[rivanna]

Wayfarer,

I agree with Fatherman, created in the image of God means we are co -creators with God, having self awareness and freedom of choice, determining our own future.

To me, the view that seems most true or appealing at least, is Clark Pinnock’s open theism-- a dynamic, personal God who seeks fellowship with us, shares our joys and sorrows, limits his own power to enlarge our freedom, longs for our well being but rarely interferes. “Humanity is the created image of God’s social nature…because we are made in God’s image, we encounter God in other people.”

Another perspective -- as Paul Tillich says, we live in two orders – the finite, growing & dying order of history; and the order of eternity—and we should not confuse them. [just as we need to keep politics and religion separate] The divine order can never be embodied in the historic, no matter how much technological progress civilization might make; yet it does reveal itself through history-- forgiveness or divine help breaking through unexpectedly. We are bound to the historic order, but we also belong to the eternal order--the Logos (the living Word of God, not literal words taken out of context) stands forever. Humanity transcends the limits of our given world, and participates in something beyond - not tragic, transitory, and self destructive, but infinite, holy, blessed.

[davidk]

Dear Joseph,

It seems you've slept through the Judaism 101 classes, again.

Belief in the eventual coming of the moshiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism. It is part of the minimum basic principles of traditional Jewish belief. While they are not dogma they do maintain that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. They still say He wil come. For every generation, they say a person is born with the potential to be THE moshiach. If the time is right within that person's lifetime, then that person will be THE moshiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the moshiach, then that person is not the moshiach. He is expected by the Jews.

The term "moshiach" literally means "THE anointed one,"(not AN anointed one) and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The Moshiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. Isaiah prophesied this man, this Moshiach, would also be the Mighty God.

May I add, you have misrepresented I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, and Psalms 20:6. Although admitting having been anointed by God, David never claimed nor was believed to be THE anointed one- THE Moshiach, and for that matter, neither was Cyrus.
---
As far as "in the image of God, according to His likeness" is concerned it is what is in our nature that is God-like, without being equal to the infinite, personal God who thinks, acts, and feels: that likeness is personality. It is being in that likeness that seperates God and us from the rest of His creation. To say we are only an 'illusion' or 'phantom' just runs counter to all we know about ourselves.
---
October's Autumn's take is more on the mark when she speaks of the relationship with God and our uniqueness.

Fatherman and Rivanna know we are different from all else, though we may disagree why.

Wayfarer2k is in there with- self-awareness.

Minsocal and Soma also realize we are different but that "in God's image" does not mean equal with God. Since an "image" is not the same as the real thing?

No one, that I can tell, really considers man being created in God's image/likeness makes man an idol.

As you say, just something for you to think about.

[Russ]

When we speak of being 'made in the image of God', what are we referring to? In the Biblical sense, this is a powerful message, but the language becomes a problem for us in the 21st Century. We question the word 'Man', attempt to understand this ancient writing out of its context, apply it to our own lives, and we stumble. Perhaps this is an idea expressed in the best way at the time, an idea that needs further thought and development, and not to be taken as a completed and final statement. Perhaps when the writer states that we are made in the image of God, it is not meant in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. Look out onto a group of trees for a moment. We see individual trees, but what binds them together? What do they have in common on a deeper, universal level? They have sunken their roots into the same earth that is shared with other trees...both nearby and on the other side of the world. Imagine, then, a spiritual presence within the earth that is within all of the trees on earth, within the bark, within the branches, within the leaves, within the fiber, within the roots. In this way, all of the trees on earth are connected. Now, think of each and every one of us, you and me. Let's imagine that we are not physical replicas of God, but spiritual beings made up of God. In this way, just like the trees, we are all connected, we are all one, we are all with God...right now, as yesterday, and as tomorrow. I believe it is in the spiritual sense that we are in God's image, an image that we can only come to know following a Faith Journey inward. It is there, Within, that we find The Gate, The Door, and The Way. Be at Peace knowing truly that God is with us all.

