In His own image

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
JMScoopy said:


if i wanted to be a smartass, id've come up with something better than that.

You are dead-on admitting to being the smart ass, and that's across the boards as I've read your other posts.

FYI I do believe in evolution.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In His own image

LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Why would believing in a god exclude someone from believing in evolution? I'm a Christian and believe in evolution :shrug:

I didn't mind your original comment since the thread starter asked for personal opinions, which yours was, but this evolution comment lacks sense.

I agree. I'm also a Christian who believes in evolution. In fact, I think evolution is such an amazing thing that only God could have done it.
 
I once said in another post that the very idea of God is unscientific (i.e. unprovable using the scientific method). I don't believe in God because of scientific facts, and I think any believer that has to get the approval of the scientific method to justify their belief is going to find themselves way in over their head.

Science has its place, and religion has its place. When people (coming from either direction--the believers who try to use science to bolster their faith, or those who do not believe who denigrate faith because it's not scientific) try to mix the two there is always trouble.

Creationism is as unscientific as belief in God, so I think believers like myself can choose to accept a literal account of Creation--acknowledging that science does not support such an account--(as I do) or they can choose to believe in a kind of God ordained evolution (as some other posters here do). Either way, I think is fine. I'm not sure the issue is as critical as all that.

As for those who think the Bible is a crock and don't believe in God, I'm not sure why you'd want to get involved in this discussion at all. Certainly, if you do, I'd at least ask that you be respectful. I'm not a Buddhist but you won't find me weighing in on Buddhist discussions to make fun of Buddha. I'm not an aethist but I'm not going to weigh in on aethist discussions to mock them.

Having said that I have a question for serious posters in this thread:

I agree with just about everyone's take on "In His Image"--the character, the free will, the relationship, the ability to make moral choices, etc.

But, for those of you that know Hebrew, what do you make of Gen. 1:27 "in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them"

Could that imply that masculine and feminine together make up the totality of who God is? While definitely not orthodox Christianity (and I'm about as orthodox as they come, if you hadn't noticed), I've always wondered if there might be a feminine aspect to God.
 
Since this is a U2 forum, I might also add that I think U2 has flirted with this idea of a "feminine" aspect to the Christian God. For example the "The First Time" could be read as describing the Christian concept of the trinity--"I've got a lover" The Holy Spirit,
"I've got a brother"--Jesus, and "My father is a rich man"--The Father.
 
maycocksean said:


But, for those of you that know Hebrew, what do you make of Gen. 1:27 "in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them"

Could that imply that masculine and feminine together make up the totality of who God is? While definitely not orthodox Christianity (and I'm about as orthodox as they come, if you hadn't noticed), I've always wondered if there might be a feminine aspect to God.

Yes, Yes! congratulation, that's a HUGE point you've made here....
that's all right...God HAS a feminine aspect, actually, He is beyond the genders since He created them so it's impossible to say that, but in much of chrstian Africa, well God is represented as a Mother rather than a Father...so it's definately strongly feminine and it's not absolutely anti-orthodox to say that...
and yes, also the second point you're right: when a man and a woman goes toghether, they're much much more similar to God...
It's referred to the mystery of giving life, of giving birth of a child...
It's love that really PRODUCE something...you see? someone said that having a child is the closest you can go to "help God in making a Miracle" and I'm sure that anyone who is father or mother here understand what I'm saying...you breakthru the conception of the ego and you get to start thinking as a "we", as "our"....
when a man loves a woman truly, and from their Love something is born....well you' re really in grace with God and He's with yo. He's thankful for what you've done for Him...:wink:
 
maycocksean said:


But, for those of you that know Hebrew, what do you make of Gen. 1:27 "in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them"

Could that imply that masculine and feminine together make up the totality of who God is?

Absolutely! I always find it hilarious when folks want to assign a gender to God.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Absolutely! I always find it hilarious when folks want to assign a gender to God.

Exactly - the gender terms referencing God are those He has asked us to use to describe Him - not the projection of our own human qualities (of gender) upon Him.
 
tommyvill said:



It's referred to the mystery of giving life, of giving birth of a child...
It's love that really PRODUCE something...you see? someone said that having a child is the closest you can go to "help God in making a Miracle" and I'm sure that anyone who is father or mother here understand what I'm saying...you breakthru the conception of the ego and you get to start thinking as a "we", as "our"....
when a man loves a woman truly, and from their Love something is born....well you' re really in grace with God and He's with yo. He's thankful for what you've done for Him...:wink:

Interesting ideas, tommyvill . .I always felt that the ultimate result of love was the creation of life.
 
