Made in the Image of god

Original sin is seperation from God, that is why we are "born into sin", we are born in seperation from God.

God is a spritual being. When it is said we are made in the image of God that means that we are spiritual beings too. This is a clue left for us to discover our true nature, which is in spirit. The physical form is only temporary and not a true representation of our real selves.

Perfection is not achievable in physical form but only in spiritual. We have the potential to be perfect, which we may or may not fulfill, but we can only go so far in physical form. The perfecting (reuniting with God and ending the seperation) can only be completely achieved after the physical form is done with.
 
Last edited:
so as I gaver we've come from salvery only to return to slavery.
why would a god label it's children with sin as soon as they are born thats evil.
 
audible said:
What does god look like?

I ask the question because the first chapter of the book of Genesis boldly declares that we are made in the image of god. We human beings, that is; we are made in the likeness of god.
what does that mean as far as we know god is non-carporial, supernatural, do we take it to mean that physically and literally our bodies have the shape and form of god,so why does he need eyes or a mouth a nose or any limbs?.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

or do we take it as symbolically and poetically to mean that our nature and disposition as humans imitates and displays the very nature and disposition of god.

And if we human beings are made in the image of god, do we really bear from our conception and birth the taint of Original Sin -- that curse thought up by early churchmen to explain the obvious and widespread presence of evil and wickedness, the unlikeness to God, among many humans? Does the image of God contain original sin?

if we are to believe it to be a symbolical and poetical image then is this where the hatred for others stems?.

In the beginning, god created human beings in god's own image. No, said the Christians; only Christians are created in that image. Heathens and pagans and heretics and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians do not bear the image of our (Christian) God. And so we may attack and persecute and suppress and forcibly convert them. And even today, centuries after the raids of the Teutonic Knights and the military conquests in Spain and the Americas and the conflicts with Islam and the work of the Inquisition, some fundamentalist Christians hold the view that only the image of the satan is to be seen in millions of their fellow human beings who hold faiths different from their own.
Click to expand...


i think a general rule in reading the nt and especially the ot is to read things as far from literally as possible.
 
Exactly.

Why do people not want to expand their outlook any further than what they can see and touch.

Why are our perceived selves limited to what we can see and touch. When we are so much larger.

Is God a supernatural being? then so are we. Does this mean our legs are supernatural? of course not.

Do we have souls do we have spirits - if so it is in this portion of ourselves that we are in Gods image.

As to the question of why there is wickness in the world. Well there has to be for anything to exist. If there were no duality there would only be good, only be light, only be God. With no terms of reference, we would not know what any of these things were. For us to know good, evil must exist otherwise everything is the same and means nothing.

OT also says God created man from clay and breathed life giving spirit in him. i.e. there is no life without spirit and the part of god that is in man is the spiritual part.
 
audible said:
why would a god label it's children with sin as soon as they are born thats evil.
Click to expand...

This does not make sense to you because you start from a false premise. You assume that we are first given life when we are born physically. This is not true, we are given life first spiritually - in this way when we are 'born' spiritually we are born in Gods image and free of sin. By the time we end up in physcal incarnation, yes we are physically born into sin, but this happens through our own doings not because God insists on it.

God gives us free will, and he allows this to run its course. If he does not, creation ceases to have meaning, becuse if God directs everything then everything is predetermined - so may as well press fast forward to end of time as it is all forgone conclusion anyway.

God will send messengers, signs and teachings to help but will never directly interfere with free will, as it negates point of creation.

Everything will make sense when considered from a spiritual point of view, nothing will make complete sesnse without it.
 
Light Travelling said:
This does not make sense to you because you start from a false premise. You assume that we are first given life when we are born physically. This is not true, we are given life first spiritually - in this way when we are 'born' spiritually we are born in Gods image and free of sin. By the time we end up in physcal incarnation, yes we are physically born into sin, but this happens through our own doings not because God insists on it.

God gives us free will, and he allows this to run its course. If he does not, creation ceases to have meaning, becuse if God directs everything then everything is predetermined - so may as well press fast forward to end of time as it is all forgone conclusion anyway.

