Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by nothing »

It is thoroughly absurd that Judaism/Christianity/Islam would espouse to any god lacking the principle characteristics of the creator-god of Genesis: as having an image and a likeness as embodied by a male Adam and a female Eve.

The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
thus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
And saying GOD <-*both bestowal/reception viz. shared will between two
'Let light be,' <-*bestowal / Adam / image
and light was. <-*reception / Eve / likeness
and observing the male/image and female/likeness potential in the name:
I am <-*male/bestowal
that <-*shared 'that'
I am <-*female/reception
makes for the archetypal Adam and Eve.

However, in observing Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
i. J, E, P, D and R authorship of Torah purporting two rivaling deities of YHVH / Elohim causing Israel/Judah political divide.
ii. Christianity erects idol Jesus as "mercy upon mankind" with little/no focus on feminine aspect of Deity, kills "unbelievers".
iii. Islam erects idol Muhammad "mercy upon mankind" which erodes the 1:1 balance in favor of infidelity, kills "unbelievers".
respectively, none of these ideological 'states' seem to even mildly regard the likeness/feminine aspect of Deity, but rather exude patriarchal swinery and domination/abuse of/over women. This degradation of women culminates into the latter which invariably carries in it the original sin: man blaming the woman and scapegoating his own iniquity onto her. This is precisely what the hijab/niqab/burqa are in Islam; the women are solely blamed for "causing" men to act terribly, despite the fault owing solely to the men.

Image invariably relies on likeness (and vice versa). It takes the image (ie. particle) to trace/produce the likeness (ie. wave) and they are both expressions of one another.

That a 1:1 'state' could erode into something like Islam speaks to the incomprehensible depths of the evilness of the believing man (not woman), and in the same way it takes a believer to believer evil is good, it takes a believer to believe swine is human.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Scott Mayers »

nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm It is thoroughly absurd that Judaism/Christianity/Islam would espouse to any god lacking the principle characteristics of the creator-god of Genesis: as having an image and a likeness as embodied by a male Adam and a female Eve.
"an image in likeness to God" by your interpretation is the modern interpretation upon the original ideas. Society used less words that had more shared meanings and was easier to translate among various cultures in the Middle East of the times. The meaning, if understood secularly of the day, would equally mean, "the natural source (whatever it was) of all reality [ie, Nature] caused us to exist as we are." The term "likeness" interpreted by most today, along with the meaning of the original words about the 'source', were not necessarily religious references to 'gods' as we interpret them today. So....
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
thus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
This too is way off. "El" is not 'towardness' but literally one of the following dependent upon context: "one", "Thee one", "a", or "the", "I", "he" or "she". When 'el' is placed in front of a new formed word, it is neutral. When at the end, it is addressing a specific one, "thee", like Ba-el (Baal) for meaning "The father of us all". Note the masculine meaning was neutralized to avoid others assuming the source had a sex, and one reason the old testament even mentioned it's disapproval of that 'god'.

"El-ohim" meant "the sources of reality" and literally, when addressed as "el-ovam" means "the egg", a neutral term but plural to any unagreed source, such as the various different beliefs of our origins by different cultures. The "-h-" is a infex plural indicator, and why "Abram" was switched to "Abra-h-am". "Abram" is "father one", where "Abraham" is "father of many or 'all' ".

"YHWH" was just the consonants of "Ye ova" or "jehova" and meant "the source". It evolved to be a taboo to give name to "the source" but originated from another philosophical concept about any origins: whether it is a something, nothing, or infinity. At the time of mentioning of this word, the authors thought that the source ('god') was actually absolutely nothing itself. As such, you get those who would have been confused given the question, how can we come from an absolute nothingness. Thus, the meaning of "the source" [Ye ova] is termed "ineffible" which means it is something too contradictory to imagine for it to be both something and nothing at the same time. This now has misleadingly been interpreted that the actual name of "the source" as some 'god' could be named without being cursed to hell. This modern interpretation is how the secular idea turned into religion. But they were neutral.

"Adam" was mankind at its origins, in general; "Eve" meant any of those who followed those origins. The nature of making them into people are just coinciding caricatures of men and women but based upon what they thought caused childbirth, ....the man's sperm. Thus Adam by some was first, needed a penis (that 'rib' that was a reference to giving Adam a sex which happens to be male because of their knowledge of eggs (ova) to exist without needing the male but doesn't supply the sole cause of human births.