Even St. Augustine didn't believe God had a gender. He just thought "He" was a figure of speech. I sure as hell don't believe God has a gender. That would be a limitation, and God doesn't have limitations.
 
I'm a little confused by the vague question... Do you mean, does he then embody ourselves or look like us?
 
maycocksean said:
But, for those of you that know Hebrew, what do you make of Gen. 1:27 "in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them"
Other than the problems with the English "image" as a translation for tselem mentioned above, I personally wouldn't take this passage (in either language) to imply that the "male/female" clause is meant to modify the "image" clause, nor was I ever taught in Hebrew school to see it that way. Rather it's a separate and distinct assertion that both sexes were created at once, so as to enable fulfillment of the commandment mentioned in the immediately following verse: "be fertile and increase." Remember, Biblical Hebrew doesn't really use "sentences" or punctuation, so you have to be careful about projecting the somewhat arbitrary grammatical structures necessary for English translation onto it. Also keep in mind that Genesis 1 comes from a wholly different source than Genesis 2-3, where both the creation of sexes and the God's role in that are presented far more anthropomorphically.

It is true, however, that later Jewish commentaries, in the Talmud and particularly in the Kabbalistic (Jewish mystical) texts, sometimes examine this passage in light of the concept of shekhinah, a tough-to-explain and varyingly nuanced term that *can* carry--in a mystical and allegorical way--implications of a divine "feminine." Shekhinah is somewhat similar to Christian concepts like logos or the Holy Spirit--not so much in the abstract "trinitarian" sense, as in the sense seen in, e.g., the John the Baptist narrative or the speaking in tongues story, where the Holy Spirit is portrayed as an extraordinary means by which God is made more tangibly perceptible to humans on certain occasions and for certain purposes. (For OT examples think the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, etc.) In Kabbalah especially, the shekhinah is often seen as "feminine" and sometimes gets tied into common Kabbalistic metaphors for God's relationship to creation as one between dispersed showers of sparks (=creation) and their source (=God). In this particular understanding of the metaphor, the sparks are conceived of as "feminine", their source as "masculine," and the ongoing process of creation as one through which they seek to be reunited through the help of the human task of tikkun olam, the healing and repairing of a shattered cosmos through the power of moral choice and action.

Of course this isn't very "orthodox" from a Jewish standpoint either; it's highly mystical, and almost "Eastern" in the way in which it treats the divine as a "force" simultaneously distinct from and part of the the physical world, rather than as a "personal God" with overt intentionality, character, desires, etc. But it is a lovely way to think about God's relationship to humans, IMHO.
 
Yolland,

Thanks for your informative reply. I can see how the placement of punctuation could make a difference in what's implied.

Funny thing about orthodoxy. I'm not sure it always adds up to being right.

This is how I feel about how much we can know about God. I believe that the ordinary person can learn enough about God from the Scriptures (even with all of our modern misinterpretations, especially for the vast majority of people who don't know the original languages in which it was written) to understand what he wants out of us (to love one another etc), to understand how he feels about us (He loves us), and to establish a trusting relationship with Him. Beyond that, there is much, MUCH, that we may be getting "wrong", not understanding, or simply don't know about God.

I think as long as we acknowledge those limitations we're okay. On the other hand people who claim to have the final word on every aspect of who God is. . .well, I'm growing increasing skeptical of that.
 
Now, a further question. As a Christian, am I obligated to accept any other Biblical authority other than the Gospels--and even then, more than the teachings of Jesus? Are they not sufficient?

(Crusader may, as he has in the past, make the argument that if I do not accept the rest of the Bible, why accept the "red words"? And that's not a bad logical argument and I have no answer to that logically. So for the sake of discussion, assume I accept the "red words" on faith, but I do not believe that all of the Bible speaks with authority.)

I'm just curious as to what others believe.
 
BonosSaint said:
Now, a further question. As a Christian, am I obligated to accept any other Biblical authority other than the Gospels--and even then, more than the teachings of Jesus? Are they not sufficient?

