Literally in the Image of God

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _mentalgymnast »

SteelHead wrote:Image of god? Does god have an appendix? A coccyx?

Does He have to get a haircut now and then? Wash His clothes?

Saying that God is in our image/form doesn't mean that he has a physical body such as ours...carbon based. He may be a being of light/energy that has no real basis for comparison within this carbon based world that we live in. Except to say that He may be in a form/image that we would recognize as similar to ours.

That was Joseph's witness. Although I don't think he fully realized what he was encountering at the time...except that the beings were human in image/form.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _SteelHead »

When literally in the form of god, isn't. We have mg.

For everything else there is MasterCard.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _Meadowchik »

Guys, you've all completely ignored the single most important thing about religion. Evolution? Apes? The need for Multiverses? Pshaw.

You forgot about MAGIC. God doesn't have to follow laws. Is there a gap between reality and what you want? If all you need to fill or fulfill that gap is a strong idea, then god-it!

Seriously, though, it's obvious that Joseph was ignorant of the real theistic condundrums discovered by philisophers over the ages. He offered easy fixes to cosmology which unravel at the slightest intellectual handling. This makes it no surprise that Mormon society is so tightly knit with churching. Something has to hold it all together.
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _MsJack »

Maksutov wrote:It's interesting because religionists sometimes criticize humanists for making humans the measure of all things...yet isn't that what this argument amounts to? :wink:

Most religious people don't hold that "image of God" means "we physically resemble God" though. Mormons are some of the only members of the Judeo-Christian world who think God the Father has a human body and, therefore, "image of God" means looking like him.

There are three major interpretations of "image of God" in Christian theology:

The substantive view --- We share some definite characteristic with God. While Mormonism is a variation of this, the most traditional and widespread Christian view holds that "image of God" means the ability to reason.

The relational view --- The image of God is the experiencing of relationships, just as God experiences relationship in Trinity.

The functional view --- The image of God is the ability to "exercise dominion" over creation and rule in God's stead.

I personally believe in the functional view myself.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

So. Basically the word "image" means whatever you want it to mean, and 'God' is thus formed by whatever narrative you create in order for It to exist.

In other words, we're back to playing fast and loose with definitions and the language we're using to describe God is essentially gibberish.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _Uncle Ed »

"...Have ye received his image in your countenances?..."

It's obvious that Mormon theology is far more complex in its implied facets than a facile "physical body" = "image of God". It is all of the above, and infinitely more. If someone receives a vision of "God" a la Joseph Smith-style, they are only getting a single visitation by a glorified man. If "God" appeared as a glorified woman to someone, or as a burning bush with a human voice, or out of the Sun or anything at all, these variations on a theme would not be contradictory, but selective.
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_deacon blues
_Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _deacon blues »

If I was God I would at least give myself wings. They are lovely, and very handy for flying, but they might get in the way of my arms and fingers, so they would have to be separated from my arms. I would like an afro, but I would also like to look like Paul Newman in his prime, so I'm not sure how that would all work out. Maybe I could look like Denzil Washington on odd days, Paul Newman on even days, and Orlando Bloom on weekends. It would be fun to look like Santa a couple of days each year, or at least George Burns.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _SteelHead »

Mormon prophets have taught that men can become gods, and exalted men have bodies and not a hair of our head will be lost. Express image of god, and God as an exalted man are enshrined in doctrine.

God the prefect man has useless vestigial organs and tidbits of evolutionary debris. Poorly designed eyes, lack of redundancy in critical systems, piss poor designed urinary plumbing in men. Fun that.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _mentalgymnast »

SteelHead wrote:
God the prefect man has useless vestigial organs and tidbits of evolutionary debris.


I've gone down that road too. Thus my comment earlier as to whether or not God has to get a haircut now and then. I also stated that fact that we live in a carbon based world and operate from a standpoint of carbon chauvinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism

I mentioned that when Joseph claimed to see angels and deity he saw them as beings of light. Assigning God with "vestigial organs and tidbits of evolutionary debris" is a bit carbon chauvinistic.

SteelHead wrote:
Poorly designed eyes, lack of redundancy in critical systems, piss poor designed urinary plumbing in men. Fun that.


You're describing home sapiens. If God has a similar form/image to humans, that doesn't mean He is composed of gross matter that is subject to decay (carbon based).

Why are you making that comparison and literally bringing Him down to our level?

Regards,
MG
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _SteelHead »

mentalgymnast wrote:
SteelHead wrote:
God the prefect man has useless vestigial organs and tidbits of evolutionary debris.


I've gone down that road too. Thus my comment earlier as to whether or not God has to get a haircut now and then. I also stated that fact that we live in a carbon based world and operate from a standpoint of carbon chauvinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism

I mentioned that when Joseph claimed to see angels and deity he saw them as beings of light. Assigning God with "vestigial organs and tidbits of evolutionary debris" is a bit carbon chauvinistic.

SteelHead wrote:
Poorly designed eyes, lack of redundancy in critical systems, piss poor designed urinary plumbing in men. Fun that.


You're describing home sapiens. If God has a similar form/image to humans, that doesn't mean He is composed of gross matter that is subject to decay (carbon based).

Why are you making that comparison and literally bringing Him down to our level?

Regards,
MG


King Follett?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Post Reply