God created us in His image, not the other way around.

[William]

Obviously the claim in the OP title is that human beings did not create the idea of GOD in their own image, which appears contrary to the evidence when aligning Abrahamic imagery to human social and cultural behavior, and thus people see this connection and contend that the idea of that GOD most certainly was created in the image of humans.

What does it actually mean "God created us in His image"?

[Elijah John]

If GOD is all knowing and we are made in GODs image, how is it that we too are not all knowing?

Because we are not perfect reflections of God and can never be. Anymore than the Moon can ever be the perfect reflection of the Sun, and can never be the Sun.

Still both lesser "lights" are reflections of the Greater.

--

Yes, the "one liners" in my signature can be made into good debate topics.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by Elijah John]

Because we are not perfect reflections of God and can never be. Anymore than the Moon can never be the perfect reflection of the Sun, and can never be the Sun.

Still both lesser "lights" are reflections of the Greater.

At this, I am reminded, "As a man thinks in his heart, so he is".

Whether he actually is, is another matter entirely. One cannot convince anyone against what he has already established in his heart as his final truth.

I prefer this as good food for the heart;

[font=Comic Sans MS]You must suspend your belief and disbelief in what you cannot sense, in exchange for your knowing that I am real and live within you. This is my central message to all my offspring. Hear it well, for in it you may find the place in which I dwell.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

We only require being perfect as GOD is perfect. That is what my previous post was pointing to.



eta

This is what I think a good example of 'being perfect as GOD is perfect' as a human is able. Perhaps what you call 'reflection' - as the moon reflects the sun, is the same thing as what I call 'Being GOD as a human being can only be GOD'.

[yt]VM6HZqQKhok[/yt]

And;

[yt]OqUaEJLfrLo[/yt]

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 25 by brianbbs67]

I assume and believe God is capable of anything I can imagine. I don't place limits on Him.

Referring to GOD in the masculine is one way of placing limits on GOD. This in turn evolves into the artistic impressions I posted.

Think about CPR. Is one who performs it breathing life into a person? Or death?

Neither. The breath is attempting to revive the body-form which the person occupies. If it fails, the person leaves the body-form. Is the person who leaves the body-form dead or still alive?

In the sense of 'GODs breath' it is that which occupies the body-form and is always alive...because it is an eternal agency.

The confusion here is that you appear to be thinking that humans are the body-form, which is the argument atheists like to make when telling theists that we are 'Apes'. I expect more from theists in relation to that, regardless of whether they are Christians or are of any other organised religion.

1. I address Him as a he, because that is how He seems to want to be addressed . To use modern language, God must self identify as male.

2. No, I don't believe we are our bodies. We contain a "soul" which scripture seems to indicate as the breath of God. So, completely non physical in essence. And necessary for our human bodies to live. Otherwise when we left our bodies, they would live still, which they don't.

[shnarkle]

Obviously the claim in the OP title is that human beings did not create the idea of GOD in their own image, which appears contrary to the evidence when aligning Abrahamic imagery to human social and cultural behavior, and thus people see this connection and contend that the idea of that GOD most certainly was created in the image of humans.

What does it actually mean "God created us in His image"?

It means that we are manifest or reflections of God. The problem is that God is not part of the objective world, and that image isn't either. It is in the world, but not part of it. The fundamental aspect is being. So while the body exists, the image isn't the body. It is in the body, but it isn't the body. It is in the idea, but it isn't the idea. It is in the thought, but it isn't the thought.

Paul states that Christ is "the image of the invisible God". That which is invisible doesn't produce an image. The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" or Icon which is a representation, or a manifestation. The manifestation isn't the meaning. The manifestation is "the word", the symbol, the icon. which represents what transcends the objective world.

Things don't transcend though so it is simply transcendence. So the meaning is transcendent. The image itself isn't transcendent though, it is immanent. A symbol or sign signifies, but is not significant itself. However, when the symbol signifies transcendence, transcendence makes the symbol significant.