[davidk]

Russ, on Dec 13 2008, 09:21 AM, said:

When we speak of being 'made in the image of God', what are we referring to? In the Biblical sense, this is a powerful message, but the language becomes a problem for us in the 21st Century. We question the word 'Man', attempt to understand this ancient writing out of its context, apply it to our own lives, and we stumble. Perhaps this is an idea expressed in the best way at the time, an idea that needs further thought and development, and not to be taken as a completed and final statement. Perhaps when the writer states that we are made in the image of God, it is not meant in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. Look out onto a group of trees for a moment. We see individual trees, but what binds them together? What do they have in common on a deeper, universal level? They have sunken their roots into the same earth that is shared with other trees...both nearby and on the other side of the world. Imagine, then, a spiritual presence within the earth that is within all of the trees on earth, within the bark, within the branches, within the leaves, within the fiber, within the roots. In this way, all of the trees on earth are connected. Now, think of each and every one of us, you and me. Let's imagine that we are not physical replicas of God, but spiritual beings made up of God. In this way, just like the trees, we are all connected, we are all one, we are all with God...right now, as yesterday, and as tomorrow. I believe it is in the spiritual sense that we are in God's image, an image that we can only come to know following a Faith Journey inward. It is there, Within, that we find The Gate, The Door, and The Way. Be at Peace knowing truly that God is with us all.

Very interesting.
Personally, I feel a truly powerful message experiences no language problems. There may, however, be a problem in the 21st century listener's manner of processing the message, which is really what seems to be the current issue facing 21st century man. He stumbles over not being able to understand absolutes, which are what provide us with meaning. Understanding God as the infinite-personal beginning for all else, with a clear distinction between the Creator and all that was created, provides us with the absolute basis from which to reasonably understand all else. One 'else' to understand is man in God's image. Our likeness with God is- personality.
---
If all is God, then you have made a good argument to explain the problem of unity. However, it doesn't address our need to explain the diversity and complexity of all that exists. By way of your argument, everything is finally the same; leaving no explanation for any meaning and significance for diversity. In reality, if everything is to be finally relegated to being only one, there is really no reason for significance in variance, and gives no meaning to things such as freedom and morality.
How can we possibly answer the question of existence if there is no reason for individuality?

Since the premise you have presented is arguably insufficient by only addressing half of the problem, we need another premise that can answer both of the needs- unity and diversity. The only answer that fulfills both of these needs is the infinite-personal God who created all else.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Dec 13 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

Dear Joseph,

It seems you've slept through the Judaism 101 classes, again.


The term "moshiach" literally means "THE anointed one,"(not AN anointed one) and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The Moshiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. Isaiah prophesied this man, this Moshiach, would also be the Mighty God.

Yes, I must have slept through that class cause I don't even remember attending it.

Davidk, You err greatly when you say "would also be the Mighty God". read the jewish Bible for yourself. Not the Christian translation. Also it would be good if you spoke to some ordodox Jews instead of researching on Christian sites. you might get a more accurate Jewish perspective since their Messiah is not God.

Love Joseph

[Russ]

Just an idea, David, not the comprehensive explanation that you seek. That explanation is one that only you can find on your own, not from without....but from within. I wish you Peace upon your Journey

[davidk]

Russ, on Dec 13 2008, 09:05 PM, said:

Just an idea, David, not the comprehensive explanation that you seek. That explanation is one that only you can find on your own, not from without....but from within. I wish you Peace upon your Journey

Russ,
I appreciate your candor and courtesy. It seems we differ as to whether it is from oursleves (internal) or from God (external) that we find anything of meaning. Regardless, I remain hopefull you may come to see that your significance is as an individual and not just as a part of some cosmic machine. God loves you, personally; and it is this person to person relationship with God that makes us unique because it is this likeness of personality that we are in the image of God.

JosephM, on Dec 13 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

Yes, I must have slept through that class cause I don't even remember attending it.

Davidk, You err greatly when you say "would also be the Mighty God". read the jewish Bible for yourself. Not the Christian translation. Also it would be good if you spoke to some ordodox Jews instead of researching on Christian sites. you might get a more accurate Jewish perspective since their Messiah is not God.

Love Joseph

Dear Joseph,


---
There seems to be an assumption of some things not in evidence.

The difference between Judaism and Christianity about the Messiah can get contentious. That is why there is ultimately a doctrinal split between them. So try to hear what I have said:

As far as kings being called Moshiach, you are correct that many Jewish kings were called Moshiach. But, and this is a big 'but,' (no pun intended ) since no king has ever satisfactorily fullfilled the role of this "End of Days" King, all past Messianic claimants have been rejected. The Jew no longer calls them Messiah and still awaits The Coming. They say the Messiah will be finally recognized by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of 'complete universal perfection'.

