"made in God's image"

[Krazy Kat]

Menolly

For me, since we are all parts of The All and The All is all knowing, this is my own limited interpretation of how The All is all knowing. Direct experience merged back in to The All.

I do believe The All is timeless, as are we all once merged back. But I see our experiencing; and the experience of everything else, animate and inanimate when unmerged, as the means The All uses to stay within Creation, since The All is all of Creation and more.

The All is all of Creation and more!

Fist said that the Bible teaches us to see God as humanoid. This makes sense for all life on Earth. But if God also created the universe then maybe God is not exactly the humanoid shape we might expect, if that is, other life forms exist in the universe.

Again I'm returning to the concept of evolution. Growing beyond the confines of our home world to seek out life other than our own kind - the search for God! An amalgamation of all life in the universe put together like a cosmic jig-saw puzzle, where the last two pieces fitted into place may not be the eyes of Our God, but something else entirely!

[Menolly]

Hmm, yeah. I mean, we could have free will to operate within the limited sphere of physical, tangible life on this plane. But we wouldn't be able to do *anything* we wanted until we figure out how to transcend this plane.

So -- meditation? or magic mushrooms?

I know which answer Leaf of Narie would give you...

The All is all of Creation and more!

Fist said that the Bible teaches us to see God as humanoid. This makes sense for all life on Earth. But if God also created the universe then maybe God is not exactly the humanoid shape we might expect, if that is, other life forms exist in the universe.

Again I'm returning to the concept of evolution. Growing beyond the confines of our home world to seek out life other than our own kind - the search for God! An amalgamation of all life in the universe put together like a cosmic jig-saw puzzle, where the last two pieces fitted into place may not be the eyes of Our God, but something else entirely!

Not necessarily physical or mental evolution, but something spiritually beyond what we here on Earth comprehend, definitely.

Did you read my first post in this discussion?
And then when I defined the difference between pantheism and panentheism?
As I see The All, we are definitely not in the image of a humanoid shape. My first post even had bolded red font to highlight the part of the quote I posted where it specifically says that.

But as far as the "footsteps" of HaShem being heard by Adam and Eve goes...

My understanding is that the commentary on that says HaShem did that so Adam and Eve knew what they perceived of The All approached and could have the free choice of how to react to The All doing so. Their reaction of hiding from The All led to disappointment, but it was more a test than a necessity. Would The All make the sound of footsteps whenever passing by? That is not what Moses heard as he approached the burning bush. The All is anything and everything. The All can choose to make, or not make, any sound at all. The footsteps heard in Gan Eden were meant to be a test, not proof of The All's physical appearance.

אהיה אשר אהיה
Ehyeh asher ehyeh
"I am that I am."
Literally from the Hebrew: "I-shall-be that I-shall-be."

"Shall-be."
No physical form.
All Spirit.
Now. Then.
And yet to be.

[Krazy Kat]

...no, I didn't read all of your first post. I was too lazy to find out what the big words meant, chiefly because I was determined not to stray beyond the bounds of Genesis chapter 1.

I'll mull over what has been discussed so far and see what transpires tomorrow. And yes, I'll look into those big words as well.

[aliantha]

No offense to KK or anyone else here. But as a Pagan, I view Genesis chapter 1 as a creation myth.* In fact, the chapter contains two separate creation myths. (Three, if you count the world being created in seven days.) I mean, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden and take a walk, and run into other people?

Menolly, you realize that the Jewish commentary on that chapter could be interpreted as what Fist was saying to rus, right? That in reconciling the conflicts between A and B, the commentators say, "Let's explain it this way." So when you have God appearing as a humanoid in Genesis and then appearing to Noah as a disembodied voice coming from a fiery bush later on, but then somewhere else it's said that we're created in His image, well....

*Before someone puts out a contract on me, I need to make it clear that I'm using the first dictionary definition of "myth":

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

That's NOT the same as our colloquial usage, in which myth = falsehood.

[Dromond]

God showed his backside to someone...(I think Moses) the verse is quite plain... it escapes me now which chapter and verse. (To hide his face) so yeah... backside.

