Are we made of the same stuff God is made of?

[BwhoUR]

God couldn't have created himself, and he didn't create what he's made of. If he created us "in his image," how can he have created us if he didn't create what he's made of?

If we were created from the same stuff he is created from why aren't we omniscient and omnipresent? Why aren't we only spirits or able to shift from the physical to the spirit form at will or send physical representations of ourselves somewhere else? Since we obviously don't have the same characteristics, what about us is the same "image" as God?

If what he is made of has always existed and we are made from the same stuff, then we also always existed and couldn't have been created. If we always existed, why don't we remember? God remembers.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by BwhoUR]


Obviously your questions have to do with the Christian idea of what GOD is.

I would like to answer those question from the Panentheist perspective of what GOD is.

God couldn't have created himself, and he didn't create what he's made of.

GOD is neither male or female, so Panenthism generally refers to GOD as It. GOD has always existed. Essentially GOD is Consciousness.

If he created us "in his image," how can he have created us if he didn't create what he's made of?

We are consciousness as well as GOD, albeit a greatly reduced 'particle' of consciousness.
Form, such as the human instrument, is simply something which those 'particles'/aspects of consciousness can experience through.

If we were created from the same stuff he is created from why aren't we omniscient and omnipresent?

Our forms act as barriers to this being the case. We are in essence consciousness divested into form through a process which is complex.

Why aren't we only spirits or able to shift from the physical to the spirit form at will or send physical representations of ourselves somewhere else?

You would need to expand on this idea. From what you have said though I would say that we can move our consciousness into different realities - such as the Astral. We can even send physical representations of ourselves elsewhere, as our understanding of science and technology has allowed for this. Indeed we can even send false physical representations of ourselves somewhere else, all limited to what is presently taking place on this planet, although some of that is broadcast into the neighboring district of space-time.

Since we obviously don't have the same characteristics, what about us is the same "image" as God?

GOD is consciousness and we are consciousness.

If what he is made of has always existed and we are made from the same stuff, then we also always existed and couldn't have been created.

Exactly. We were never created, but what was created was something which could give the illusion that we were created. Simply put, an environment which provides beginnings.

If we always existed, why don't we remember? God remembers.

GOD doesn't 'remember' anything. GOD knows. It is not a matter of recall.

We don't remember because we are within an environment which prevents this from being the case. As such we have to work with what data is available in order to piece together the evidence and from that we can conclude that we are aspects of GOD divested into our present forms, through a complex process which has a beginning and allows for the consciousness participating in the universe to divest itself into ever-decreasingly smaller aspects of form - starting with the form of the universe and moving into the forms of galaxies, star systems, planets and biological life forms.

The divestment process provides the consciousness experiencing it, the illusion of a beginning and the illusion of being separate from all other consciousnesses.

In a sense it is like GOD removing Itself from the knowledge of Itself in order to experience that condition - and the condition itself, while extensive and time consuming, is still non-permanent as GOD cannot truly hide from Itself forever.

Indeed, the condition can be circumnavigated/ the illusion can be seen through while the individual consciousness is still within the universe, because there are many clues which can be pieced together in order to 'find' GOD again.

[The Tanager]

God couldn't have created himself, and he didn't create what he's made of. If he created us "in his image," how can he have created us if he didn't create what he's made of?

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think this necessarily follows. Humans can create a robot "in their image" without having created what we are made of. What does creating something else "in one's image" necessitate having to have created what you yourself were made of?

If we were created from the same stuff he is created from why aren't we omniscient and omnipresent? Why aren't we only spirits or able to shift from the physical to the spirit form at will or send physical representations of ourselves somewhere else? Since we obviously don't have the same characteristics, what about us is the same "image" as God?

If what he is made of has always existed and we are made from the same stuff, then we also always existed and couldn't have been created. If we always existed, why don't we remember? God remembers.

I'm only answering from a Christian perspective, which believes we aren't created from the same stuff God is created from. So, none of that would follow. Being made in the image of God, for many Christians, usually involves the attributes of personhood: things like self-consciousness, rationality and freedom of the will.

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 3 by The Tanager]

Then robots are not created "in our image" as they do not have free will. They do not possess rationality, they only analyze based on what we program them to analyze. Robots also don't have a self-consciousness that would give it a type of personhood or subject it to the same rights we give animals and people. If they did, they could jump off the table, walk down the street and start a parade, without asking permission or being programmed to do that, but they can't.