(Crusader may, as he has in the past, make the argument that if I do not accept the rest of the Bible, why accept the "red words"? And that's not a bad logical argument and I have no answer to that logically. So for the sake of discussion, assume I accept the "red words" on faith, but I do not believe that all of the Bible speaks with authority.)

I'm just curious as to what others believe.

Depends on what you mean by "accept." In terms of accepting that the entire Bible is God's message to us, the "Word of God" if you will, then I think yes, it would only be consistent to accept all and not pick and choose. There are those that will argue: "Well, the church fathers picked and chose, and got rid of stuff like the Gnostic Gospels etc. Why can't I?" My best answer to that would be that as Christians (at leat if you're Protestant--Catholics might add church authority as well) the Bible is the foundation of our faith. It's the sourcebook. What we accept on faith is that God somehow over the millenia has guided in what has been "accepted" as part of the canon. Unless we claim direct "instruction" from God to add or subtract from it (as say Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, did), we aren't in a position to pick and choose.

But I think there is a LOT of room inside of that "accepting" the whole Bible as the "Word of God." Does that mean that everything in the Bible is literally true or happened exactly as described? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's crucial that any Christian accept one "orthodox" interpretation of things like whether the Flood was worldwide etc.

For example, when I was a kid, I'd read in the Bible I'd read where they'd say things like "the children of Israel raised an alter to the LORD, and it is still there today" (not an exact quote by a long shot, but you get the idea) and I would think, "wow, it's still there!" Of course, it's not (though maybe it was at the time of that scripture's writing). And I think most Christian readers of the Bible understand this. So when the scripture talks about the "whole world" knowing about something it's not actually the "whole world." And when scripture says the "sun stood still" the sun didn't actually stand still. So at this point, it becomes how far do you take this? That's up to each Christian to decide using their own common sense and trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity is essentially about accepting Jesus as God and Savior. Beyond that I think there is a lot of wiggle room.

I think Jesus would support accepting the value, validity, and authority (to a degree) of the entire Bible. You know all that "I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it" and so on.
 
I appreciate your articulate and thoughtful responses, both here and earlier in this thread.
 
BonosSaint said:
I appreciate your articulate and thoughtful responses, both here and earlier in this thread.

Thanks! I always enjoy these discussions.
 
I have problems with god creating us in his image especialy when i think the god is ( supposed ) love. If god is love, why did he created hell ? Or did we created hell ?( because we like to punish people for what they do )

If god created hell, we are more like god than i want to be.

Personaly, i don`think i have a responsibillity before god because he did not created the same conditions for everyone,....i have responsibillity before other ( weaker ) people, nature ( even without the discusion global warming, yes or no ) and freedom of the free will. ( i am not a dictator ). What God decide to with me, i will find out myself.
 
Rono said:
I have problems with god creating us in his image especialy when i think the god is ( supposed ) love. If god is love, why did he created hell ? Or did we created hell ?( because we like to punish people for what they do )

I think this is a really good question, and I think Christians would do well to think about this.

I'm a Christian but I don't believe in eternal hell.

I know there are scriptures that seem to suggest the existence of such a thing, but there are other scriptures that would argue against it. Weighing the two and factoring in my belief that God IS a God of love, I conclude that there is no everlasting torment in hell.

I can comprehend a God of love "destroying the wicked" (for to leave them to live forever apart from his goodness--per their choice-- WOULD be hell). I cannot comprehend or accept a God of love roasting people on a spit (or any other kind of suffering) for a week, or a year, or 100 much less forever. I mean when you really, really think about it that's just crazy! Sick!

The doctrine of hell is one of the worst theologies ever developed by mankind (or the devil, if you believe in such) and foisted on the world.
 
Have you ever read Dante's "Inferno"? Good Lord, the things he put in his Hell! He was a great poet but I think a tortured soul. It might be cruel to expect anything else to someone who'd been kicked out of his home town on pain of execution, but that thing gave me the creeps.
 
