What does God created mankind in his own image mean

Paul speaks of being fully sanctified body, soul, and spirit. So we are triune in that aspect. Adam may of been created in the image of God but that soon ended with the fall. Chuck Messier wrote some interesting hypostases of what Adam and Eve were physically prior to the fall. Since they walked with God in the cool of the day in the garden and the NT tells us that God is a spirit that must be worshiped in spirit and truth. So they were something different than what we are today after the fall.
a reply to: glend

originally posted by: glend
It seems you can look at the statement two ways, either we are in Gods image (or dream) or are we Godlike?

But from our perspective being Godlike sounds ridiculous. So what is God. If God has a threefold nature (Father, Son & Holy Ghost) are the scriptures saying that we the son are like the father, or to put it differently, our singular mind is part of a greater universal mind.

I would like to hear thoughts from those from all religions or even those that aren't religious.

Are we like God. If so what is God.

Might be tough for you to pick one of the responses as being truth...People believe all kinds of crazy things...

Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our imge, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God says he's a plural being...They're are 3 of those person yet one God...Father, Son, Holy Spirit...

Now, moving on to man:

1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Man is made like the trinity of God...We have a body, a soul and a spirit...

That's my take on it...

I have no clue what it means. I know I have heard many interpretations of this, but I don't think any of them are the whole truth. Who would god look like, hopefully not like me. Maybe if he was in a little better shape and a lot younger it would be ok. So if it is personality, who's personality is right, everyone is so different and have different beliefs.

a reply to: Iscool

That is a different viewpoint that I failed to see and very plausible.

I don't mind the different viewpoints (even from those that don't believe in God) as its a way to test the integrity of our belief systems. But if we reading the same books we should have similar beliefs which begs another question, why the ambiguity. Perhaps the writers of books are unable to pierce through the veils to the maker as well.

a reply to: glend

All I can say is that if God made mankind in his own image then heaven must be a c##t of a place.

I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.

a reply to: glend

It's in 'their' image. More than one. Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.

a reply to: glend

Do not presume anything about my beliefs, I am not an atheist, I have studied many religions and had many spiritual experiences.

It doesn't influence the fact that the bibles were based on other older religions, of which I have written extensively on ATS, and that those bibles were written by fallible men and rewritten many times over many hundreds / thousands of years.

It should also be noted that spirituality and spiritual experiences is not in any way validification of any religion or bibles.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wasaka
a reply to: glend

Many Christian out there take the Bible literally. Let think about this...
From that literal perspective one might think that God is a transexual.
Think about it. He created man, then from man he created woman.
God must be both male and female, if we are formed in "His" image.

So much for being literal =)

Don't you mean asexual?

Transexual seems a little too new-age for god.

Transexual no. Androgyne.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Being made in God's image is equivalent to looking in a mirror at yourself. The image you see of yourself is you being made in God's image.

Well then God is a handsome devil.

Genesis 1 stating that man was created in the image of God (Elohim) by God represents the divine nature that is within us all. Where people go wrong is not seeing the difference between the God of Genesis 1 and the "God" of Genesis 2. That is of course "Yahweh," who has supposedly made man "from dust." While "intellectual reasoning" would say that Genesis 1 and 2 should be harmonized, there is a divine riddle in the differences between the two chapters.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God (the Elohim, with no mention of "Yahweh") created the heavens and the earth.

(Genesis 2:4) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord ("Yahweh" is the true translation of "Lord") God made the earth and the heavens.

The first time Yahweh is mentioned in the Bible, it says that he created "the earth and the heavens," as opposed to "the heavens and the earth." This flipping of prominence is a clue that ties into the fact that man is currently confined in a matrix that has him believing he is a mere vessel from the dust of the earth, when in fact he is a divine, heavenly being made in God's image. All Abrahamic religions have been deceived in this way, as they consider it blasphemy to claim to have a divine nature.

"The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man was created by god, and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the Truth and happiness that he never stops searching for"

It is in Jesus Christ, "the image of the invisible God", that man is created, in "the image and likeness of The Creator.