So we are in the image, but what happens is that this idea of being outside the image emerges. This abstract idea emerges and takes on a life of its own. It is the idea of self. We then begin to live for ourselves. We live our own life, but again this is only an abstract idea which we believe. This self creates gods to worship; itself being the first and foremost deserving of worship. This is a derivation or reflection of the original So God creates us in his image and this abstract idea of self creates god in its image.

We see the same thing articulated in the biblical accounts. Genesis shows God creating man in God's image while Revelation shows man creating God in man's image. The latter half of the equation being what most atheists and skeptics seem to intuitively know.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by shnarkle]


You have defined 'GOD created us in His image' as;

It means that we are manifest or reflections of God.

"Reflections of GOD"...okay...

The problem is that God is not part of the objective world, and that image isn't either. It is in the world, but not part of it.

The immediate problem with this line of reasoning is that it brings the mystical back into focus which is not helpful when trying to define something with clarity. One cannot make clear definitions using mystical expressions.

Indeed, if it is a PROBLEM that GOD is not part of the objective world, then who created that problem and why was that problem created?

If the image of GOD is also not part of the objective world either, then why is it spoken of as an 'image'?

Also one has to explain how come if Adam and Eve were 'created -he and she- in the image of GOD' why was that a necessity when the GOD is also said to not only be a 'voice in the garden' (which could be said to be something of an image of GOD within the objective world which you say GOD is not) but after the fall, the GOD manifested as a physical form and present Himself before the couple and slayed a beast in order to cloth them - clearly another example of the GOD being manifest in the objective world.

This naturally enough allows for Abrinites specifically and humans generally to assume that GOD is human in form and therefore create artistic impressions of GOD as a human being - in the form of...and in some instances - humanoid in form -such as ET or where the bodies are human and the heads are elephants or eagles etc.

The fundamental aspect is being.

Being as in existing? We exist because GOD exists therefore we are 'in the image of GOD'?

So while the body exists, the image isn't the body.

So it is something which is invisible and exists within the form and exhibits through the form?

It is in the body, but it isn't the body. It is in the idea, but it isn't the idea. It is in the thought, but it isn't the thought.

Mysticism. Now how to translate that into an understandable concept which everyday humans can understand?
What is 'The Image of GOD'?
1: It is an invisible reality within the form but it is not the form.
2: It is in the ideas and the thoughts, but isn't the ideas or the thoughts.
Therefore;

Riddle me this:
Q: "What is invisible, resides within the form and the thought and the idea but isn't any of these things?"

A: Consciousness.

Thus consciousness is 'The Image Of GOD'.

Thus 'GOD created us in His image' = "We are consciousness, which is what GOD is."

Paul states that Christ is "the image of the invisible God". That which is invisible doesn't produce an image.

Unless it is consciousness and then consciousness can indeed create an artists impression when doing so by means of the physical form.

Paul was stating that Jesus (as Paul understood Jesus) was 'the spitting image of an otherwise invisible GOD (as Paul also understood GOD). What Paul say's is ultimate Paul's 'Artistic rendition of GOD' according to Paul, which is also what Jesus is. The Christ we read of through Paul's expression is Paul's artistic rendition of Jesus...helped along by Saul's alternative experience of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" or Icon which is a representation, or a manifestation.

Such as which was manifested in Saul's alternate experience or the shared experience of Adam and Eve when the GOD manifested as an icon (as a form) before them in the Garden after the fall.

The manifestation isn't the meaning. The manifestation is "the word", the symbol, the icon. which represents what transcends the objective world.

Thus the manifested (as per those incidences) is representative of an alternate reality which - when injected into this one as form (something visible) that visible thing is a representation of the invisible alternate reality...as is also consciousness.

Thus when Adam and Eve saw GOD in the Garden - or Saul saw Jesus - these were icons/symbols representing the transcendent (alternate reality) when injected into this world as visible manifestation.

Things don't transcend though so it is simply transcendence. So the meaning is transcendent.

