See the title.  What is your take on this?

Quoted: See the title.  What is your take on this?

___

Hi Big_Louie.  From a Jewish POV, mankind was formed in the image of G-d which reflect the Torah's abiding wonder over mankind's special stature in creation, over his unique intellectual capacity, which bears the imprint of the Creator (and, too, acknowledges mankind with the power to reason seperate from the other creatures G-d created).  This likeness to G-d also describes mankind's moral potential.

Mankind's nature is radically different from G-d's, but man is capable of approaching G-d's actions.  Mankind's likeness to G-d also stresses the essential holiness and dignity of all mankind without any distinction.

Best,

Ed

1.) A soul — an independent entity with free will
2.) A body — i.e. a SPRITUAL body (made up of WORD) — initially in the case of humans these "words" are pretty basic. They make up our basic instincts, the instructions that make our body function, etc. As we grow and learn as humans we pick up more words. Unfortunately, because sin exists not all of these words are good or holy. But they're still part of our spiritual body. This is one way we are UNLIKE God. He has no evil word in him.
3.) Spirit — God has all sorts of flavors of spirit ranging from mercy and love, wisdom and understanding to holy anger, boldness and might (and a lot of other stuff). We're born with a certain mixture or recipe of these "fruits" of the spirit. THese grow -- or, ultimately, get perfected -- if we seek more of God and work what he gives us. We also have a lifeblood of spirit running through our body. Initially, God gives us a certain amount of "breath of life" (the scriptures say 70-80 years) that we exist on in this Earthly life. If we seek after God he can endue us with deeper, eternal spirit. We get a taste of this as we move into religion and learn about God. We get more as we move beyond that. The scriptures tell us that we can follow after Christ and get the same annointed spirit that Jesus had.

Two important points:

We don't have a soul. We ARE a soul -- a decision making entitiy. God is a soul and he made us in his image.

We are not physical creatures. We are spritual beings temporarily "enjoying" a physical experience. Our SOUL (what we really are -- we are NOT our body) is like God in that respect as well. We are spiritual beings denowed with God's word and spirit.

Our goal/mission/purpose is to be more like him. To seek after him. To obey him and grow more of his word and spirit in us. We will never be God almighty but we can be a greater reflection of his image if we seek him. As he said, he will walk in us and we in him. He will be our God and we his people.

My personal interpretation:

Our bodies reflect the form of God's body.  Hence God has a body Himself with a face, torso, arms, legs, hands, feet, etc.  God is not a formless entity.  He is our literal Heavenly Father.

Quoted: See the title.  What is your take on this?

It means that God has a very hairy back and pimples on his ass. Also, he grunts a little whn he gets up from a chair and it takes forever for him to pee at 3AM.

Quoted: See the title.  What is your take on this?

It means we have the mental capacity to relate to God and do His will.

This enables us to perform our function listed in the rest of the verse, which is: to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.

I believe that it means we are given free will, something that makes us unique among animals.

1 John 3.

"But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.."

He created us in His image.  We look like him.  When He comes again, He will look like us.

A basic tenet of biology is, "Like produces like."

Quoted: 1 John 3. "But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.." He created us in His image.  We look like him.  When He comes again, He will look like us. A basic tenet of biology is, "Like produces like."

If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given, and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.

Like produces like refers to sexual and asexual reproduction; not creation of new life spontaneously. I honestly would be rather sad to think God looks anything like us.

Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect..

Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this.

Quoted: Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.. Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this.

yes, materials and everything are hard to get right, and correcting designs is hard; however, the point remains that human beings are far from being perfect physically; why would God's form be one that is imperfect?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.. Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this. yes, materials and everything are hard to get right, and correcting designs is hard; however, the point remains that human beings are far from being perfect physically; why would God's form be one that is imperfect?

Why would you assume that God's body is imperfect?  Just because the form is the same, doesn't mean that the quality is also the same.

