what does the Image of God mean

[dio9]

Genesis says Adam was created in the image of God. . He created them male and female .Does this mean the image of God male and female?
Where should we start looking for God?
Adam is singular but male and female is plural . Does the image of God , Adam , mean Adam and Eve. Not that Adam is a hermaphrodite but the meaning of Adam is human a man and woman .
What seems to have been difficult for theologians to understand is the Image of God is to be found in between man and women . But isn't that the most difficult of relationships the relationship to maintain. Genesis says the first man and woman couldn't do it and they lived a cursed life together. Wooh to us. The image of God is supposed to be us.
If you want to find God , you will first have to find someone to love.

Question for discussion : Can the image of God exist as man and woman together are Adam?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 60 by The Tanager]

"So, it may help to hear what you mean by "feminine" and "masculine". What do you consider the "Feminine"? How would you define it? Or what characteristics would you view as the "feminine" aspects of God? "

I'd like to hear more about this too perhaps , some feminine person would be good enough to answer , what is feminine and does feminine nature comes from God .

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by John Human]

Earth will speak: "Earth understands that some people want to think of Earth as a woman. Earth is not male or female."

In relation to imaging ideas of GOD, I personally do no think that the idea above is inaccurate.

If the Earth is a GOD and could speak about this, what would the Earth say of Itself?

My argument isn't based in creating dogmatic titles of gender for GOD, as I am sure the astute reader could deduce easily enough from what I write.

My argument is that the Earth can and should be regarded as a GOD, and in relation to gender, my point in suggesting that those who habitually refer to GOD in the masculine learn to break the habit through a simply enough process.

In relation to Earth being Feminine, my argument is that;

1: The Earth is an anomaly in the known Universe.

2: Through a creative process She birthed all form

Number 2 is significant of the Feminine, through which - without - we can confidently say that the Masculine would not exist.

The masculine however does exist, so we can ascertain from that, that the masculine is a part of 'what GOD is' but not the part which should be regarded as the main identifier as to 'what GOD is' in relation to gender.

Even if I were to broaden the overall picture to include the whole solar system as GOD, or the whole Galaxy, or the Whole Universe, I am still left with the evidence that the Earth acts as an actual WOMB, and wombs are Feminine in nature.

Thus the Feminine comes before the Masculine, and Theist should have no problem in accepting that and referring to their GOD in the Feminine, which is specifically the focus of my argument throughout, re 'The Image Of GOD'.

[William]

[Replying to post 60 by The Tanager]

I think what would help our discussion is what is meant by the "masculine" and "feminine" aspects of God.

Yep no problem. Already done so in at least 3 of my replies. There is no relevant requirement I can identify with on my part, to having to keep repeating myself.

The reader in general will get what I am on about...

Ideally if you truly want to understand this, you will need to address some of those things I already mentioned, rather than skip over them, as it appears to be what you have been doing.

The main thrust of my argument is not in getting others to understand what is what in relation to the Feminine and the Masculine as I assume they should by now have a handle on that.

From me to you, it was simply an invitation for you to interact with your idea of GOD as if She were Female, and see where that might lead you, based upon the argument you gave related to 'confusion' and 'Traditional' Christian education on the matter.

Personally, I don't think certain characteristics necessarily have been or are better shown through certain genders. A mother's love is deep, but so is a father's love. You associated "the Father" with brutality, harshness, being overbearing, cruel, etc.

You build a strawman by leaving out the part where I wrote "The History of Traditional Christianity" was the thing which was brutal harsh overbearing cruel etc. Since such was done in the name of "The Father" throughout said actual history, It was done in the name of Masculinity, in the image of a male idea of GOD.

I am not arguing that a Fathers love isn't or cannot be 'deep'. That is your strawman.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. The Hindu Goddess Kali is fierce and destructive.

If I were trying to encourage someone who worshiped the image of Kali, rather than someone who worshiped the image of The Father, I would be taking the opposite approach that I am with you - a worshiper of The Father Image - by encouraging them to view Kali in the masculine.

You see, it is all about the image, and how the image affects the individuals expression of GOD into the world.

