Many individuals seem confused as to how GOD should be accurately defined. The confusion stems from the Abrahamic organized religion's many and varied sects which don't altogether agree on the definition, or terminology of definitions.
This has evolved, at least in regards to Christianity, as an image of male being upon a throne, situated somewhere in the sky of whom we are all 'made in the image of' but many think that this imagery is more about something being made in the image of man, and some aspects of Christianity agree that the imagery is false, or metaphorical at best, because "GOD is Spirit" and as such, does not even have gender, let alone form.
However, this stance often seems to contradict other ideas strongly held by Christians, including referring to the GOD as 'He' as well as Jesus being 'The Christ' and male and sitting on a throne as a representative of their idea of GOD - in form.
Furthermore, the idea of human beings being 'made in the image of GOD' helps fortify the imagery of GOD having a human form, contradicting the idea that 'GOD is Spirit', something else which really requires suitable defining.
Made In The Image Of GOD
Q: What exactly must that mean?
Made In The Image Of GOD
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #23You are going to get a visit from an angel.brunumb wrote:Oh! God is an amoeba. Who knew?
Be sure and tell them this you have said to me.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #24[Replying to post 23 by TLIG]
Angels are fictional creatures. If it will make you happy, I will tell my pet rock instead. It does exist, but it may have difficulty comprehending the message.You are going to get a visit from an angel.
Be sure and tell them this you have said to me.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #25What is sin??? Does that phrase have any meaning?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #26[Replying to post 20 by TLIG]
Okay - so there is 'holy/without sin' = 'GOD' therefore, the image of GOD = 'holy/without sin', coupled with the OP blurb which has it that 'the breath of GOD' represents the quintessence of our core identity once all false identity has been stripped away to reveal that.
Quintessentially we are all be of the same attributes of GOD. Sinless, holy, consciousness = 'in the image of'. That is our true identity. Not 'created' but 'always ever having existed'. Form is the 'created' part, but that is not our true identity.
Okay - so there is 'holy/without sin' = 'GOD' therefore, the image of GOD = 'holy/without sin', coupled with the OP blurb which has it that 'the breath of GOD' represents the quintessence of our core identity once all false identity has been stripped away to reveal that.
Quintessentially we are all be of the same attributes of GOD. Sinless, holy, consciousness = 'in the image of'. That is our true identity. Not 'created' but 'always ever having existed'. Form is the 'created' part, but that is not our true identity.
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #27Sin would be transgression of the law (1 John 3:5) That is why the false prophet Paul came up with a false gospel, whereas sinners have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6), and are saved if they believe in Paul's message. Of course, that is the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13) of the false prophets of Matthew 7:15).
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #28[Replying to post 27 by showme]
It appears false images through false messages were the standard practice long before Jesus entered the scene.
This is to say that being made in the image of GOD is to not be under any law. Once law is introduced (as in "Do not eat of that fruit") then sin is made possible.Sin would be transgression of the law (1 John 3:5) That is why the false prophet Paul came up with a false gospel, whereas sinners have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6), and are saved if they believe in Paul's message. Of course, that is the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13) of the false prophets of Matthew 7:15).
It appears false images through false messages were the standard practice long before Jesus entered the scene.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Made In The Image Of GOD
Post #29showme wrote:Sin would be transgression of the law (1 John 3:5) That is why the false prophet Paul came up with a false gospel, whereas sinners have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6), and are saved if they believe in Paul's message. Of course, that is the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13) of the false prophets of Matthew 7:15).
So, the concept of sin is dependent on the law, and the law is dependent on God's existence.. and God is a life without sin. That seems , well, sort of circular.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella