The Image of God

[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.]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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

i would.

because that would be saying we do know god.

exactly.

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'.

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.

 

[ayani]

i agree with michel. to me, God has no image. He does have attributes.

words and ideas we can use to try to understand better the nature of God, His presence, and His relationship to us. the Muslim La Asma has always inspired me in this way.

 

[michel]

i agree with michel. to me, God has no image. He does have attributes.

words and ideas we can use to try to understand better the nature of God, His presence, and His relationship to us. the Muslim La Asma has always inspired me in this way.

Sorry, what do you mean by "Muslim La Asma " ? I googled it, and came up with nothing........

 

[ayani]

Sorry, what do you mean by "Muslim La Asma " ? I googled it, and came up with nothing........

ah, sorry! Asma’ Allah Al-Husná are the 99 names or attributes of God (Allah) found in the Quran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_God

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Once again, I find it interesting that people can take a Biblical concept and then try and describe contrary to what scripture teaches.

 

[Willamena]

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'.

:thud:
I think it best leads to the opposite conclusion. If all god is is the image, then he 1) is not supernatural or divine, 2) is nothing special or worthy of worship, 3) has no authority over man. The person who believes that may as well be an atheist. Most modern theists, especially in the West, go the other way and insist that the image, the stories, are actual, inspired narratives of god though they have "no evidence" and they require "faith" to work. If we do not make the distinction between god and the Image of God, then, this is just as bad. This plainly says, "I do know [as much as I need to know] about god by reading these stories of him in these books," regardless that that leaves god wide open to literary interpretation, either non-literal --in which case our understanding of god is relative, and if undifferentiated from the Image of God leads us back to the above --or literal, which turns the image into an idol.

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.

Idolatry is the worship of something tangible as god, rather than as a representation of the intangible god. If we recognize the distinction between god and the Image of God, but ignore or dismiss it, what we have then is people worshipping an invention of the human mind.

 

[d.]

:thud:
I think it best leads to the opposite conclusion. If all god is is the image, then he 1) is not supernatural or divine, 2) is nothing special or worthy of worship, 3) has no authority over man.

well, this is my conclusion - 'god' is a human invention, if you like. forgive my incapability to express myself.

i have a picture of a chinese dragon on top of my bookshelf - since there are no other known dragons outside of our images (if we don't count dinosaurs), i think it's safe to say that the image of dragons is what 'dragons' is - i.e. dragons are creatures of our imagination.

what i'm trying to get at is that if god truly is unknowable, the same can be said about god. even if one doesn't want to label god a creature of our imagination - since you agree that god is unknowable, mustn't you agree that :

if god is unknowable, then when we talk about god, or dragons, we talk about the image - and therefore, if we cannot talk about or even know one part of a dichotomy, isn't the dichotomy meaningless?

and if one part of the dichotomy is unknowable, how can one distinguish at all between the knowable part and the unknowable part? (and isn't it more reasonable to assume that the knowable exists, and the unknowable does not?)

Most modern theists, especially in the West, [...]insist that the image, the stories, are actual, inspired narratives of god though they have "no evidence" and they require "faith" to work.

this is of course a conclusion one can draw, even if it's one i don't understand, but even this kind of 'modern theist' must agree that it cannot be possible for humans to distinguish the real god from the image - so the dichotomy is, again, meaningless?

 

[Willamena]

well, this is my conclusion - 'god' is a human invention, if you like. forgive my incapability to express myself.

i have a picture of a chinese dragon on top of my bookshelf - since there are no other known dragons outside of our images (if we don't count dinosaurs), i think it's safe to say that the image of dragons is what 'dragons' is - i.e. dragons are creatures of our imagination.

Is that all they are, though? For instance, in Greek mythology the dragon guards the treasure --the fruit of the tree of life that belongs to the goddess. It represents our fears, which prevent us from gaining the knowledge that the fruit represents. The hero is the one who slays the dragon and takes the fruit, because by that process he can know something more about himself.

As a fanciful imagined beast, the dragon is entertainment. But the dragon as symbol is more much than simply something of our imagination --it serves a resonant purpose. It is an image intended to strike a chord in a process of spiritual learning (the Mysteries).

what i'm trying to get at is that if god truly is unknowable, the same can be said about god. even if one doesn't want to label god a creature of our imagination - since you agree that god is unknowable, mustn't you agree that :

if god is unknowable, then when we talk about god, or dragons, we talk about the image - and therefore, if we cannot talk about or even know one part of a dichotomy, isn't the dichotomy meaningless?

