The Image of God (Jesus Christ, ritual, Earth, beliefs, myths)

[Willamena]

I'm not sure how to begin this, so I'll just jump right in and describe what the image is according to my understanding of it, garnered from reading in the field of study known as Comparative Mythology.

The Image of God is the "face" that we put on our idea of what god is. (I usually refer to god with a small g --no disrespect intended, but just to separate it from the "God" and all he entails, which is an Image of God used by many people.)

This "face" may be literally a face (old man, Great Father, Earth Mother, mother-and-child, etc.) or it may be any verbal or pictoral description of god (energy, love, higher power, omniscience, self, nature, etc.) that we use. In any case, the Image of God is a metaphor of god. Because god's true nature is unknown to us, it is all we have to describe god (any god) with.

It is not uncommon to mistake the Image of God for god. It is even encouraged in some circles (mainly, but not exclusively, athiest). I be in a totally other circle, actively discouraging it. The Image of God is not god.

When people say, "God is make-believe," or "Humans made up God," I read that as, "People generate the Image of God." I agree with them. When people say, "God is real," I also agree. God is not the Image of God; the image is for our use.

One such use is in myth. Comparative Mythology teaches that myths are stories that take an Image of God and apply a story-telling process, not for the purpose of entertainment or to describe actual events, but as a medium to express spiritual concepts and lessons. Taking the story literally (as actual events) is to "mis-"take the purpose of the story. (More often than not, I find people understand the meaning just fine, while still protesting that it's "literally true.")

Comments?

[Bishka]

I disagree that we 'make our own image of god'.

To me, and if you know anything about LDS theology, then you'll know we believe that the GOD showed Himself to Joseph Smith along with His Son Jesus Christ.

That's a huge cornerstone of our beliefs and something that sets us apart from a lot of Christian groups.

Most don't believe we were created physically in God's image, just spiriutally.

LDS theology is that we WERE created in God's physical image and spiritual image.

So, I think we can know what the GOD looks like - but I can't say that for anyohne else but myself.

[Ramacharaka]

the image of God, or even the unpronouncable name )GD( that the Jews use against blasphemy, is as a standard, not real. Words are not beholdable images of the ALL, just as the Danish cartoon still suggests, albiet contrversial politics about how people probably really feel about the state of things today as it depicted Muhammed with a short fuse (ie: easy to get angry/mad)

Just as the ALl is not something that we can physically sense, there are always those Asian monks meditating on it, in Buddhist meditation, as a statue or engraving or print beholdable as a hindu diety, of the pantheon of the many, as opposed and in some ways reconciling the western one god conception.

[d.]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Because god's true nature is unknown to us,

if you agree that god's nature cannot be known, i don't see how the distinction between 'god' and 'the image of god' reasonably can be made?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by divine

if you agree that god's nature cannot be known, i don't see how the distinction between 'god' and 'the image of god' reasonably can be made?

How can it not be made?

One we make, and it (and more) symbolizes the unknownable.

[d.]

Originally Posted by Willamena

How can it not be made?

well, we agree the image is all we have, and all we know. there is no way we can know
'god'. therefore when we are talking about 'god' we are always talking about 'the image of god'. so the dichotomy seems irrelevant?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by divine

well, we agree the image is all we have, and all we know. there is no way we can know
'god'. therefore when we are talking about 'god' we are always talking about 'the image of god'. so the dichotomy seems irrelevant?

Ah, I see. But we don't want to go so far as to say that the Image of God is god, because that would be saying we do know god. This is precisely why the distinction must be made: if we don't, then the image becomes the idol, which exactly is what we've seen happen in a large part of the world. And our language should be altered to reflect that understanding.

The Image of God is not just meaningful, it is the meaning that we place on god. If we eliminate the distinction, it is no longer meaningful in that way.

[d.]

Originally Posted by Willamena

we don't want to go so far as to say that the Image of God is god,

i would.

Originally Posted by Willamena

because that would be saying we do know god.

exactly.

Originally Posted by Willamena

One we make, and it (and more) symbolizes the unknownable.

but i do agree that the 'god' concept is a way for us to imagine the unknowable - but accepting that dichotomy, i think one must also come to the conclusion that the image is 'god'.

Originally Posted by Willamena

This is precisely why the distinction must be made: if we don't, then the image becomes the idol, which exactly is what we've seen happen in a large part of the world.

could you elaborate on this comment? i don't understand what you are getting at.

[michel]

I have'nt -nor do I try to- imagine God.

The statement that 'We are made in his image' to me has always meant as in that we are capable of love, helping others, healing. I don't take it as a literal meaning. Sometimes, my mind does stray, and I say to myself "I wonder what......?"; I have a good laugh at myself when I realise I am doing it.

I don't believe our minds would even understand "God", we are far too limited, in our form.