A different way of thinking about God?

Originally posted by whodey
How can Spong call himself a Christian. After all, from a Christian viewpoint, Christ came down as God in the form of a man. So if one holds this view, man must be made in the image of his Maker. The only way out of this predicerment is to say that Christ was not really part of the Trinity or something to that effect. I am not certain of his entire theology, but I can bet the house that those views are heretical to the faith he claims to espouse.

I'm not sure you demonstrate your point. Why must man be in the image of his maker? Okay, I know that's what it says in the Old Testament. But that's not what you say here.

Christ came down as God in the form of a man. So if one holds this view, man must be made in the image of his Maker.

These are your words, but why must the second statement come from the first? I don't see the connection.

Originally posted by amannion
Came across this excerpt (http://www.somareview.com/badtheology.cfm) from some of John Shelby Spong's work. I've always been impressed and intrigued by his thought and biblical interpretations, especially the way he conceives of the notion of god.

Here's a brief excerpt:

So who is God? No one can finally say. That is not within human competence. Al ...[text shortened]... at love, at being.

I wonder what others, particularly the religious amongst you think?

So who is God?

Colossians 1:15a Who is the image of the invisible God,..

Now you know who God is.

So who is Spong?

Originally posted by amannion
I'm not sure you demonstrate your point. Why must man be in the image of his maker? Okay, I know that's what it says in the Old Testament. But that's not what you say here.

Christ came down as God in the form of a man. So if one holds this view, man must be made in the image of his Maker.

These are your words, but why must the second statement come from the first? I don't see the connection.

It is both a fact in terms of scritpure that we are made in the image of God as well as it is simple logic. If you were to make something it would be a reflection of yourself. It would show your level of intellegence, your desires, your needs, etc. There is no way around it. For example, love is what makes our lives worth living and without it we deem our lives as meaningless and worthless. Go figure? Can anyone say that God is love?

Originally posted by whodey
It is both a fact in terms of scritpure that we are made in the image of God as well as it is simple logic. If you were to make something it would be a reflection of yourself. It would show your level of intellegence, your desires, your needs, etc. There is no way around it. For example, love is what makes our lives worth living and without it we deem our lives as meaningless and worthless. Go figure? Can anyone say that God is love?

There's two separate things here.
If I make something, yes, it has by the very nature of me being its creator something of me in it. But this is different from it being in my image.
Let's say I make a pizza for example.
It's going to be a pizza that I made and anyone who knows me and what I like in a pizza will know there's a bit of mannion in that pizza.
But is that pizza in my image?
Hardly.
Likewise with Christ.
Assuming he actually was God made into flesh (which of course I don't believe) why does that mean he is necessarily in the image of God? If God is all powerful he can make himself into any image/form he wants (excuse my use of the male pronoun here). Obviously by the nature of the effect he wants to produce in people, he chooses to create himself in human form.
Does this therefore mean that this is God's true form?
I don't think so.

Originally posted by amannion
There's two separate things here.
If I make something, yes, it has by the very nature of me being its creator something of me in it. But this is different from it being [b]in my image.
Let's say I make a pizza for example.
It's going to be a pizza that I made and anyone who knows me and what I like in a pizza will know there's a bit of mannion in th in human form.
Does this therefore mean that this is God's true form?
I don't think so.[/b]

There is truth in what you say. For example, is bacteria made in the image of God? One must consider the order of creation, however. It seems that man was the focus and masterpiece of his creation. Man was given dominion over all that was created on the earth and God sought out man on a relational level. Therefore, your pizza analogy does not stick in this regard (no pun intended). Now if all of your attention in life was to construct a pizza I say it would be the best reflection of who and what you are as a person.

Edit: The image of God does not merely mean a physical appearance. For example, God is a triune being and so are we. We are body, soul, and spirit yet only one person.

Originally posted by whodey
There is truth in what you say. For example, is bacteria made in the image of God? One must consider the order of creation, however. It seems that man was the focus and masterpiece of his creation. Man was given dominion over all that was created on the earth and God sought out man on a relational level. Therefore, your pizza analogy does not stick in th ...[text shortened]... to construct a pizza I say it would be the best reflection of who and what you are as a person.