[Vraith]

So -- meditation? or magic mushrooms?

I freely will both...and maybe a couple others just for, ya know, multiple perspectives...

[rusmeister]

I'm mostly staying out of what other traditions teach, but I guess I have to comment on this one. This view looks awfully un-Judaic to me and quite pantheistic - which is something that Judaism is definitely not (or at least, has never been). Probably all I can ask is when and where did this idea appear in your tradition, Menolly?

Lurianic Kabbalah.
Not pantheistic.
Panentheistic.

Thanks, Menolly,
On the quick look-up (since I didn't get the when and where from you), this particular tradition didn't exist before the 16th century, right? Which would make it a kind of Protestantism within Judaism? What were the reactions of contemporary (Luria's) and traditional Jews to his teachings?

I think I would have a hard time taking a form of Judaism seriously that wasn't both continuous and consistent in its teachings. It's not enough that it be merely logical. Traditional Christianity has broken into a myriad of beliefs that, in the West, contradict each other, often wildly. From that, I ask, which one really has the fullness of the truth (or if one prefers, has the most truth)? And I think historical tracing to be incredibly important. If the religion didn't have it right in the 2nd century AD, or the 8th century BC, why on earth should I think they have it right now? I would see any movement or claims in Judaism the same way. Since no Jews in the time of Christ - or before were panentheistic - they couldn't have been - I wouldn't understand what you believe to be what those Jews believed.

It appears that the term you use is a brand-new creation - something just made up (that it can be found in wikipedia but not in dictionaries is evidence of that).

Panentheism, it turns out, isn't in the free Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, where you just searched.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pan ... hmode=none
No matching terms found.

This is my general complaint about the lack of authority in religion - and it seems to be the same in Protestantism, Judaism and Islam. The problem of individualism - people inventing hundreds of forms of a religion. Of course, to people who think that faith is nonsense, they will see them all as invented. But if we are convinced that they are not invented, that one of them is the most correct revelation and teaching of the truth, then it ought to concern them that they are nearly completely individual; that is, divided from most others who claim the same general label. Who then is (most) right? And why? The very division is justification to unbelievers to not believe - because they correctly get that individualism is at the heart of the divisions/schisms. No one even knows what one believes anymore when one says "I am Jew" "I am a Christian", etc. You might believe anything at all - because the authority is ultimately the individual who interprets the holy text, and whoever they can get to agree with them...until they disagree. Then you have the next break-off.

[Menolly]

It appears that the term you use is a brand-new creation - something just made up (that it can be found in wikipedia but not in dictionaries is evidence of that).

Panentheism, it turns out, isn't in the free Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, where you just searched.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pan ... hmode=none
No matching terms found.

As I have stated many times, this is why I don't post in the 'tank. I am much more comfortable with opinion than finding back up documentation.

But let's not leave it at Merriam-Webster, if you need sources.

Panentheism entry in the Stanford (University) Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Although Panentheism lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection about God until Karl Krause's (1781–1832) creation of the term in the Eighteenth century (Gregersen 2004, 28), various advocates and critics of panentheism find evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought as early as 1300 BCE. Hartshorne discovers the first indication of panentheistic themes in Ikhnaton (1375–1358 BCE), the Egyptian pharaoh often considered the first monotheist. In his poetic description of the sun god, Ikhnaton avoids both the separation of God from the world that will characterize theism and the identification of God with the world that will characterize pantheism (Hartshorne 1953, 29–30). Early Vedantic thought, as well as some modern Indian thought, implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences. Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 41–44). Hartshorne finds additional religious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a way that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in Lao-Tse (fourth century BCE) and in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (1953, 32-38).

Early enough for you? Obviously, the concept predates Chr-stianity.

Rabbi Bradley Artson, current holder of the Abner & Roslyn Goldstine Dean’s Chair at American Jewish University, has put together what he terms Jewish Panentheistic Sources, going back to the TANACH. This pdf appears to merely quote the sources, he does not explain why he views them in that way. But the outlook within Judaism is based on scriptural texts.

