The Image of God

[Willamena]

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?

To know yourself is a good thing. And some actually enjoy what we call 'spiritual growth' as a fulfilling thing.

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...

Just so.

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.

No argument, there. The image is what we build a relationship to.

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

That is two synonymous phrases. It doesn't present an example dichotomy. (does it? If so, the dichotomy is meaningless to me.) A good example, though, would be the dichotomy between the meaning of a word and the thing the word is meaning. There, the dichotomy is deliberately lost in language until we purposefully restore it. "God" for example means something, and the thing it means is god; but god is not the word (auditory symbol) "god". And the Image of God is a different thing than the word "god" --the image is a metaphorical descriptor through which we understand what the word "god" means to us.

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.)

I believe that their "incapability" is merely a matter of lack of understanding and learning. This is another reason why learning about yourself is a good thing.

The self is our window on the world, a conceptual construct created by sensory perception. The unknowable self is the man behind that window, looking out.

ALL is possible.

It is, indeed.

 

[Comet]

We seem to agree on much. Yet, I know I tend to lose people as you got lost in the Monism conversation.

We just see it a bit differently, but not so different from how others view this concept.

Sometimes the best answer to a question is another question...

 

[Comet]

To know yourself is a good thing. And some actually enjoy what we call 'spiritual growth' as a fulfilling thing.

As I say as it was said, "To know thyself is to love thyself. To love thyself is to love GOD". Agreeance?

Just so.

Agreeance?

No argument, there. The image is what we build a relationship to.

Agreeance?

That is two synonymous phrases. It doesn't present an example dichotomy. (does it? If so, the dichotomy is meaningless to me.) A good example, though, would be the dichotomy between the meaning of a word and the thing the word is meaning. There, the dichotomy is deliberately lost in language until we purposefully restore it. "God" for example means something, and the thing it means is god; but god is not the word (auditory symbol) "god". And the Image of God is a different thing than the word "god" --the image is a metaphorical descriptor through which we understand what the word "god" means to us.

Is it? Doesn't it? What is language? Does the soul not speak a language that all understand? Why is it WE restore it? (A dragon by a tree?) "God" mean god by your definition? (you separated the terms) "Metaphorical descriptor through which we understand the word *** means to us". Agreeance?

Sometimes one fails to see it is a sword, while others fail to see it is a double-sided sword, most fail to see it has many points.

I believe that their "incapability" is merely a matter of lack of understanding and learning. This is another reason why learning about yourself is a good thing.

Many lack, but it makes them no less. Many learn from others, not themselves.

The self is our window on the world, a conceptual construct created by sensory perception. The unknowable self is the man behind that window, looking out.

Not so much a window, but a reflection. Unknowable is nothing that isn't easily uncovered. Depends on how one focuses the eyes.

It is, indeed

Agreed then

 

[vandervalley]

I just want to mention that some Muslims and Christians and all those who only believe in one God (for example Sikhs) criticise religions in Far East as cults that worship idols. To those people (NOTE that i said SOME muslims and christians, NOT ALL muslims and christians): look at the holy cities of yours (or the Golden temple of Sikhs). they are the biggest idols humans have ever created. So if those muslims and christians who criticises other religions worship idols; then they should also stop worshipping their holy city idols 5 times a day.

I am not against any religion but please look at yourself before criticising others.

 

[Willamena]

We seem to agree on much. Yet, I know I tend to lose people as you got lost in the Monism conversation.

Well, I'm very easily lost, too.

As I say as it was said, "To know thyself is to love thyself. To love thyself is to love GOD". Agreeance?

Yes.

Agreeance?

"Just so" is agreeance, yes.

Agreeance?

Technically, "No argument," can be read as agreeance. It also means I do not take exception to what is said.

Does the soul not speak a language that all understand?

It's not for me to say.

Why is it WE restore it? (A dragon by a tree?) "God" mean god by your definition? (you separated the terms) "Metaphorical descriptor through which we understand the word *** means to us". Agreeance?

We restore it, because we are the ones who deliberately and purposefully lose it in order to utilize words as symbols of communication. We have to take a figurative "step back" in order to talk about the symbols themselves, to separate them from their meaning. In the same manner, we should recognize that the Image of God can be separated from what god is --to each of us, in each of us, and transending each and all of us.

I might have mis-read your question earlier, as I substituted "at" for "as." Am I the same as the one who I am? Darned tootin' I am. Am I the same as all? In many contexts, yes, except one: the one who I am.

Did you mean something else by it?

Not so much a window, but a reflection. Unknowable is nothing that isn't easily uncovered. Depends on how one focuses the eyes.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Comet]

We restore it, because we are the ones who deliberately and purposefully lose it in order to utilize words as symbols of communication. We have to take a figurative "step back" in order to talk about the symbols themselves, to separate them from their meaning. In the same manner, we should recognize that the Image of God can be separated from what god is --to each of us, in each of us, and transending each and all of us.

I might have mis-read your question earlier, as I substituted "at" for "as." Am I the same as the one who I am? Darned tootin' I am. Am I the same as all? In many contexts, yes, except one: the one who I am.

Did you mean something else by it?

Some things have no words to describe them... nothing had a word to describe it till we made language. How may one talk about symbols without the language we have binded ourselves to? A step back, yes.... but so many do not understand things anymore. Do those with the ability to understand language lose this insight then???

How does one separate a symbol form its meaning? That would make it all meaningless... Why should one not wish to communicate it with others who do not understand? (inner and outer circles)

The image and what it represents are separate but bound together. To many they are the same, to others different things, to others different aspects of the same thing, and to some we would not have anything without what GOD is or what God has given us or what it is god means for us to do and learn.

