spidergoat said:
I agree with this statement.
Last edited:
Made in the Image of god
- Thread starter audible
- Start date
I agree with this statement.
OK I'll have one last stab at it.fahrenheit 451 said:
Firstly my alleged contradiction (directed)at Audible is one of relationship not right or wrong. You can say
you CANT have free will AND be a slave
or
you CAN have free will AND be a slave
In either case a relationship is expressed between freewill and slavery.
In addition I would make a distinction between freedom and freewill. By example;
You make take way my freedom in the strongest way possible. Imprision me and bind me in chains, but this does not remove my freewill - I can still exercise my freewill by disobeying you. Even if this is only a refusal to open my eyes or to eat. I defy you with my will. You may control by body you may control my life but not my will. Will is intent, it is internal and eternal. Lack of freedom can not touch my freewill.
Last edited:
SnakeLord said:
The thing of experiential knowledge is that it is internal. It can not be expressed or taught in words, which is why it must be experienced to be known. This is why Zen Buddhism uses koans to teach. These do not impart any information in themselves, but are riddles designed to bring the student to a point of experiential realisation, and therefore gaining of knowledge.
Experiential knowledge is essentially knowledge of self - through which can possibly be gained knowledge of god. Even if I did have any, no matter how much I wished to impart it to others in words, I could not.
As to whether I do have any ......."the man who claims to surely know a thing is truly a fool"
Last edited:
meaning you have free will, but it has no association with slavery. or slavery has no connection, with free will.Light Travelling said:
meaning you have free will, and it's associated with slavery. or slavery has a direct connection, with free will.Light Travelling said:
no there is only a relationship in the second statementLight Travelling said:
the double bind as i understand it is when you dont REALIZe you are a slave and thus are stuck with the rules of what you are slave to PSYCHOLOGICALLY, and yet claim to be free, and thus cant mention the contradiction
whereas i am am FEELNG a slave under an oppressive system that oppresses many YET feel i have free will in that i can talk about it, and express emotions about how i feel about it within my being
whereas i am am FEELNG a slave under an oppressive system that oppresses many YET feel i have free will in that i can talk about it, and express emotions about how i feel about it within my being
OK, thats interesting, and ulitimately unanswerable. As I am only ever able to define my reality within the terms that I am able to comprehend it.
On the question of relationship - I cant find anyone to agree with me offline either on this, so I gues I'll admit I was wrong and change my point of view......how about that!
(I did believe I could see a mathematical relationship there, but .....maybe not....oh well)
(I did believe I could see a mathematical relationship there, but .....maybe not....oh well)
How about comparing different translations, esp. the Greek one?
I have here before me a 1584 translation of the Bible into Slovene, it was translated from the Greek and German, and the passage in question reads something like this:
"And God said: Let's make a Human, an Image/Building, that will be alike us, to rule over the /.../
And God created a Human, to His Image/Building, to God's Image/Building He made him."
The passage is hard to translate into English, but in effect, I understand it thus:
God had an idea, a concept of how to make a human. This idea or concept had the likeness with God in that they both rule: As God rules in His kingdom, Man rules over the animals.
Just reading the 1584 translation, I do not understand there to be any other specific likeness between God and man. From what I read there, I can't infer that God has legs and arms and all that that a human has.
* * *
Duendy, LightTravelling,
As for freedom and slavery:
If one lives in an environment that offers one whatever one wants -- can we call that person free?
We surely righfully object that if all that that person wishes is already available in the environment -- that then this person's wishes are not autonomous, and this person is not free.
If you wish for things that you can get anyway, are you truly freely wishing for them?
On the other hand, if one has wishes for things that aren't available in one's environment, then we can say that those wishes are autonomous, as the person has them independently of what his environment offers.
If you wish for somehting that is not available in your environment, then you are free.
Thus, a slave (potentially) has a much greater freedom in comparison to a rich spoiled brat who can get anything.
I have here before me a 1584 translation of the Bible into Slovene, it was translated from the Greek and German, and the passage in question reads something like this:
"And God said: Let's make a Human, an Image/Building, that will be alike us, to rule over the /.../
And God created a Human, to His Image/Building, to God's Image/Building He made him."