Traditionally The Father worship has provided us with enough evidence over time, that something is askew in the worshipers thinking/imaging and subsequent expression of that idea of GOD into the world.

What I am attempting to convey is that the individual enables themselves to look beyond the images placed before them, and get deeper into the relationship of GOD as a being without an image, but able to be imaged in any number of ways...but be careful therein...learn to look beyond the image and thus, if the image has been purely Masculine, then start the process of disconnection from images by seeing if one is able to refer to The Father as The Mother, or Kali as a male entity etc...and if one is unable to disconnect, one has the opportunity to focus on WHY that is the case, and do something more to rectify the matter.

That is why I often try to just put God in place of pronouns. That is why, even though I used "He" in this thread, I specifically said I did not mean it as speaking to God's masculinity.

Unfortunately it is too late to adopt such method as a practical way of none genderizing GOD. Traditional Christianity define GOD as "The Father" and even called The Father "God" as a name and title.

The title "God" is masculine, because it has the feminine title 'Goddess' to denote the one from the other.

It is also why I write the word GOD in all caps. I recognize the generic in the word 'God' as signifying the idea of a masculine entity - primarily the Abrahamic ideas of GOD, and what a struggle it is for such followers to think about their 'God' as a 'Goddess' or the masculine as the feminine.

If your argument is that it would not have changed a thing, re the history of Christendom had Christians referred to their image of God in the feminine, you might want to explain to the reader exactly why you believe so. and why you encourage other to believe the same.

But if you simply want to make this a game of semantics...there is nothing more I can add which will change that.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 63 by William]

Yep no problem. Already done so in at least 3 of my replies. There is no relevant requirement I can identify with on my part, to having to keep repeating myself.

The reader in general will get what I am on about...

I'm trying to understand. I'm sorry it hasn't been as clear to me as you think it should be. All I can ask is for patience, trying to assure you that I'm genuine in my posts and questions and thoughts. From post 62 I don't know what you mean by the Earth being an anomaly. Are you saying there are no forms on other planets, even the planet itself doesn't have a form? Does "form" mean living creatures? Is the Earth alive only in the sense that it has living beings on it? You also talk about birth being Feminine, but the Masculine is required for life to occur as well. Without sperm there is no Feminine. I don't see either as prior to the other. What you are getting on about is not entirely clear to me.

Ideally if you truly want to understand this, you will need to address some of those things I already mentioned, rather than skip over them, as it appears to be what you have been doing.

I have not tried to skip anything. Perhaps I misunderstood it, just missed it, thought I had applied to it already, am an idiot, etc. I would appreciate you simply bringing it back up and giving me another chance.

ou build a strawman by leaving out the part where I wrote "The History of Traditional Christianity" was the thing which was brutal harsh overbearing cruel etc. Since such was done in the name of "The Father" throughout said actual history, It was done in the name of Masculinity, in the image of a male idea of GOD.

I am not arguing that a Fathers love isn't or cannot be 'deep'. That is your strawman.

You are misunderstanding the context of my statement. I could have worded my response better to help try to stave off that kind of misunderstanding. I was not claiming anything about you. I was making my own positive claim: that there aren't "feminine" and "masculine" characteristics, at least, about many of the things usually associated with such designations. I used a typical association (a mother's love) and worked off of what you said about the Father in Christendom and what Hindus say about Kali (as a second typical association by many not meaning you to read it as about you) to offer two examples of how some typical associations with genders are off.

If I were trying to encourage someone who worshiped the image of Kali, rather than someone who worshiped the image of The Father, I would be taking the opposite approach that I am with you - a worshiper of The Father Image - by encouraging them to view Kali in the masculine.

You see, it is all about the image, and how the image affects the individuals expression of GOD into the world.

And that is where I think your assumptions about me have entered into your discussion with me. You didn't probe me to see if I fit other Christians you have read about or conversed with. You'll probably say that you were just inviting me to try it out, and you certainly did do that, but your responses went further and some of what you've said has certain assumptions behind them about how using "the Father" has affected me. Just like this next comment:

Traditionally The Father worship has provided us with enough evidence over time, that something is askew in the worshipers thinking/imaging and subsequent expression of that idea of GOD into the world.

