Did God create humans in his own image?

by Scully 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Scully

  Of course, we all know what Genesis says.

  And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..." - Genesis 1:26

  But let's imagine for a moment that there really is no God, and that human curiosity about how things work and happen caused this writer and his contemporaries to "invent" the concept of "God".

  The Genesis quote, then, becomes a projection of the writer's own beliefs. Rather than having God make man in his own image, mankind has created gods in their image.

  We can look back on history and see the pantheon of various gods whose characteristics seem to mirror the culture and practices of those who worship them. Egyptian, Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Hindus, African tribal gods, and yes even Yahweh/Jehovah, were/are distinct reflections of the people who followed them.

  So if this is true, is it not possible that the practice continues today? When we were JWs, was it because we ourselves identified something subconsciously about Jehovah that reflected our own needs, and reinforced our own self-concept?

  And as we left the JWs, was it because our self-concept and values had evolved, and that their version of god no longer was acceptable to us?

  Love, Scully

  
  
• 

  Francois

  Very good. Very good post indeed.

  And I think you're onto something. I have, for a long time, posited that Jehovah was the tribal god of a savage and primitive people. The attempt to turn Jehovah into the Loving Father introduced by Jesus resulted in the usual mishmosh of U-turns and inconsistencies. Kinda like all the logical dead ends and problems trying to prove that the earth was the center of the universe.

  Any how, not only did we, do we, create God in our own image, we then become even more like the God we worship.

  People who leave the JWs I believe are more open spiritually and thus have evolved spiritually to the point they can no longer accept Jehovah as even being real. I don't think God has thus changed, I think our ability to conceive more of the reality of what God is really like has enlarged. When this happens, we outgrow the old religions of fear - like the JWs. You have to admit that the prime motivator among the JWs is fear, not love, no matter how much they protest.

  Looked at like this, JWs become spiritual children, stuck on the path to spiritual growth. They found a truth or two and are stuck right there with no hope of further growth. If that's the case, our attitude might should be one of pity, or sorrow for them, or compassion for their very unattractive position. Of course, their nasty attitude towards all non-JW makes that very hard.

  Anyway, I'm sorry to rattle on like this. You just struck a VERY loud chord here and I couldn't agree more.

  Francois
• 

  BATHORY

  G'Day scully

  Your post i must say ( to me ) seems to generate an interseting point when read casually.

  It is apparent that you are intrieged in making a non-specific observation.

  What makes me 'muse is that you offer it to the good folk here on an incomplete tray called cognative possibility.

  Please understand me here, please.

  I like what you posted.

  Thought provoking.

  You state ..... " But let's imagine for a moment that there really is no God, and that human curiosity about how things work and happen caused this writer and his contemporaries to "invent" the concept of "God".

  The Genesis quote, then, becomes a projection of the writer's own beliefs. Rather than having God make man in his own image, mankind has created gods in their image. "..........

  Now scully you have gone from stating that the individual writter of this in genesis, to then his contemporaries, and then miraculously MANKIND as a whole creating gods in their image.

  See, moving the obvious fallacy aside, you completely disregard the WHOLE of genesis and other books, that one line written is continually qualified throughout the continuation, explained in detail as to the resons for creation and the consequences of sin etc.

  You may not agree with it but it certainly doesnt make for a good hypothetical as you have put it.

  Also, you are absolutely right as you continue.

  MANKIND seems to have employed a reverse osmosis type mechanism to generate their models for " gods " according to their look in the mirror at the time, and yes i believe it is continuing today in a substantial way due to our perceived need to ponder on higher learning.

  But your point becomes fallacious in a dangerous way when you draw comparison to what Moses wrote.

  Whats more proof than all else, unequivocal by its nature, is that Francois took it in hook, line and etc. Probable integrated now, fused with his belief codes.

  Bugger freedom of thought and belief is dangerous for some spiritual / mental infants ! No wonder we are told to avoid it.
• 

  gsx1138

  Very good post indeed. My current faith proposes that we put certain traits on different Gods/Goddesses for us to better relate and understand the divine. Thus Odin, Shiva, Isis, Diane and to an extent Jehovah are all relevent Gods/Goddesses. They are simply a vehicle to divine understanding. The problem comes in when you create an egocentric God based on your own lust for power. The greatest height of arrogance to me is to assume that you know the one true path to the higher power. To reach a full understanding of the Great Spirit we must be near Gods ourselves and this is where dillusion comes into play.
  Since (I believe) we are all part of the same whole no one of us can claim to know the one true "way" because there is no one true "way". Each of us make our own "way" and we use different Gods/Goddesses to help us on our journey. I hope that made some kind of sense.

  Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.
• 

  BATHORY

  Wicca dude said......." The greatest height of arrogance to me is to assume that you know the one true path to the higher power.".......

  By your same reasoning criteria, wouldnt it be equally arrogant to
  to assume judgement on those that prepose they have the one true path to the higher power, you in effect saying it isnt ??

  BTW there is a MAJOR flaw in your logic. Hey, calm down !!! Im not picking a fight just making an obsevation. San anyone see it ??
• 

  Francois

  BATHORY

  Poor response. Poor response indeed.

  The fact that I used the phrase, "I have, for a long time, posited that Jehovah was the tribal god of a savage and primitive people..." should have tipped you off that I have held such beliefs for a long time, certainly prior to reading Scully's post. I mean, it's so obvious.

  And you spent so much time attempting to put across a sophisticated argument. (Note: If you want others to think you're sophisticated, try to spell correctly. Lack of ability to spell implies an intellectual laziness that would indicate the balance of your presentation is just as careless. And it is.)

  The WHOLE of Genesis and other books for instance, reveals a very human-like god who is egotistical, insecure, and is really into piles and piles of foreskins, likes the smell of burning animals, will have you stoned in a heartbeat, sends his people out to murder, rape and pillage, is very forgiving and on and on and on. Later it is revealed that there is a complete lack of unity in the nature of deity, in that the love of god is conflicted with the justice of god, leading straight to the atonement doctrine - a repulsive idea on its face.

  Nice try though.

  Francois
• 

  expatbrit

  wouldnt it be equally arrogant to
  to assume judgement on those that prepose they have the one true path to the higher power, you in effect saying it isnt ??

  No, since pointing out why you think a particular path is not the one true path carries no moral imperative. A person hearing your reasoning is not being coerced into any particular way of acting or living. They can continue on their selected path, or choose any other path they wish.

  On the other hand, saying that you have the one true path to salvation automatically carries with it the thought that any other path does not lead to salvation, and that if you do not follow the specified path, you will be condemned. It therefore tries to place an obligation upon the hearer to act and live in a certain way. Without absolute proof, it is arrogant to make this kind of claim.

  Expatbrit
• 

  teenyuck

  If he did, he didn't do a great job....just think of all the bathroom breaks one needs to take during an average day....does god go the the bathroom?

  Is that what rain is? Perhaps hail is when he is constipated? Tornadoes are when he is having irritable bowel. I think the wind patterns are after a dinner of beans.
• 

  AlanF

  Excellent points, Scully! This theme of man creating God or gods in his own image is very popular, and if I remember right, is a major theme of John Campbell's works on mythology.

  Looking back on some of the thoughts I had about the non-JW world, when I was growing up in the JWs, I have to admit that my thinking was strongly influenced by the judgmental God of Genesis. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I was quite happy to contemplate the death of billions of non-JWs. That's the evil of a cult -- it influences young people to imitate the gods the cult has set up.

  These days, when I read parts of the Old Testament, it's so obvious how arbitrary and capricious the God of the OT is. God likes David, so he forgives his murderous, adulterous behavior. Anyone else? Boom! Stoned! Even back to the Flood story -- what overreaction! God creates a world of living creatures, one species acts exactly as he created them to act, he decides he doesn't like it, and then, boom! He destroys the entire world, not just the offending species. What kind of nutty God would destroy everything because of the "sins" of a few? It reminds me of a line from one of Bob Dylan's songs, he "breaks just like a little girl." Of course, the culture that created these myths saw nothing wrong with these things, because they acted just the same way. They certainly created a God in their own image.

  AlanF
• 

  Scully

  Francois, gsx1138 and AlanF: thanks for your input, I'll have to do some more research on this and see where it takes me.

  BATHORY: I think you mistook my musings over my morning coffee and thought I was trying to make a totally rational and logically sound argument. I wasn't - I was, as I said, offering some musings and questions that came up over my morning coffee. Furthermore, the criteria for posting here - as evidenced by the massive volume of "fluff" posts - does not seem to be strict adherence to well-researched, well-thought-out, and well-written arguments intended to persuade people. This is a discussion board, after all. (Not that there's anything wrong with "fluff". I concede that it has its rightful place here. This is a discussion board, after all.)

  Love, Scully