Ah well, there's an interpretation that I completely disagree with - the notion that there is some sort of inherent hierarchy in life and that we humans have some authority to dominate the rest of nature.
In fact, it was this very notion that Spong was railing against in his article.

Originally posted by amannion
Ah well, there's an interpretation that I completely disagree with - the notion that there is some sort of inherent hierarchy in life and that we humans have some authority to dominate the rest of nature.
In fact, it was this very notion that Spong was railing against in his article.

So you do not value a human life over a dogs?

Originally posted by whodey
So you do not value a human life over a dogs?

Yes of course I do, but I'm a human, so it's in my best interest to do so.
However, that doesn't automatically make it true in any deeper sense.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes of course I do, but I'm a human, so it's in my best interest to do so.
However, that doesn't automatically make it true in any deeper sense.

But do we not as human being dominate nature? You seem to imply otherwise. Is there no apparent superiority in your view?

Originally posted by whodey
But do we not as human being dominate nature? You seem to imply otherwise. Is there no apparent superiority in your view?

Not at all.
We humans are particularly good at dominating nature - we've been doing it for millennia.
I would argue that this is both counter-productive to our ongoing existence and also ethically bankrupt.

Originally posted by amannion
Not at all.
We humans are particularly good at dominating nature - we've been doing it for millennia.
I would argue that this is both counter-productive to our ongoing existence and also ethically bankrupt.

Don't get me wrong, humanity is messed up. If it were not my faith would be wrong in its conclusions. My only point is that there is an underlying superiority in comparison to the rest of Creation. Just because we chose to abuse our position of power in no way makes it right.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't get me wrong, humanity is messed up. If it were not my faith would be wrong in its conclusions. My only point is that there is an underlying superiority in comparison to the rest of Creation. Just because we chose to abuse our position of power in no way makes it right.

No, my point is that there isn't an underlying superiority.
We think of ourselves as being superior and certainly in many respects we are - we're smarter and whatever - but this is not reflecting some deep reality about the world.
We just think of ourselves as superior.

Originally posted by rwingett
To ward off any possible confusion, I was not defending your particular definition of god in my earlier posts. I think the term is elastic enough to encompass many different definitions, but you can only stretch the term so far before it becomes meaningless.

Yes, but the word (in many languages) has been used for millennia to refer to something other than a being—even the superest of all beings. Various usages and understandings may get lost in the mists of time, so that what is the more ancient understanding is hard to say. But Tillich’s understanding is not new. YHVH quite literally means “that/who which is” or “the one that is.” Kashmiri Shaivites are strictly non-dualist, but see the One as conscious, and hence use the name Shiva and go on to employ theistic and relational language anyway.

I never use “God” to mean a being; though sometimes, if it doesn’t matter for the discourse at hand, I’ll leave it open.

I’ve read a lot of Bishop Spong, but it’s been a long time. I suspect he is best described as a panentheist.

(BTW, Tillich also referred to a “pre-Trinitarian” form of “ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself”.)

Originally posted by amannion
Came across this excerpt (http://www.somareview.com/badtheology.cfm) from some of John Shelby Spong's work. I've always been impressed and intrigued by his thought and biblical interpretations, especially the way he conceives of the notion of god.

Here's a brief excerpt:

So who is God? No one can finally say. That is not within human competence. Al ...[text shortened]... at love, at being.

I wonder what others, particularly the religious amongst you think?

"...shift our vision to look within—at life, at love, at being. "
That is the trouble with the human race, we really need to shift
our vision to look to God in Christ instead, we are full of ourselves
and we tend to view everything as if we were the center of the
universe.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, but the word (in many languages) has been used for millennia to refer to something other than [b]a being—even the superest of all beings. Various usages and understandings may get lost in the mists of time, so that what is the more ancient understanding is hard to say. But Tillich’s understanding is not new. YHVH quite literally means “that/who w ...[text shortened]... o referred to a “pre-Trinitarian” form of “ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself”.)[/b]

The more you stretch the term, the less coherent it becomes. Eventually it's so all-encompassing that it becomes meaningless.