God will send messengers, signs and teachings to help but will never directly interfere with free will, as it negates point of creation.

Everything will make sense when considered from a spiritual point of view, nothing will make complete sesnse without it.
Click to expand...

sorry no it's not a false premise, because I live in the real world, to see it your way I must first become delusional, and then enter the realms of fantasy.

could you please give me some prove, to your assertions thank you.

I repeat you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.

so for it to make sense, I first need to be on drugs, drunk, out of my head, halucinating Ie delusional.
 
As to the question of why there is wickness in the world. Well there has to be for anything to exist. If there were no duality there would only be good, only be light, only be God. With no terms of reference, we would not know what any of these things were.
Click to expand...

Wait up.. Isn't the very image conjured up by christians an afterlife without any evil etc? But then according to your statement it couldn't exist.
 
but if we give up the premise 'god' for a mo--with all that particular myth entails like 'all-good' and transcendental and creator/designer/craftsman, and substitute Goddess. then it is seen that the belief in Goddess is utterly different. THE source of good and evil, light and dark, death and life.......THe body of earth, Nature and the universe, and source as creatrix, or womb where the creation comes withIN, rather than a designer from without
Then to be in her image would be all that. which is what we are right. you must see that----especially you scients. can any of you truly say--not eeven needing verification from the scientific methodthat you can not be both good and bad, and that the world isn't both dark and light?
 
audible said:
sorry no it's not a false premise, because I live in the real world, to see it your way I must first become delusional, and then enter the realms of fantasy.

could you please give me some prove, to your assertions thank you.

I repeat you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.

so for it to make sense, I first need to be on drugs, drunk, out of my head, halucinating Ie delusional.
Click to expand...


This is philosophy, metaphysics, theory and hypothesis. I believe religion should stand up to rational argument and analysis. But not absolute proof - lets leave proof to the chemistry boys shall we.

A slave, by definifition is forced to do something. Everything I do, I do because I want to. Nobody forces me.
Every day I have a choice to follow God or not to. I choose to follow, at any time I could choose not to, but I dont becuase I want to - this is not slavery. A slave does something because they are forced to against their wishes.

Your in the illusion now, but you cant see it cos your delusional!!
 
SnakeLord said:
Wait up.. Isn't the very image conjured up by christians an afterlife without any evil etc? But then according to your statement it couldn't exist.
Click to expand...
OK then, to put it in more scientific terms;

In the begginning there was god, god was everything and nothing existed that was not god.
As there was only god, god could not know himself.

God desired to know himself.

He drew a space within himself creating a vacuum that was not god. There exists duality and good and evil.

Millions of small portions of god (gods children) went out into the void that was not god. To experience duality and thereby come to know god through knowing what is not god.

Eventually the portions of god will identify more and more with god until through experience they reach a point and realise they are of god and therefore will return to god.

On returning to god, the knowledge of the experience of what is not god is retained (although within god the actually duality is not). So the position is different from that at the start.

Eventually all of god will return to god, the void will collapse and there will be only god again.


note 1. I do not necessarily talk from a christain point of view, although I do believe in the teachings of Jesus, I think the traditional christian church has misinterpreted many of these.

note 2. We may talk about being from god and have theoretical knowledge of that, but this is different to experiential knowledge of being from god. Experience being the only way true knowledge can be gained.

note 3. I call god 'himself', but god is neither male or female for this requires duality.
 
Light Travelling said:
audible said:
sorry no it's not a false premise, because I live in the real world, to see it your way I must first become delusional, and then enter the realms of fantasy.

could you please give me some prove, to your assertions thank you.

I repeat you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.

so for it to make sense, I first need to be on drugs, drunk, out of my head, halucinating Ie delusional.
Click to expand...

