anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Well, that's pretty much it - that's my question: is God a personification of Man, or is Man a personification of God?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God a personification of Man, or is Man a personification of God?
- Thread starter anotherneil
- Start date
There is a saying. “Man is my mystery and I am his mystery’. (Baha’u’llah)
Baha’is believe God is beyond human understanding therefore man is not God nor God man, nor does God descend into man. Only the Manifestations and Prophets like perfectly polished mirrors can reflect the image of God but God does not descend into Them. In that sense they can say ‘I am God’ in as much as They reflect the knowledge and attributes of God but They are not God incarnate only Representatives and Spokes Persons for Him Who we believe is the ‘unknowable Essence’.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
So what's the answer to my question?
I answered it in my next post. But simply put ‘No’.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
I used to go along with this without even thinking about it (maybe I still go with it, IDK), but that was before I realized I was making an assumption about what personification is. It could be that at one point in humanity it wasn't seen as necessary to recognize ourselves as something out of the ordinary or distinct, only everything else & it could be that originally a "person" was these fictional or imaginary deities, until one day, some smart guy said "hey, you know what, I think you and I are people too, just like da godz!" I'm not claiming this ever happened - it's just purely a thought experiment. I don't believe in deities, gods, or God; I'm not even religious, but that doesn't mean this explanation of human behavior or communication is wrong.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
It's not a yes-no-IDK question; it's an "A" or "B" question.
chinu
chinu
Personification of God in Man, is the demand of Man.
The rule of demand and supply is inevitable.
Neither. The gods are what they are, and human males are what they are as well.
Bible tells man is an image of God (Gen. 1:27).
Meaning? I last posted the following a little over four months ago: From the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis
in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.
The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessings on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make man." In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.
The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun,: and in the designation of Thutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."
Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 2:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the authors of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalom) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.
^ just FYI
It's a flawed question. Neither "God" nor "Man" are attributions, and 'personification' is a class of attribution. As such, the 'No' response offered by @loverofhumanity is perfectly reasonable.
At the same time, the God of the Bible, like many if not most gods, is clearly perceived in anthropomorphic and anthropopathic ways.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Humans have two centers of consciousness; the inner self and ego. These were often referred to as the inner man and outer man by people like Buddha and Jesus. The inner self is older and is the center of all animal consciousness. All animals have an inner self that expresses the natural nature of each species. The inner self of humans is connected to our human DNA and is therefore natural. The first humans of science from 1 million plus years ago, only had an inner self like all natural animals.
Modern humans are unique in that we also have a secondary center called the ego or conscious mind. The ego appears to have consolidated with the rise of civilization. The ego is new and only about 6-10K years old more in line with Creation symbolism. The inner self, by being older is therefore closer to God, being a natural product of evolution/creation. While the ego is closer to man, being a learned product of culture via the super ego of culture.
Since the inner self came first, the ego was sort of created in the image of the inner self; secondary or satellite. Culture sort of distorts that image in the carnival mirror of the cultural super ego; Kamala Harris. While the inner self is in the image of God; inner man.
When speaking of humans you need to be specific which center are your referring to. The natural inner self or the contrived ego who can wear many masks as fads come and go? The inner self is true to itself; natural, while the latter is a like magic trick, being a product of the cultural superego, such as fake news, with fake news not from God, but from man; ego mask du jour of Kamala Harris.
When the bible says man was made in the image of God, it refers to the inner man or the inner self. Atheism tends to be more about the ego, which adds confusion in terms of the neural hierarchy and man in the image of God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is a direct contradiction of the Word of God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe image can simply mean the way God envisioned us when creating us.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I do not believe either is the case. I do believe we have a few things in common.