You judge me by that assessment of "The Father worship". An assessment that is very one-sided and, therefore, inaccurate. Yes, some Christians have been brutal, harsh, overbearing, cruel, etc. while calling God "Father". Many other Christians have not been, while calling God "Father".

But if you simply want to make this a game of semantics...there is nothing more I can add which will change that.

I do not want to do that and have not tried to.

If your argument is that it would not have changed a thing, re the history of Christendom had Christians referred to their image of God in the feminine, you might want to explain to the reader exactly why you believe so. and why you encourage other to believe the same.

My position is that I don't think there are "feminine" and "masculine" traits, as such. I'm open to seeing there may be some. I don't think the concept of birth/life is only feminine, for example. If you have other ones that you think fit that bill, I've probably missed them, and would appreciate you to bring them back to my eyes out of love for an honest seeker of understanding and knowledge.

I think cultures often try to associate certain traits with certain genders. I think this is often detrimental to humans. It is often a way to divide people. Therefore, I see using gender terms of God more of a reflection on the human cultural dealings and power grabs then on God.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I don't know what you mean by the Earth being an anomaly. Are you saying there are no forms on other planets, even the planet itself doesn't have a form?

I am saying there has been no evidence at present which shows any 0ther planet like Earth, exists. That make Earth an anomaly.

The planet is a form, like everything else in this universe.

Does "form" mean living creatures?

Not just living creatures. It means everything in the universe and the universe itself is Form.

Is the Earth alive only in the sense that it has living beings on it?

There are as many living creatures on your body as there are people on Earth.
[yt]QrmashOX5EU[/yt]
So - it the sense that you are a living spirit within a living form (the Human Instrument) and that form is a planet of sorts to all those living creatures on your body, both you and they are living creatures.

The way I understand the planet Earth, it is the FORM which is occupied by the Living Spirit who occupies it. That is what I am meaning.

You also talk about birth being Feminine, but the Masculine is required for life to occur as well. Without sperm there is no Feminine. I don't see either as prior to the other. What you are getting on about is not entirely clear to me.

Again - My argument has always been that there should be no reason at all why any Theist who habitually regards GOD as a Male, should not equally be able to regard GOD as Female. That is "What I am getting on about" and what you appear to be avoiding providing a sensible argument against my argument.

In relation to the Planet as a WOMB of the Galaxy (or specifically the solar system if you like) the Planet is more the Feminine than the Masculine.

One could argue that the Sun represents the sperm producer which fertilized the egg, and in that, It can be regarded as the masculine "Father" aspect of the Solar System.

In relation to The Earth/Feminine and the propensity for male/female pairings on Her form, this does not need to equate to the same being said of Solar System, because we can view that as One Being which is able to fertilize itself, because it has an Egg - The form of the Planet Earth - is that Egg/Womb.

You judge me by that assessment of "The Father worship". An assessment that is very one-sided and, therefore, inaccurate. Yes, some Christians have been brutal, harsh, overbearing, cruel, etc. while calling God "Father". Many other Christians have not been, while calling God "Father".

I was bouncing off your argument that calling GOD "The Mother" would confuse traditional Christians.
I am not judging you by assuming you worship the image of The Father. My bad for the assumption, I thought that is what you said you did. I have asked for clarification on what Christians mean by 'worship' but the generic is obvious enough that Christians worship the Image of GOD in their minds, in the form of The Father.

Are you arguing that you - as a Christian - (or have I assumed that you are a Christian?) do NOT worship the Image of The Father or pray to The Father etc?

We best get on the same page in regard to that.

My position is that I don't think there are "feminine" and "masculine" traits, as such. I'm open to seeing there may be some. I don't think the concept of birth/life is only feminine, for example. If you have other ones that you think fit that bill, I've probably missed them, and would appreciate you to bring them back to my eyes out of love for an honest seeker of understanding and knowledge.

So if I am picking up on what you state above correctly, you do not see any feminine or masculine traits in regard to your particular Image of GOD, but still refer to "Him" (masculine) as "The Father" (also masculine)?

If so, then all the more reason why someone can ask for reasons WHY you feel the need to refer to GOD as either male or female if you particular image of GOD is neither.