The divine image is present in every man.

a reply to: glend

originally posted by: Ignatian
"The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man was created by god, and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the Truth and happiness that he never stops searching for"

It is in Jesus Christ, "the image of the invisible God", that man is created, in "the image and likeness of The Creator.

The divine image is present in every man.

a reply to: glend

I would rephase that to say "the desire for peace and belonging (or perhaps enlightenment) is written in the human heart" and finding that comfort and ease does not require the existence of a creator god. It is not 'put' there by a god(s) but an emergent property of life itself.

a reply to: glend

We are comprised of three distinct parts:

Body
Soul
Spirit

originally posted by: 001ggg100
a reply to: glend

.... It's more like man created God in his image.

2nd

Without man attempting to "observe/define God"; God WOULD NOT EXIST. I doubt my horse recognizes a 'god being' in control unless IT IS I when feeding it.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.

We are animated perfections (gods idea image of), our purpose; to define God (selfish reasons apply) is not what you think it is at all. This is an information (regarding itself) only seeking being. This is why strife, war, human suffering is allowed. Every avenue the human provides is food/fodder to UNDERSTAND or KNOW ITSELF. Are we being used? If we are God particle, no, as it suffers right along side us as IS US, we are ITs self expression.

originally posted by: glend
It seems you can look at the statement two ways, either we are in Gods image (or dream) or are we Godlike?

But from our perspective being Godlike sounds ridiculous. So what is God. If God has a threefold nature (Father, Son & Holy Ghost) are the scriptures saying that we the son are like the father, or to put it differently, our singular mind is part of a greater universal mind.

I would like to hear thoughts from those from all religions or even those that aren't religious.

Are we like God. If so what is God.

There is a 3rd way to look at it beyond distinctions. Gods image is really moot or non sequitur. Whatever the first cause was no matter what one wants to call it or attribute it too, that gave rise to the chain of existence or life as we know it; has absolutely no bearing on release from the fetters binding one to the seemingly infinite process of causation. So god or not, you and only you are responsible for your release from bondage to the cycle of becoming.

Lets say god does not exist. OK what else gave rise to this? So we say hey evolution! Then evolution becomes god and human behavior and habit becomes the new devil... instead of the personifications. It's same nonsense, we just traded names and removed faces from the first cause. Those believing in a god as a cause or evolution as a reason, are who give their reason for being here; arms, legs, a mouth... this creates a very real effect in the world; even if the chosen god or creator they choose to be arms, legs, and a mouth for... isn't real. Many over countess eons have lived fought and died over an unknown first cause simply out of taking a belief for reality. Even those saying they have an experience of god and know for a fact there is one; it is still just a conceptual belief for them to fight and argue over, the same as any other tangible or intangible object in conscious experience, found or invented.

The first cause is moot in reality except when we make belief a reality, it's the same as when you die... the world will keep going and only those that know you, will be affected by your passing. We erroneously think; maybe if we know our first cause, it will give us some meaning or reason for being and know what direction to take. In early recorded history, many cultures said it was nature; we came out of the earth, interestingly that belief is sort of the same as evolution without magical pixie dust just space dust instead. So for thousands of years some believed in nature as the reason, then a some point personified it into gods, spirits or heroes to pass on stories of how to survive here and how best to use their time to do that in the most uncomplicated way possible. Well, some figured out how to control and profit off of this information... make others work for them and truly win the game of living as uncomplicated as possible.

Sure that took care of physical comfort well enough for those exploiting experience tales of how to live and survive... it's still the largest human market in the world, with many countless vendors and products for you to live an "ideal" life.

So, knowing or desiring to know our first cause doesn't really do a damn thing other than keep whatever the current markets are in business and whatever ones arise in the future in business.

They of course don't say, the first cause means nothing to right now beyond the market and control it can bring over people. The first cause does not give you a purpose unless you are taught or choose it to be your purpose. If you don't choose a first cause as a purpose or reason for being? The government or someone else is very happy to try and give you a reason for being or purpose.