Genesis cannot be taken literal and I disagree with your particular interpretation.

I can say more on this but will leave it for your response.
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by nothing »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:39 pm
"an image in likeness to God" by your interpretation is the modern interpretation upon the original ideas. Society used less words that had more shared meanings and was easier to translate among various cultures in the Middle East of the times. The meaning, if understood secularly of the day, would equally mean, "the natural source (whatever it was) of all reality [ie, Nature] caused us to exist as we are." The term "likeness" interpreted by most today, along with the meaning of the original words about the 'source', were not necessarily religious references to 'gods' as we interpret them today. So...
There is not a single thing in contention here with the essence of the OP. If one is perceived by your part: it is not explicitly clear to me (at least not in the quoted section).
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
thus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:39 pm This too is way off. "El" is not 'towardness' but literally one of the following dependent upon context: "one", "Thee one", "a", or "the", "I", "he" or "she". When 'el' is placed in front of a new formed word, it is neutral. When at the end, it is addressing a specific one, "thee", like Ba-el (Baal) for meaning "The father of us all". Note the masculine meaning was neutralized to avoid others assuming the source had a sex, and one reason the old testament even mentioned it's disapproval of that 'god'.
The towardness in/of any/all you stated captures the same.

Its reduction can be found in the 'towardness' motion of the planets circling around any mass (ie. the sun) thus requiring the space within which to perform the act. This archetype of primordial bestowing-receiving is captured in/by elohim.

I still find no body of substance that contests.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm "El-ohim" meant "the sources of reality" and literally, when addressed as "el-ovam" means "the egg", a neutral term but plural to any unagreed source, such as the various different beliefs of our origins by different cultures. The "-h-" is a infex plural indicator, and why "Abram" was switched to "Abra-h-am". "Abram" is "father one", where "Abraham" is "father of many or 'all' ".
Hence Genesis 1:1 describing an egg-shaped toroidal form: seed-in-and-of-itself elaborated by 1:11.

https://meru.org/Posters/Breshit7-ColorTorus.html#title
https://meru.org/Posters/trsknotrngsphere.html#title

Wherein:

el - bestowal of one (image)
oh - plurality
im - reception of one (likeness)
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm "YHWH" was just the consonants of "Ye ova" or "jehova" and meant "the source". It evolved to be a taboo to give name to "the source" but originated from another philosophical concept about any origins: whether it is a something, nothing, or infinity. At the time of mentioning of this word, the authors thought that the source ('god') was actually absolutely nothing itself. As such, you get those who would have been confused given the question, how can we come from an absolute nothingness. Thus, the meaning of "the source" [Ye ova] is termed "ineffible" which means it is something too contradictory to imagine for it to be both something and nothing at the same time. This now has misleadingly been interpreted that the actual name of "the source" as some 'god' could be named without being cursed to hell. This modern interpretation is how the secular idea turned into religion. But they were neutral.
It is an empty framework: the middle hei of elohim is the last hei of YHWH and YHWH elohim becomes a point-circle.

When any being defined as shin: psychology/emotion/action enters YHWH it becomes YHshWH.

This is related to why Jesus would have said nobody comes to the father but by him, taken as YHshWH.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm "Adam" was mankind at its origins, in general; "Eve" meant any of those who followed those origins. The nature of making them into people are just coinciding caricatures of men and women but based upon what they thought caused childbirth, ....the man's sperm. Thus Adam by some was first, needed a penis (that 'rib' that was a reference to giving Adam a sex which happens to be male because of their knowledge of eggs (ova) to exist without needing the male but doesn't supply the sole cause of human births.

Genesis cannot be taken literal and I disagree with your particular interpretation.

I can say more on this but will leave it for your response.
Adam simply means "breath + blood" thus could be either male/female.

Genesis is not a literal book, and I did not ever state it was to be taken literally.

You may personally disagree with the "particular interpretation" but certainly none of the substance of your response is in contention, but actually rather in agreement with.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Scott Mayers »

Nothing,

I disagree with your wording because they actually sound more convoluted and biased to a posthoc interpretation THROUGH a religious type of thinking. Many words are altered to hide or blur the original roots. Egypt was the promised land in Genesis, for instance.