It was not in error when I wrote that Isaiah ( the first prophet detailing the Moshiach) had said, and in Hebrew, that this 'end of days' Messiah would have a name and it will be "Wonderful Counselor, mighty God (lit.: the Almighty), Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Is 9:6,7. Along with the expectations of the Messiah rebuilding the temple only God can rebuild, and other such things as the Jewish belief of the Moshiach having a heavenly preexistence, being free from sin, and named after the invisible God; and then to say He is not the visible God, demonstrates some internal Jewish conflicts similar to some Christian's.
---
This has really diverted from the topic, Joseph. It may be better discussed elsewhere.

"ordodox": You must have been in a hurry!

[soma]

Where is God? Is He separate, upstairs waiting to judge us? Is He at a distance waiting to forgive us as some Christians would like us to believe? Was the last time God spoke through Jesus so there is a wall of silence that only some Christians can interpret? No I don't think so. I think some Christians have taken God out of man and made him into a small plastic statue that glows in the dark.

Daniel 3
1 King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet [a] wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2 He then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up. 3 So the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials assembled for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up, and they stood before it.

4 Then the herald loudly proclaimed, "This is what you are commanded to do, O peoples, nations and men of every language: 5 As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6 Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."

Daniel 3:16-18 "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

God is infinite so God has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard. The infinite can be thought of as all things put together.

John 14:20
"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

Jesus is not saying that the disciples have not yet received the Spirit, which would show a separateness. He uses the present tense, which shows a unity and not that the Spirit of unity will be in them, but that it already remains among us. Indeed God is present "without limit". The person inwardly focused by habitual prayer, contemplation and grace, inwardly brings home the teaching externally given by Christ. In a new way Jesus is opening us up, the disciple of a new level of intimacy so much deeper than before when our focus was on a separate external experience.

Jesus speaks of the oneness of all believers and links it with the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. The oneness of believers is found in us, in our relation to God. The oneness of the Father and the Son is the model for all believers' unity. This oneness is implicit in all that Jesus has said and done. This oneness includes both a unity of being and a distinctness for those who have not experienced the unity yet. It is a oneness of love. The characteristics of this oneness Jesus desires for us in our loving relationship with one another in God. Jesus seems to suggest that the actual outworking of our oneness with one another in the Father through the Son is a process that will take some time because we are working on our spiritual journey to complete unity.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Dec 14 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

[size=3][font=Garamond]Dear Joseph,


---
There seems to be an assumption of some things not in evidence.

The difference between Judaism and Christianity about the Messiah can get contentious. That is why there is ultimately a doctrinal split between them. So try to hear what I have said:

It was not in error when I wrote that Isaiah ( the first prophet detailing the Moshiach) had said, and in Hebrew, that this 'end of days' Messiah would have a name and it will be "Wonderful Counselor, mighty God (lit.: the Almighty), Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Is 9:6,7. (snip)

In your original comment (post #17) you were speaking for the Jew not the Christian therefore your translation is in error. The words used in that passage to the Jew means mighty chief and not mighty God. One cannot speak for the JEWS WITHOUT USING THEIR BOOK. Read a Jewish Bble if you wish to discuss their point of view. I am already familiar with the fundamental Christian point of view. The Jew is not contentions and there is no split. They have always been clear on this point.

(davidk @ Sep 19 2008, on 12:47 PM) Post #17 , said:

[snip)

I think some of you may not know, the Jews believe in God, His Spirit, and the coming of the Messiah/God in human form.

(snip)

Joseph

This post has been edited by JosephM: 14 December 2008 - 05:36 PM

[davidk]

JosephM, on Dec 14 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

In your original comment (post #17) you were speaking for the Jew not the Christian therefore your translation is in error. The words used in that passage to the Jew means mighty chief and not mighty God. One cannot speak for the JEWS WITHOUT USING THEIR BOOK. Read a Jewish Bble if you wish to discuss their point of view. I am already familiar with the fundamental Christian point of view. The Jew is not contentions and there is no split. They have always been clear on this point.

