Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

I don't know, I've never seen an image of God.

I guess I'll leave it to the theists to answer that one :)

Two legs, two arms, two eyes, two of most things....;)

We all have two sides, as does GOd... But we also have things which are singular, such as liver, stomach, mouth etc...:)

If you include your own own self of thought that makes GOd in the image of us. If you are white you see jesus as a white man, if you are black, a black man. Hyspan's see him as Hispanic. It's not so much as made in his image, as we make him in our own image.:D

Though to me this is foolish as I believe only in my forefathers. Therefore, I am in the image of my Gods (please note the plural).

Blessings Silentowl

image of God can be seen in your mirror. Just look straight into it.

image of God can be seen in your mirror. Just look straight into it.

Accordingly, say you raised your right hand... it is perfectly reasonable to expect one to one correspondence to your actions from your reflection, not a clenched fist.

image of God can be seen in your mirror. Just look straight into it.

So if you draw an image of your neighbor and we ask you to prove that you have really drawn your neighbor; would you then say that the image itself is proof that you drew your neighbor because you drew it in your neighbors image ?

So if you draw an image of your neighbor and we ask you to prove that you have really drawn your neighbor; would you then say that the image itself is proof that you drew your neighbor because you drew it in your neighbors image ?

each, their own God. as for others, its their own problems, their own ideals.

each, their own God. as for others, its their own problems, their own ideals.

Uhm, no.
Man was created in Gods image, or so the bible says.
That means God must look like the average person.
Actually God must look like a man, because he created Adam first.

Uhm, no.
Man was created in Gods image, or so the bible says.
That means God must look like the average person.
Actually God must look like a man, because he created Adam first.

well thats their God. Bible was written by people, their mirrors showed them their own reflections which combined them into their own God. Every planet with consciousness has their own image of God from the reflections seen in mirrors.

well thats their God. Bible was written by people, their mirrors showed them their own reflections which combined them into their own God. Every planet with consciousness has their own image of God from the reflections seen in mirrors.

Hmm but I think we are talking about the Christian God here.

Hmm but I think we are talking about the Christian God here.

oh I am sorry than. I am not narrow-minded person.

oh I am sorry than. I am not narrow-minded person.

I know Draqon. It's just that confusion about what one means by God arises often on these forums.
God should be defined by the OP.

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

When religious mythology claims man is created in the image of its god, it generally means that we are like the gods. We are special and have divine favor. This is an archetype that shows up in many if not most of the world's extant and extinct religions.

When religious mythology claims man is created in the image of its god, it generally means that we are like the gods. We are special and have divine favor. This is an archetype that shows up in many if not most of the world's extant and extinct religions.

Essau, who sold his birthright for something to eat, is another archetype.

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

We all have free will, the ability to see things the way they are, distinguish between right and wrong, etc...this is what it actually means

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?
Oh! From the other thread, eh? :)

I'm pretty sure it's not literal. I don't see God as an "image".
I think it means that we are like Him. We are not a perfect representation of Him, however. It means that we are all God.

The following scripture says it all:

1 Corinthians 16
"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. ”

The "mirror" suggests that we are Him, but that we don't see that and that we are "dimly" a mirror image of Him.

Essau, who sold his birthright for something to eat, is another archetype.

A point that is neither disputed nor relevant. Please avoid off-topic posts.

We all have free will, the ability to see things the way they are, distinguish between right and wrong, etc...this is what it actually means

with God above you, you will never be truly free. How will you exercise your free will when God sets limits to it?

When religious mythology claims man is created in the image of its god, it generally means that we are like the gods.

So then ... we can throw people to eternal hellfire, or send them to eternal heaven, we have created the Universe etc.?

I actually agree with that, but so far only in a metaphorical sense.

Here's a comprehensive response: http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080.asp

I read half of that and skimmed the rest, but it's nothing I wouldn't already know.

I'm going to be creative here -

Being created in God's image could mean that God had an idea (ie. an "image") and then created according to that idea (and will also judge according to that idea).
That's what creating is.
"Being created in the image of God" could thus be a pleonasm. Which, however, would do away with many problems that otherwise come up when thinking of "being created in the image of God" as 'likeness'.

it means that we are like the creator: we have the ability to create, unlike animals. they don't make new inventions.