We could, and do, talk about god as just the image or the symbol. I don't see how that makes the dichotomy meaningless; just the opposite, it is what gives it its meaning. If we recognize that god as a symbol represents something more, then the image transcends its literal meaning. The meaning for god is "the unknowable" part of each of us that we either struggle and strive to understand and to grasp in our hand, or acede to and trust to govern us in our essential being. (To me, that latter is what is meant by god is 'transendant self'.)

Edit: it's when we don't recognize the dichotomy at all that it is meaningless.

and if one part of the dichotomy is unknowable, how can one distinguish at all between the knowable part and the unknowable part? (and isn't it more reasonable to assume that the knowable exists, and the unknowable does not?)

Edit: The best example is the unknowable self, but some people seem incapable of recognizing even that.

this is of course a conclusion one can draw, even if it's one i don't understand, but even this kind of 'modern theist' must agree that it cannot be possible for humans to distinguish the real god from the image - so the dichotomy is, again, meaningless?

Fair enough. I think it's possible.

 

[doppelganger]

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?

For me the distinction is one of understanding the role of symbols and how we use them. "God" as a word is symbol. Symbols are used to categorize and denote experiences, whether experiences of sensual interactions with the world external to our minds, or experiences of our minds themselves such as emotions and concepts. So symbols are meant to point to an experience. And they function as a communicative tool when the person issuing the symbol and the person perceiving the symbol both associate a similar subjective experience with that symbol.

"God," like any symbol, can be objectified. What I mean by that is that the symbol can take the meaning of being a thing outside the world of my subjective experiences. So I have a "spritiual experience" that is quite real to which I attribute as a cause an external thing I call "God." That the symbols (the words, the songs, the images, the mythological stories) do not capture the literal experience and do not express any truth about the nature or existence of external divinity does not change the very real, subjective reality of the experience of the divine that is the meaning of the mythological symbols.

The key to finding the diving in mythology is, of course, to avoid the trap of confusing the symbol for the thing symbolized. That's like going to a restaurant and seeing an entry for "chopped steak" on the menu, and then proceeding to eat the menu.

Mythological listening is the process of moving through the symbols to try to relate to the experience they symbolize.

 

[divinemission]

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?

Image of God is love, patient, truth, nice and services to one another with sincere an love without look for return!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am in God's image: my Spirit longs be one with his.

 

[Comet]

Is that all they are, though? For instance, in Greek mythology the dragon guards the treasure --the fruit of the tree of life that belongs to the goddess. It represents our fears, which prevent us from gaining the knowledge that the fruit represents. The hero is the one who slays the dragon and takes the fruit, because by that process he can know something more about himself.

Here you are to say that it is about the self of one and not about the "god" or "God" you wish to speak of... Why is it one should strive for such things then?

As a fanciful imagined beast, the dragon is entertainment. But the dragon as symbol is more much than simply something of our imagination --it serves a resonant purpose. It is an image intended to strike a chord in a process of spiritual learning (the Mysteries).

The symbol or "image" of god/God is meant to due such things as well... it is all in how one chooses to view it and therefore understand it...

We could, and do, talk about god as just the image or the symbol. I don't see how that makes the dichotomy meaningless; just the opposite, it is what gives it its meaning. If we recognize that god as a symbol represents something more, then the image transcends its literal meaning. The meaning for god is "the unknowable" part of each of us that we either struggle and strive to understand and to grasp in our hand, or acede to and trust to govern us in our essential being. (To me, that latter is what is meant by god is 'transendant self'.)

The image transcends its literal meaning.... for many it does not. What is the image of god/God? Partially, it is what we do make it - for that is how we understand it. Otherwise there is no knowledge or wisdom.

Edit: it's when we don't recognize the dichotomy at all that it is meaningless.

How so? Are you the same as all as the one that you are?

Edit: The best example is the unknowable self, but some people seem incapable of recognizing even that.

Many are not capable of seeing such things. Yet, what is it that is so unknowable about yourself? (Many fear the dragon and few shall slay it.)

Fair enough. I think it's possible.

ALL is possible.