Joseph

"elgibor" is considered a name because of the two 'nouns' that are combined to make it, that is 'el' and 'gibor'. Seperately; "el" meaning is God and always used of God and never in reference to man; "gibor" meaning warrior. (see: Ex 15:2-3) In the Isaiah 9:6 text, the two are written as one word and in its combined form it is a name. As used in Hebrew and translated for us into English, it is the name "Mighty God". It is the same name for God that is used in Gen 14:18, 19, 20 & 22; 16:13, 17:1; 28:3; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Ex 6:3; 15:2; 20:5; 34:6, 14; Num 16:22; 23:8, 22,23; 24:4, 8, 16, 23; Deut 3:24; 4:24, 31; 5:9; 6:15; 7:9, 21; 10:17; etc.

I would that you recall the doctrinal split between Jew and Christian is over Jesus being the Messiah or not. Don't try and make me out to be anti-semetic, I did not say the Jew was contentious but that the discussion over differences can be.

Judaism has argument for the heavenly, preesexistent, personal Messiah as well.

soma, on Dec 14 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

God is infinite so God has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard. The infinite can be thought of as all things put together.

Soma,
I just don't understand the meaning of any particular individual in your thesis of all ultimately being only one. Are you speaking more of a togetherness, like a family and its members, a football team and its players?

[JosephM]

davidk, on Dec 16 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

"elgibor" is considered a name because of the two 'nouns' that are combined to make it, that is 'el' and 'gibor'. Seperately; "el" meaning is God and always used of God and never in reference to man; "gibor" meaning warrior. (see: Ex 15:2-3) In the Isaiah 9:6 text, the two are written as one word and in its combined form it is a name. As used in Hebrew and translated for us into English, it is the name "Mighty God". It is the same name for God that is used in Gen 14:18, 19, 20 & 22; 16:13, 17:1; 28:3; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Ex 6:3; 15:2; 20:5; 34:6, 14; Num 16:22; 23:8, 22,23; 24:4, 8, 16, 23; Deut 3:24; 4:24, 31; 5:9; 6:15; 7:9, 21; 10:17; etc.

I would that you recall the doctrinal split between Jew and Christian is over Jesus being the Messiah or not. Don't try and make me out to be anti-semetic, I did not say the Jew was contentious but that the discussion over differences can be.

Judaism has argument for the heavenly, preesexistent, personal Messiah as well.

Davidk,

Their translation is "and he called his name Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; "

You have claimed that the Jews believe the messiah will be God. That remains untrue. If you are to speak for the Jews then either ask them or read their translation from the Hebrew. Perhaps it will open your eyes. You seem to persist in using Christian apologetic tactics to speak for the Jewish people. They simply do not believe the messiah will be God in human form so why persist in insisting they do because of your translation? They translate the literal name as mighty hero, not mighty God as you suppose and believe it referred to King Hezekiah.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Dec 16 2008, 10:25 PM, said:

You have claimed that the Jews believe the messiah will be God. That remains untrue. If you are to speak for the Jews then either ask them or read their translation from the Hebrew. Perhaps it will open your eyes. You seem to persist in using Christian apologetic tactics to speak for the Jewish people. They simply do not believe the messiah will be God in human form so why persist in insisting they do because of your translation?

While I cannot exegete Hebrew or Greek, this is my understanding also, that "messiah" means "one annointed of God." Any decent bible dictionary makes this clear.

To be "annointed of God" and to "be God" are diametrically opposed -- one cannot be annointed by a particular person and be the self-same particular person at the same time. Or, to put it more simply, one cannot be God and also act in God's stead or be a mediator for God. It's a simple logical inconsistency. Of course, when faced with such inconsistencies, many Christians will run to the doctrine of the Trinity and loudly expound on what a "mystery" it is. In actual reality, the Trinity is not a mystery, it is a paradox. It makes no sense whatsover, IMO.

My take on it is that the Jews of Jesus' day were looking for a messiah/warrior-king that would re-establish Israel as the lead nation of the world and that messiah would rule (as God's representative) from Jerusalem's throne. Jesus flat out turned down this agenda. I don't think this means that he isn't/wasn't the messiah, just that, as in many other areas, he called people to reconsider and redefine their expectations.

But as to my original question about "the image of God", I think that the bible simply does not tell us what this is. The Hebrews who wrote Genesis obviously had some notions as to what it meant, but the text itself doesn't give us many clues.