The passage is hard to translate into English, but in effect, I understand it thus:
God had an idea, a concept of how to make a human. This idea or concept had the likeness with God in that they both rule: As God rules in His kingdom, Man rules over the animals.
Just reading the 1584 translation, I do not understand there to be any other specific likeness between God and man. From what I read there, I can't infer that God has legs and arms and all that that a human has.
* * *
Duendy, LightTravelling,
As for freedom and slavery:
If one lives in an environment that offers one whatever one wants -- can we call that person free?
We surely righfully object that if all that that person wishes is already available in the environment -- that then this person's wishes are not autonomous, and this person is not free.
If you wish for things that you can get anyway, are you truly freely wishing for them?
On the other hand, if one has wishes for things that aren't available in one's environment, then we can say that those wishes are autonomous, as the person has them independently of what his environment offers.
If you wish for somehting that is not available in your environment, then you are free.
Thus, a slave (potentially) has a much greater freedom in comparison to a rich spoiled brat who can get anything.
yes your right. a rich spoilt brat sat sitting there in his hugge house and grounds and heating drives and en suite swimming pools etc and acres and acres aof land, is not REALLY free
but from that insight i woldn't rush to compare a slave As fee. of course slave isnt free. slave is tied to A thankless task and brutality
what i mean by freedom is being to live a whole life....to have to power of choice with a community of others who also have that too. to be able to learn what intersts you....to get healing you want...to eat food tha's good for you, and breeathe fresh air......and if you have childen bring them up as you see fit, for the good of the CHILD, not for the good of the warmongering fascist state, which will DRUG your child if her behaviour doesn't fit in with their agenda
ther's a saying which goes..'you only know how oppressed you are when it stops'!
but from that insight i woldn't rush to compare a slave As fee. of course slave isnt free. slave is tied to A thankless task and brutality
what i mean by freedom is being to live a whole life....to have to power of choice with a community of others who also have that too. to be able to learn what intersts you....to get healing you want...to eat food tha's good for you, and breeathe fresh air......and if you have childen bring them up as you see fit, for the good of the CHILD, not for the good of the warmongering fascist state, which will DRUG your child if her behaviour doesn't fit in with their agenda
ther's a saying which goes..'you only know how oppressed you are when it stops'!
duendy said:
Think of what it takes to *sustain* that huge house, acres and acres of land, not to mention the en suite swimming pools: to sustain that takes the work of a *slave*. And by this I don't mean the maids, gardeners, supervisers, mechanics etc. -- the richie has to have control over all of them. He is tied to a thankless task and brutality.
And? He may be tied to a "thankless task and brutality", but this does not necessarily infringe on his freedom -- unless by "freedom" you mean a cozy, soft, secure state that remains cozy, soft and secure NO MATTER WHAT.
And then what? That saying implies that in order to know freedom, one must constantly be oppressed. And when one oppression stops, another one must come, or the sense of freedom would get lost.
water said:
think of it this way 'you only know you were oppressed when it stops'...thik of the battered wife. she puts up and up with it. lesser of the two evils. she may fear the unknown of putting an end to the oppression she feels, but really is AFRAID to feel TOO much--ie., denial. so she can become like a bit of a zombie. numb......one day she gets the guts and leaves. does a runner......LATER. she realizes just HOW oppressed she was, sighs and thinks 'NEVER EVER again!'...she is free from that oppression. you don't thnk so?
The Free Will expressed by the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is exactly the same as what the Hindus express as Divinity. For Hindus, to have Divinity is simply to say that one has Intellect and Free Will (which produce intelligent emotion, and hence, that is also part of Divinity). Likewise, what is meant in the Torah, or the Biblical OT, by "Image of God" is that humans possess an intellect and free will. According to Genesis, we are made in the Image and Likeness of God. Why two distinct descriptions of what seems to be the same thing: "Image" and "Likeness"? Because the two words refer to different thinsg. All things that exist bear a likeness to God. A rock, a tree, a bear, a star, and angel, a demon, a fish, an amoeba, a computer, a blanket, etc. All things have likeness to God. Not all things, however, bear the Image of God, that is, not all things bear divinity, or Intelligence/Free Will. Hence, the meaning behind that affirmation in Genesis is that, like all things, we share a likeness to God (ie, we have existence, or we are good, or we are beautiful, etc...) but also we bear the image of God (ie, we can think, are self-aware, freely choose, are capable of love, can discern beauty, etc...).
