William wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 pm
[
Replying to theophile in post #51]
All I'm saying is that I don't think tehom is meant to be a god or a goddess here. She simply represents primordial waters / the abyss.
I understand that but am pushing further re what the primordial waters / the abyss represent.
Presently you appear to have been saying that it represents - not an aspect of the source creator, but some "other" entity otherwise unrelated. The "Woman" for the "Man".
If we are to go by "images of" and extend that pattern back to the source, then the "Father/Man" and the "Mother/Woman" need to be seen as something created in the image of the Source Creator and are therefore projected aspects of that one being, rather than unrelated entities.
The two entities are related; they are related in marriage... The image of God (man and woman) is a projection of that union. I'm still not sure what necessitates that the projection be two aspects of one being, and why it can't be a projection of two (or more) joined together through such a union. Both seem valid to me.
And I don't think tehom represents much more than the primordial waters / abyss and the feminine character this intrinsically conveys (to draw on Dan Brown a bit). In other words, tehom is unformed matter in a vast space. Or a cosmic womb, one that will eventually surround and sustain the heavens and earth being formed within...
William wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 pm
This entails removing the "super" from the natural and being able to explain/account for the same thing (the existence of the universe).
Sure, but that wouldn't be biblical theology, or what Genesis 1 says.
Really? I would say then that it is all about perspective as I clearly see that Genesis isn't saying "God is supernatural."
Granted, I do understand how folk can "see" it that way in the reading of it, but the point is, it doesn't HAVE to be "seen" that way at all.
To be clear on terms (bear with me), there is God (elohim), the spirit of God (ruach elohim), and the deep (tehom). In Genesis 1, what we first see is the
spirit of God hovering over-against the deep,
i.e., two clearly separate beings. My suggestion is that
their union is God (elohim) and the 'Us' under question, but this doesn't form until
post Genesis 1:2 once we see the two of them working in accord / as one (like husband and wife).
But it's the initial setup here that is most important to the point at hand, and it's clearly a non-physical spirit over-against a vast, physical entity... (I do appreciate your openness to different readings, and want to be open as well. But I just struggle to see how you 'clearly see' a non-supernatural reading here...)
William wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 pm
That said, although not explicit in Genesis 1 or anywhere else in the bible, I would venture that the spirit of God emerged from the deep as well. So if I had to pick a single substance, it would be matter (in motion), which eventually gave rise to spirit, including the spirit of God.
That pov has some validation in the script mentioned in a post I read on this or another thread.
"that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
It hints that the god speaking is saying "he" was "formed".
Indeed, it suggests that there well could have been an unformed Source Creator before the formed god was formed.
To build on my last comments, if
God (elohim) was formed, it was not by a prior Source Creator, but through the marriage / union mentioned between the spirit of God and the deep. If the
spirit of God was formed, it was through the accidental motion and interaction of raw matter, perhaps first forming minds, but more importantly the ideas / spirits that spring from them... And to draw on Ockham's razor, wouldn't that be the simpler explanation versus assuming a more complex Source Creator and the mind-matter philosophy you go on to describe as original progenitor?
William wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 pm
It is the union of the two (as One) that is God, and that humankind is made to follow.
That is an interesting statement. Often the Christian claim is "free will" et al - rather than "being made to follow" but aside from that observation, the claim that in the human instruments of "female and male" there can be observed "God" - while interesting, may be somewhat or even completely off track...."missing the mark" as it were.
How so? We are made in the image of God according to Genesis 1 - male and female we were made. As such, is it not plausible to say that God has male and female components if the image of God is male and female?
How so is because of the identity stamped into the human mind that humans are flesh rather than mind. (spirit).
Mind is what we are, not the organized matter we currently inhabit. In that sense, we are not just the Source Creators "offspring" but quintessentially, we ARE the Source Mind having an experience as human beings.
That is why - when the god of the genesis story refers to Adam and Eve as if they were flesh rather than spirit, we either have an idiot god who doesn't understand that he is talking to minds (spirit) and is under the illusion that he is talking to dust/clay or the god is identifying them as they have identified themselves/each other. Flesh devices who will one day "return to the dust" that they are.
What the minds that they actually are, experience after the death of the "clay vessels" they were temporally housed within, is "another story" - not unrelated, to their human experience, but different.
Overall, the above is something of a commentary on "The Breath of God." accounting for the "mind" aspect of the overall human experience.
Thus, there is no "idiot god" but there is a someone angry/disappointed one who has to bear the overall responsibility for "his" part in the failure of humans to recognize their true selves - re the "breath".
That is the short version of the overall story. Human personalities are being grown for specific purposes.
We're thinking along very different lines. I don't think spirit = mind = consciousness if that's what you're saying. As such, I don't think the spirit of God is conscious (or mind), even though it is portrayed as speaking. Spirits are more like ideas, which may depend on mind, but which also have a certain independence and take on a life of their own once formed,
i.e., they are a separate, supernatural (if you will) substance. They are also eternal, unlike mind / consciousness which 'dies' no different than our bodies. They also have the ability to speak to us, or call upon us, more like a prick of conscience than a conscious being speaking...
So when I talk about marriage between the spirit of God and the deep, I am not talking about a union of mind and matter, but rather about material (and mindful) beings feeling that prick, and taking on a certain form in response. The spirit of God provides the male seed (the idea if you will), while the deep provides the female ground (whether matter, mind, or both) for this seed to take hold and grow...
William wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 pm
I'm just conveying God as presented in Genesis 1 and the bible more broadly. I'm not trying to redefine anything. That said, I do think the God presented there goes against the grain of popular theology and Christian belief. Very much so. For instance, God is not the creator of all that is. It is quite clear in Genesis 1 that God did not create tehom or her waters, so anyone who says otherwise is the one trying to redefine things and add to the text what isn't there.
Re that, re what I have offered, the God you are focused on, is not the Source Creator, but a creation of the Source Creator.
That in itself is not here nor there unless that God is not being an accurate and honest ambassador to the Source Creator and/or those who are focused on that Created God, are not being accurate an honest ambassadors to that God.
I skip those potential drawbacks by identifying with and focusing upon the Source God but acknowledge that there is biblical writ which suggests that the Biblical God has at least made genuine effort to accurately personify the Source God re the ambassador aspect.
We may have to agree to disagree. I'm unlikely to be convinced that there is one being (both mind and matter) outside of time that is the Source Creator of all that is. The only path I see to such a being is at the end of time and a long evolutionary arc, which is the only way such a one could form. But that means we can't take such a being for granted, because we can't assume that we've ever reached that point before. We should assume instead (for all we know) that this is our first pass through history, in which case the simplest assumption to make about our starting conditions is more along the lines I've described, i.e., just matter in motion, and random, accidental events giving rise to mind and more importantly spirit. And from there, per Genesis 1, is where things really get going...