This is philosophy, metaphysics, theory, and hypothesis. I believe religion should stand up to rational argument and analysis. But not absolute proof - lets leave proof to the chemistry boys shall we.
Click to expand...
no it's not philosophy, however it is metaphysical, and theoretical and most certainly an hypothesis. religion cannot hold up to rational argument and analysis, hence why I ask for some prove. and the chemistry boys could'nt help to much anyway.
light said:
A slave, by definifition is forced to do something. Everything I do, I do because I want to. Nobody forces me.
Every day I have a choice to follow God or not to. I choose to follow, at any time I could choose not to, but I dont becuase I want to - this is not slavery. A slave does something because they are forced to against their wishes.
Click to expand...
no that is not quite correct

slave
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient( Subordinate in capacity or function, Obsequious; servile, Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.)to a specified person or influence:
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

light said:
Your in the illusion now, but you cant see it cos your delusional!!
Click to expand...
there are not errors in my reality, I can touch, smell, see, hear, taste, and in my reality I can move in three dimensions, I dont hold false beliefs.

delusional,
1.A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.


light said:
OK then, to put it in more scientific terms;
In the beginning there was god, god was everything and nothing existed that was not god.
As there was only god, god could not know himself.
God desired to know himself.
He drew a space within himself creating a vacuum that was not god. There exists duality and good and evil.
Millions of small portions of god (gods children) went out into the void that was not god. To experience duality and thereby come to know god through knowing what is not god.
Eventually the portions of god will identify more and more with god until through experience they reach a point and realise they are of god and therefore will return to god.
On returning to god, the knowledge of the experience of what is not god is retained (although within god the actually duality is not). So the position is different from that at the start.
Eventually all of god will return to god, the void will collapse and there will be only god again.
Click to expand...
how is that putting it in scientific terms, should of read more religious terms.
that's just dreamland, nothing scientific about it.
 
audible said:
no it's not philosophy, however it is metaphysical, and theoretical and most certainly an hypothesis. religion cannot hold up to rational argument and analysis, hence why I ask for some prove. and the chemistry boys could'nt help to much anyway.
no that is not quite correct

slave
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient( Subordinate in capacity or function, Obsequious; servile, Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.)to a specified person or influence:
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.


there are not errors in my reality, I can touch, smell, see, hear, taste, and in my reality I can move in three dimensions, I dont hold false beliefs.

delusional,
1.A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.


how is that putting it in scientific terms, should of read more religious terms.
that's just dreamland, nothing scientific about it.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point. Yesterday you stated "I repeat you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.". I argue that I do have free will and am therefore not a slave.
You now seem to be saying that being a slave has no relationship with free will, and to be a slave I simply have to be subservient or subordinate to god. If your definition of slave is sub servience then yes I serve God therefore I am a slave - but my point is still valid, that I do this of free will. So your original statement "you cant have free will and be a slave to a god." is proved wrong by both yours and my arguments.

Do you argue that a religious person has free will or that they dont? you seem to be arguing both points.

I'm sorry, is there proof that god does not exist? Is there proof that we have no soul? I would love to see this proof. Is there invalidating evidence to proove nothing exists outside of the 5 physical senses. I would love to see this proof!

By the way, lack of proof in one side of an argument does not automatically proove the other side.
 
Light Travelling said:
What exactly is your point. Yesterday you stated "I repeat you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.". I argue that I do have free will and am therefore not a slave.
You now seem to be saying that being a slave has no relationship with free will, and to be a slave I simply have to be subservient or subordinate to god. If your definition of slave is sub servience then yes I serve God therefore I am a slave - but my point is still valid, that I do this of free will. So your original statement "you cant have free will and be a slave to a god." is proved wrong by both yours and my arguments.
Click to expand...
no I disagree it's been proved right.
you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.
being a slave to a god, has no relationship with free will.
Light Travelling said:
Do you argue that a religious person has free will or that they dont? you seem to be arguing both points.
Click to expand...
no only one, and it's obvious which is'nt it.
you may want to visit here. (more on your aledged free will)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40065
Light Travelling said:
I'm sorry, is there proof that god does not exist? Is there proof that we have no soul? I would love to see this proof. Is there invalidating evidence to proove nothing exists outside of the 5 physical senses. I would love to see this proof!
Click to expand...
I dont assert that there is a god, the onus is on you , it is not for me to prove non-existence thats blatently obvious, it would be stupid to try.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

light said:
By the way, lack of proof in one side of an argument does not automatically proove the other side.
Click to expand...
no however, it certainly makes that others sides arguement more convincing.
 