Man was originally created to be an immortal being. Sin entered in by our "decision" which was against the will of God. Thus cursing the whole of creation and bringing it into a lower material state. With this lower state of being comes death & decay; i.e. imperfection. Right now in this world there is imperfection. But when that which is perfect has come all things imperfect will be done away with. We will have a spiritual body made like His glorious body. The regenerate spirit which is given to man when he is born again is perfect and does not agree with the flesh (not the body, but the flesh). Idealy the body is to be ruled by the soul & the soul by the Spirit; which we are. Flesh is to be crucified. Because no good thing is of the flesh; i.e. the carnal nature. The carnal nature is ungodly. But by GOD the Holy Spirit we (the regenerate man) are transformed into the likeness of Christ day by day. It is a process. This is why it is said to be, "in His image or in His likeness". Just as when you see the image of yourself in a mirror. The image itself is not you. It is your likeness.

Question: Is there any man among us (including engineers) that can speak only and life is given? Created? What is "built" by man that he didn't use the materials already available? No mere mortal has ever "spoken" and something was created from nothing.

Quoted: Man was originally created to be an immortal being. Sin entered in by our "decision" which was against the will of God. Thus cursing the whole of creation and bringing it into a lower material state. With this lower state of being comes death & decay; i.e. imperfection. Right now in this world there is imperfection. But when that which is perfect has come all things imperfect will be done away with. We will have a spiritual body made like His glorious body. The regenerate spirit which is given to man when he is born again is perfect and does not agree with the flesh (not the body, but the flesh). Idealy the body is to be ruled by the soul & the soul by the Spirit; which we are. Flesh is to be crucified. Because no good thing is of the flesh; i.e. the carnal nature. The carnal nature is ungodly. But by GOD the Holy Spirit we (the regenerate man) are transformed into the likeness of Christ day by day. It is a process. This is why it is said to be, "in His image or in His likeness". Just as when you see the image of yourself in a mirror. The image itself is not you. It is your likeness. Question: Is there any man among us (including engineers) that can speak only and life is given? Created? What is "built" by man that he didn't use the materials already available? No mere mortal has ever "spoken" and something was created from nothing.

Yeah, what he said . . .

Quoted: . . .  2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given . . .

Get your own dirt . . . (it's an old joke)

Quoted: It means we have the mental capacity to relate to God and do His will.

Do you really have the mental capacity to relate to god? I sure don't. I really can't relate to "Hmm... What should I do this week? I know, I'll creeate a universe and populate it". Ok, I have played the 'The Sims', but that hardly counts.
Nor can I relate to "My, my creations are being rather bad. Hey Noah, I want you to build a boat, grab your family and some animals, and give me 40 days to clean house". I just can't quite wrap my brain around that one either.
I suppose thats where faith comes in. I don't need to know what god is doing in order to ok with it all. I think he's doing a right smack job of it even if I don't know his methods.

Quoted: Quoted: It means we have the mental capacity to relate to God and do His will. Do you really have the mental capacity to relate to god? I sure don't. I really can't relate to "Hmm... What should I do this week? I know, I'll creeate a universe and populate it". Ok, I have played the 'The Sims', but that hardly counts.

re·late    (r-lt)
VERB:
re·lat·ed , re·lat·ing , re·lates
VERB:
tr.
To narrate or tell. See Synonyms at describe.
To bring into or link in logical or natural association. See Synonyms at join.
To establish or demonstrate a connection between.

VERB:
intr.
To have connection, relation, or reference: The symbols relate to an earlier system.
To have or establish a reciprocal relationship; interact: She doesn't relate well to her peers.
To react in response, especially favorably: I just can't relate to these new fashions.



I'm not sure what definition of relate you are using.

The whole bible was written by people who interacted with God (not snakes, ants, trees, or dolphins).  The whole Bible leads up to the time where God is to reside among man (Rev 21:3) (not snakes, ants, trees, or dolphins).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.. Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this. yes, materials and everything are hard to get right, and correcting designs is hard; however, the point remains that human beings are far from being perfect physically; why would God's form be one that is imperfect? Why would you assume that God's body is imperfect?  Just because the form is the same, doesn't mean that the quality is also the same.

I don't think God has a body, I think He is a being that is entirely beyond the scope of this material plane.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.. Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this. yes, materials and everything are hard to get right, and correcting designs is hard; however, the point remains that human beings are far from being perfect physically; why would God's form be one that is imperfect? Why would you assume that God's body is imperfect?  Just because the form is the same, doesn't mean that the quality is also the same. I don't think God has a body, I think He is a being that is entirely beyond the scope of this material plane.