Some might argue, then why are we said to have Human Nature, while God has Divine Nature? Don't you, by asserting that humans have Divinity, also assert that humans are Divine, or have Divine Natures? No. God has a Divine Nature because God is PURELY Divine. This means that the very essence, the very nature of what God is... is encompassed by the word, Divinity. God IS intellect and free will. The same cannot be said of us. We only bear that image, that is not what we are. We have Free will, and intellect, but we are also physical entities. I am not pure intellect and free will, but I am a freely willing creature who employs intelligence. My nature is Human, which bears divinity.
Some might argue, then why are we said to have Human Nature, while God has Divine Nature? Don't you, by asserting that humans have Divinity, also assert that humans are Divine, or have Divine Natures? No. God has a Divine Nature because God is PURELY Divine. This means that the very essence, the very nature of what God is... is encompassed by the word, Divinity. God IS intellect and free will. The same cannot be said of us. We only bear that image, that is not what we are. We have Free will, and intellect, but we are also physical entities. I am not pure intellect and free will, but I am a freely willing creature who employs intelligence. My nature is Human, which bears divinity.
hmmmmmm quite. that dogma cuts off the individual from Nature. positing to ever so pure intellectual entitiy 'up there'.....this idea is patriarchal with its ideal 'God' which us poor 'creatures' can nver REALLY feel a deep part of
with Goddess, the whole seen changes. the fabricated facade falls away and we see that Goddess Is Nature. so its not us lordin it over Nature and 'God' lording it over us....and males lordin it over females...No. we ARE Nature
the earliest 'IMAGE' found is of the Goddess!
with Goddess, the whole seen changes. the fabricated facade falls away and we see that Goddess Is Nature. so its not us lordin it over Nature and 'God' lording it over us....and males lordin it over females...No. we ARE Nature
the earliest 'IMAGE' found is of the Goddess!
beyondtimeandspace said:
I'd probably say more like - humans have the potential to be divine.
There's far too much to read in one sitting here, so I'll just post an abbreviated comment.
I think Being made in God's image simply means we have "souls". We aren't dogs or rats or any other such thing, we are "intelligent" beings with the knowledge of right and wrong (ironically given to us by Satan--thanks btw) and a conscious to do things not strictly out of instinct.
I highly doubt "made in God's image" was a literal statement, as there could only be one person on Earth that looks like God (or maybe two if there were twins). We are all very diverse, so I think we were made to have emotions similar to the big cheese's.
I think Being made in God's image simply means we have "souls". We aren't dogs or rats or any other such thing, we are "intelligent" beings with the knowledge of right and wrong (ironically given to us by Satan--thanks btw) and a conscious to do things not strictly out of instinct.
I highly doubt "made in God's image" was a literal statement, as there could only be one person on Earth that looks like God (or maybe two if there were twins). We are all very diverse, so I think we were made to have emotions similar to the big cheese's.
duendy said:
Actually, you misunderstand me, duendy. In drawing up this description of the Image of God, I did not intend to also conjure the image of severance between the different levels of the natural. Every specie, as well as every individual, has its own unique nature. According to that nature, that is how one should be and act. However, just as each individual has it's own nature, so does each part that makes up the individual have its own nature. Likewise, that which each individual is part of has its own nature. Hence, you have something like this: Atoms have Nature, Molecules have Nature of which atoms are a part, Cells have Nature or which molecules and atoms are a part, Arms have Nature of which cells, molecules and atoms are a part, Humans have Nature of which arms, cells, molecules, and atoms are a part, Planets have Nature of which humans, arms, cells, molecules, and atoms have a part, Solar Systems have Nature of which planets, humans, arms, cells, molecules and atoms are a part, Galaxies have a Nature of which solar systems, planets, humans, arms, cells, molecules and atoms have a part. The Universe has a Nature of which galaxies, solar systems, planets, humans, arms, cells, molecules, and atoms have a part.