[Avatar]

Now to what authority are you appealing to understand it? Your own?

Hell yes. But actually, I'm neither appealing to any authority, nor interpreting it in any specific way. Not here anyway. How y'all interpret it is up to you. Which, if you think about it, has always been the case.

--A

[rusmeister]

Now to what authority are you appealing to understand it? Your own?

Hell yes. But actually, I'm neither appealing to any authority, nor interpreting it in any specific way. Not here anyway. How y'all interpret it is up to you. Which, if you think about it, has always been the case.

--A

That's consistent with your views as I understand them. If the only authority is individual, then it must lead to anarchy and the absence of any truth, as individual views can be as many as there are individuals. Which fits your view. That's why protestantism, most of Judaism and Islam seem ultimately illogical to me at their base, however many truths they may contain. Without a central authority extending backwards throughout time (ie, so living guys can't make up their own stuff) that's probably all you could have.

But no, a great many people of earlier times did not feel they could simply make their own interpretations of texts which even for them were ancient.

[rusmeister]

It appears that the term you use is a brand-new creation - something just made up (that it can be found in wikipedia but not in dictionaries is evidence of that).

Panentheism, it turns out, isn't in the free Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, where you just searched.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pan ... hmode=none
No matching terms found.

As I have stated many times, this is why I don't post in the 'tank. I am much more comfortable with opinion than finding back up documentation.

But let's not leave it at Merriam-Webster, if you need sources.

Panentheism entry in the Stanford (University) Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Although Panentheism lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection about God until Karl Krause's (1781–1832) creation of the term in the Eighteenth century (Gregersen 2004, 28), various advocates and critics of panentheism find evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought as early as 1300 BCE. Hartshorne discovers the first indication of panentheistic themes in Ikhnaton (1375–1358 BCE), the Egyptian pharaoh often considered the first monotheist. In his poetic description of the sun god, Ikhnaton avoids both the separation of God from the world that will characterize theism and the identification of God with the world that will characterize pantheism (Hartshorne 1953, 29–30). Early Vedantic thought, as well as some modern Indian thought, implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences. Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 41–44). Hartshorne finds additional religious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a way that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in Lao-Tse (fourth century BCE) and in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (1953, 32-38).

Early enough for you? Obviously, the concept predates Chr-stianity.

Rabbi Bradley Artson, current holder of the Abner & Roslyn Goldstine Dean’s Chair at American Jewish University, has put together what he terms Jewish Panentheistic Sources, going back to the TANACH. This pdf appears to merely quote the sources, he does not explain why he views them in that way. But the outlook within Judaism is based on scriptural texts.

Hi, Menolly,
I see a huge difference between finding themes, and finding a religion to proclaim. Themes can be applied to absolutely anything, and so, on their own, define nothing.

It might not surprise people who've read my crazy ideas for a while now (especially Ali) that I don't have much respect for a lot of modern scholarship, especially professional philosophers.

Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.

GKC, Illustrated London News 1905-1907
I do not question that scholars have found themes consistent with your idea of panentheism. But the fact that it is not recognized as a common term is far more meaningful to me than what some philosophers at Stanford describe as an elite/esoteric concept with very little history. My question would be, where is the historical documentation to show that this was being practiced as a distinct branch of Judaism and when? I apply the same questions to Christian history, so most Protestant theology and ideas are generally out-of-court from the get-go, because they have no history prior to Martin Luther. I wouldn't want you to think I am specially beating on your views. It's just that I think historical existence, continuity and record to be extremely important. Millions of people have millions of ideas today, and I have no idea when the next time would be that I would meet a Jew that holds exactly the same beliefs you do. As time passes, the odds diminish - not only because our lives shorten, but because of the constant tendency to schism and break-up in the absence of authority. There are a million views, and my interest is in eliminating all but the most likely to be true - or the closest to what is true. So the most consistent and traditional forms of Judeo-Christian religions will get the most serious consideration from me. The most modern and recent innovations - the least.