Sure, I understand if you are talking about GOD with those 'traditionalists' you might not want to confuse them by simply going long with referring to GOD as "He" but you should be equally comfortable with talking with other Theists and referring to GOD along the same lines as they do, also to help prevent this confusion you argued for a few posts back. You tell us what it is you are trying to say when referring to GOD as "The Father" and why you (still apparently) cannot refer to GOD as "The Mother" and why this image is important for you to maintain about GOD.

I think cultures often try to associate certain traits with certain genders. I think this is often detrimental to humans. It is often a way to divide people. Therefore, I see using gender terms of God more of a reflection on the human cultural dealings and power grabs then on God.

Yet you are happy to refer to GOD as "The Father" when it comes to one particular 'Culture'? How is that going to help unite people?

[dio9]

[Replying to marco]

Where else can we find evidence of God if not in ourselves? Yet even ourselves remain a mystery to ourselves. God is this mystery to be found within this enigma. Yet t seems paradoxical but if you want to know God , know yourself, 'cause God is not you. Still I fear only those who meditates might know what this means. In the still of the night.
In the still of the night "

I held you
Held you tight
'Cause I love
Love you so
Promise I'll never
Let you go
In the still of the night
I remember
That night in May
The stars were bright above
I'll hope and I'll pray
To keep
Your precious love
Well before the light
Hold me again
With all of your might in the still of the night

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 66 by dio9]

Giving credit where credit is due:

"In the Still of the Nite",[1] also subsequently titled "In the Still of the Night", is a song written by Fred Parris and recorded by his Five Satins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_St ... tins_song)

Tcg

[The Tanager]

Again - My argument has always been that there should be no reason at all why any Theist who habitually regards GOD as a Male, should not equally be able to regard GOD as Female. That is "What I am getting on about" and what you appear to be avoiding providing a sensible argument against my argument.

I have not avoided your point. I've argued why I think bringing gender into it can be confusing and (when it is brought up) why I think it reflects the human element more than truth about God.

I was bouncing off your argument that calling GOD "The Mother" would confuse traditional Christians.
I am not judging you by assuming you worship the image of The Father. My bad for the assumption, I thought that is what you said you did. I have asked for clarification on what Christians mean by 'worship' but the generic is obvious enough that Christians worship the Image of GOD in their minds, in the form of The Father.

Are you arguing that you - as a Christian - (or have I assumed that you are a Christian?) do NOT worship the Image of The Father or pray to The Father etc?

We best get on the same page in regard to that.

I am a Christian. I wasn't saying you wrongly assumed that Christians call God the Father. The assumptions involve what characteristics you think are included by those who call God the Father. I don't pray to God as a male when calling God "Father". I don't separate reality into "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics and attach the "masculine" to God by using the term "Father". I separate human biology into "masculine" and "feminine". I think both men and women contain the full human image of God.

So if I am picking up on what you state above correctly, you do not see any feminine or masculine traits in regard to your particular Image of GOD, but still refer to "Him" (masculine) as "The Father" (also masculine)?

Yes, for the same reason we have any kind of shared language that could have been different. It is the way to converse with each other in ways we can easily understand. It is similar to why we use "I" to speak about electrical current rather than A, even though it is measured in amps.

If so, then all the more reason why someone can ask for reasons WHY you feel the need to refer to GOD as either male or female if you particular image of GOD is neither.

Because of the things that others attach to the pronouns they use. It would be unhelpful to use "A" instead of "I" in talking about electrical currents.

Sure, I understand if you are talking about GOD with those 'traditionalists' you might not want to confuse them by simply going long with referring to GOD as "He" but you should be equally comfortable with talking with other Theists and referring to GOD along the same lines as they do, also to help prevent this confusion you argued for a few posts back. You tell us what it is you are trying to say when referring to GOD as "The Father" and why you (still apparently) cannot refer to GOD as "The Mother" and why this image is important for you to maintain about GOD.

It's not about using the terms they use for their own beliefs, but about how the wider discussion has attached certain beliefs to certain terms. It's using a common language for one's own beliefs and other's beliefs. I would use "He" with all because both sides attach the traditional characteristics of God to "He", "Father", etc. rather than other pronouns. If I used "She" with traditional Christians they would think I held non-traditional beliefs about God. If I talked to someone like the radical feminist philosopher Mary Daly, using "She" would be just as confusing because Daly attaches specific beliefs to the use of gendered pronouns and my use of "She" would go against what she sees in those kinds of terms.

Yet you are happy to refer to GOD as "The Father" when it comes to one particular 'Culture'? How is that going to help unite people?

I use that term because of the history of humanity, not just one culture. Everyone attaches traditional Christian beliefs to titles like "Father" and other kinds of worldviews to other kinds of titles. We need to use the same language in order to have discussions that are meaningful. Now, there will still be confusions on views, like saying traditional Christianity is all brutal, harsh, overbearing, cruel, when it clearly has not all been. We can talk about the diverse histories within the various traditions and we can talk about worldview beliefs. In those discussions we can get to our differences and challenge each other. That is where unity can happen, where we can tolerate each other in our differing views.

[Tcg]

Tough Russian soldiers believed in Mother Russia and I'm sure they didn't see themselves as perpetual infants.

I may have indeed overstated the reliance some place on a mother figure.


I am even more confident that those tough Russian soldiers viewed themselves as protectors of Mother Russia, not as tough Russian soldiers who needed her to change their diapers.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by The Tanager]

Again - My argument has always been that there should be no reason at all why any Theist who habitually regards GOD as a Male, should not equally be able to regard GOD as Female. That is "What I am getting on about" and what you appear to be avoiding providing a sensible argument against my argument.

I have not avoided your point. I've argued why I think bringing gender into it can be confusing and (when it is brought up) why I think it reflects the human element more than truth about God.

Can you argue the truth about GOD without calling GOD by any identified gender? If not, then why not?

I was bouncing off your argument that calling GOD "The Mother" would confuse traditional Christians.
I am not judging you by assuming you worship the image of The Father. My bad for the assumption, I thought that is what you said you did. I have asked for clarification on what Christians mean by 'worship' but the generic is obvious enough that Christians worship the Image of GOD in their minds, in the form of The Father.

Are you arguing that you - as a Christian - (or have I assumed that you are a Christian?) do NOT worship the Image of The Father or pray to The Father etc?

We best get on the same page in regard to that.

I am a Christian. I wasn't saying you wrongly assumed that Christians call God the Father. The assumptions involve what characteristics you think are included by those who call God the Father. I don't pray to God as a male when calling God "Father". I don't separate reality into "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics and attach the "masculine" to God by using the term "Father". I separate human biology into "masculine" and "feminine". I think both men and women contain the full human image of God.

Yet while you claim the above, you struggle with calling GOD "The Mother."

Please explain to the readers why this is a struggle with you, but apparently not a struggle with you to refer to GOD as "The Father".

My Argument continues to be that no Theist (Christians included) should have any problem/struggle with referring to GOD in either the feminine or the masculine, if indeed they are already using one or the other both privately and publicly in their expressions about their idea of GOD.

My suggestion to you was (and still is) that you change how you refer to GOD from "Father" to "Mother" and you essentially are now arguing that when you pray to GOD you call GOD "Father" but do not do so with in mind you think of GOD as either 'male' or 'female' so WHY call GOD "Father" at all, and "Mother", never?

Surely you can understand that your argument does not support your continuing to refer to GOD as "Father" when you claim you do not hold that image of GOD in your psyche? Surely the truthful thing to do is to abandon such imagery because you are arguing that such imagery is incorrect anyway.

So if I am picking up on what you state above correctly, you do not see any feminine or masculine traits in regard to your particular Image of GOD, but still refer to "Him" (masculine) as "The Father" (also masculine)?

Yes, for the same reason we have any kind of shared language that could have been different. It is the way to converse with each other in ways we can easily understand. It is similar to why we use "I" to speak about electrical current rather than A, even though it is measured in amps.

But between You and I as two theists who call GOD "GOD", it should be enough. We don't need to revert to masculine or feminine titles to deduce that we are speaking of the same. GOD is GOD.

It only becomes an issue when the image of GOD is referred to.