You mean 'physical things'? Images/icons/visions/audios etc can transcend because the are non- physical, but represent an image of the non-physical into the physical world?

The image itself isn't transcendent though, it is immanent.

"The image" being 'The image of GOD'?
'It is permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.' (= immanent)

As... Consciousness.

A symbol or sign signifies, but is not significant itself.

Jesus is a sign (significant as the image of GOD as per 'you have seen me you have 'seen' GOD (as an icon of 'The Father') but is not significant of anything other than that?

However, when the symbol signifies transcendence, transcendence makes the symbol significant.

The 'Stop' sign signifies the significance of the action it is signifying.

So we are in the image, but what happens is that this idea of being outside the image emerges.

Is this not because of the first part of that sentence? We understand that if we can be IN the image of GOD, then we can also be OUTSIDE that image?

Is it not better then to think in terms of we ARE the image of GOD rather than we are made IN the image of GOD...which is to say, we ARE consciousness, rather than we are IN consciousness?

To elaborate.

If we each identified as being aspects of GOD-consciousness, rather than either being within or without GOD-consciousness we would not have to contemplate ever being without GOD Consciousness. And since GOD-Consciousness is immanent, we are also aspects of that immanency.

In this way we can avoid altogether the idea that we can ever be separate from GOD.

Because;

[font=Comic Sans MS]All of your religions teach the worship of a deity and a doctrine of human salvation. It is the underlying kinship of your planet’s religions. However, I am not the deity that your worship falls upon, nor am I the creator of your doctrines of human salvation. Worship of me in coin or moral consideration is unnecessary. Simply express your authentic feelings of appreciation to my inmost presence within you and others, and you broadcast your worship unfailingly into my realm.
This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart.[/font] ~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

The above adequately explains immanency.

This abstract idea emerges and takes on a life of its own. It is the idea of self. We then begin to live for ourselves. We live our own life, but again this is only an abstract idea which we believe. This self creates gods to worship; itself being the first and foremost deserving of worship. This is a derivation or reflection of the original So God creates us in his image and this abstract idea of self creates god in its image.

This happens precisely because human beings think of themselves - not only as the forms they occupy but consequently because they have the skewered notion that it is possible to be separate from GOD-Consciousness, when that is simply an illusion, which - when preached - becomes a lie. A distortion of the actual Truth.

Thus 'artists impressions' in the form of imagery, and words.

We see the same thing articulated in the biblical accounts. Genesis shows God creating man in God's image while Revelation shows man creating God in man's image. The latter half of the equation being what most atheists and skeptics seem to intuitively know.

To be fair to The Truth, the imaginary of GOD presented throughout biblical script is theistic invention and atheists and skeptics are simply responding to that artistic impression delivered by those theists.

My response to this would be that:

IF:
Atheists and skeptics know intuitively that the artistic impressions of images of GOD presented by theists are incorrect...

THEN:
Why is it that theists do not have this same intuition and instead dogmatically continue to persist with their presentations of false artistic impressions of GOD?

Abrahamic Icons

[brianbbs67]

Simple answer is, "its not given unto you to know these things." Or the oldest I have found, "its not given unto you to do these things" Some will find it all mystery. Some part mystery.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by William]

The problem is that God is not part of the objective world, and that image isn't either. It is in the world, but not part of it.

The immediate problem with this line of reasoning is that it brings the mystical back into focus which is not helpful when trying to define something with clarity. One cannot make clear definitions using mystical expressions.

Yet one must as there is no referent for God.

Indeed, if it is a PROBLEM that GOD is not part of the objective world, then who created that problem and why was that problem created?

The problem isn't that God is not part of the objective world. The probem is that people think or believe God is part of the objective world. Theists believe that God objectively exists while ahteists, skeptics, etc. seek proof. Both positions are completely asinine.

If the image of GOD is also not part of the objective world either, then why is it spoken of as an 'image'?

Because when you look into a mirror, you exist in the objective world as does the mirror itself, but the image is a reflection of what exists. When that mirror is directed towards transcendence, or rather reflects transcendence, it is effectively reflecting nothing.