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

it means we have the same qualities (but not the same quantities)

much like a drop of sea water shares the same qualities (ie saltiness) as the ocean

with God above you, you will never be truly free. How will you exercise your free will when God sets limits to it?

God doesn't limit free will :rolleyes:

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

It's a figurative statement that directing our atention that we have qualities and characterisistics such as emotion, a sense of justice and wisdom capable of learning and sentient of our own existance. This is as the bible describes, the image of the invisible.

It is a statement of anthropomorphism. Nearly every human religion, indeed I can't think of single exception, relies on anthropomorphism to create its doctrine. Humans see themselves in all aspects of nature from weather to geology to the stars and, thus, anthropomorphize thunder to create Thor, a mountain to create Apu, and connect the stars to create a pantheon of gods that rule the night.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamo idea of "God" is completely consistent with anthropomorphic projection. We put all the qualities we want or see in ourselves on the god of our choice. Hatred, love, war, peace... it can all be found in the modern mythology of Christian gods like Yahweh, Elohim, Moses, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Satan, and the various minor deities of angels and saints.

In short, Christian gods are created in our image. Modern cults of Christianity and Islam are no different in that respect to cults of the Inca, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, etc.

Actually it's the exact opposite. The bible present that our the flow of attributes proceed from God to man and not the vise versa. Many cultures will exhibit similar thinking mostly due to mans inate ability to personify just about anything. Where as other religions apply a physical appearance to God the Bible maintains that spirit creatures are beyond our range of sight but are capable of manifesting themselves in some form. God however is described as being well beyond our ability to behold.

Using biblical mythology to show biblical mythology is true isn't a valid argument. There is no reason that a reasoned mind would need to accept a supernatural explanation when the supernatural isn't shown to exist. Such thinking is superstition.

The assumption that the testimony in the bible is not true is unsupported and falls short of the expectations of the scientific method. Such thinking is the foundation of a belief system that requires no checks and balances and is only an expression of implicit confidence.

It is a statement of anthropomorphism. Nearly every human religion, indeed I can't think of single exception, relies on anthropomorphism to create its doctrine. Humans see themselves in all aspects of nature from weather to geology to the stars and, thus, anthropomorphize thunder to create Thor, a mountain to create Apu, and connect the stars to create a pantheon of gods that rule the night.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamo idea of "God" is completely consistent with anthropomorphic projection. We put all the qualities we want or see in ourselves on the god of our choice. Hatred, love, war, peace... it can all be found in the modern mythology of Christian gods like Yahweh, Elohim, Moses, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Satan, and the various minor deities of angels and saints.

In short, Christian gods are created in our image. Modern cults of Christianity and Islam are no different in that respect to cults of the Inca, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, etc.

^^^^^^^ bingo

The assumption that the testimony in the bible is not true is unsupported and falls short of the expectations of the scientific method.

Given that the supernatural claims of the Bible cannot at this time be tested according to the scientific method, your argument is misplaced. In making such extraordinary claims, you presume the burden of proof.

Such thinking is the foundation of a belief system that requires no checks and balances and is only an expression of implicit confidence.

Such a projection is simply dishonest. Using an extraordinary claim to prove itself true (e.g. Biblical mythology to prove Biblical mythology) leaves us in a conundrum where consistent application of of the principle results in paradox. Any written source can be true. If everything is true, then nothing is true, because everything includes mutually-exclusive contradictions. Thus, the Bible is no more true than Cinderella, or Clive Barker's Weaveworld.

I don't understand why people of faith think that lowering the standard of legitimacy is a useful way to legitimize their faith.

Negative I present them as testimony and only testimony. In a court of law the burden of proof (which is a legal phrase) is upon the prosecution to cross examine and establish as a untrustworthy source. The only possible contradiction would be another eye witness or mitigating facts that suffieciently establish a contradiction of said testimony.

Further the categorizing of biblical testimony as "mythology" without first establishing true falsehoods is sufficient cause to verify the observer as a hostile witness who's perspective is slanted to give the most damaging testimony rather than the most accurate testimony. Hence once the predjudice is identified doubt as to the sources claims can be summarily written off as untruths.

The assumption that the testimony in the bible is not true is unsupported

That's just it. I don't make any assumptions about biblical mythology. Anthropologically speaking, there are many truths in the various stories, poems, songs, and myths that contribute to the overall texts. But I need not assume the "testimony" is untrue in order to be skeptical of the many wild and fantastical claims that range from magic to zombies.

Biblical mythology cannot be accepted on face value. Only the superstitious, the truly ignorant, and the intellectually dishonest dare to do so.

In a court of law the burden of proof (which is a legal phrase)

This is incorrect. "Burden of proof" is a philosophical phrase borrowed by modern courts of law.

Further the categorizing of biblical testimony as "mythology" without first establishing true falsehoods is sufficient cause to verify the observer as a hostile witness who's perspective is slanted to give the most damaging testimony rather than the most accurate testimony. Hence once the predjudice is identified doubt as to the sources claims can be summarily written off as untruths.

Complete and utter poppycock. Myths are the body of texts or stories associated with a given culture. Their truth value is irrelevant, thus "biblical mythology" is an accurate and objective description. Moreover, biblical mythology is replete with magical and paranormal acts that are described by a superstitious people of ancient culture. That truly ignorant and unreasoned people still allow themselves to be deluded to believe biblical mythology is a "literal truth" and not an ancient set of texts that provide allegorical and literary perspectives of an ancient culture adds nothing to the validity of biblical mythology as a "testimony." As a testimony it only informs the credulous if considered to be a literal truth.

There is no completely satisfactory definition of myth, although many of the world's greatest thinkers have provided partial answers

However the term is consistently used by this and other sources to describe a questionable or disreputable source. Rather than presenting the bible as it presents it'self the attempt here is to denegrate the source without ...again...without establishing the falsehood accurately. The descriptions which follow the term mythology are oriented to disregard the testimony. Since the testimony can't be defined as false or story (which is fictious) the aim is to claim it's falsehood through implicit statments which defy the order of the scientific method.

This is incorrect. "Burden of proof" is a philosophical phrase borrowed by modern courts of law.

Negative: borrowed or otherwise was not an observed statement. The origins of the phrase was also not stated therefore no part of your post establishes "incorrect."

There is no completely satisfactory definition of myth, although many of the world's greatest thinkers have provided partial answers

I'm using the definition as I stated above.

However the term is consistently used by this and other sources to describe a questionable or disreputable source.

The Christian bible *is* questionable and it most certainly *is* disreputable. That is without doubt in any reasoned mind, but rarely entertained in the mind of those deluded by its fantasy. Its a shame that there are those unable to see biblical mythology for the literary and cultural beauty it possesses and, instead, seek to apply literal truth to it in a manner that reveals their ignorance and credulity.

Rather than presenting the bible as it presents it'self the attempt here is to denegrate the source without

The "source" isn't denigrated. And I "present" nothing about the bible. You, however, have attempted to use it in a logical fallacy of circular reasoning to claim your wild and speculative claims of the paranormal to be true. Such claims are stupid, to be blunt, since they only work if you accept that circular reasoning is a valid argument. The "source" isn't denigrated, but those that make the "source" to be something it isn't certainly are. And deservedly so.

...again...without establishing the falsehood accurately.

There is no requirement for me to "establish falsehood," accurately or even inaccurately. The claim is yours: you say the bible demonstrates that the bible is true. This is, of course, a stupid argument as well as a logical fallacy.

Negative: borrowed or otherwise was not an observed statement. The origins of the phrase was also not stated therefore no part of your post establishes "incorrect."

Rather than continue down the avenue of straw men (logical fallacy after logical fallacy after.... that's the only way the superstitious can hold an argument), we can then discard the phrase altogether.

The onus of support is on the claimant. If you make a claim, it is upon you to support the claim. The greater the claim, the greater the requirement for support. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the support for the claim should be.

Therefore, biblical mythology cannot be used as support for biblical mythology. Not if you wish to refer to yourself as either intellectually honest or reasoned in thought.

Your plea to "reasonable minds" is a further establishing of your inability to percieve the Bible as testimony which are followed by implicitly forceful statements yet devoid of any explicit demonstration. The use of an intangible to establish truth of perception is tantamount to insist consensus as the only requirement for a basis of logic.

Surely thus you realize the amount of force or use of remote adjectives to the most crude only solidify your statments as of mere confidence. Further your outprouring of emotion on such an issue illuminates the error through assumption you've made throughout the discussion as well as the futher leaning upon fallacy statements that remain after thoughts to evidence and facts as well as an assuaging yourself of the burdeon of proof following an inability to find true argumentive fault.

Another intriguing perspective into the society of science indeed. Thank you Skinwalker for your opinions on the Bible.

Hahaha!!!!! :D

Your plea to "reasonable minds" is a further establishing of your inability to percieve the Bible as testimony which are followed by implicitly forceful statements yet devoid of any explicit demonstration.

There is no requirement for me to "demonstrate" since the claim that biblical mythology is "testimony" is yours. The onus of support is on you. Further, since there is no good reason to accept biblical stories as anything more than mythology, I'm justified in appealing to "reasoned minds" (I did not state "reasonable" as you erroneously write).

But this is me, yet again, answering one of your straw man arguments. You've clumsily shoved aside the fact that you've engaged in logical fallacy by using biblical mythology to support the "truth" of biblical mythology.

My oh my.
Why doesn't anyone comment on my idea that "being created in the image of God" is a pleonasm, and that all that was actually meant to mean is that God had an idea and he created according to that idea?
It is the simplest explanation and it solves all the problems.

Being created in the Image of God


What does that mean?

I think God was created in the image of man.

My oh my.
Why doesn't anyone comment on my idea that "being created in the image of God" is a pleonasm, and that all that was actually meant to mean is that God had an idea and he created according to that idea?
It is the simplest explanation and it solves all the problems.
That's a good image. :D

My oh my.
Why doesn't anyone comment on my idea that "being created in the image of God" is a pleonasm, and that all that was actually meant to mean is that God had an idea and he created according to that idea?
It is the simplest explanation and it solves all the problems.

Opposite of others, I percieve you as tolerant but searching. Searching for what has has been an answer which eludes me for now.

God however is described as being well beyond our ability to behold.

How very convenient

well thats their God. Bible was written by people, their mirrors showed them their own reflections which combined them into their own God. Every planet with consciousness has their own image of God from the reflections seen in mirrors.

Can we be sure Adam had a mirror ?

On reflection, pun intended, doesn't a mirror show a laterally reversed image, so it would show god the wrong way round.

The bible tells us that Paul saw things through a glass. If we judge him by the behaviour attributed to him, it must have been through the bottom of a beer glass.He was intoxicated with god's love

Opposite of others, I percieve you as tolerant but searching. Searching for what has has been an answer which eludes me for now.

Hello
I'm still waiting to hear from you on another thread . I asked you whether you believed the Bible was the revealed word of god and whether you took it literally. Would you like to answer me on this thread ? I assumed you had gone to heaven when you failed to reply. Instead, I see you area moral coward.

By the way, the reason why the answer , mentioned above, eludes you is because you are incapable of rational thought. All you can do is support one quotation from the bible with another. You have spun yourself a cosy cocoon in which you live and put yourself beyond reason

I don't think being created in the image of God means we look like God. It means God created us the way he wanted to.

If I creat a piece of pottery in my image it does not mean the pottery looks like me. It means I thought up what the pottery would look like and I created it to match what I had conceived.

That is my understanding of being created in the image of God.

I don't think being created in the image of God means we look like God. It means God created us the way he wanted to.

If I creat a piece of pottery in my image it does not mean the pottery looks like me. It means I thought up what the pottery would look like and I created it to match what I had conceived.

That is my understanding of being created in the image of God.

That's not what I was told at school. I was expected to believe that it was literally true. Your version sounds more plausible, if such a thing is possible with religious dogma

This whole thing is about smoke and mirrors. It's potty ( nuts in American )

My oh my.
Why doesn't anyone comment on my idea that "being created in the image of God" is a pleonasm, and that all that was actually meant to mean is that God had an idea and he created according to that idea?
It is the simplest explanation and it solves all the problems



If you believe that twaddle you've sure got problems

Myles,

If I ever get to be 75 years old, I hope I won't say such immature things as you do.

It's all a pile of puke.

Our ability to relate is always based on perception, vaguries of sight limited by our understanding of the world. In many cases such as Genesis, the bible maintains a point of view of a man. Undoubtably this best relates to others in the retellings of events. Genesis shows an overview of the formation of the Earth not from supernatural perspective but from a human perspective. With the universe and the Earth already in existance the creative "Days" progress expressing possibly millenia or more. So one could easily summarize that the bible is a book of man however insight reveals in many parts of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures knowledge that greatly exceeds what was currently understood. Even some of the 40 writers didn't fully comprend what was being expressed.

This combination of a human perspective and superior knowledge points to a more experienced or expert source in the Bible. As a result the image that many "see" of God is expressed as wisdom to disseminate the information in well understood format at the appropriate amount. The phrase "Image of the Invisible" in the Bible can also be applied figurativvly to the Bible it's self as a testiment to his existence it is the only manner from which we can derive his personality and characteristics.

Unfortuanatly today if we rely on individuals who claim to represent God but no one could do so accurately. As flawed feeling human beings we're encroached upon by our own emotions, perspective and a constantly changing sense of justice.

Our ability to relate is always based on perception vaguries of sight limited by our understanding of the world.
Very true. Too bad most people are completely oblivious to that fact.

Genesis shows an overview of the formation of the Earth not from supernatural perspective but from a human perspective.
Why would you say that? Just curious....

Unfortuanatly today if we rely on individuals who claim to represent God then no one could do so accurately. As flawed feeling human beings we're encroached upon by our own emotions, perspective and a constantly changing sense of justice.
Huumm... true... but we can use the bible to measure how close to the original perspective each individual is.

Recently (as of the previous night) I viewed a PBS Documentary called Intelligent Design vs Evolution. This film showed the trial events in the court room of Dover and the attempt by Creationist to insert religious agenda into the class room. The case preceeded with desasterous results ending with a rulling against the Intelligent Design initiative.

I was deeply disturbed at the motives of the people involved. In the end I had no choice to agree with the judge's ruling. My understanding of the evidence involved dictated that these people were planing a methodical infusion of "church" back in state institutions. Understand while I endorse ID I could not conscientiously endorse the people behind it. Perjury, misrepresentation and subterfuge were revealed by the prosecution.

But more than that was revealed. By siding with creationism and attempting to nudge an agenda under a legitimate propsal they might and probably did damage the validity of ID irreparably.

I ended up asking these people. "Why?" but as it was only a film and not an interactive person, I asked myself. If I were in there position why would I do it? I propose these individuals that resorted to dishonesty in order to represent science and by extention...their religion, felt that it was necessary. It seems they wanted to "heal" America. To me it sounds like...forced therapy.

I am not creationist but a realist. I search for the reality even if it might be beyond the five senses from which I use move through the world. Whether speaking of the science of the world or the testimony in the bible I search for the realistic perspective and very often that means excating the facts from under years of hearsay and orthodoxy. I realised that when ever a human being is invovled bias is subsequent factor. The question is how high is that factor and does the view fit the facts. That's why I mention Genesis. It is the largest misconception of theist and creationist. Just as in the Dover court case most of us are relying on a surface understanding of the Bible. Others like the theist invovled on the forums rely on a third hand understanding. This shapes are view. It's all most all perception.

When we're not seeing facts and evidence we're often reading other variables. Variables like agendas, bias, emotion, posture, and we use it to fit facts in a certain place. Sometimes that location is ridge with little tolerance like a prejudice. Others seek to define a proper place that may or may not fit preconcieved notions.

The post of this thread are illuminating to perception. It's not whether the view is closed or narrow minded...it's whether it's true or not, fact or fiction that matters the most. Most people have a narrow view from the begining but view points are best when wide and then narrowed...or focused over time and experience. Of course we all have our own unique set of experiences.

Myles,

If I ever get to be 75 years old, I hope I won't say such immature things as you do.




No need to wait. You are talking rubbish now. It can only get worse

It's all a pile of puke.




You really must not say such things or Greenberg will say you are immature and then where will you be ? I am still recovering from his dastardly attack and will live in shame till the end of my days. Don't take any wooden pleonasms !

So beware, see what he said to me in the post above