[The Tanager]

Then robots are not created "in our image" as they do not have free will. They do not possess rationality, they only analyze based on what we program them to analyze. Robots also don't have a self-consciousness that would give it a type of personhood or subject it to the same rights we give animals and people. If they did, they could jump off the table, walk down the street and start a parade, without asking permission or being programmed to do that, but they can't.

I didn't mean to imply that creating robots in our image would be the same thing as what Christians usually mean by saying humans are created in God's image. My first comment was a general point. In one's image could mean a myriad of different things. Let's say it means creating something out of the same stuff you are made of. Let's say we come to the point where we can give robots something identical to our bones and skin. It doesn't follow that we had to create our skin to begin with. In fact, this seems logically impossible.

My second comment was a specific point about what Christians mean with that term. And that use does not involve God making us out of the same 'stuff' as God. It usually means things like self-consciousness, rationality and freedom of the will.

[BwhoUR]

Then robots are not created "in our image" as they do not have free will. They do not possess rationality, they only analyze based on what we program them to analyze. Robots also don't have a self-consciousness that would give it a type of personhood or subject it to the same rights we give animals and people. If they did, they could jump off the table, walk down the street and start a parade, without asking permission or being programmed to do that, but they can't.

I didn't mean to imply that creating robots in our image would be the same thing as what Christians usually mean by saying humans are created in God's image. My first comment was a general point. In one's image could mean a myriad of different things. Let's say it means creating something out of the same stuff you are made of. Let's say we come to the point where we can give robots something identical to our bones and skin. It doesn't follow that we had to create our skin to begin with. In fact, this seems logically impossible.

My second comment was a specific point about what Christians mean with that term. And that use does not involve God making us out of the same 'stuff' as God. It usually means things like self-consciousness, rationality and freedom of the will.

If I was creating an "image" of myself, and had the power to create anything to make the image from, it would logically have skin and bones like me. Why would Christians downgrade what God says in the bible into some other lesser definition?

If I was creating a "concept" of myself, then it would still look like me. If I had no looks or physical attributes, I wouldn't use the word "image" or use descriptions like "ribs" or "dust." I would say something more clever, such as my "essence" or my "nature" and use words like "likes ice-cream" or "can strike up a conversation with anyone" or "kind to animals" stuff that actually describes myself (or the concept I have of myself.)

So if we are "concepts" of what God is, and God is "self-conscious" has "free-will" and is "rational" as Christians believe, it's funny that the Bible would need to curtail our natural selves by directing us in our behavior. I think God might know he needs a spanking.

How, with the attributes of our god, could we be so easily duped by a Satan figure, be born with inbred sin, or could have any tendency towards Evil ourselves if God does not also have those characteristics. And again, where's the omnipresence, the all-knowing, the always-existed parts (aren't they the most descriptive and important parts)? Did we not get the whole shabang? How can we only be part of god's image and still be made in his image?

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

I will definitely need more time with this one. Thank you for your response, I will ponder the concepts you have written and be back to you. The "lesser particles" statement is intriguing right off the back as I don't understand what you are saying at all. And we created the technology for sending our image to another place, no deity did that unless they are controlling us, it was not possible at all until we did it. But, in any case, we don't lose our physical body in the process we are still there unless it is an non-changing copy which is not us at all.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by BwhoUR]

I will definitely need more time with this one. Thank you for your response, I will ponder the concepts you have written and be back to you

That will be good. I hope that you do.

The "lesser particles" statement is intriguing right off the back as I don't understand what you are saying at all.

It is just an expression of metaphor more than anything else. If GOD = undivided consciousness, then the process of divesting an aspect of itself into this universe, and the repeated process of divesting into smaller and smaller aspects of consciousness into smaller and smaller forms within this universe...'particles' isn't really the word to use because it implies substance and consciousness isn't substance - it isn't a "thing".
It is more like 'the ghost in the machine.' so to speak.

And we created the technology for sending our image to another place, no deity did that unless they are controlling us, it was not possible at all until we did it.

The idea being, that WE are altogether the deity which did this through the process of divesting into the human instrument. It is the illusion I mentioned earlier which is prohibiting the full understanding of what we actually are, but this leaks through in what we actually do.
The human instrument suppresses the realization that we are altogether connected, but in doing things which necessitate combining our individual energies into creativity, we - either willfully or unconsciously - are enacting GOD through form.