What I mean to illustrate is that each part has it's own Nature, and each part is a part of the Nature of the whole. Hence, there is no separation between the individual and the whole, there can be none.
It is only in your interpretation that this is strictly patriarchal. God does not have Gender, hence how is it patriarchal? Humans are not separate from everything else, how is it patriarchal (though I find that description dubious at best). God is both separate and one with all, neither one nor the other, how (again I find this dubious a description, but it's according to your logic) is this patriarchal? Though I personally do not necessarily disagree with patriarchy, rest assured I do not agree with the subversion of women. There can be no life with the woman, and there can be no life without the man. Their value is equal. Yet, just as each individual plays a different role in community, due to his/her own uniqueness, also men and women, being unique from each other, play different roles. It's simply a tangled mess made ever more difficult by gender distortion to figure out. I am not up to the task, and so I do not propose what roles either gender should play. BUT, I do know that each gender has its own specific roles. This is far too obvious when you encounter the fact that only a woman can play the role of childbearer.
audible said:
Just a note. I have always thought that whoever decided to write that part about humans being created in the god's image or imagination or whatever probably shouldve been kicked in the head. Either that or lets go back to the original text and look at the translation. Either one of those or let's not go stampeding for the bandwagon on believing everything we read. Is it basic human vanity that encourages what seems like everyone to examine this passage so intensely? In the hopes that we'll somehow discover that it ok to compare us to a god? Of course it's ok! Is it that important at all (not to discredit this thread because it is an excellent thread) ? I just dont know. Yknow? Life is short. Does anyone else believe in creating a priority list of questions to answer in this lifetime?> ::smiles sweetly:: Carry on.
....it would be cool to say that Nature and universe (prepatriarchs see 'Nature' and 'universe' as 'cosmos'--ie., not separate from each other--obviously) are in IMAGe of Goddess and vice versa. then we dont get this patriarchal assertion that only HUMANS are. and from there the silly fkers who blieve that go on to think they are a-part from Nature and can dominate it and one-up it, and begin the sytematic desacrilization and trahing of it as can be seen now
rather we=Nature. we ARe Nature. if water is posioned so am we. most of what we Are Is water.....our skins BREATHE.....oxygen, which Trees and plants breathe out, and breathe our carbon dioxide in........we are all interelated as a evolutionary dynamic Intelligent pattern
so, rather go study the divisiv beliefs that arose that claimed this was wrong and we were now to believe we were 'imprisoned' In Nature. for its beliefs such as that you get the idea of the separate 'designer' whose 'image' you are. which usually in thier myth denigrates BODY, Woman, and Nature and deifies the male, 'spirit' and the 'mind/intellect/reason', 'God' and 'his' 'Word'
rather we=Nature. we ARe Nature. if water is posioned so am we. most of what we Are Is water.....our skins BREATHE.....oxygen, which Trees and plants breathe out, and breathe our carbon dioxide in........we are all interelated as a evolutionary dynamic Intelligent pattern
so, rather go study the divisiv beliefs that arose that claimed this was wrong and we were now to believe we were 'imprisoned' In Nature. for its beliefs such as that you get the idea of the separate 'designer' whose 'image' you are. which usually in thier myth denigrates BODY, Woman, and Nature and deifies the male, 'spirit' and the 'mind/intellect/reason', 'God' and 'his' 'Word'
If humans were created as physical models of god, then god would look like primative humans: knuckle-dragging, dirty, without language, with only minimal consciousness and self awareness,just barely able to use tools etc. and probably completely devoid of any sort of spiritual awareness. We werent created looking like or thinking like modern humans by a longshot. It would suggest that what god by nature is is intensely primative. I consider that to be very possible, god is primal, like crystaline spiral onward to dna, and little more. Perhaps we are actually the highest measure of any sort of consciousness, just following absurd unseen mathematical improbabilities rising and falling upon themselves( ourselves) to a logical spiraling end; realization of the whole picture somehow thru evolved consciousness. We are the embodiment of an ever evolving god that is the collective "Us and Everything". huh?