I guess I don't like the term because it sounds like a really recent invention as a term. I'm extremely suspicious of such things, such as the term "polyamory", which was coined hardly a decade ago for purposes that I despise. Again, the best I could figure was that (minus the name) the ideas and concepts have been seriously practiced as a distinct branch for several hundred years. But I could be wrong on that.

[Lord Mhoram]

Just came across this fragment from a pre-Socratic philosopher in some readings for school that applies here:

If oxen and horses and lions had hands
and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men,
horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses
and oxen to look like oxen, and each would make the
gods' bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.

I.e., perhaps we are not made in God's image, but He made in ours.

[Avatar]

Now to what authority are you appealing to understand it? Your own?

Hell yes. But actually, I'm neither appealing to any authority, nor interpreting it in any specific way. Not here anyway. How y'all interpret it is up to you. Which, if you think about it, has always been the case.

--A

That's consistent with your views as I understand them. If the only authority is individual, then it must lead to anarchy and the absence of any truth, as individual views can be as many as there are individuals. Which fits your view. That's why protestantism, most of Judaism and Islam seem ultimately illogical to me at their base, however many truths they may contain. Without a central authority extending backwards throughout time (ie, so living guys can't make up their own stuff) that's probably all you could have.

But no, a great many people of earlier times did not feel they could simply make their own interpretations of texts which even for them were ancient.

All interpretations, however far back they reach, come down to an individual "making up stuff." Eventually, if you follow any chain of authority far enough back, it comes down to an individual's view. Which became accepted, and eventually became canon. Or at least dogma.

If people making up their own minds about things leads to anarchy, then by all means...bring it on.

--A

[Krazy Kat]

No offense to KK or anyone else here. But as a Pagan, I view Genesis chapter 1 as a creation myth.* In fact, the chapter contains two separate creation myths. (Three, if you count the world being created in seven days.) I mean, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden and take a walk, and run into other people?

No offence taken, Ali,
As a matter of fact you've hit on it, solved the myth/mystery.
Adam's apple! Ureeka!


HUNDREDS OF GOLD STARS FOR ALI!!!:D

[aliantha]

HUNDREDS OF GOLD STARS FOR ALI!!!:D

[rusmeister]

Hell yes. But actually, I'm neither appealing to any authority, nor interpreting it in any specific way. Not here anyway. How y'all interpret it is up to you. Which, if you think about it, has always been the case.

--A

That's consistent with your views as I understand them. If the only authority is individual, then it must lead to anarchy and the absence of any truth, as individual views can be as many as there are individuals. Which fits your view. That's why protestantism, most of Judaism and Islam seem ultimately illogical to me at their base, however many truths they may contain. Without a central authority extending backwards throughout time (ie, so living guys can't make up their own stuff) that's probably all you could have.

But no, a great many people of earlier times did not feel they could simply make their own interpretations of texts which even for them were ancient.

All interpretations, however far back they reach, come down to an individual "making up stuff." Eventually, if you follow any chain of authority far enough back, it comes down to an individual's view. Which became accepted, and eventually became canon. Or at least dogma.

If people making up their own minds about things leads to anarchy, then by all means...bring it on.

--A

My comment on "making things up" was a pre-emptive strike on people who charge that religion is purely invented (ie, man-made), NOT to imply that all people merely invent their experiences in their imagination.. If, of course, you merely mean that everyone has a view, then no argument. If you mean that no one's view can possibly be mistaken , then we do have an argument.

Of course people are free to make up their minds. That is the first principle of my faith. Note that my temporal politics have nothing to do with forcing people to faith - something I think foolish, practically impossible and definitely counter-productive. Freedom is essential in order to accept faith. If I can say, "You don't have to accept my faith, but you do have to accept 'my' morality (which I claim is not 'mine'), in public, anyway, because I am stronger than you", then I will. And I see no conflict with my faith in that. If not, I'd still work to undermine public lack of morality (that I see others to promote) by teaching and living (as best I can) genuine morality and the principles of my faith, underground if need be.

[Fist and Faith]

All interpretations, however far back they reach, come down to an individual "making up stuff." Eventually, if you follow any chain of authority far enough back, it comes down to an individual's view. Which became accepted, and eventually became canon. Or at least dogma.