Well the question about hell and God have been seriously discussed thruout the centuries, and many answer have been given.
The one I prefer is tha evil, hell devils and all the negative things are not created by God, but they are not-being, they are because God, in order to mantain free will (that is the GREATEST gift we have since make us conscious or selfconscious and responsible for what we do, autonomous) "retired" himself a while to let us be free...
this freedom is where the evils hides itself, it's the only place it can be...
but we have the chance to get close to God if we want, to get close to the Love, and when we do, we no longer fear evils...we no longer fear at all!
This freedom is actually made to make the love for God stronger....which kind of love is stronger than the FREE one? You FREELY choose to love Him, nothing force you to, and so it's the stronger, the purest kind of love...but this freedom may be misinterpreted and let you fall in the jails of sins blinding your eyes to the lights that your eyes are made to see...it's a matter of choose...
do you want the light of the shadows of no hope?
seen this way the choice is almost obvious, but in reality we are confused since we all are born in the original sin and we are all followers of the grea mistificator, that in the cristian tradition is the devil...
The ideas of evil as "not-being" is created by st. augustine, and the idea of a "retiring God" is from jewish scholars...
but also if you remember the devil
himself FREELY choose to rebel against God, so he volontarly created a distance between he and God...and still now he works in the free will area, illuding and creating hallucinations or inducted needs that make us feels unhappy and incomplete while actually WE ARE.... but there's another way of using the free will that let us be happy...just choose a direction...closer or further to God? God loves too much his creature, and respect them too much to cancel the free will or bloc a decision that we choose...even if it's wrong...just as a smart daddy would do...at the end, everything turns out to be allright since he is stronger and more powerful than we are...but we still are free to be wrong, so that when we are right we really are respinsible and really can be HAPPY...
 
verte76 said:
Have you ever read Dante's "Inferno"?

he's our biggest poet, no doubt...
I absolute love him and just listening to his verse...they're pure music...
believe me...
if you got a chance to listen to them in italian, do!
it's actually a wonderful experience...
you actually can feel the words going through yopur body and caressing you....
i don't know how to describe it but...
 
tommyvill said:
they are because God, in order to mantain free will (that is the GREATEST gift we have since make us conscious or selfconscious and responsible for what we do, autonomous)

Agreed. But what kind of free will is there for those who are forced to roast in eternity in hell?
 
nbcrusader said:


One word: Jesus

Are you saying that those in hell can choose to accept Christ at any time be "sprung" from torment?

If so, I'd imagine hell would empty out pretty fast. "One the one hand I can stay here and be tortured for eternity or I can accept Jesus and end the pain. " Not much of a choice there.

Again what kind of God, says "Choose my Son, Jesus or rot in hell?"


What bugs me about the doctrine of eternal torment is the intentionality of it. God is keeping these people alive to suffer, to what end?

Choosing the sleep of death (i.e. an unconscious state of non-existance), the "destruction", over having to live in heaven under God's law of love. Well, now that's a choice. As I understand it, God is love. God is life. Apart from God there can be no life, no love. For a created being to live apart from God would mean that God would have to "artificially" keep that person living. And to live apart from God, in an existence devoid of love. . well, that would be hell. (One could argue you that Satan and his devils live hell. . .but even for them it won't be eternal). Is it possible to have love apart from God who is the essence of love. No? So the choice is simple. Live under God's law of love or don't live at all. Because the "don't live at all" does not involve unending, psychic and physical torment, then we have an actual choice.

No one should be a Christian because they are afraid of hell. And Christians should NEVER try scare people into faith through threatening them with hell. No relationship built on fear is sound or healthy, including a relationship with God.
 
maycocksean said:


No one should be a Christian because they are afraid of hell. And Christians should NEVER try scare people into faith through threatening them with hell. No relationship built on fear is sound or healthy, including a relationship with God.

Fear is all they got

that is why they are not living fully realized lives now.
 
Well we just don't know what the hell is hell....
eeheheh!!!sorry for the joke, i couldn't resist... but still we cannot understand what hell is...everyone has had the chance of free will in life, and if they choose not to live for love, well they decided by themselves to go to hell, to remain faraway from god, ok?
I actually think that it's the greatest freedom of all to choose not to believe in God (i'm not referring to atheist here, but to the ones who doesn't believe in love, i mean god as love...)...and referring to my personal thought, life here it's enough hard for everyone, i think that hell is empty right now, and probably will be, since the glory of God it's just too big compared to the evils made...he has mercy toward everyone at the end...
 
Back
Top Bottom