Does YFD have a human face?
Does YFD have a human face?
Just to clarify, voting “Yes†means that if it were possible to see/perceive the face of the deity (it may vary from one deity to another), it would be recognizably human in appearance (as in two eyes, one nose, one mouth and so on). This would also imply anthropomorphic “bodyâ€.
Voting “No†would mean that the deity isn’t anthropomorphic, such as the IPU or FSM, or the snake-like goa’uld’s and so on.
I’d also like to note that atheists can also vote, as they might have a favourite deity from the variety that the others defines. I for one prefer Buddha over IPU at any given time.
Also, those atheists who dislike all form of deity equally have my permission to abstain from voting.
My vote is “Noâ€, because I choose to like the M.E. possibility (as described in another thread here), and the M.E. is in no way anthropomorphic.
A.
Voting “No†would mean that the deity isn’t anthropomorphic, such as the IPU or FSM, or the snake-like goa’uld’s and so on.
I’d also like to note that atheists can also vote, as they might have a favourite deity from the variety that the others defines. I for one prefer Buddha over IPU at any given time.
Also, those atheists who dislike all form of deity equally have my permission to abstain from voting.
My vote is “Noâ€, because I choose to like the M.E. possibility (as described in another thread here), and the M.E. is in no way anthropomorphic.
A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:21 pm
- Title: Secret Agent Man
- First Joined: 0- 0-2000
- Location: USA
While I am a "Christian" and believe that we are "created in God's image" and all, I don't believe that that was the _literal_ intent of the passage. I believe that God gave us the characteristics that he most valued: intelligence, self-awareness, etc. (Of course, with the "good" came the "bad" but that is another discussion.) In short, I have no reason to believe that God actually physically resembles us at all (or vice versa) in his ethereal form (although as Jesus he obviously did).
Share this dragon - If you do - Lucky end - For them and you! Petra
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
No face.....talk to the hand
using the idea of being created after His image, (I wonder does this mean all of His creations created after His image, meaning design or his likeness) hmmm. Do we look like His image the same way that say a racoon or a horse looks like his image, like His patton (please excuse my poor spelling, I'm trying), How about His likeness? Dosen't it say in Genesis that Moses spoke to God face to face (Don't have the reference on hand, sorry). If that is the case the wouldn't all christians, jews (being the only globally recognised Isrealites, except to muslems [who themselves have a simular idenity crisis]), and muslems: who beleive in the old testiment of the bible, beleive that from that statement that God does indeed have a face. Please share your views why and why not.
What's the quickest route to the nurses station?
I’ve heard the version that “in His image†means just “with intelligenceâ€, therefore the “anthropomorphic†interpretation is just that, an interpretation (and not a fact).
For the ones that take that “likeness†more literally, there is one little question I’d like to ask: what is the gender of the deity ?
A.
For the ones that take that “likeness†more literally, there is one little question I’d like to ask: what is the gender of the deity ?
A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:21 pm
- Title: Secret Agent Man
- First Joined: 0- 0-2000
- Location: USA
My interpretation of "in his likeness" has always been "with intelligence" or perhaps "with self-awareness" (since some animals are very intelligent but, as far as we know, have no self-awareness). And language translations have always bothered me, being somewhat of a linguist myself.
For example, can a person speak "face to face" with an animal or something that has no face? And before the advent of phones, was it even conceivable to speak to someone any way other than "face to face"? It seems unlikely. So, if the original expression (literal or not) actually MEANT "one-on-one" or "in His presence" then that might be a better translation, even if the literal words were "face to face."
On the last issue, that of gender: no comment. What could gender mean to a one-of-a-kind being like God? Besides, if God were man (as we know it), then Mary probably wouldn't have been a 'virgin mother.' (There's another translation problem, as far as I can tell: 'virgin' = 'young woman' => 'inexperienced' (by virtue of being young). Not really the same as what 'virgin' means in English...)
For example, can a person speak "face to face" with an animal or something that has no face? And before the advent of phones, was it even conceivable to speak to someone any way other than "face to face"? It seems unlikely. So, if the original expression (literal or not) actually MEANT "one-on-one" or "in His presence" then that might be a better translation, even if the literal words were "face to face."
On the last issue, that of gender: no comment. What could gender mean to a one-of-a-kind being like God? Besides, if God were man (as we know it), then Mary probably wouldn't have been a 'virgin mother.' (There's another translation problem, as far as I can tell: 'virgin' = 'young woman' => 'inexperienced' (by virtue of being young). Not really the same as what 'virgin' means in English...)
Share this dragon - If you do - Lucky end - For them and you! Petra
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
On the term "virgin," that applies to the prophecy in Isaiah, I believe. However, Luke makes it really clear what he means by "virgin."