Also one has to explain how come if Adam and Eve were 'created -he and she- in the image of GOD' why was that a necessity

Why was what a necessity? I'm not sure the texts indicate that it was a necessity.

when the GOD is also said to not only be a 'voice in the garden' (which could be said to be something of an image of GOD within the objective world which you say GOD is not) but after the fall, the GOD manifested as a physical form and present Himself before the couple and slayed a beast in order to cloth them - clearly another example of the GOD being manifest in the objective world.

The image is in the objective world, but again the image is God's image and an image isn't what it reflects. It's a reflection. A manifestation of God isn't God. It's God's manifestation. Likewise there are all sorts of things we can manifest, but these manifestations aren't who we are. We can manifest emotions, feelings, thoughts, actions, behaviors etc. These are ours, but what we have is not who we are.

The fundamental aspect is being.

Being as in existing? We exist because GOD exists therefore we are 'in the image of GOD'?

God doesn't exist. God is the origin of existence. If God exists, then God wouldn't be the origin of existence. When referring to God, Paul says,"of whom are all things". 1 Cor. 8:6

So while the body exists, the image isn't the body.

So it is something which is invisible and exists within the form and exhibits through the form?

No, it isn't something. God isn't a thing. Therefore God's reflection isn't a thing either.

What is 'The Image of GOD'?
1: It is an invisible reality within the form but it is not the form.
2: It is in the ideas and the thoughts, but isn't the ideas or the thoughts.

That's not quite right either. It isn't just within. Reality isn't within or without. The reality of the whole isn't the whole of reality.

Q: "What is invisible, resides within the form and the thought and the idea but isn't any of these things?"

A: Consciousness.

Thus consciousness is 'The Image Of GOD'.

Thus 'GOD created us in His image' = "We are consciousness, which is what GOD is."

That seems pretty close, but the first answer is consciousness of, whereas God is pure consciousness, and pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything. The image of God is conscious of all sorts of things whereas God is consciousness.

Paul states that Christ is "the image of the invisible God". That which is invisible doesn't produce an image.

Unless it is consciousness and then consciousness can indeed create an artists impression when doing so by means of the physical form.

No, consciousness doesn't produce anything. An artist produces what they are conscious of. They can even produce impressions while they are unconsious, but consciousness doesn't produce anything. Pure consciousness isn't conscious of anything. This may be one reason why Paul sees the father as the origin of all that exists rather than the means by which everything exists.

Paul was stating that Jesus (as Paul understood Jesus) was 'the spitting image of an otherwise invisible GOD (as Paul also understood GOD). What Paul say's is ultimate Paul's 'Artistic rendition of GOD' according to Paul, which is also what Jesus is. The Christ we read of through Paul's expression is Paul's artistic rendition of Jesus...helped along by Saul's alternative experience of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

It sounds good except for the fact that Paul was an observant Jew, and observant Jews weren't allowed artistic renditions of God. Again, Paul gets around this problem by simply pointing out that God is the origin of all that exists rather than the means by which all exists. Christ is the means. Christ is the image and the image isn't God. Paul says Christ is the Icon of God and Icons are representations of God, but the representation isn't Paul's representation. The Icon is God's representation; God's representative. Saul is simply pointing out that he's come into close contact with the Icon; so close in fact that Saul is no longer Saul. He becomes Paul to signify this change, but ultimately he says "not me, but Christ in me".

The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" or Icon which is a representation, or a manifestation.

Such as which was manifested in Saul's alternate experience or the shared experience of Adam and Eve when the GOD manifested as an icon (as a form) before them in the Garden after the fall.

Perhaps, I'm not convinced from the text that this is necessarily the case. The Elohim are a good example of what you're talking about, but otherwise, I'm not so sure.

The manifestation isn't the meaning. The manifestation is "the word", the symbol, the icon. which represents what transcends the objective world.

