"In his own image" - pagans too.......

[ChrisP]

Yes, why not ? - in fact that probably reflect the Tao thinking (I hope I get this right)( )

'Sif you need to cross your fingers . That's the Tao of Lao Tzu all right, I'm not sure about Asian Taoism but that's how I see it.

I believe they don't 'see' Tao as being a 'being', but as I see God much as a 'force of Love' (I hope Jayhawker doesnt read this ), maybe there is a comonality in that line of thinking.

I don't think you have to worry about Jay, you can't fit a tape measure round love so he probably won't be interested. :biglaugh:

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, why not ? - in fact that probably reflect the Tao thinking (I hope I get this right)( )

I believe they don't 'see' Tao as being a 'being', but as I see God much as a 'force of Love' (I hope Jayhawker doesnt read this ), maybe there is a comonality in that line of thinking.

Michel I also agree with your viewpoint. God is very much all about love, although I am loathed to say anything that limits the reality of All That Is (god). MV and others are absolutely correct. God is neither male or female and is quite beyond such earthly distinctions.

So, are their people who don't see the soul like this? I figured this was how everyone thought of it.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. I do appreciate it.

Halcyon, this forum is not perhaps the best gauge for your question. In the real world, whenever I have brought this up over the last thirty years all I tend to get are blank stares. Either I have surrounded myself with slack jawed yokels or it is not a very commonly held belief in the slightest.

And no, I don't think my friends, family and aquainences are a pack of neaderthals, although they are certainly naked apes.

 

[michel]

Well, between us, we seem to have 'worked out' God; no need for the forum anymore...bye all!


(Joking) - but it is strange how this thread seems to have 'gelled' four or five minds into a sort of 'communal enlightenment' - as I see it.:bounce

 

[Halcyon]

Halcyon, this forum is not perhaps the best gauge for your question. In the real world, whenever I have brought this up over the last thirty years all I tend to get are blank stares. Either I have surrounded myself with slack jawed yokels or it is not a very commonly held belief in the slightest.

This is interesting to me, i know in Vodun (voodoo ) that they believe the soul can leave the body and be trapped by a priest who practices sorcery - thus creating a zombie. So, in otherwords they believe the body can still function without the soul.
I thought all other religions believed that a person is the soul though. Strange to think that people see the soul as a separate thing to their self.

I've never thought of it in any other way.

but it is strange how this thread seems to have 'gelled' four or five minds into a sort of 'communal enlightenment' - as I see it.:bounce

Religious evolution? Shame this form of thought isn't dominant though

 

[michel]

This is interesting to me, i know in Vodun (voodoo ) that they believe the soul can leave the body and be trapped by a priest who practices sorcery - thus creating a zombie. So, in otherwords they believe the body can still function without the soul.
I thought all other religions believed that a person is the soul though. Strange to think that people see the soul as a separate thing to their self.

I've never thought of it in any other way.

Religious evolution? Shame this form of thought isn't dominant though

This is interesting to me, i know in Vodun (voodoo ) that they believe the soul can leave the body and be trapped by a priest who practices sorcery - thus creating a zombie. So, in otherwords they believe the body can still function without the soul.

You can take that further; at night when you are asleep, you can learn to travel (astrally) - such as that your soul is still attached to your body by the 'silver cord'........technically, it is at a time such as that (leaving your body 'unnatended'), that a mischievious soul can take over the use of your body.

The same happens with a medium; in trance, it is sometimes easier to leave the body, and therefore be in the same danger.

Having said that, if you pray for protection before any of these actinvities, and surround yourself with a powerfull enough 'shield' of energy, you're O.K.

 

[ChrisP]

Perhaps Abrahamics should consider if we were made in his image, but we focus our self-image on our bodies when it should really be the spirit we are considering?

 

[michel]

Perhaps Abrahamics should consider if we were made in his image, but we focus our self-image on our bodies when it should really be the spirit we are considering?

Can you repeat that in 'little boy' English, please, I think my brain has blown a gasket ?:help:

 

[ChrisP]

Can you repeat that in 'little boy' English, please, I think my brain has blown a gasket ?:help:

When people of an Abrahamic religion think of "in Gods image" they tend to refer to their physical bodies. Why is this the case? If we (who have posted) agree that what we are is a formless (in every sense of the word) spiritual/energy esssence encased in flesh with a mind for rationalising, does not gods image therefore become : Formless Spiritual energy.

 

[Katzpur]

Does not verse 27 imply that God has a 'female side' to him (if we are sticking to the original idea of 'in his own image' taken literally ?).....I was thinking of the Idea of Pagan Gods and Godesses, and This query 'sort of lept out at me'.