But, in any case, we don't lose our physical body in the process we are still there unless it is an non-changing copy which is not us at all.

Since when are images of us, actually us?

[The Tanager]

If I was creating an "image" of myself, and had the power to create anything to make the image from, it would logically have skin and bones like me. Why would Christians downgrade what God says in the bible into some other lesser definition?

It depends on what you mean by using the term "image." Are you saying the Hebrew words used mean a physical image? Or are you going on your understanding of an English word used as a translation?

I would say something more clever, such as my "essence" or my "nature" and use words like "likes ice-cream" or "can strike up a conversation with anyone" or "kind to animals" stuff that actually describes myself (or the concept I have of myself.)

I see nothing wrong with a poetic use of the word 'image'. The Jewish and Christian ideas of humans being made in God's image would definitely not include humans having God's essence or nature, so those would not work.

So if we are "concepts" of what God is, and God is "self-conscious" has "free-will" and is "rational" as Christians believe, it's funny that the Bible would need to curtail our natural selves by directing us in our behavior. I think God might know he needs a spanking.

What do you mean? I do not think the Bible does not teach that we are curtailing our self-consciousness, free will or rationality. We are being our natural selves there still, as always. Are you talking about Christianity saying we need to have some things changed to be made right with God? If so, that is perfectly coherent with the Christian belief that sin has curtailed our natural selves into something it was not designed for.

How, with the attributes of our god, could we be so easily duped by a Satan figure, be born with inbred sin, or could have any tendency towards Evil ourselves if God does not also have those characteristics.

Free will, by definition, means having the freedom to sin. The choice for God, Christians say, is either to have robots who always do want He wants, leaving out any possibility for love...or to have free creatures who can disobey, but bringing forth the possibility for love. Christians think the free creatures option is better.

And again, where's the omnipresence, the all-knowing, the always-existed parts (aren't they the most descriptive and important parts)? Did we not get the whole shabang? How can we only be part of god's image and still be made in his image?

Because we are a resemblance, a likeness, an image of God, not a clone of God. No, Christianity does not teach we got the whole shabang. It would be logically impossible for us to. Take the always existing part. It's logically impossible to create something that has always existed. That's on par with saying there could be a married bachelor or a round square. Being made in God's image has always been understood to mean a specific few things, because we are creatures reflecting aspects of God. We are images of God, not God.

[Dimmesdale]

God couldn't have created himself, and he didn't create what he's made of. If he created us "in his image," how can he have created us if he didn't create what he's made of?

According to standard Christian belief God created the universe "ex nihilo" or out of nothing. There was no "thing" which he used to fashion us like taking clay and making a pot. This has always struck me as irrational, this belief that God could have literally conjured everything else into being like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, literally. This is one reason I lean more towards pantheism/monism as I don't belief God could merely "speak" or "will" something into being. That is magical thinking in my estimation.

If we were created from the same stuff he is created from why aren't we omniscient and omnipresent?

Personally I believe that we are in our essence God having the illusion of not-being-God. In reality we are omniscient and omnipresent, but somehow we are put into the delusional state that we are finite beings. This in Eastern philosophies is called "maya."

Hypothetically though, I think you can go at this from a number of angles. Both a genius and a mentally-challenged person in general are similar in that they have flesh bodies. But the way those flesh bodies have been arranged according to subtle variations in respective DNA has sadly birthed only one genius.

Why aren't we only spirits or able to shift from the physical to the spirit form at will or send physical representations of ourselves somewhere else? Since we obviously don't have the same characteristics, what about us is the same "image" as God?

With regard to our egoic, individual selves, as opposed to our Ultimate Self, I think it boils more than anything to dignity and value. We are valuable just as God is valuable. We bear God's imprint in the form of freedom, virtues, loves, passions, and a slew of other things which confer meaning on our lives, even though they are finite in relation to the Ultimate Reality.

If what he is made of has always existed and we are made from the same stuff, then we also always existed and couldn't have been created. If we always existed, why don't we remember? God remembers.

In reality, in my view, we have never stopped being God. And yet, by the inconceivable power of Maya or illusion, we are put into a delusive state. But I believe it has an end.

I suppose I should also add that "Maya" may be my Christian "ex-nihilo" counter-part. In that I suppose I must confess to being a bit of a hypocrite. Both are ultimately inconceivable concepts, ultimately.