I am correct about the "YWYH" explanation as with the others I gave. There are way too many other similar connections that language, history, psychology, etc, point to that links thoughts through communication as 'memes' that get passed on, evolve, and pass on a lot of junk in time.
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by nothing »

I disagree with your wording because they actually sound more convoluted and biased to a posthoc interpretation THROUGH a religious type of thinking. Many words are altered to hide or blur the original roots. Egypt was the promised land in Genesis, for instance.
The "original roots" are already blurred by not only by English translations, but by even the Hebrew language (which is derived from a more basic gesture system). If anything: reading Genesis according to the gestures, instead of any linguistic language, is preferred in order to bypass what you yourself call "more convoluted and biased to a posthoc interpretation THROUGH a religious type of thinking".

For example the Hebrew letters are 22 perspectives of the same "form" which fits in the hand. Thus each letter is associated with a gesture, thus each word/sentence is a flowing sequence of gestures.

The word Mitzra'eem (Hebrew for 'Egypt') denotes any 'state' of bondage (ie. suffering). The earlier books of Genesis were/are mythology: not literal. To read them literally is like reading Homer's Odyssey literally - silly.
I am correct about the "YWYH" explanation as with the others I gave. There are way too many other similar connections that language, history, psychology, etc, point to that links thoughts through communication as 'memes' that get passed on, evolve, and pass on a lot of junk in time.
In essence YHWH is a perfect circle, which is the same as nothing/infinity. Elohim is the circle folded, giving rise to masculine bestowal and feminine reception that, if/when they approach equilibrium (just as with electromagnetism) they approach the same 'state' as YHWH.

The two trees of the Edenic garden are thus contained in/as a point-in-a-circle: the point being the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the circle the tree of living. As one moves away from the point, they move away from suffering/death.

That point is like a hole that leads to any/all belief-based ignorance(s) as it would take any a believer to believe evil is good.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm It is thoroughly absurd that Judaism/Christianity/Islam would espouse to any god lacking the principle characteristics of the creator-god of Genesis: as having an image and a likeness as embodied by a male Adam and a female Eve.

The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
thus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
And saying GOD <-*both bestowal/reception viz. shared will between two
'Let light be,' <-*bestowal / Adam / image
and light was. <-*reception / Eve / likeness
and observing the male/image and female/likeness potential in the name:
I am <-*male/bestowal
that <-*shared 'that'
I am <-*female/reception
makes for the archetypal Adam and Eve.

However, in observing Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
i. J, E, P, D and R authorship of Torah purporting two rivaling deities of YHVH / Elohim causing Israel/Judah political divide.
ii. Christianity erects idol Jesus as "mercy upon mankind" with little/no focus on feminine aspect of Deity, kills "unbelievers".
iii. Islam erects idol Muhammad "mercy upon mankind" which erodes the 1:1 balance in favor of infidelity, kills "unbelievers".
respectively, none of these ideological 'states' seem to even mildly regard the likeness/feminine aspect of Deity, but rather exude patriarchal swinery and domination/abuse of/over women. This degradation of women culminates into the latter which invariably carries in it the original sin: man blaming the woman and scapegoating his own iniquity onto her. This is precisely what the hijab/niqab/burqa are in Islam; the women are solely blamed for "causing" men to act terribly, despite the fault owing solely to the men.

Image invariably relies on likeness (and vice versa). It takes the image (ie. particle) to trace/produce the likeness (ie. wave) and they are both expressions of one another.

That a 1:1 'state' could erode into something like Islam speaks to the incomprehensible depths of the evilness of the believing man (not woman), and in the same way it takes a believer to believer evil is good, it takes a believer to believe swine is human.
YHWH (male God) does have a wife Ashira.

the former female Goddesss of Gaia and Nurtis (mother of Thor and Wotan) were replaced millinia ago.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

nothing wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:23 pm
Genesis cannot be taken literal and I disagree with your particular interpretation.


Genesis is not a literal book, and I did not ever state it was to be taken literally.
"gensis" is taken from an early Summarian work.

and it is both literal and polytheistic in intent, theme.

there was a literally a Tree of Knowledge and a 2nd Tree of immorality, YHWH out of fear removed the latter to prevent man from become YHWH's equal and removing him (as Zeus did with Chronos(sp)).
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:13 pm Egypt was the promised land in Genesis, for instance.
nope, that would be via Exodus.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Scott Mayers »

gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:54 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:13 pm Egypt was the promised land in Genesis, for instance.
nope, that would be via Exodus.
The 'exodus' is the exodus OF Egypt. It was the original 'promised' land because they WERE the last pharoahs of the last Kingdom. The story of Abram/Abraham was to explain their 'foreign' roots of the northern Messopotamia/Syrian area. The Assyrians were actually this phase (though this is intentionally blurred out to hide this later.)