I'm not at all convinced that God has a female side to Him. To me verse 27 is just more evidence that we are created in His physical image (which is the only kind of "image" there is, in my opinion). I believe He was speaking in generalities, though, and that He was referring to a species, not a gender. The reason I picked up on your thoughts here is that the LDS believe that God the Father has a female counterpart. You might call her a Goddess. We don't worship her, and we don't see her as part of the Godhead, but we do believe that she exists. I guess that must be because we have a "pagan side" us us.

 

[jonny]

When people of an Abrahamic religion think of "in Gods image" they tend to refer to their physical bodies. Why is this the case? If we (who have posted) agree that what we are is a formless (in every sense of the word) spiritual/energy esssence encased in flesh with a mind for rationalising, does not gods image therefore become : Formless Spiritual energy.

That's what I always thought also, but after being on these forums I've realized that most people in the Abrahamic religion don't believe that God's image is referring to a physical body. I know these forums are not an accurate representation of everyone, but it doesn't seem to be the common belief.

 

[Katzpur]

When people of an Abrahamic religion think of "in Gods image" they tend to refer to their physical bodies.

To the best of my knowledge only the Latter-day Saints believe this. We're an eensy weensy part of the Abrahamic tradition.

 

[michel]

When people of an Abrahamic religion think of "in Gods image" they tend to refer to their physical bodies. Why is this the case? If we (who have posted) agree that what we are is a formless (in every sense of the word) spiritual/energy esssence encased in flesh with a mind for rationalising, does not gods image therefore become : Formless Spiritual energy.

Ah, Thanks, Yes, I am with you now; forgive me (my mind just refuses input at certain times) I never even realized, until I joined this forum that God is viewed by Abrahamics as having a physical body; I have been trying to get used to the idea ever since I heard it, and to be frank to me I just cannot get to grips with that idea.

Formless Spiritual energy

Exactly the way I see it

 

[Elphineas]

If you look up "Image" at Strong's, one of the other meanings is "Idea".

Could this be significant?

 

[ChrisP]

To the best of my knowledge only the Latter-day Saints believe this. We're an eensy weensy part of the Abrahamic tradition.

I know of several other traditions here in NZ who think the same (my parents church being one of them) but they probably also fall under the "Restorationist" tag that LDS seem to have picked up.

 

[linwood]

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
​

Does not verse 27 imply that God has a 'female side' to him (if we are sticking to the original idea of 'in his own image' taken literally ?).....I was thinking of the Idea of Pagan Gods and Godesses, and This query 'sort of lept out at me'.

Yes it does seem to make that implication.
However the second Chapter of Genesis telling the same tale makes an entirely different implication.

 

[Katzpur]

I know of several other traditions here in NZ who think the same (my parents church being one of them) but they probably also fall under the "Restorationist" tag that LDS seem to have picked up.

Really? I had no idea!

 

[ChrisP]

Really? I had no idea!

Mostly they just go by fairly anonymous names such as "the Church of Christ"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Isn't that what Christians did to Jesus?

No, that is what God did to Himself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I put this in General religious debates because I thought Pagans (and others) might well want to pitch in.


We recently had threads about ehether God has a belly button, sexual organs.......all sorts, and It suddenly occured to me that there is a possible inconsistency (as I see it) in the idea of God creating man in his own image.

We know from Christianity that God is supposed to have created man in his own image, and then woman was 'provided' to him. Genesis verses as follows:-

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ​

Does not verse 27 imply that God has a 'female side' to him (if we are sticking to the original idea of 'in his own image' taken literally ?).....I was thinking of the Idea of Pagan Gods and Godesses, and This query 'sort of lept out at me'.

Michel,

I have not come across a single biblical interpreter who takes the image of God literally, whether male or female (none of the libraries that I have access to have Mormon commentaries on Genesis, and I know of none that exist). You can go to a theological library, cover your eyes, and blindly pull any Genesis commentary off the shelf and every one of them will say that the image of God is metaphorically interpreted. The exegetical rationale is very simple: Jews don't believe that God has an image, and it is blasphemy to think otherwise. Genesis is a Jewish document, so a literal image is an exegetical impossibility that is foreign to the original writers and preservers of the Genesis tradition that must be imported from a foreign religious tradition. A literal interpretation of the image of God therefore is rooted in foreign influence and is not exegesis (reading the text) but eisegesis (reading into the text).

However, many biblical interpreters do assert that God has a motherly nurturing side, leading many modern theologians and pastors to refer to Father/Mother God or Mother God, revising even the Lord's Prayer. I think that it is helpful to see God's Motherhood, but seperating God's characteristics into 1950's roles of father and mother are not useful, as feminist interpreters may be falling into the same anthropologial trap that male scholars have been lurking in for thousands of years.