What does it mean to be an Elohim?

a reply to: andy06shake
I'll take both.
Science uncovers the truth about the nature of material existence. If it's conclusion is that there is no purpose to it, it would negate it's own purpose. You need not anthropomorphize these things. All that is really needed is to know that the universe is rather impressive, and beyond our understanding. As we pursue the truth of our existence through science, it would seem to me un-scientific to conclude that there was no meaning.

a reply to: andy06shake

Religions are not theory, fact is they are all about control.

Another fact word ? 🤔 You are entitled to your opinion of course, but the religion I aspire to is all about respecting the act of creating life.. and committing to a loving relationship in marriage, and being responsible to teach our children good moral values. My religion inspires me to be more loving and forgiving and though I may fail with this at times, it also tells me I can receive forgiveness for failing .

I don’t see a big bad control issue with that.. but then again that is my opinion.
You go your way.. I’ll go mine.. sooner or later one of us will be proven right with FACTS !

a reply to: rom12345

The bible and most other organized religious practices anthropomorphized there deities, i did not personally have much to do there.

The universe is infinite for intents and purpose, that's about as impressive as it gets.

As to understanding, we will simply never have the tools not intellectual prowess at our disposal to understand even a mere fraction of the grand scheme of things.

But it's not about understanding unless its about the questions gleaned from a sliver of such.

Let's just say it would not be beyond the realms of possibility nor un-scientific that we bestow meanings on things by way of our attempt to understand, after all labels are apparently important.

My take on matters through, science generally attempts to promote the truth where as organized religious practice retards free thought, supplanting such with a perverted version of there own.

Modern science is based on the principle "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest" :Rupert Sheldrake.

a reply to: Sheye

Well, the fact is you are perfectly free to believe as you choose.

There are some words.

I don't know about ether one of us will be proven right all the same.

End of the day mate, opinions are like bumholes, just about everyone has one and other peoples tend to stink.

a reply to: andy06shake
I agree that there are many who will fein understanding of the unknowable and prey on the hope of the desperate.
To consider this a reasonable action: They would have to be so clever to realize there is no god, and in fact they are god.
This has a name in the stories, in the beginning chapters, the archetype of which ,appears frequently in history, and psychiatry and prisons.
It also has many references in popular culture, and it could be argued that the books, films, and music that can be appreciate by humans are all infused with these same stories.

Our Science, I hope, is the next chapter in the story, which given along enough timeline will also seem absurd to future people.
Yet it will form the foundation of the truth of their age, in all it's success and failing.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: WanderingMrM

"Elohim" was the ancient Hebrew word for "God" or sometimes "god."

In the book "When God Was a Woman," I believe I read that "Elohim" referred to a united God and Goddess, representing both the masculine and feminine divine in one entity.

This is incorrect, being based upon a feminist-slanted, ignorant interpretation of the mystical meaning of the Divine name Elohim. God is androgyne, never purely masculine nor purely feminine. Different religions focussed on either aspect of this polarity, creating patriarchal and matriarchal societies.
The ancient Hebrew word for God is EL, not Elohim. The latter is derived from the Hebrew word Eloah (Elh), which is the feminine form of EL. The ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural, but for the Jewish God, the word is usually understood to be grammatically singular. However, the King James translators of the Old Testament accidently let slip in verse 26 of Genesis 1 its true meaning that reveals that this view (made to preserve the monotheistic outlook) is incorrect - the word as used there really does have a plural meaning, as if it was intended to denote gods and goddesses (!), because the verb really is plural: And Elohim said: " Let us make man in our image,...." This seeming contradiction between the monotheism of the Jewish religion and its own creation myth, which refers to plural gods, is repeated many times in the Old Testament, where Elohim is translated in different contexts as the subject of both singular and plural verbs. None of the ways scholars try to weasel their way out of admitting this vein of pantheism running through the Old Testament is convincing. The contradition between monotheism and pantheism (which exists only for believers in the exoteric version of Judaism and Christianity) can be reconciled only by recognising that the Genesis narrative has a mystical level of meaning in which various Godnames are used to refer to God in various metaphysical aspects that can be given sometimes misleading human, psychosexual counterparts. In fact, each Divine Name is assigned in Kabbalah to a particular Sephirah of the Tree of Life. Yahweh is assigned to Chokmah, the second member of the Supernal Triad, signifying the creative, amorphous life-force or energy, whilst Elohim is assigned to Binah, the third member, meaning the restraining "laws of nature" that stem from the basic notion of relationship between subject and object and which generate the multiplicty of things in the cosmos. The second and third Sephiroth head, respectively, the pillars of Mercy and Severity, the active (male) and reactive (female) cosmic polarities (Yang & Yin in Taoism). This is why Yahweh is regarded as masculine (the Yang aspect) and Elohim as feminine (the Yin aspect). Elohim embodies the feminine aspect of God - NOT in any psychosexual sense that humans would readily understand but in an abstract, metaphysical sense that is too abstruse to clarify further here. This feminine noun with a masculine plural ending is signifying the chaotic, creative (masculine) power of God now modified or constrained to create the diverse offspring of this formless lifeforce, namely, all the "things" in the universe.

a reply to: andy06shake

End of the day mate, opinions are like bumholes, just about everyone has one and other peoples tend to stink.