"And that is just the paradox of the situation: society gives us the idea that the mind or ego is inside the skin and that it acts on its own apart from society.
Here, then, is a major contradiction in the rules of the social game. The members of the game are to play AS IF they were independent agents, but they are not to KNOW that they are just playing as if! It is explicit in the rules that the individual is self-determining, but implicit that he is only so by virtue of the rules. Furthermore, while he is defined as an independent agent, he must not be so independent as not to submit to the rules which define him.
Thus he is defined as an agent in order to be held responsible to the group for "his" actions. The rules of the game confer independence and take it away at the same time, without revealing the contradiction." (WATTS, Psychotherapy East and West)
 
audible said:
no I disagree it's been proved right.
you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.
being a slave to a god, has no relationship with free will.
1. you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.
2. Being a slave to a god, has no relationship with free will.

These two sentences contradict each other. The first sentance clearly has the relationship NOT AND. The second sentance tries to deny this.

You keep repeating sentance 1. but give no rational argument to support it. I make the statement "I choose to become a slave of god", I could equally make the statement "I choose to become the slave of a factory owner". In either case freewill and slavery are implicit in my statement and intentions, and any slave will always have freewill to disobey his master, even if the disobeyal has consequences.

Anyway I will transfer any future discusions on freewill to the thread you suggest above, as we digress from the man in the image of god.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Light Travelling said:
audible said:
no I disagree it's been proved right.
you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.
being a slave to a god, has no relationship with free will.
Click to expand...

1. you cant have free will and be a slave to a god.
2. Being a slave to a god, has no relationship with free will.

These two sentences contradict each other. The first sentance clearly has the relationship NOT AND. The second sentance tries to deny this.

You keep repeating sentance 1. but give no rational argument to support it. I make the statement "I choose to become a slave of god", I could equally make the statement "I choose to become the slave of a factory owner". In either case freewill and slavery are implicit in my statement and intentions, and any slave will always have freewill to disobey his master, even if the disobeyal has consequences.

Anyway I will transfer any future discusions on freewill to the thread you suggest above, as we digress from the man in the image of god.
Click to expand...

firstly let me say hello to you and welcome you here.
I know this is off topic , but I do agree with audible.
I cant see a contradiction.

IE: 1. you cant have free will and be a slave .(your not free therefore no free will)
2. Being a slave, has no relationship with free will.(therefore being a slave has no connection or association, with free will as your not free) as I said I see no contradiction.
 
OK then, to put it in more scientific terms;

In the begginning there was god, god was everything and nothing existed that was not god.
As there was only god, god could not know himself.

God desired to know himself.

He drew a space within himself creating a vacuum that was not god. There exists duality and good and evil.

Millions of small portions of god (gods children) went out into the void that was not god. To experience duality and thereby come to know god through knowing what is not god.

Eventually the portions of god will identify more and more with god until through experience they reach a point and realise they are of god and therefore will return to god.

On returning to god, the knowledge of the experience of what is not god is retained (although within god the actually duality is not). So the position is different from that at the start.

Eventually all of god will return to god, the void will collapse and there will be only god again.


note 1. I do not necessarily talk from a christain point of view, although I do believe in the teachings of Jesus, I think the traditional christian church has misinterpreted many of these.

note 2. We may talk about being from god and have theoretical knowledge of that, but this is different to experiential knowledge of being from god. Experience being the only way true knowledge can be gained.

note 3. I call god 'himself', but god is neither male or female for this requires duality.
Click to expand...

A) While very interesting, it has nothing to do with what I said.

B) You don't seriously believe all that 'duality' crap do you?

C) You mention 'experience'. Tell me, what experience of god, or as being from god, do you have?
 
I would consider in God's image to mean something like a fractal structure, being self-similar at all scales. The whole is God, and you and I are small portions of the larger pattern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top