Jerusalem (je-ra-solomn) [I am (or it is) spoken of as the last] (Solomon is 'solo' to mean alone). When the Moses (Tutmosis? or other names have this in them to mean the leader) was kicked out for their attempt to destroy all the other tribal roots for one unique tribe (via one 'god'), they died out where the last vestige existed at the Divide (ie, "David") [The dead sea area is a clear 'divide'].
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:27 am
gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:54 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:13 pm Egypt was the promised land in Genesis, for instance.
nope, that would be via Exodus.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:27 am The 'exodus' is the exodus OF Egypt. It was the original 'promised' land because they WERE the last pharoahs of the last Kingdom.
Interesting view you have here. welcome more understanding of it.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:27 am The story of Abram/Abraham was to explain their 'foreign' roots of the northern Messopotamia/Syrian area.
??? intesting view, can you provide more on this? not just "quotes/verses" but via discussion on the matter.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:27 am The Assyrians were actually this phase (though this is intentionally blurred out to hide this later.)
???
yes the Assyrians were the Empire that took over from the Summarians.

and the Babylonians over the Assyrians by 700 BC. - shortly after Amos (the oldest biblical work written down (though at least Genesis (and prob Judges/ and Exodus were taken from older oral stories - but written down after Amos' work)

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:27 am Jerusalem (je-ra-solomn) [I am (or it is) spoken of as the last] (Solomon is 'solo' to mean alone). When the Moses (Tutmosis? or other names have this in them to mean the leader) was kicked out for their attempt to destroy all the other tribal roots for one unique tribe (via one 'god'), they died out where the last vestige existed at the Divide (ie, "David") [The dead sea area is a clear 'divide'].
???

Salem was the older name of that city. ask Mechelideck.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

amend my last post, i think the Akkadians took over the Summerians, then the
assyrians and then the babylonians.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Scott Mayers »

gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:42 am amend my last post, i think the Akkadians took over the Summerians, then the
assyrians and then the babylonians.
I'm presuming certain factors here:
(1) Religious origins are likely secular that has lost understandings of words that nevertheless evolve into the various languages linked to prior older worlds.
(2) That the phonetic sounds were more important in the past since most did not read
(3) That all original language evolved from sounds in the environment. So a word like "ra" is something for African roots likely related to animals roars. Then this might get used to relate to other similar concepts. The lion being the most ferocious with the male's mane looking somewhat like the sun, ...thus may derive the Egyptian "ra" for "rays" and any use of this sound might then be used to relate to power, energy, action, sight, the color yellow, etc.
(4) That at each new stage of civilization, obsolete factors 'hang on' but lose the original reasons 'why'; We might adapt the old terms to new but slightly different uses.
(5) Revolution occur that overthrow a system and do whatever it takes to destroy the old records. We still do this today. [So, for instance, the 'ark of the covenant' likely shared the root of 'arc' that represented boats and sleds (rather than 'cupboard' that is expressed by some). The stones may have been relics of the monuments from Amarna where Akenaten was forced to the desert that held conduct rules. Since the eventual resting place was inside a private restricted area (to hide its original roots?) that acted like a closet or cupboard space....the "holy of holies'. Changing the reference of the term is a way to destroy the old meaning and prevent people from linking it to the old defeated civilizations to establish their own newer ways.]

I'm just setting up the assumptions that I think seem most likely. Then the way to memorize stories was to simultaneously turning the titles or words of real things to names of people with a story people can relate to.

"Abram" became "Abraham" because the original word is 'father of friends?' to 'father of all' [not necessarily this precisely. The name change represents the change of title but gets lost in specific meaning for the above reasons. Other similar related names of places and people 'hide' the original meanings, probably something the 'Gnostics' recognized later and opted to treat as 'secret' wisdom to understanding something real beneath the apparently odd myths that seem to lack meaning in another time.]