Thanks for the explanation.  I appreciate it.

Quoted: Quoted: 1 John 3. "But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.." He created us in His image.  We look like him.  When He comes again, He will look like us. A basic tenet of biology is, "Like produces like." If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given, and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect. Like produces like refers to sexual and asexual reproduction; not creation of new life spontaneously. I honestly would be rather sad to think God looks anything like us.

If he doesn't look like us, then what?  Hebrews says that Jesus was his "express image".  Jesus said that he who had seen him had seen the Father.  If He looks like His Father, and we look like Him, if Christ had a body that looked like His mortal body after He resurrected, and if when He returns, we will recognize Him, then we must look like the Father.

If A=B and B=C, then A must = C.

Genesis speaks of God walking in the Garden of Eden.  Not floating, not flying.  If He walks, he needs legs with joints, second year engineering students notwithstanding.

Sorry, PMG, just saw your last post.  Disregard mine above.  Different points of view.

When you read in Genesis 1:26 right after GOD says, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness;" He continues on to say, "and let them have rule over....." and then he lists everything upon the earth and the earth itself. That is one way that we are created in GOD's image. We have been given rulership over all the earth. Now in Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The word soul in Hebrew is nephesh and it means: a breathing creature, i.e. animal of abstract vitality. Used very widely in a literal sense. (Strong's Concordance). Read 1Corinthians 15:39-49 for an explaination of the different kinds of bodies and how our earthly body will be exchanged for a heavenly body. It also says in Genesis 2:7, "...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;". The word breathed in Hebrew is naphach it means: to puff or blow. And the word breath is neshamah it means: divine inspiration and intellect. This is the definition of the word intellect according to Webster's Dictionary: n. 1: ability to reason  2: high intelligence. Now we see that we have a different kind of life than the animals. They have life but not the breath of life. No where else in the Bible is it expressed as it is in Genesis 2:7. So we have been given a similar attribute of GOD in that we have the faculty of reason. C.S. Lewis described it this way: "We are and we know that we are." Animals are but they don't know that they are. We are conscious of our existance. This is an attribute of GOD. Yet we are not at present fully aware. But we will be. (Read 1John 3:2) It is like I stated before, It is like seeing your image in a mirror. The image itself is not you. It is your likeness. The regenerate spirit of man is fully inhabited and ruled by the Spirit of GOD. And GOD only imparts what He is. But we are not now fully spirit and we do not at present have a spiritual body. Only a likeness or an image of GOD.

Quoted: If he doesn't look like us, then what?  Hebrews says that Jesus was his "express image".  Jesus said that he who had seen him had seen the Father.  If He looks like His Father, and we look like Him, if Christ had a body that looked like His mortal body after He resurrected, and if when He returns, we will recognize Him, then we must look like the Father. If A=B and B=C, then A must = C. Genesis speaks of God walking in the Garden of Eden.  Not floating, not flying.  If He walks, he needs legs with joints, second year engineering students notwithstanding.

Can you not appreciate symbolic/spiritual language? Does everything have to be physical? Can't you understand that to "see" is to understand or to "know" (i.e. have an intimate relationship with)?



Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If God looks like us, then He obviously isn't a perfect being. 2nd year engineering majors can design better joints than the ones we were given,  and our efficiency is quite a bit less than perfect.. Putting something down on paper and making something that works in reality are two different things.  People with engineering experience will tell you this. yes, materials and everything are hard to get right, and correcting designs is hard; however, the point remains that human beings are far from being perfect physically; why would God's form be one that is imperfect?

___

Enineering? This and other terms have been bandied about in this thread, though what is fundamentally problematic is that while the Jewish Torah has indeed little to tell about the scientific origins of the world and it’s inhabitants, it does have a great deal to tell us about G-d’s relationship to the world and about humankind and their destiny.

Many of these mind-games and quite humorous self-expanding and exhausted one-upsmanship are futile...that this thread has been devolved into a mutual self gratification exercise has proved the futility of many of these “intellectual” positions.

Pundits will claim that since the Torah’s scientific comprehension is limited to the world view of the ancients, just as ours is to that of our own time, it would be futile to look to the Torah for references to evolution or to suggest that “one day” in creation may correspond to millennia in scientific reckoning.

This view of those who wish to continue to enjoy, yet find no satisfaction from their mutual self-gratification of exchanges of discussion of entropy, naturalism, macroevolution, etc., does not do the Torah justice.

This attitude, or lack of comprehension, approaches the Torah with a facile sense of modern superiority.

Certainly our knowledge of science is greater than the ancients.

But do you really believe that makes our worldview, based upon scientific, or pseudo-scientific banter, any more advanced?

Many here would be better off, and quite more satisfied (though that would, indeed, likely result in a dissatisfaction for a medium to espouse their obvious expansive knowledge of their world!) where they to instead come to the Torah (or your own novel version of it), the treating the Torah with full respect for it’s intellectual convictions and to understand that these are often expressed in metaphors and always in the vocabulary and framework of antiquity.

You pseudo-scientists should restrain your inclinations for modern comparisons to ancient notions of creation.

You should read the Torah, or whatever, for what it suggests about the nature of the history of mankind, the meaning of existence, and the presence of G-d.

Ed

Quoted: Enineering? This and other terms have been bandied about in this thread, though what is fundamentally problematic is that while the Jewish Torah has indeed little to tell about the scientific origins of the world and it’s inhabitants, it does have a great deal to tell us about G-d’s relationship to the world and about humankind and their destiny.

no one is arguing that, and it really doesn't come into play in this how G-d/Allah relates to us; this is simply an argument on:

1) Does God have a physical self

and  if the answer to 1) is "yes":

2) What form does God take.

Many of these mind-games and quite humorous self-expanding and exhausted one-upsmanship are futile...that this thread has been devolved into a mutual self gratification exercise has proved the futility of many of these “intellectual” positions.

I fail to see how it is futile; man CAN, and HAS, designed physical constructions that are more efficient than those in the human body. If men were made to live a max of 120 years, then why is it that our joints decay rapidly after, and even before, even a half of that time is up... even if we do keep ourselves in shape.

Pundits will claim that since the Torah’s scientific comprehension is limited to the world view of the ancients, just as ours is to that of our own time, it would be futile to look to the Torah for references to evolution or to suggest that “one day” in creation may correspond to millennia in scientific reckoning.

Indeed, but historical/scientific inaccuracies aplenty exist in the Torah; not just the Creation myth is in question.

This view of those who wish to continue to enjoy, yet find no satisfaction from their mutual self-gratification of exchanges of discussion of entropy, naturalism, macroevolution, etc., does not do the Torah justice.

I find satisfaction in using the brain Allah gave me to find out more about this world and how it works; I enjoy finding out how He created not the most perfect form, but the most intelligent form of life.

This attitude, or lack of comprehension, approaches the Torah with a facile sense of modern superiority.

Because modern thinking is superior to the thinking of the Torah. Does the Torah tell me how this universe works? No! Does it tell me anything at all about the properties of matter and our universe? No!

The Torah, Qur'an, and the Christian Bible tell us none of these things; they merely give us a reason for our existence.

Certainly our knowledge of science is greater than the ancients. But do you really believe that makes our worldview, based upon scientific, or pseudo-scientific banter, any more advanced?

Yes.

We in scientific societies don't run around murdering people because "God told us to do it", the Jews did, and the Muslims are doing it.

That is merely one, hard example, there are many more signs of advancement in our society that are lacking in the Jewish/Muslim/Christian society.

Many here would be better off, and quite more satisfied (though that would, indeed, likely result in a dissatisfaction for a medium to espouse their obvious expansive knowledge of their world!) where they to instead come to the Torah (or your own novel version of it), the treating the Torah with full respect for it’s intellectual convictions and to understand that these are often expressed in metaphors and always in the vocabulary and framework of antiquity.

Have fun playing word games with your "holy" book to fit it into the realms of science; I don't need to do that with mine.

You pseudo-scientists should restrain your inclinations for modern comparisons to ancient notions of creation.

notions of creation are anything but ancient when a majority of the world follows them.

Quoted: Many here would be better off, and quite more satisfied (though that would, indeed, likely result in a dissatisfaction for a medium to espouse their obvious expansive knowledge of their world!) where they to instead come to the Torah (or your own novel version of it), the treating the Torah with full respect for it’s intellectual convictions and to understand that these are often expressed in metaphors and always in the vocabulary and framework of antiquity. Have fun playing word games with your "holy" book to fit it into the realms of science; I don't need to do that with mine.

___

Re:

"Have fun playing word games with your "holy" book to fit it into the realms of science; I don't need to do that with mine."

You must be smoking something to have arrived at that remark.  Nothing I commented upon could possibly have warrented that.  

The only funny thing in this dialogue has been, aside from your comment, the wanton application of  pseudo-science and comments of "If A=B and B=C, then A must = C." as applicable to what the Torah is meant to tell us about G-d’s relationship to the world and about humankind and their destiny.

People and nuts are making apple and orange comparisons.  

Great question. My answer will probably seal my fate on the boards as being a wack job.
I believe that God is the supreme scientist. He created apes, and then added some of his DNA to make humans. The Marrow of the rib cage is the best source for DNA harvest. When it is said that "he created Eve from the rib of Adam" it would make sense that he harvested some of this marrow to make woman's DNA

Let me disassociate myself from the DNA part of that post.  I think we share some of God's characteristics in the construction of our minds and our abilities to think.  That separates us from the animals.  I doubt God even has DNA, but we do reflect something of Him in ourselves, so if you wanted to use that as a loose analogy, it might work.  I like the characterization of God as the Supreme scientist.

Actually, I kind of see it the same way.  I wanted to hear other people's ideas, though.  I've gotten some really good ideas and information from the religion forum.

I see God as the Supreme intellect...or at least much more supreme than ours.  He can conceive of things on a cosmic scale.  He has to be able to model the universe in His "mind" in order to create the universe.  He can likely conceive of things that humans can't even think of because our brains are too inadequate...maybe.  What does "made in His image" mean?  Maybe that we have the potential to understand him, if not the current ability.  Or maybe that we are capable of higher levels of thought, although lesser levels than God is capable of.  Can we eventually understand God as a whole?  I don't know.  That is kind of like asking "what is the total potential of humanity?".

I tend to shy away from literal interpretations of much of the Bible.  I'm not sure my abstract interpretations are correct though.  I'm thinking about writing a book that ties mathematics in with religion and tries to offer possible explanations of biblical concepts in mathematical notation.  I have a rough outline and a title, but not much else.

Quoted: Great question. My answer will probably seal my fate on the boards as being a wack job. I believe that God is the supreme scientist. He created apes, and then added some of his DNA to make humans. The Marrow of the rib cage is the best source for DNA harvest. When it is said that "he created Eve from the rib of Adam" it would make sense that he harvested some of this marrow to make woman's DNA

Do you have evidence for this "marrow of the rib cage" statement?  Not familiar with that.

This is a story of sexual understanding and progeneration, and have the dual nature both man and woman has in the continuance of the creation story. This is an important point, as it is as relevant today as it was 5,000 yrs. ago.

That people unfamiliar with Judaism continue to post of these apple to oranges comparisons will further lead themselves to perplexion. The point of the story is being missed entirely, and the imagination is running rampant and on a course inconsistent with the lesson the Torah is offering. Biblical understanding of text is imperative; to let imagination take flight is indicative of lack of knowledge.




Ed

Quoted: This is a story of sexual understanding and progeneration, and have the dual nature both man and woman has in the continuance of the creation story. This is an important point, as it is as relevant today as it was 5,000 yrs. ago. That people unfamiliar with Judaism continue to post of these apple to oranges comparisons will further lead themselves to perplexion. The point of the story is being missed entirely, and the imagination is running rampant and on a course inconsistent with the lesson the Torah is offering. Biblical understanding of text is imperative; to let imagination take flight is indicative of lack of knowledge. Ed

I have never understood Genesis...the Christian version of it.  Every time it has been used as a story of sexual understanding, it has been used as an attack on women.  If you want to use it as a story of man's creation, you have to really stretch to interpret it that way.  It doesn't fit either role very well and remain consistent with everything else in there, from what I've seen of it.