The reality is; there isn't a purpose or reason for being in and of itself... it's a human creation due to a side effect of developing a conscience of being. If we removed conscience, then we would be left with just survival instincts the same as animals. Conscience naturally arose out of ideation from us communicating in groups to survive because our concepts expanded beyond communicating a need for food, shelter, etc. we noticed some external things were good or bad for survival and we avoided those things, eventually they became known as good or bad. This expanded from the external concept of good/bad while BS-ing around a campfire, to internal concepts of good/bad, right/wrong etc. the dawn of logical and rational thought started to arise, developing into what we know it as today.

Our concepts are really not very different from back then, they all are either positive/negative or neutral in ones personal experience. Outside of personal experience or societal obligations of adherence to concepts, they are just as moot as the first cause is in reality. If people were to quit looking to a first cause or others for a reason for being, and give themselves one the world would become a very different place. Many people already have done this, and will do this in the future, it is a direction the world should take, if we wish to avoid extinction.

If we look at the world and it's problems now, we have many large heavily armed groups arguing over the same two basic ideologiespos/neg, good/evil, right/wrong) those listed are exactly the same concept, and are extremes of being because of differing ideologies of what is pos/neg, good/evil, right/wrong is. In an ideological word, there is a line drawn in the dirt and whomever is on the other side? Is an enemy, terrorist, heretic, rebel, a-hole, liberal, conservative, or whatever nonsense people want to call someone that doesn't agree with them on the other side of the line. Avoiding those extremes, doesn't mean removing the line; but having tolerance and understanding for those that choose that side. The intolerance, bias and hate we have in the world at large, is just a lot of finger, gun, and rocket pointing, It's not good for any actual problem solving.

We see each other as the issue, instead of looking at the issue itself; hate cannot cease by hate just for that reason. If person A has a problem and person B has a problem, either A or B saying A or B is at fault, both are just avoiding the actual problem and saying each other is the problem. One side says global warming, one side says no global warming; so they waste time arguing it, Instead of saying we have this effect occurring and data is pointing to this as the cause; here is how it is going to impact humanity if it continues; and this is how it is going to effect humanity if it doesn't continue. Lets present this information to humanity and ask what they want to do about it. Well, it doesn't work that way; it is either stalled due to hate for each other or complicated by greed if it affects the lively hood of one and not the other. The delusion is that we are actually moving forward at any speed other than a crawl as a species under this extremist ideological pos/neg, good/evil, right/wrong existence, that does nothing but grow larger and larger and angrier and angrier as time goes on.

Logic and rationality must be balanced for a healthy world, the logical can fall into the extreme of being irrational, and the rational can fall into the extreme of being illogical. If we want to avoid harm to humanity, abandoning or tolerating ideological concepts that give rise to extremes of belief taken for reality and truth, is the best we've got going.

a reply to: glend

Well the Bible seems to suggest that its authors actually believed God looked vaguely human. Of course anthropomorphism with gods is a very common thing and many modern monotheists do not believe that God is actually physically similar to human beings.

In the Bible God walks and talks with Adam and Eve and speaks in person to Abraham on a few occasions. These sort of mundane appearances can be contrasted with other Biblical events such as Moses hair going white because he catches a glimpse of God and of course visionary appearances such as the Revelation where God is typically on a throne personified as a King.

So it seems that to some authors of the Bible God was physically like a man in at least appearance and when he appeared in visions he also seems to have been humanoid and sit on a throne.

This kind of contrasts with the modern notion put forth by some that God is some nebulous disembodied mind beyond space and time, something tells me the Biblical authors, if they could understand those concepts, would reject them.

a reply to: glend

From linguistics, instincts, and snip:

either we are in Gods image (or dream) or

That one

a reply to: wisvol

I suspect so too but to understand means to attain and that is something I have not yet done. Its interesting reading everyones take on the question but wouldn't surprize if all are wrong including my own concepts. The Apocryphon of John isn't dissimilar to Buddha writings and if you read Judaism Zohar it appears our perception of the creator (or spirit acting as such) is filtered through various enlightenments from which we view different creators, if I understand it correctly.