a few questions, maybe to be answered in a future installment:
if creativity is the goal, and limitation is a need, why would it not include the body - which is limitation - in the very image? meaning, wouldn't God also need this limitation or otherwise not be capable of creation?
is it not necessary or at least useful, to understand this …
a few questions, maybe to be answered in a future installment:
if creativity is the goal, and limitation is a need, why would it not include the body - which is limitation - in the very image? meaning, wouldn't God also need this limitation or otherwise not be capable of creation?
is it not necessary or at least useful, to understand this whole question, to reverse a bad translation and actual read 'gods' rather than 'god' when Elohim is used, since this suggests rather more than a simple one-to-one relation?
if by Elohim is meant the Trinity of conventional Christianity, does it mean that Man (as such) partakes of this same threefoldness? and if so, how does it map?
why assume image to mean only something immaterial and abstract (a power - creativity) rather than also something straightforward (as the Hebrew word is used in multiple places - a physical image)? isn't this assuming 'image' to actually mean 'likeness' (a more ambiguous term, for non-physical likenesses, as also used in the Bible)? and hence the distinction between image and likeness becomes absurd?
why assume we lost the likeness - when in fact it is later said 'the man has become as one of us' - which suggests more, not less, resemblance (however we understand it)?
with this assumption, why 'male and female'? is there a 'male' creativity and a 'female' one?
it’s not disjunctive or dialectical between body and spirit—or material and immaterial—but nevertheless hierarchically analogical. like Tomberg and Fichte say, a man must walk and so he has legs, not the converse. God:Man::the spirit or will of Man:soul of man:the body of Man.
re the “image” and “likeness”: unlike Protestants generally, i believe in the progressive revelation of the Holy Ghost through the Church and Church Fathers (Protestantism, in its own way, belongs in this evolution). hence, if Saint Basil says it, then i do not intend to quibble over the point but instead to understand how it can be true.
i don’t intend to argue these items with you, of course, though in all earnestness i nevertheless appreciate when you tell me where you think i’m wrong so thank you again.
thank you for the reply. I apologize if it seemed confrontational. I would very much like to discuss these questions with you - though in private would be better, in fact I thought about sending this originally as a private message on twitter.
a related question I wanted to ask you previously is about your relation/attitude to dogma and traditional formulations of Nicene Christianity, which came up in your reply, but once again I thought it might be best left private so ended up not asking through comment.
if you think this might be interesting, and not too taxing on your time, you can send me a message on twitter (or maybe by mail, which we can exchange there). if not, I completely understand as well.
as always, thank you for the reply and for your writings, which are always thought-provoking.
i’m happy and perfectly comfortable to carry on the conversation here. others might be interested and wish to weigh in as well. otherwise we can do as you proposed, though i must confess that i am not really inspired to dispute these point because i don’t think the tool is suitable to the task. Böhme captures my sentiment:
“Therefore, dear Brethren, learn to take heed and beware of Contention, where Men contend about the literal Form: A true Christian has Nothing to contend for, for he dies to his Reason's Desire; he desires only God's Knowledge in his Love
and Grace, and lets all go which contends and strives about the Form, for Christ's Spirit must make the Form in himself; the outward Form is only a Guide: God must become Man, or else Man becomes not God.”
if I consider the nature of the questions we are disputing, it seems silly to dispute them in this way. Aquinas is famous for his "mihi videtur ut palea," to which Tomberg observes that straw is combustible. hence, the end of dialectic should be regarded as kindling, not as conclusive propositions.
I agree. it was not my intention to dispute these issues with dialectic even as a start, much less as an end. I set them as questions because I am still looking for the answers.
a few questions, maybe to be answered in a future installment:
if creativity is the goal, and limitation is a need, why would it not include the body - which is limitation - in the very image? meaning, wouldn't God also need this limitation or otherwise not be capable of creation?
is it not necessary or at least useful, to understand this whole question, to reverse a bad translation and actual read 'gods' rather than 'god' when Elohim is used, since this suggests rather more than a simple one-to-one relation?
if by Elohim is meant the Trinity of conventional Christianity, does it mean that Man (as such) partakes of this same threefoldness? and if so, how does it map?
why assume image to mean only something immaterial and abstract (a power - creativity) rather than also something straightforward (as the Hebrew word is used in multiple places - a physical image)? isn't this assuming 'image' to actually mean 'likeness' (a more ambiguous term, for non-physical likenesses, as also used in the Bible)? and hence the distinction between image and likeness becomes absurd?
why assume we lost the likeness - when in fact it is later said 'the man has become as one of us' - which suggests more, not less, resemblance (however we understand it)?
with this assumption, why 'male and female'? is there a 'male' creativity and a 'female' one?
thanks for the insightful questions Ruadri.
it’s not disjunctive or dialectical between body and spirit—or material and immaterial—but nevertheless hierarchically analogical. like Tomberg and Fichte say, a man must walk and so he has legs, not the converse. God:Man::the spirit or will of Man:soul of man:the body of Man.
re the “image” and “likeness”: unlike Protestants generally, i believe in the progressive revelation of the Holy Ghost through the Church and Church Fathers (Protestantism, in its own way, belongs in this evolution). hence, if Saint Basil says it, then i do not intend to quibble over the point but instead to understand how it can be true.
i don’t intend to argue these items with you, of course, though in all earnestness i nevertheless appreciate when you tell me where you think i’m wrong so thank you again.
thank you for the reply. I apologize if it seemed confrontational. I would very much like to discuss these questions with you - though in private would be better, in fact I thought about sending this originally as a private message on twitter.
a related question I wanted to ask you previously is about your relation/attitude to dogma and traditional formulations of Nicene Christianity, which came up in your reply, but once again I thought it might be best left private so ended up not asking through comment.
if you think this might be interesting, and not too taxing on your time, you can send me a message on twitter (or maybe by mail, which we can exchange there). if not, I completely understand as well.
as always, thank you for the reply and for your writings, which are always thought-provoking.
and i did not find your comment confrontational; again, i appreciated it.
i’m happy and perfectly comfortable to carry on the conversation here. others might be interested and wish to weigh in as well. otherwise we can do as you proposed, though i must confess that i am not really inspired to dispute these point because i don’t think the tool is suitable to the task. Böhme captures my sentiment:
“Therefore, dear Brethren, learn to take heed and beware of Contention, where Men contend about the literal Form: A true Christian has Nothing to contend for, for he dies to his Reason's Desire; he desires only God's Knowledge in his Love
and Grace, and lets all go which contends and strives about the Form, for Christ's Spirit must make the Form in himself; the outward Form is only a Guide: God must become Man, or else Man becomes not God.”
thank you.
which tool do you mean?
I respect the point however, I can do nothing without inspiration.
if I consider the nature of the questions we are disputing, it seems silly to dispute them in this way. Aquinas is famous for his "mihi videtur ut palea," to which Tomberg observes that straw is combustible. hence, the end of dialectic should be regarded as kindling, not as conclusive propositions.
I agree. it was not my intention to dispute these issues with dialectic even as a start, much less as an end. I set them as questions because I am still looking for the answers.
tl;dr version:
Christ is LORD of the Universe 😁
dialectic