Edit addition: So, to the your points about which peoples, sometimes the order of history may become distorted too. If it is too easy to connect the dots, politically people would try to alter certain 'facts' to fit with their rule and then destroy any record where possible so that the future can no longer be certain what is or is not true.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by gaffo »

interesting post Sir, i doubt i can contribute much to it though.

i do note that societies change and the theologies of thier religion with them.

for example in olden times if one as sick, it was due to them having sinned and god making this sick, this mentality is now rejected.

also the older Jubaless theme of Satan and his legion coming down to earth via lust and interbreeding with human women has since around the time of Christ has been negated in favor of the newer Satan and Legion corrupting themselves out of Pride and Rejecting God (aka The Apocalypse theology).
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Age »

nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm It is thoroughly absurd that Judaism/Christianity/Islam would espouse to any god lacking the principle characteristics of the creator-god of Genesis: as having an image and a likeness as embodied by a male Adam and a female Eve.

The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
Creation through Unity.

The Creation of living together as One is moving towards Unity in Peace and Harmony. (painfully slow I might add).
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmthus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
And saying GOD <-*both bestowal/reception viz. shared will between two
'Let light be,' <-*bestowal / Adam / image
and light was. <-*reception / Eve / likeness
and observing the male/image and female/likeness potential in the name:

EVERY thing is Created because of two things coming together. EVERY thing created is because two United.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm
I am <-*male/bestowal
that <-*shared 'that'
I am <-*female/reception
makes for the archetypal Adam and Eve.
The female of a species has to be receptive of 'that' what is shared by the male, that is; in order to procreate.

adam and eve is also a story about evolution. eve FROM adam. adam FROM earth. EVERY thing FROM some thing prior.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmHowever, in observing Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
i. J, E, P, D and R authorship of Torah purporting two rivaling deities of YHVH / Elohim causing Israel/Judah political divide.
ii. Christianity erects idol Jesus as "mercy upon mankind" with little/no focus on feminine aspect of Deity, kills "unbelievers".
iii. Islam erects idol Muhammad "mercy upon mankind" which erodes the 1:1 balance in favor of infidelity, kills "unbelievers".
This is just because these were written in times when things were seen differently.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmrespectively, none of these ideological 'states' seem to even mildly regard the likeness/feminine aspect of Deity, but rather exude patriarchal swinery and domination/abuse of/over women.
Because in those times, when that was written, those of the male gender actually thought and BELIEVED that they were more superior than the female gendered ones.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmThis degradation of women culminates into the latter which invariably carries in it the original sin: man blaming the woman and scapegoating his own iniquity onto her.
But what was the "original sin" before this one?

eve took of some thing that was KNOWN to be WRONG.

And then, they BOTH blamed some thing else for their WRONG behaviors.

'original sin' means MISSING THE MARK.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmThis is precisely what the hijab/niqab/burqa are in Islam; the women are solely blamed for "causing" men to act terribly, despite the fault owing solely to the men.
And All of this could also be SEEN as human beings 'trying to' attempt to blame some thing else (religion) for their own WRONG doings now.

Just ask ANY adult human being WHY they do WRONG? IF one could be found to admit they do WRONG, then the very next line from them, would more than likely be in reference to how some thing ELSE caused them to behave that way.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmImage invariably relies on likeness (and vice versa). It takes the image (ie. particle) to trace/produce the likeness (ie. wave) and they are both expressions of one another.
But the ONLY way the image can rely on the likeness of some thing that is not visible to the human eyes is in being illustrated through speech or writings.
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pmThat a 1:1 'state' could erode into something like Islam speaks to the incomprehensible depths of the evilness of the believing man (not woman), and in the same way it takes a believer to believer evil is good, it takes a believer to believe swine is human.
And it takes a BELIEVER to be CLOSED to thee actual Truth of things.

Texts written thousands of years ago where written BY and FROM the so called "man" who BELIEVED that they were above the so called "woman". Obviously, human beings can STILL BELIEVE things, in the days of when this is written, which are obviously NOT at all true. But things change, although way too slowly it seems to appear.

Some of 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written, STILL refer to God as a "he" and still think "men" are above "women". Some Truths just take much longer to come to light to some, than other things truths do.

Obviously ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing was created or IS because of two prior things coming together. In a sense, it could be said when two opposites are 'married' or unite together they create One. One of the opposites just being referenced by the word "man" and the other opposite just being reference by the word "woman". So, for ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, which IS ALREADY Created it is because of the coming together of two things. A created 'human' is solely because of a 'woman' AND a 'man' literally coming together.