Sorry.. but everyone’s bum hole stinks.. I never said your opinion stinks because quite honestly I can appreciate where you are coming from as someone with no faith in God. It’s unfortunate you would call my opinion a stinky one because I choose to believe in a loving God. These science people and their opinions can leave such a warm fuzzy feeling. 🙄

a reply to: WanderingMrM

Elite ;-)

a reply to: Sheye

Indeed, but there will probably be some poor soul out there missing a bum hole, i did not want to discriminate.

Opinions, well everyone has those, which was the gist of my attempt at levity.

As to me being someone with no faith in God, that would depend on what constitutes the premise of such, like i said hedging ones bet, is probably the best bet.

I don't think you opinion a ""stinky one"", if anything i imagine it extends you enormous piece of mind with regards to rather a lot of things.

Science is what it is, religion is what they tell you it is, just a thought.

Warm fuzzy feelings, well that's another kettle of fish altogether, aside of course form Chemistry which has given us loads of warm fuzzy feelings, religion not so much im afraid.

a reply to: andy06shake
Religion is the mechanism that lessons learned have been gifted to us, so we can benifit.
Science has not yet addressed the lessons covered in the old stories.

John Nash had a crack at it in various ways including game theory, and although he suffered paranoid schizophrenia, he none the less was awarded a nobel prize.

Its plural means "powers". "Gods" is a connotation we moderners bring to it.

As a metaphysical idea, Elohim, or powers, refers to the powers of nature. Within the kabbalah, its understood to mean God in his multiplicity as the various natural processes we observe within nature.

If you read the bible in Hebrew, this is clearly the intended concept behind the use of this term, hence why YHWH is contrasted with Elohim over and over again: its meant to point out that God is both the singular 'being' of reality (YHWH) as well as the external powers we experience with our senses. These two positions are oftentimes conceived to be different, but within the bibles metaphysics, they are understood to be two sides of the same coin.

This is more or less the intuitive idea of reality the most aboriginals have of nature. It's multitudinous; and singular. The singularity is what makes the natural world one great being or 'spirit'. It's multiplicity acknowledges the different sorts of realities that exist and operate relatively unobstructed by the other parts.

Now you know.

a reply to: purplemer

In the beginning the elite made heaven and earth?

What a delusional fantasy!

a reply to: WanderingMrM

Definition of Elohim, is' "the majestic ones". An older definition, is " from the sky they came".

It would seem these things have roots in Bicameralism.
I would not dismiss the voices in the heads of our ancestors minds as mere aberrations.
Most attempts to reinvent the world have not faired too well.
It would seem that certain voices bear fruit instead of chaos.

a reply to: WanderingMrM

King David wrote in psalms "he was made a little less than Elohim".

a reply to: rom12345

Bicameralism only appeals to people alienated from reality. The theory wrongly assumes that voices aren't expressions of your own interpersonal history with others, and therefore, expressions of those parts of yourself which you don't personally own.

Voices are attractors. Attractors are superpositions which dynamically regulate the biodynamics of living systems.

The ideal is to know yourself so that you don't have to submit to a fake god and thus live life dissociated from what causes what.

originally posted by: Joeshiloh
a reply to: WanderingMrM

Definition of Elohim, is' "the majestic ones". An older definition, is " from the sky they came".

No. You are referring to the interpretation of the Godname Elohim as "angels". This is made by some people but only when the word is accompanied by a plural verb, as in Genesis 1:26. It is certainly NOT the general translation of the word. That is FAR more sublime, its power being only surpassed by the Divine Name Yahweh. If you want to see that power in action, visit the research website:
smphillips.mysite.com...
where you will discover how it mathematically determines the nature of all holistic systems, e.g., the seven musical diatonic scales, superstring theory and the properties of the five Platonic solids.

a reply to: micpsi

Its origin is pagan.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: rom12345

Bicameralism only appeals to people alienated from reality. The theory wrongly assumes that voices aren't expressions of your own interpersonal history with others, and therefore, expressions of those parts of yourself which you don't personally own.

Voices are attractors. Attractors are superpositions which dynamically regulate the biodynamics of living systems.

The ideal is to know yourself so that you don't have to submit to a fake god and thus live life dissociated from what causes what.

I agree with you:
1st commandment was to not believe in fake gods, and tragedy befell those who tried.
My Bicameralism, can draw many parallel with the words that you say:
Voices are attractors. Attractors are superpositions which dynamically regulate the biodynamics of living systems.

Clearly this is an interpersonal historical concept.

Is conscience or love a voice that we explain ?

I believe to know yourself is to know God, but like you, it worries me to think that others may know themselves through "gods" that would have them erroneously draw conclusion that were not congenial.

Semantics Perhaps ?

I have certainly delved into my own intellect (and found it lacking), I do not put Science in the same category as the other words (voices), beliefs.
Same book shelf though.

a reply to: WanderingMrM
OK so 11 different people said you were an elohim and you wait till now to ask ATS the answer when you could have just googled it after the first person called you something you have never heard.

I smell shyte