As for the issue of the image of God, I have always taken it to mean that humans were created in the same general form as God. That said, it doesn't faze me to think that it might only refer to sentiency or the like.
Regarding the sex of God, I like what you said, KennEnder. What would physical sex mean to a singular being? It really seems more of a non-issue to me. I personally use the masculine pronoun, but that's largely in following with tradition, and we never use "it" to refer to a developed, sentient being.
As for the issue of the image of God, I have always taken it to mean that humans were created in the same general form as God. That said, it doesn't faze me to think that it might only refer to sentiency or the like.
Regarding the sex of God, I like what you said, KennEnder. What would physical sex mean to a singular being? It really seems more of a non-issue to me. I personally use the masculine pronoun, but that's largely in following with tradition, and we never use "it" to refer to a developed, sentient being.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
Given your interpretation of "likeness", that's understandable. That question in particular is for those who voted "YES".Regarding the sex of God, I like what you said, KennEnder. What would physical sex mean to a singular being? It really seems more of a non-issue to me.
A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
Oh, when I say same general form, I mean it in the same way that you and I, presumably, have the same general form, and again as my sisters, and those I meet on the street every day. As much as I may assume him to have a human face, I still feel that his actual sex is irrelevant.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
I'm incapable of giving a straight answer.
Physical face? Perhaps. I'm not too attached to the notion of a humanoid God. Someone asked what need a singular Being would have for biological sex. What need does a Being which exists outside of the physical cosmos have for bipedal locomotion?
I mean, sure, maybe he (and I use the term out of tradition) has a pair of arms and a pair of legs and whatnot, but he probably wouldn't need them.
What's more important to me is consciousness, will, "soul."
Physical face? Perhaps. I'm not too attached to the notion of a humanoid God. Someone asked what need a singular Being would have for biological sex. What need does a Being which exists outside of the physical cosmos have for bipedal locomotion?
I mean, sure, maybe he (and I use the term out of tradition) has a pair of arms and a pair of legs and whatnot, but he probably wouldn't need them.
What's more important to me is consciousness, will, "soul."
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
Physical face? Perhaps. I'm not too attached to the notion of a humanoid God. Someone asked what need a singular Being would have for biological sex. What need does a Being which exists outside of the physical cosmos have for bipedal locomotion?
Eaquae Legit, the question about the gender, as this whole thread, is presented here in order to see how literally do people take the written scripture. Everyone has their interpretation, and that’s what this is all about.
So, for those who see their deity as “humanoidâ€, there is this “detail†about how can one single deity create two (anatomically) different beings in “His imageâ€?
You and others say that “it’s a non-issue to talk about the physical sex of a unique beingâ€, and I agree. Yet apparently the tradition presents that deity as an old MAN. Why? Wouldn’t it be more logical to be a woman, being able to create life and all?
These are all rhetorical questions of course, but I have the impression that this “innocent†fact explains a lot of centuries of considering the women inherently “inferior†in the eyes of religion, and as an end result in human society.
I have one question for you: what would you say if science will get to the point where it could explain the consciousness/will/"soul" and even be able to "duplicate" it?What's more important to me is consciousness, will, "soul."
A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
There was a discussion related to this at Hatrack a little while ago. The example was given of a father seeing his son, and the correct chemicals and whatnot move through the brain inspiring a feeling of love. This does not make the emotion any less real or any less a sign of devotion. Rather, we have simply explained the physical aspect of what we view as a gift from God: the ability to love. So if we could explain what consciousness, will, or a soul really is on a physical level, and even trigger or reproduce it in a clinical setting, that would not make it any less real or God any less real. After all, one of God's commands to us was to create in our own image, which is his own image.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
I voted "yes." "My Favorite Deity" has a face. Although I agree that the scriptures are figurative in many instances, I believe they are being literal when they say (among others) that Moses talked to God face to face.
I believe God is a Man. Jesus called Him "Father," and I take that literally as well. I call Him, "Heavenly Father" because I believe He is the literal Father of all our spirits.
As to the question "Why would Male/Female even apply to a singular being?" I believe Heavenly Father is married. (I know, that's not what was meant by "singular") Because whoever heard of a Father without a Mother?
I believe God is a Man. Jesus called Him "Father," and I take that literally as well. I call Him, "Heavenly Father" because I believe He is the literal Father of all our spirits.
As to the question "Why would Male/Female even apply to a singular being?" I believe Heavenly Father is married. (I know, that's not what was meant by "singular") Because whoever heard of a Father without a Mother?
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Well, back when most of these documents were written, culturally women were inferior. This generally gets reflected in language. Why would you refer to your god with inferior pronouns? This, in turn, becomes the mythology to explain WHY women are inferior. Kind of circular, really.You and others say that “it’s a non-issue to talk about the physical sex of a unique beingâ€, and I agree. Yet apparently the tradition presents that deity as an old MAN. Why? Wouldn’t it be more logical to be a woman, being able to create life and all?
These are all rhetorical questions of course, but I have the impression that this “innocent†fact explains a lot of centuries of considering the women inherently “inferior†in the eyes of religion, and as an end result in human society.
Scientists might be able to explain the how of "soul," but I don't see how that would necessarily negate the philosophy of it.I have one question for you: what would you say if science will get to the point where it could explain the consciousness/will/"soul" and even be able to "duplicate" it?What's more important to me is consciousness, will, "soul."
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
I don’t think it will „negate†any philosophy. And it wouldn’t „prove†anything either, because as you say, science can answer the „how†questions, not the „why†ones.Scientists might be able to explain the how of "soul," but I don't see how that would necessarily negate the philosophy of it.
What I was trying to say is more along the lines of the following parallel:
Diamonds. Nice, shiny, hard, valuable stones. They were discovered in nature (I mean in natural form) and humans got to cut and shape them (also to price them) but also they got to understand what they are and how were they formed. Special conditions of pressure and temperature, makes the carbon crystallize in a particularly symmetrical form, producing the beautiful, shiny “stoneâ€. It happened naturally in many places during the “hot†history of the Earth.
Also, I suppose the cavemen couldn’t duplicate such conditions in controlled environments, but if they had encountered one, they would have been in awe at the sight of such beauty. Nowadays we can produce artificial diamonds, mostly for technological purposes (e.g. cutting edges). There is no “mystery†in their existence anymore. We know “where they come from†and we can duplicate them.
Now, with the consciousness/will/“soul†concept. Maybe we discover another “dimension†where a fuzzy substance reside, and the conditions that “make†it “coagulate†and manifest in our plane of perception as being self-aware. Conditions like a sufficiently complex biological structure and/or electronic circuit for example. We could “produce†self-aware artificial beings, that for all intents and purposes would posses a “soul†as genuine as ours. That, in my opinion, would eliminate the “mystery†of their existence in our plane of perception, at least.
What I’m getting at, is that science can get to show that MAYBE many “creations†that we find in this Universe are the result of “random accidentsâ€, and nothing more. No need for a “creator†for the diamonds, nor “consciousnessesâ€.
I’d like to say, for the record, that I see this as just a very remote possibility and that I don’t claim it “proves†anything, and that I respect all those who need to believe that we are more than “mere accidents†in a physical Universe.
A.
PS: BTW, thank you all for your answers, I enjoy learning more and more about interpretations and points of view here.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
- Darth Petra
- Soldier
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:16 am
- Title: Some call me... Tim
- Location: The Bates Motel
God doesnt' have a human face. I think. But I don't really know, because I've never seen God.
But Jesus has a face, and Jesus is God, so God does have a face. But the Holy Spirt doesn't, cause He's, like Spirt. Dang, this is confusing.
But Jesus has a face, and Jesus is God, so God does have a face. But the Holy Spirt doesn't, cause He's, like Spirt. Dang, this is confusing.
"Death is the only serious preoccupation in life."
- The Count of Monte Cristo
- The Count of Monte Cristo
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Mary was the mother of God incarnated. God the Father is doctrinally held to be uncreated and unbegotten.Wouldn't that be Mary, who (at least the way I've heard it told) is decidedly NOT divine?whoever heard of a Father without a Mother?
Or are you trying to say that you're (heretically ) saying that YFD has a second, equal, female component?
And Slim is Mormon, so it's not heretical for him, though I'm hazy on the details. Criticism and trying to catch people out works better when you know what you're talking about.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
Yup, that's about it. Thanks for the smilie, though.
And it's okay if you are vague on it EL, since there actually isn't much on the topic. Although possibly not needed to understand the gospel, Understanding it helps make more sense of some gospel topics, (primarily the doctrine of eternal family units) but The only specific reference regularly found would be in the Hymn, Oh, my Father. Almost as accessible is The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
It should be pointed out that neither are canonized scripture, but we (similar to the Catholics) do not have to rely solely on scripture for doctrinal principles.
And it's okay if you are vague on it EL, since there actually isn't much on the topic. Although possibly not needed to understand the gospel, Understanding it helps make more sense of some gospel topics, (primarily the doctrine of eternal family units) but The only specific reference regularly found would be in the Hymn, Oh, my Father. Almost as accessible is The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
It should be pointed out that neither are canonized scripture, but we (similar to the Catholics) do not have to rely solely on scripture for doctrinal principles.
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
If Jesus had been born a female into a predominantly female society, what title do you think he would have given the eternal spiritual creator of the entire universe?I voted "yes." "My Favorite Deity" has a face. Although I agree that the scriptures are figurative in many instances, I believe they are being literal when they say (among others) that Moses talked to God face to face.
I believe God is a Man. Jesus called Him "Father," and I take that literally as well. I call Him, "Heavenly Father" because I believe He is the literal Father of all our spirits.
As to the question "Why would Male/Female even apply to a singular being?" I believe Heavenly Father is married. (I know, that's not what was meant by "singular") Because whoever heard of a Father without a Mother?
I use the title, Father, as well. But I have no illusion that an eternal being of pure love light and spirit has any kind of human limitations--except those that he chose to accept while he lived as Yeshua Messiah.
And I believe in Christ, not because my parents did or because somebody said that I should, but because I knew, when I read his teachings of selfless compassion and love, that they were true and were of higher quality than the morals that run even our bogus humanist society.
No one comes to the Father except through Christ, not necesarily in some vague mystical sense, but in a very practical one. Oddly enough, I think Speaker for the Dead in particular does an excellent job of illustrating this practical reality of compassion and understanding being superior to knee-jerk reaction judgement and violence.
Preaching is so much fun. =)
Here lies one whose name was writ in water.
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
Obviously you want me to say "Mother," but since the question is "what do you think," I think the correct answer is "Whatever title the spiritual creator has in that twisted universe." I don't believe in a Jesus who lies. But as yourself, I don't believe this way just because someone told me, but after study and prayer. I cited that reference as support for what I believe, not why I believe it.If Jesus had been born a female into a predominantly female society, what title do you think he would have given the eternal spiritual creator of the entire universe?
I don't believe that God having a human body is a limitation. I believe a physical body is an advantage. Although I believe that His body looks like ours, His is different in a couple ways. I believe that God's body is perfected, glorified, and immortal. Therefore, he will not sin and die, as we do.I use the title, Father, as well. But I have no illusion that an eternal being of pure love light and spirit has any kind of human limitations--except those that he chose to accept while he lived as Yeshua Messiah.
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
lol.
"perfected" means what it sounds like. For example, doesn't need glasses, not balding, no hearing loss, no broken limbs, etc. etc.
As an observation -- one exception is that Jesus still has the prints of the nails in his and feet.
"glorified" is harder for me to explain, as I'm no philosopher. I see it as "God's light," it was the glory of God that required Moses to be transfigured (changed to a higher spiritual level) in order for them to speak face to face. (see Moses 1:11-14) I hope that example answers your question, and isn't just a circular definition.
"perfected" means what it sounds like. For example, doesn't need glasses, not balding, no hearing loss, no broken limbs, etc. etc.
As an observation -- one exception is that Jesus still has the prints of the nails in his and feet.
"glorified" is harder for me to explain, as I'm no philosopher. I see it as "God's light," it was the glory of God that required Moses to be transfigured (changed to a higher spiritual level) in order for them to speak face to face. (see Moses 1:11-14) I hope that example answers your question, and isn't just a circular definition.
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
Why not use "perfect" then? The form you used sounds like it was imperfect at some point, and then it was perfected ..."perfected" means what it sounds like. For example, doesn't need glasses, not balding, no hearing loss, no broken limbs, etc. etc.
What about the wounded rib? Wasn't that the sign Thomas needed to see, in order to regain his belief? (Just curious, my memory is rusty on this one)As an observation -- one exception is that Jesus still has the prints of the nails in his and feet.
Thanks."glorified" is harder for me to explain, as I'm no philosopher. I see it as "God's light," it was the glory of God that required Moses to be transfigured (changed to a higher spiritual level) in order for them to speak face to face. (see Moses 1:11-14) I hope that example answers your question, and isn't just a circular definition.
A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
Yeah, I guess it would have made more sense to use present tense. When I was writing, I was thinking, "His body is like what ours would be if ours were perfected." But, I suppose that does make a really awkward sentence.
And, yeah, that's right -- Jesus Christ has a sword wound in his side as well.
That's why I think he kept the wounds as well -- as a sign to Thomas and to any others that He may meet as a sign that He is the Christ. Even still, I find it interesting.
And, yeah, that's right -- Jesus Christ has a sword wound in his side as well.
That's why I think he kept the wounds as well -- as a sign to Thomas and to any others that He may meet as a sign that He is the Christ. Even still, I find it interesting.
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests