Literally in the Image of God

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _mentalgymnast »

honorentheos wrote:
Lest we forget, we started this thread because you had said -

"Most if not all of the views of God out there just didn't/don't make sense to me. The only one(s) that do are the ones that teach that we are literally created in the image/form of God."

And we barely got into the thread before you decided the official LDS view of God doesn't actually make that much sense, either.



I think I've been clear. I question whether or not the literal "flesh and bone" descriptor that we read in the D&C makes sense in the way that some folks think it does. My earlier posts elaborate on that.

If we look at God as being in our image/form it seems as though some folks would also...by association...describe God as having flesh and bone. Others have described God as a being of light. To combine the two from the point of view of what one might actually observe if they were so privileged to see God, would likely not result in much difference in description.

But how would I know? :wink: I haven't had that experience. And those that have purported to are going to explain it according to what they observe/see. And we have precious few of those folks...so we're getting very limited information. Some say "flesh and bone", some say, "being of light". Both ways of describing God result in a picture of God's image/form having a likeness to ours.

How that all fits into space/time and God in and out of the universe, etc., don't ask me. :smile:

Regards,
MG
_Cylon
_Emeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:08 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _Cylon »

MG, there's really not a contradiction between "flesh and bone" and "being of light" as long as you posit that a physical being can be glowy. I mean, I can say my lamp has a "bulb of light" but that doesn't mean light bulbs don't have a physical form. I'm not sure why you're so wedded to the idea that the "being of light" description is meant to be taken literally but the "flesh and bone" phrase is not.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Cylon wrote:MG, there's really not a contradiction between "flesh and bone" and "being of light" as long as you posit that a physical being can be glowy.


I don't see a problem with that. But I would say that we ought to be careful and/or more exact in defining "physical being". I'm sure that we would agree that we're not referring to carbon based humanoids such as ourselves.

Although many of us may find that 'light up' a bit right around Christmas time. :smile:

And no, I'm not talking about THAT kind of lighting up, oh ye of drug induced haze. :lol:

Countenance people. Countenance.

Regards,
MG
_Cylon
_Emeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:08 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _Cylon »

mentalgymnast wrote:But I would say that we ought to be careful and/or more exact in defining "physical being". I'm sure that we would agree that we're not referring to carbon based humanoids such as ourselves.

I don't see any reason to rule that out. By my reading, Joseph Smith's descriptions of God would fit pretty well with "carbon based humanoids." According to Joe, God is definitely humanoid. Why not carbon based? Take away the blood, add internal lighting, and magic away physical impurities, and there you go. Instant Mormon God.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Cylon wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:But I would say that we ought to be careful and/or more exact in defining "physical being". I'm sure that we would agree that we're not referring to carbon based humanoids such as ourselves.

I don't see any reason to rule that out. By my reading, Joseph Smith's descriptions of God would fit pretty well with "carbon based humanoids." According to Joe, God is definitely humanoid. Why not carbon based? Take away the blood, add internal lighting, and magic away physical impurities, and there you go. Instant Mormon God.


Well...OK then. :wink:

Regards,
MG
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Literally in the Image of God

Post by _MsJack »

mentalgymnast wrote:if you were to stand next to Heavenly Mother

Which one? :razz:

No on Judaism and Islam. Yes on paganism (Greek and Roman) and arguably Hinduism. But my expertise withers quickly outside the boundaries of Christianity and Mormonism.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
Post Reply