Thus the manifested (as per those incidences) is representative of an alternate reality which - when injected into this one as form (something visible) that visible thing is a representation of the invisible alternate reality...as is also consciousness.

I don't see any need for an alternate reality. The means is reality itself. This is what Paul is referring to when he refers to Christ as "the mediator". There is nothing more fundamental to reality than reality. Christ is contingent between transcendence and the objective world. We see this dichotomy between the Subject and the Object, but we wouldn't then conclude that the subject is in a different reality than the object. If all of reality were objective, then a subject wouldn't exist. If reality were only subjective nothing would objectively exist. God, as the subject of reality cannot exist objectively.

Thus when Adam and Eve saw GOD in the Garden

Adam and Eve saw the image of God, i.e. Christ, the word, etc. Christ is the only mediator between transcendence and the objective world.

- or Saul saw Jesus - these were icons/symbols representing the transcendent (alternate reality) when injected into this world as visible manifestation.

Paul saw Christ, probably subjectively, but not as an alternate reality. I'm not sure it would be as a visible manifestation either; at least not as an objective visible manifestation.

Things don't transcend though so it is simply transcendence. So the meaning is transcendent.

You mean 'physical things'?

No, physical things objectively exist. Just as the word is related to its meaning, so too "the Word" is related to transcendence.

Images/icons/visions/audios etc can transcend because the are non- physical, but represent an image of the non-physical into the physical world?

Only in the sense that they no longer exist. There is no effective difference between transcendence and non existence.

The image itself isn't transcendent though, it is immanent.

"The image" being 'The image of GOD'?
'It is permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.' (= immanent)

As... Consciousness.

I'm not so sure we can go that far. I don't see how consciousness couldn't be conscious of the universe it is sustaining. Being contingent it would be conscious of the objective world, therefore it cannot be pure consciousness. Although I also don't see how it can't be consciousness because ultimately consciouness is also transcended.

A symbol or sign signifies, but is not significant itself.

Jesus is a sign (significant as the image of GOD as per 'you have seen me you have 'seen' GOD (as an icon of 'The Father') but is not significant of anything other than that?

No, the icon can't signify anything; it can't signify any thing. The icon as the son signifies the father alone.

So we are in the image, but what happens is that this idea of being outside the image emerges.

Is this not because of the first part of that sentence? We understand that if we can be IN the image of GOD, then we can also be OUTSIDE that image?

Is it not better then to think in terms of we ARE the image of GOD rather than we are made IN the image of GOD...which is to say, we ARE consciousness, rather than we are IN consciousness?

Yes it is much better to say we are the image of God. Although I think it would be more accurate to say we are conscious of God when we become conscious of God. Prior to that we may be unconcious, or subconscious of God.

On second thought, I don't think this is right. We are created in the image of God, and the image of God is Christ. We are created in, with, and through Christ. We live in, with, and through Christ. "In him we live and move and have our being". When we are in Christ we are in the image of God. When we aren't in Christ we're enslaved to ourselves. We are enslaved to an abstract idea of our own creation.

If we each identified as being aspects of GOD-consciousness, rather than either being within or without GOD-consciousness we would not have to contemplate ever being without GOD Consciousness. And since GOD-Consciousness is immanent, we are also aspects of that immanency.

This sounds pretty good, but the immediate problem is that this process of identification seems to indicate an objectification of God consciousness. We are the subject that is doing the identifying. I think that in order for this to work properly God identifies us so that we are then identified as aspects of God consciousness, or perhaps simply conscious of God immanently mediating reality.

In this way we can avoid altogether the idea that we can ever be separate from GOD.

Ultimately, I think that would require that there be no "we" to begin with. The "we" identifies with this idea of self, a body, etc.

express your authentic feelings of appreciation to my inmost presence within you and others, and you broadcast your worship unfailingly into my realm.

There's something about that sentence that doesn't make any sense. I would go so far as to say that it's not supposed to make sense. I get the part where he says to express feelings to his inmost presence within me, but "and others" doesn't work. I can't express my feelings to his inmost presence within anyone other than myself, no? I can't express my feelings from within someone else unless I possess them first.

I also see a problem in that the expression is supposed to be coming from God, not to God. The expression originates or comes from God, and is expressed subjectively through me and expressed to others, but God is not the other, or an other.

This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart. ~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

The above adequately explains immanency.

I don't think it is adequate enough. Living "in the knowledge" is mediating reality through the intellect which is reflective, and reflections are derived from what they reflect. Derivitives aren't immanent. To place one's undertanding on a footing more sure than reality doesn't make sense. Reality isn't a reflection of one's understanding. Reality may be reflected in one's understanding, but this isn't as immanent as mediating reality through reality (itself). You can't get more immanent than that.

human beings think of themselves - not only as the forms they occupy but consequently because they have the skewered notion that it is possible to be separate from GOD-Consciousness, when that is simply an illusion, which - when preached - becomes a lie. A distortion of the actual Truth.

Thus 'artists impressions' in the form of imagery, and words.

I assume that you mean the idea of separation is a lie, but then we're only talking about ideas here anyways. The idea isn't the reality which shows us that we're still engaging in deception. Ideas aren't actual, and the idea of God has no actual referent. So we're still lacking significant clarity.

We see the same thing articulated in the biblical accounts. Genesis shows God creating man in God's image while Revelation shows man creating God in man's image. The latter half of the equation being what most atheists and skeptics seem to intuitively know.

To be fair to The Truth, the imaginary of GOD presented throughout biblical script is theistic invention and atheists and skeptics are simply responding to that artistic impression delivered by those theists.

I'm not so sure of that anymore. They have this word "God" which they say is "incomparable". Strict monotheism requires a transcendent God, and ultimately transcendence transcends existence. Atheists and skeptics understand that these are inventions, yet the vast majority don't quite seem to understand that one can't prove transcendence, and no proof for imagined gods is necessary in the first place. Moreover, strict monotheism doesn't invent anything. To invent a god is to cease being a monotheist. Those who do are simply playing with words.

My response to this would be that:

IF:
Atheists and skeptics know intuitively that the artistic impressions of images of GOD presented by theists are incorrect...

THEN:
Why is it that theists do not have this same intuition and instead dogmatically continue to persist with their presentations of false artistic impressions of GOD?

If you're referring to paintings, sculpture, etc. then they aren't necessarily incorrect. They are simply the literal equivalent of figures, which is to say they are expressing figuratively some aspect of the unknown, e.g Atlas supporting or sustaining the world on his shoulders, Aphrodite or Cupid personifying love etc. The biblical texts do the same thing. They are expressing what can't be expressed, and yet they do a pretty good job. The first phrase to the introduction to John's gospel is a prime example. "In the beginning was the word" is no mere invention. This isn't genius. It is beyond inspired. It is pure revelation which bypasses the intellect completely.

What they're doing is no more false than our discussion. Ultimately, transcendence can't be discussed with any accuracy whatsoever. To speak of transcendence is to speak lies.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]


I read everything your wrote and have to say that the immediate impression I have is that you seem confused.

What they're doing is no more false than our discussion. Ultimately, transcendence can't be discussed with any accuracy whatsoever. To speak of transcendence is to speak lies.

This begs the question from me (the reader) to you (the one who wrote this) "Why then are you involving yourself in the lie and even participating on this forum?"

There is one aspect of your reply which I would like to focus on specifically, and will do this - perhaps tomorrow...

Meantime, thank you for making the effort to reply to my post quite thoroughly. I enjoyed that.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]


I read everything your wrote and have to say that the immediate impression I have is that you seem confused.

What they're doing is no more false than our discussion. Ultimately, transcendence can't be discussed with any accuracy whatsoever. To speak of transcendence is to speak lies.

This begs the question from me (the reader) to you (the one who wrote this) "Why then are you involving yourself in the lie and even participating on this forum?"

Because those closest to the truth are the best liars.