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then maybe the best working definition that we have of what "the image of God" looks like is in Jesus and others like him who represent, not God wearing human clothes, but humans becoming the compassionate creatures that we were designed to be.

As always, just my 2c.

bill

[Russ]

I recently finished reading Bart Ehrman's new book, "God's Problem". In this writing, the author explores the various forms of suffering as presented in The Bible and continuously reflects upon the kind of God that would allow such suffering. If we think of God as a being...an intelligent, decision making, loving, caring entity, then why the brutality, the starvation, the mass murder, the suffering of the most innocent? It doesn't make sense. Of course, we could always say that it isn't supposed to make sense to our puny minds all puffed up with ego and intellect, but that doesn't get us very far. But perhaps...just perhaps...think of this: think of God in terms other than an intelligent being. Think of God as a place. How does this open upon us? Just a thought.

[billmc]

Russ, on Dec 17 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

Think of God as a place. How does this open upon us? Just a thought.

Russ, although I haven’t read the book, I’ve listened to a number of podcasts in which Bart, a former Christian, goes into the problem of theodicy (how could an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?). Bart’s conclusion, of course, is that such a God does not exist and I think he now classifies himself as an agnostic. I enjoyed the way Bart showed how the understanding of suffering changes in the bible, from a punishment for sin, to a test of character, to the battle between God and Satan, to a redemptive purpose. Still, none of these answers are satisfactory if one believes in an all-powerful, loving deity. It would seem that the only options are 1) to believe that God is love but not all-powerful, 2) to believe that God is all-powerful but not love, or 3) to disbelieve in the theistic notion of God altogether. Bart seems to choose option 3 and I appreciate his honesty for doing so.

But the other side of the problem, at least for me, is explaining the love and compassion that we DO find in life, even in the universe in as much as conscious life somehow evolve here. If we define love, not as a mushy feeling, but as providing at atmosphere (or, in your words, a place) for life to begin, mature, and thrive, then although the universe does not seem to be replete with such places, there is at least the probability that many such places exist. Now, this doesn’t mean that I immediately jump to “There is love so there must be God.” That answer is, for me, far too simplistic. But love and compassion do seem to go beyond “the survival of the fittest.” Some of it may be attributable to the desire to propagate the species, but why? Why propagate life if there is so much unexplainable suffering? Are we operating on pure instinct? I hope not. Our lives are ways in which the universe (even if it is our own little corner of it) can know and cognitively change itself.

For me, the fact is that there is suffering, and whether we have an explanation for it or not, it is still here. I like what Marcus Borg says about this: (paraphrased) the bible doesn’t ultimately address WHY there is suffering, but it does tell us what we can do about it. Of course, even this is somewhat trite as we can’t eleviate the causes or consequences of all human suffering. I agree, suffering doesn’t make sense. But what does make sense is that we can do something about it.

So I agree with Bart, I no longer see God in “supernatural theistic” terms. But I think there is more going on in the universe that what we can see in naturalistic terms also. That “more” is, for me, God. But I don’t see it as “all-powerful” or even “all-loving.” Life is precious, not because there is so much of it in the universe, but because it seems to be so rare. That should lead us to do as much as we can to minimize unhelpful suffering.

Just more food for thought.

[soma]

We may believe or not believe in God, but if we break the natural law we’ll experience pain. This is the law of nature because we are all connected so we just can’t do what ever we want. This is not a question of religion, but a question of science. We are all spiritual beings, but because of our materially conditioned minds we are under the laws of nature. We can observe this in evolution, species flourishing, suffering and going extinct. The laws of nature are applicable to everything whether we believe in God or not, it doesn’t matter. We are all under nature’s law because there is only one law controlling us, and we are all under God’s law because there is only one God. Our actions repay us in kind as kindness fosters kindness and respect fosters respect. Happiness and pain; good and evil are the right and the left hands of God because he views all of creation as a whole including these pairs of opposites; therefore, there is no need to fear evil, but just learn from it.

Everyone wants to enjoy the material world and not suffer, but we have difficulty if we forget our real home in the spiritual world of pure consciousness. Our problems, pain, and suffering are not due to a lack of material advancement, but a lack of spiritual advancement. Throwing bombs is no different than throwing spears at our enemies so improvement in killing is not advancement. We must conclude that the necessity of human life and the highest type of civilization is a civilization that teaches one to love. Our great purpose in life is then to develop love and the unfoldment of our spiritual consciousness. For that purpose it becomes necessary for us to see ourselves not as body parts, but in a state of consciousness, appearing to others as a body. We cannot see love or consciousness, but to understand love it helps to exist as consciousness and become aware of this reality. Love comes to us through the unfoldment and revelation of our own inner being. “Love your brother as yourself,” in this work we must first know and love ourselves. It takes the knowing of this truth to make the all pervading pure consciousness, the all powerful God evident. All harmony in our experience is the direct result of the activity of love in our consciousness. This does not consist in making statements or repetitions of love, but the awareness of love and pure consciousness in all things.

The infinity of God appears when we see pure consciousness in God’s finite forms and varieties, God as omnipresent, the pure consciousness of God pervading in the individual consciousness, in the pain, in to suffering and in ourselves. This love is realized, we cannot just simply preach how to love God then strive to defeat other faiths or religions. When love touches our consciousness, it makes us one with all life. Love comes from the visible and invisible teachers within our own consciousness; therefore, I hope we all open our consciousness to the infinite Power, the universal Principle and find it operating in our experience. Therefore; good and evil, happiness and suffering are in the all powerful God. All is one.

[rivanna]

Nice dialogue.
Maybe being “free moral agents” is the most meaningful way that we’re created in God’s image—God gave humans the freedom to choose the bad as well as good. If God kept us from ever making a destructive choice, would it be love or control? The nature of love is that it cannot be forced.

I think peaceful cooperation is always God’s desire for us, and that God limits his power to give us autonomy. This open theism view makes sense to me-- yet it’s still hard to imagine an omnipotent benevolent God being aware of all the pain and evil in the world, without interfering. Then there’s the suffering caused by the laws of nature, which God doesn’t meddle with….or very rarely. Perhaps God allows the human race to stumble and fall over and over, but will not allow evil to prevail in the long run.

[JosephM]

Interesting comments. Perhaps the reason we are having problems here understanding God, the image, pain and suffering, good and evil and the attributes of God is because we are looking at this life it as if it is Life when it is not and in linguistics can better be described not as Life but as a life story or situation.. It seems to me, many here agree we are Spirit yet continue to identify and look at Life as if it is flesh and blood.

In what we call physical life you see an image and compare it to a past image stored in your memory and apply experience in the form of subjective conditioning and call it as if it is Life and apply these linguistic opposites as if they are fact. Life is not food and drink nor the pain and suffering nor the good and evil you seem to create and may identify with. They have no eternal existence and are rather a natural dysfunctional aspect of creation/evolution. Life is Spirit. These things are not who you are. They are temporary manifestations of the power of Life and are kept alive by it but since they are temporal, cannot be the source or who you are which is Life itself. Perhaps we are making relevant that which is irrelevant and therefor will not find an answer.

It seems to me, when one deeply subjectively experiences Life, there is found no separation or difference between God the creator and the created. From this perspective distance and location disappears as irrelevant and suffering is not possible. Good and evil also lose relevance and natural physical laws become mute. It is from this perspective that these questions become irrelevant and Truth becomes apparent and the questions and reality of the existence of the things discussed in the last page of posts is viewed in a completely different light.

It seems to me, life in the flesh is more of a projection movie or picture show that you create and then then become so enamored with that you forget it is a projection and then identify with the character as who you are and lose sight of reality. You fear death yet death is not even a possibility except you mistake your identity to a projection of flesh and blood which is but an image or phantom of the real.
Just a different consideration
Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Dec 18 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

It seems to me, many here agree we are Spirit yet continue to identify and look at Life as if it is flesh and blood.

Joseph, I think there is alot of merit in knowing and understanding that life is not the summation of "flesh and blood". Many people completely discount the spiritual and live life (or so they think) as if material existence is all there is. I suspect there is more. But I, for one, don't take the view that the spiritual is all that there is and that everything else is illusion. There are quite a few people that hold to this dichotomy, but I find it to go against reality as I understand it. From my point of view, we are BOTH spiritual and fleshly, immaterial and material.