That is why, when you refer to your image of GOD as "The Father", you are telling the public that you are being a Christian about it, and that is also why you cannot refer to your image of GOD as "The Mother" because to do so would mean you are not being a Christian about it.

Can you accept that?

If so, then all the more reason why someone can ask for reasons WHY you feel the need to refer to GOD as either male or female if you particular image of GOD is neither.

Because of the things that others attach to the pronouns they use. It would be unhelpful to use "A" instead of "I" in talking about electrical currents.

So because of 'others' (let's say other Christians yes?) it would be unhelpful to use "The Mother" instead of "The Father" when talking about GOD.

And because you identify as being a Christian, to refer to that image of GOD as "The Mother" would cause other Christians to question whether you are a Christian?

If so, then for you to start referring to GOD as "The Mother" would have you questioning Christianities image of GOD?

Sure, I understand if you are talking about GOD with those 'traditionalists' you might not want to confuse them by simply going long with referring to GOD as "He" but you should be equally comfortable with talking with other Theists and referring to GOD along the same lines as they do, also to help prevent this confusion you argued for a few posts back. You tell us what it is you are trying to say when referring to GOD as "The Father" and why you (still apparently) cannot refer to GOD as "The Mother" and why this image is important for you to maintain about GOD.

It's not about using the terms they use for their own beliefs, but about how the wider discussion has attached certain beliefs to certain terms.

Yes - specific to "The Image of GOD" and what it means as per the OP.

It's using a common language for one's own beliefs and other's beliefs. I would use "He" with all because both sides attach the traditional characteristics of God to "He", "Father", etc. rather than other pronouns. If I used "She" with traditional Christians they would think I held non-traditional beliefs about God. If I talked to someone like the radical feminist philosopher Mary Daly, using "She" would be just as confusing because Daly attaches specific beliefs to the use of gendered pronouns and my use of "She" would go against what she sees in those kinds of terms.

So the broader thing herein is that to use anything other than male imagery, is 'not being Christian' and this is specifically why you are unable to refer to your image of GOD as "The Mother" - because that is NOT what being a 'Christian' is about. Even though in reality, GOD is actually without any specific gender.

To call GOD "The Father" is an actual requirement for all those who call themselves 'Christians'. To refer to GOD as "The Mother" is NOT "Christian' and thus can be seen as non-Christian/anti Christian etc.

I use that term because of the history of humanity, not just one culture. Everyone attaches traditional Christian beliefs to titles like "Father" and other kinds of worldviews to other kinds of titles. We need to use the same language in order to have discussions that are meaningful.

Meaningful to whom? A non-theist who refers to the Christian idea of GOD in the masculine because 'that is what Christians do', not because their image of GOD is that GOD is "The Father".

The habitual reference to GOD in the masculine does not mean that GOD is "The Father" or masculine in nature. If anything it forces everyone to use the terms and image that term presents and not think of GOD in any other way except that way. This is specific to why I encourage you and anyone else to adopt other ways of referring to GOD because this will help to break that habitual spell that has been cast over humanity in relation to the idea of a masculine GOD.

Now, there will still be confusions on views, like saying traditional Christianity is all brutal, harsh, overbearing, cruel, when it clearly has not all been.

Clearly Christianity did not become top dog religion through its other - less brutal - mannerisms. The point is the image of GOD in relation to the history of Christendom (and other powerful religions) has left the world with the dominant idea that GOD is masculine and should be referred to in the masculine.

We can talk about the diverse histories within the various traditions and we can talk about worldview beliefs. In those discussions we can get to our differences and challenge each other. That is where unity can happen, where we can tolerate each other in our differing views.

So you can reject my image of GOD and tolerate me at the same time and call that 'unity'?

Why not accept me wholeheartedly by helping to change the image of GOD to best reflect The Truth that GOD is actually not just "The Father" and that GOD will not think any differently of you if you start referring to Her in the feminine as "The Mother" when you are in prayerful meditative communion with Her?

Have you even asked GOD what GOD feels about the whole thing?

Or have you just stood back and simply reasoned with your self that you see no point in referring to GOD as "The Mother" and not bothered to get GODs opinion on the matter?