Besides the sexual organs, ALL human beings are EQUAL and the EXACT SAME.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Male and Female viz. Image and Likeness

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:39 pm
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm It is thoroughly absurd that Judaism/Christianity/Islam would espouse to any god lacking the principle characteristics of the creator-god of Genesis: as having an image and a likeness as embodied by a male Adam and a female Eve.
"an image in likeness to God" by your interpretation is the modern interpretation upon the original ideas. Society used less words that had more shared meanings and was easier to translate among various cultures in the Middle East of the times. The meaning, if understood secularly of the day, would equally mean, "the natural source (whatever it was) of all reality [ie, Nature] caused us to exist as we are." The term "likeness" interpreted by most today, along with the meaning of the original words about the 'source', were not necessarily religious references to 'gods' as we interpret them today. So....
Being, 'caused/created as we are' from Nature, Itself, is a great explanation of 'an image in likeness to God', but another interpretation closer to human beings, is the female and adult male body can and does change in size and shape through the past decades solely because of the image in likeness of what is wanted. For example, the female body in the paintings of beginning of last century, from when this is written, had much rounder hips. This is what was wanted. Then the end of last century the female body was much skinnier, and now a bigger, fuller bum is much more accepted/wanted. This is just to show that what is wanted can become the image in likeness of the one wanting.

The way the "world" is; Either if greedy, war-torn, and pollution-riddled, OR, sharing, peaceful, and non-polluted is because of what is Truly being wanted. The image in the wanted/likeness is either to human beings or to God.

When 'you', adult human beings, STOP blaming some thing else for your own doings and GREEDY behaviors, then 'you' can START creating the image [the world] in likeness to human beings OR to God.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:39 pm
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:21 pm The Hebrew word for 'GOD' - אלהים - is a composite of two words flanking either end of the letter hei ה:
אל - 'el' - towardness
ה - 'oh' - conduit
ים - 'im' - sea/expanse (ie. creation)
thus effectively a folded circle with two poles: bestowal and reception, as defined in Genesis 1:3
This too is way off. "El" is not 'towardness' but literally one of the following dependent upon context: "one", "Thee one", "a", or "the", "I", "he" or "she". When 'el' is placed in front of a new formed word, it is neutral. When at the end, it is addressing a specific one, "thee", like Ba-el (Baal) for meaning "The father of us all". Note the masculine meaning was neutralized to avoid others assuming the source had a sex, and one reason the old testament even mentioned it's disapproval of that 'god'.

"El-ohim" meant "the sources of reality" and literally, when addressed as "el-ovam" means "the egg", a neutral term but plural to any unagreed source, such as the various different beliefs of our origins by different cultures. The "-h-" is a infex plural indicator, and why "Abram" was switched to "Abra-h-am". "Abram" is "father one", where "Abraham" is "father of many or 'all' ".

"YHWH" was just the consonants of "Ye ova" or "jehova" and meant "the source". It evolved to be a taboo to give name to "the source" but originated from another philosophical concept about any origins: whether it is a something, nothing, or infinity. At the time of mentioning of this word, the authors thought that the source ('god') was actually absolutely nothing itself. As such, you get those who would have been confused given the question, how can we come from an absolute nothingness. Thus, the meaning of "the source" [Ye ova] is termed "ineffible" which means it is something too contradictory to imagine for it to be both something and nothing at the same time. This now has misleadingly been interpreted that the actual name of "the source" as some 'god' could be named without being cursed to hell. This modern interpretation is how the secular idea turned into religion. But they were neutral.

"Adam" was mankind at its origins, in general; "Eve" meant any of those who followed those origins. The nature of making them into people are just coinciding caricatures of men and women but based upon what they thought caused childbirth, ....the man's sperm. Thus Adam by some was first, needed a penis (that 'rib' that was a reference to giving Adam a sex which happens to be male because of their knowledge of eggs (ova) to exist without needing the male but doesn't supply the sole cause of human births.

Genesis cannot be taken literal and I disagree with your particular interpretation.

I can say more on this but will leave it for your response.
From what you have written here, this shows me that on even deeper inspection into language words fit together even more neatly, which will make the picture and the explanation even more clearer.
Post Reply