"God" is just a title that can consist of more than one individual (Here is how you may tell), page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 1-12-2011 @ 02:35 PM by WarJohn

What is in a him that implies man? Two! A he and a she. A him and a her. "God" under the title was not someone alone. "God" been two individuals way before Adam became not alone. One title can imply for more than one individual, correct? Then you do see now.

Whom has an image? God according to Genesis. See Genesis 1:26-27 if it helps. This means he is two seperate individuals making up one body titled "God."

So God created man in his [and her] own image.

What is God's image?

Man (male and female)! You see male and female is man. And you know that is God's image.

Him (he and she). His (accounts for both his and her's of man).

Original man ("God") by image is a marriage of an original male and an original female before Adam got to have a wife from his rib.

Think long and hard about the word "us" from "Let us make man in our image..."

Do you really think God gave us God's image? As long as you see males and females, then yep.

Man is male and female because "God" is a single, shared title of two by image.

reply posted on 1-12-2011 @ 02:45 PM by Pokoia

reply to post by WarJohn

Yes, i agree, besides "Elohim"is also a multitude.

reply posted on 1-12-2011 @ 02:47 PM by WarJohn

"God"... a male and a female that both look like humans wherever they dwell. How so? Man being the image of "God" says that "God" has looks and genders indeed.

"God" can dwell anywhere he [and she] want. Here or in paradise or wherever else he [and she] created.

Don't sleep on "God" being two of some kind of better human beings, having the most attractive looks on demand.

Don't sleep on whom is under the title "God" having sex either.

Remember, man's image is God's image.

"God" is a them (male and female).

edit on 1-12-2011 by WarJohn because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-12-2011 @ 03:23 PM by 13th Zodiac

You are correct,well done.It is a title.A unified title much as a King and Queen.Lord is also a title giving rank ,as is Christ,meaning King and is not a name.

reply posted on 1-12-2011 @ 03:26 PM by Razimus

I agree with the OP. Have nothing more to say other than I agree.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 08:14 PM by Lucidia

reply to post by WarJohn

I agree that "God" is only a title like Pope, King, Queen, Lord etc. There are consequences for the social structure, and for ideology whenever this title is assigned to things or persons.

Because the term "God" is only a title many people recognize that it is an arbitrary, social designation, not a logical necessity, and that it is even oppressive and, in particular, classist in nature. There is no point in calling anything God unless one is aiming to support and socially operate with a given concept of political hierarchy. Religions dictate the concept of political hierarchy that a religious believer is expected to accept, and demand acceptance of a divine order to configure that hierarchy.

By denying that anyone is worthy of the social and politically consequential designation "God," Atheists necessarily question the demands of religion's call for a classist, divine order. The title "God" does have meaning for the social structure that a particular people that accept its usage likely would develop. That is why it is important to be mindful and careful about what one deems worthy of this high and mighty title. Social and cognitive life are extensively ordered, structured and influenced by the concepts or things that people believe deserve to be called "God." Calling something "God" is an act that inititates a process of social and ideological engineering that has consequences for the expressed nature of social conflicts that are possible within a society and between or among ideologically distinct societies. It should be no surprise that religions lead to violence, social conflict, and war.

Pages: ^^TOP^^