Exactly what I meant last page:

EXACTLY! That's why retcon is necessary. Broadly varied writings were put together, but they don't quite fit. At some point, someone said: "A and B don't work together. I'll explain it like this..." At another time, someone said: "C and D don't work together. I'll explain it like this..." And on and on, until we have what you call theology. But each time, it was someone deciding how to put elements that don't quite jibe together. Then someone collected them together, and you say that collection is theology, and anyone who wants to know what the texts really mean can only find out there.

And there's no possible way to deny this, rus. Anything and everything in your theology was once said for the very first time. Someone, back whenever, first thought, "If the God in the Book of ___ is the same God as the one in Genesis, then the "image" and "likeness" cannot mean physical. I'm going to tell people it means ___." And he wrote it down. And it has become dogma for some of you. That first time was the result of Sola Scriptura. Someone who had nothing but his own feelings about these different texts decided what they meant.

[Avatar]

My comment on "making things up" was a pre-emptive strike on people who charge that religion is purely invented (ie, man-made), NOT to imply that all people merely invent their experiences in their imagination.. If, of course, you merely mean that everyone has a view, then no argument. If you mean that no one's view can possibly be mistaken , then we do have an argument.

Well, I believe that religion is purely man-made of course. People certainly don't invent their experiences (in general), but they do invent the explanations for them.

And while people can be mistaken in their views, the real question is "according to who?"

--A

[rusmeister]

All interpretations, however far back they reach, come down to an individual "making up stuff." Eventually, if you follow any chain of authority far enough back, it comes down to an individual's view. Which became accepted, and eventually became canon. Or at least dogma.

Exactly what I meant last page:

EXACTLY! That's why retcon is necessary. Broadly varied writings were put together, but they don't quite fit. At some point, someone said: "A and B don't work together. I'll explain it like this..." At another time, someone said: "C and D don't work together. I'll explain it like this..." And on and on, until we have what you call theology. But each time, it was someone deciding how to put elements that don't quite jibe together. Then someone collected them together, and you say that collection is theology, and anyone who wants to know what the texts really mean can only find out there.

And there's no possible way to deny this, rus. Anything and everything in your theology was once said for the very first time. Someone, back whenever, first thought, "If the God in the Book of ___ is the same God as the one in Genesis, then the "image" and "likeness" cannot mean physical. I'm going to tell people it means ___." And he wrote it down. And it has become dogma for some of you. That first time was the result of Sola Scriptura. Someone who had nothing but his own feelings about these different texts decided what they meant.

I'd give qualified agreement to this. Except that you seem to be assuming one man and that the only resources available to him are his own feelings and opinions. If you read the book of Acts (and study Church history of the first millenium), you'll see that theological decisions were made collegially (until the Roman Bishop in the western Church gradually asserted special authority over the other Bishops). "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." This shoots down the idea of one person unilaterally dictating their opinion. If it wasn't accepted by the community, it didn't become orthodox. And that's the other point. Can there be an institution or organization actually guided by the Holy Spirit of God? You seem to have begged the question and answered in the negative in advance.
But it is granted that there must have been a first time to record written Tradition.

[rusmeister]

My comment on "making things up" was a pre-emptive strike on people who charge that religion is purely invented (ie, man-made), NOT to imply that all people merely invent their experiences in their imagination.. If, of course, you merely mean that everyone has a view, then no argument. If you mean that no one's view can possibly be mistaken , then we do have an argument.

Well, I believe that religion is purely man-made of course. People certainly don't invent their experiences (in general), but they do invent the explanations for them.

And while people can be mistaken in their views, the real question is "according to who?"

--A

Precisely. That is the question of authority.

It just seems to me that your view, as I understand it, means that there really is no authority - not even the individual. Everything is just perception, so no one is REALLY right about anything. Ergo, we know nothing. (That, to me, makes even the natural sciences futile.) It violates the idea that we live in an objective reality.

(Not that I want to go twenty rounds on this - it's just how I understand your ideas and what I understand them amounting to.)