is, it's truly nameless, yet eternal. Here's Watts on the topic, and if you want to have a better idea in what is meant by this, listen out for "the final Self."
We weren't "made" we evolved. Why even use that toxic theism memeplex, Aria? It never made sense. The word "god" isn't useful. It's a mind virus. I recommend you reword your thoughts and questions about reality in words free from all of that stupidity.
I agree that "made" shouldn't denote something about how life came about, but within the same context, I think it could infer a kind of "likeness." That something is like God, but not God. But to take seriously the idea that life is somehow "made" can lead to vast misconception, especially if you take God out of the picture and consider evolution, you still retain some of the religious conceptual residue. Which is why I think science initially started by taking things apart as though its constituents would give insight on how the universe works.
I think with our atom smashers today and what we've accomplished, it's now hammering home that this is a thankless task. Alan Watts discusses this perfectly, I think, in this talk here:
But to remove the entire vocabulary of religion from our thought, I think, isn't the way to go as of today where religion is still quite prevalent. There are concepts in religion, for instance, which we'd otherwise have no words for in the rest of our language; to list a few, apotheosis, kenosis, Beatific vision, etc., etc.
Instead, what I think is needed is not an eisegesis which is what most religious people tend to do with religious texts, but an exegesis. Then, perhaps we could find deeper meaning behind such religious statements than we can draw from at face value. It's more constructive than announcing it all stupidity and amphigouri and urging others to just stay away from it entirely.
Perhaps in a hypothesized future date when everyone's enlightened and we could discuss these things without doubt, then maybe we can eradicate the religious diction from our language as to cease perpetuating false concepts.
If we are made in the (perfect) image of god then does god have a belly button, further, if we are perfect why was it necessary to snip of the end of my dick? Also, was god a hermaphrodite complete with tits and a pussy?