Quote

It seems to me, when one deeply subjectively experiences Life, there is found no separation or difference between God the creator and the created. From this perspective distance and location disappears as irrelevant and suffering is not possible.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Slaves suffer. The six million Jews who died during the Holocaust suffered. The people in Darfur suffer. Should we do nothing about human suffering because, as you say, "suffering is not possible"?

Quote

You fear death yet death is not even a possibility except you mistake your identity to a projection of flesh and blood which is but an image or phantom of the real.

Great spiritual wisdom down through the ages leads us to consider that flesh and blood are not all that exists. But it is another thing entirely, at least to me, to say that flesh and blood is a phantom, illusion, or malfunction of creation. Jesus seemed to think that if we got our "spiritual priorities" right, then we would manifest that in "flesh and blood" actions -- feeding the hungry, helping the poor, standing up for justice, clothing the naked, healing the sick. To discount all of this human (and physical) needs to illusions is, IMO, not only unrealistic, but care-less. It is to say, "I see suffering, but because I believe that it doesn't exist, I will do nothing, it is all just temporal anyway." I simply can't reconcile such an attitude with that of Jesus, can you?

[billmc]

JosephM, on Dec 18 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

...Suffering is not possible. Good and evil also lose relevance and natural physical laws become mute. It is from this perspective that these questions become irrelevant...

To me, the greatest spiritual leaders that humanity has had were those who, rather than ignoring suffering, did what they could about it. They were concerned about evil and its consequences. Their “spiritualness” did not lead them to live in a vacuum where they were untouched by human need. Rather, their spiritual connection with God lead them to actually do what they could to alleviate or minimize human suffering.

Jesus in Galilee. Mother Theresa on the streets of Calcutta. Martin Luther King Jr. in Alabama. All of these people, I think, had their spiritual priorities in the right place, and because they did, it gave them a sense of compassion to do something about injustice and suffering. If suffering is all illusion, then so is compassion because compassion is the response we should have to suffering. Jesus’ main call to people was to be marked by compassion, and compassion is not possible where suffering is ignored or thought to be illusion.

Real faith, says Jesus, James and sometimes Paul, calls for hands and feet to do something. The fruit of the Spirit, while being intangible, must be lived out in tangible manifestation if it is to be taken seriously.

Granted, we have not seen God swoop down from the sky to eliminate all human suffering; curing cancer, preventing hunger, squashing death and tragedy, creating Utopia on earth. Such notions are, to me, bad theology and false hopes. But we do see the image of God in people who try to make a difference right where they are.

Jesus left us with two great commandments: love God and love others. How can we love God who is intangible? By loving his creation and creations. Or, as Jesus said, being compassionate. The apostle John said that if we claim to love God but hate a fellow human being, then we don’t truly love God. Compassion calls forth action, whatever God lays on our heart. It calls us to do something, however little, about the evil and suffering we see in this world.

Gnosticism and Christian fundamentalism have one thing very much in common. Neither one wants to address evil and suffering. Gnosticism says that evil and suffering doesn’t exist. Christian fundamentalism says that evil should be fled from and that only the “spiritual” matters. Gnostics tell you how to become “enlightened.” Fundies tell you how to “get to heaven.” Both are self-centered escapism paradigms that refuse to address human suffering. I don’t find either to be the way of Christ.

[soma]

Christ is demonstrating the union between our soul and God because our soul is nearer to God than it is to our body. We have higher and lower powers just like Jesus because we enjoy the bliss of eternity (I feel this is what Joseph is saying) while, at the same time, suffering and struggling here on earth. We should not inhibit the function of our consciousness, but train, offer it up to God and be in harmony with it at all times. Jesus showed us how to assign suffering solely to the body, the lower faculties and the senses so our consciousness can be plunged into the pure consciousness of our Lord. He showed us how to love God in all things ( do service projects) so the more purely and simply we love in unity the more thoroughly our deeds will wash away our selfish thoughts and purify our minds. Jesus meant for us to follow him intelligently and spiritually so not to be manipulated by literal interpretations that lead us away from love. Following Christ consciousness in our own way depends on our love not our superficial actions. It is love that blots out sin and knows no fear so there is nothing else a man can do that is as beneficial as loving everything and everyone. We are in the spiritual and physical realms at the same time. I feel we can help people by not jumping into the well with them, but by staying grounded in the blissful spiritual state and pull them up from above. Joseph correct me if I am wrong, but I feel this is what Joseph was saying.