I must ask: Who is it that you are? (I did mistype that as "How" instead of "Who", but that is another question...) What is the ONE?

Different strokes for different folks

Agreed....

By V V-

I just want to mention that some Muslims and Christians and all those who only believe in one God (for example Sikhs) criticise religions in Far East as cults that worship idols. To those people (NOTE that i said SOME muslims and christians, NOT ALL muslims and christians): look at the holy cities of yours (or the Golden temple of Sikhs). they are the biggest idols humans have ever created. So if those muslims and christians who criticises other religions worship idols; then they should also stop worshipping their holy city idols 5 times a day.

I am not against any religion but please look at yourself before criticising others.

An idol? I suppose some do worship a temple, church, or whatever else they have created. Most do not worship the building, but see it as a way to pay tribute to the one god they worship. They did not build it to worship it, they built it in honor of the god they worship.... to have a place for like-minded people to gather in the name of the god they worship. Pilgrimage to those places is a way of people going to a place made in the name and honor of the god to SYMBOLICALLY say they are moving to get closer to the god.

I wish to quote you again: "Then they should stop worshipping their holy city idols 5 times a day." "I am not against any religion but please look at yourself before criticising other." :help:

Take your own advise; you might be able to let go of the anger and misunderstandings you have inside you.

 

[Willamena]

Some things have no words to describe them... nothing had a word to describe it till we made language. How may one talk about symbols without the language we have binded ourselves to? A step back, yes.... but so many do not understand things anymore. Do those with the ability to understand language lose this insight then???

We can use this language, with meaning in every word, to communicate that words can be looked at apart from their meaning. That is the step back. Even things that have no words to describe them can be symbolized and communicated, as in motion or facial expression (*taps the side of her nose*). What is important is recognizing that 'the motion' and 'what the motion means' can be looked at separately as two different things, even though one is inherent in the other.

I don't think they have lost the ability for the insight, it just takes someone to show them (like learning to looking at those pattern pictures where you have to look through the picture to see the picture). There is still hope for the world.

How does one separate a symbol form its meaning? That would make it all meaningless... Why should one not wish to communicate it with others who do not understand? (inner and outer circles)

One separates a symbol from its meaning simply by recognizing the symbol as a symbol and the meaning as meaning (*nods to the Image of God*). That doesn't remove its meaning --it's still there as much as it always was --it just narrows the focus to one "dimension", so to speak, or to talking about one particular of the symbolized thing.

The image and what it represents are separate but bound together. To many they are the same, to others different things, to others different aspects of the same thing, and to some we would not have anything without what GOD is or what God has given us or what it is god means for us to do and learn.

Hence why I began this thead, to talk about an aspect of it. :yes:

I must ask: Who is it that you are? (I did mistype that as "How" instead of "Who", but that is another question...) What is the ONE?

I am myself and everything that I identify with as me. For instance, my body is part of me; my mind is part of me; if I had a child, he or she would be part of me; my expressions are a part of me; the space and moment I occupy is part of me. Etc.

 

[Comet]

like learning to looking at those pattern pictures where you have to look through the picture to see the picture). There is still hope for the world.
--it just narrows the focus to one "dimension", so to speak, or to talking about one particular of the symbolized thing.

If one does not understand the whole picture, they just merely narrow their focus to one aspect of the picture itself and think they understand it wholey (holy)...

Yes, there is always hope... but not so much for this world in a few billion years

Hence why I began this thead, to talk about an aspect of it.

I have limited dealings with you, but I have enjoyed them greatly. Narrowed focus to an aspect is not so much how I think anymore though... perhaps why we misunderstand the words spoken (writen). Good thread though!

I am myself and everything that I identify with as me. For instance, my body is part of me; my mind is part of me; if I had a child, he or she would be part of me; my expressions are a part of me; the space and moment I occupy is part of me. Etc

That is the greatest contradiction in this thread... perhaps you understand me a bit better, but not completely yet. Some view it opposite the way in which you move, though I should say both movements are the same indeed.

I do get a kick out of the first sentence in the last quote! What would God say about the images of god people create???

 

[Willamena]

I do get a kick out of the first sentence in the last quote! What would God say about the images of god people create???

I think he would think it's cool.
:beach:

 

[lilithu]

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?

I think of the story of the blindmen and the elephant. Each one only grasped a part of the elephant yet thought that he had experienced all of it.

So the one who felt the elephant's side said an elephant is like a wall.
The one who felt it's leg said that an elephant is like a tree trunk.
The one who felt it's tail said that an elephant is like a rope, etc.

Those are images of God. God is the whole elephant. We don't have to be able to see all of God to know that our conception of God is incomplete. And the distinction reminds us that our conception is incomplete.

 

[lilithu]

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

Willamena is not refering to the biblical concept. The words "image" and "God" can actually be brought together as a concept without having anything to do with the bible.

 

[lilithu]

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?

Do not confuse the finger for the moon.

Loved your post.

 

[Willamena]

Do not confuse the finger for the moon.

Loved your post.

Heh, thanks. I don't get the reference, though I can guess what it's about --is it from a story?

 

[lilithu]

Heh, thanks. I don't get the reference, though I can guess what it's about --is it from a story?

Yes, it's from the Zen tradition. I don't remember the details of the story but basically there's the finger pointing towards the moon and there's the moon itself, and the admonishment is to not confuse the thing that directs you to your goal with the goal itself.