Amos

I don't think so. God is first cause and Lord God is second cause as per Gen 1 and 2 and here 'like god' is created in Gen.3 and he was called Adam. Adam is needed to give direction to God and therefore Lord God wondered where man was (man is God and God is man).

SLD

I'm sorry Amos, but I'm just not following you. Are there two God's then? One God and one Lord God? God created the universe and Lord God couldn't find Adam in the Garden? Then who expelled Adam from the garden?


SLD

Amos

No, there is one God and all of creation is Lord God in their own identity of existence and each one of those Lord Gods needs an idea of God to procreate after their image of God. This "idea of god" is contained within the species and is what makes evolution possible. Here 'man-as-God' is obscured by an imago that has been shaped into their idea of existence and hence the "where are you" was asked of man instead of Adam.

Man-as-God is lost because Adam is found and because Adam is found Eden is lost because it is impossible to be lost until you realize that you are lost. This realization is the justification for banishment and awaits a realization on our part before we can return to Eden. So really, the creation of Adam is equal to the fall of man as a surpreme identity and was banned from Eden by the Lord our God when Adam was found.

Abolish

The answer is quite simple. God deals with Adam in a down to earth way, not as an Omnipotent/etc., Invisible Being, though one gathers something of this omnipotence/etc., through the book, despite this. God assumes human characteristics in order to deal with Adam on Adam's level of existence.

Brian_iiiii

============================================
I don't think so. God is first cause and Lord God is second cause as per Gen 1 and 2
============================================

That's a very creative yet completely wrong interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 the word Elohim is used for God. In Genesis 2 the word Yahweh (or Jehovah) is used.

These terms are both used throughout the Old Testament, and it's clear they are both talking about the same God.

Amos reminds me of a Saturday night live skit I once saw, where a guy would say the exact opposite of whatever someone else just said, in a very serious tone of voice, just to make himself sound very profound.

=============================================
Adam is needed to give direction to God ...
=============================================

Case in point, most Christians would say God was/is needed to give direction to Adam/mankind, but by stating the exact opposite of conventional Christian belief you can sound pretty profound!

Mageth

A different outlook on this God character, which I picked up from Jung's Answer To Job, is that God has Omniscience as a tool, but from reading the OT it appears that he does not always access his Omniscience. In other words, he appears to sometimes bumble along in his relationship with humans (after all, this is apparently his first such relationship) without really thinking of what he's doing, and without consulting his omniscience/foreknowledge. You might say that God is portrayed as not fully conscious of what he is doing in the OT, that he is lacking in self-reflection, and thus always thinks that what he does is "perfect" and does not consider that what he does can go wrong.

Look at the little incident in the Garden. A common Theological interpretation of this is that God set things up to give A&E free will by providing them with an opportunity to "do their own thing" (which would be acting against his will). But God's alleged omniscience introduces the problem that he knew in advance that they would fail. To reconcile God's omniscience with the situation, it's reasonable to consider that God did not consult his omniscience, that he was so pleased with his creation and thought so highly of himself and what he'd done that he failed to "look ahead" and see what the consequences of his creative act would be. He didn't know the serpent would get into the garden, he didn't know that A&E would rebel, because he didn't bother to consult his foreknowledge.

Another example of this incompetence in the OT god is in the angels - God apparently created them, but 1/3 of them turned around and rebelled against him, led by the greatest of the lot. If God was the perfect, omnimax being that he is typically portrayed as, always aware of what will happen, this would be an unexplainable event. It can, perhaps, be explained if one considers that God is so self-absorbed that he cannot or does not anticipate that what he does, what he creates, can go wrong.

And then there's Job. Satan and God make a little wager; Satan proposes that Job's faith will not stand a really difficult test. God takes him up on the wager. If God consulted his omniscience, he would know the outcome of the test before it started, and could simply dismiss Satan by saying "You are wrong. Get lost." But he doesn't, and instead lets Satan wreck Job's life to satisfy his need to prove himself right.

(Jung continues with this to postulate that Job revealed himself as more moral than God; God, upon realizing this, became more conscious of himself, and began a process of self-realization, and reconciliation for the wrongs he had perpetrated on mankind).

I look at the bible as an account of God's continued failures; his angels failed, his creation failed, his first attempt to fix that failed (hence the Flood), that attempt failed, so he made a covenant with Abraham and eventually "chose" the Hebrews to be "His People". That failed miserably (though he tried to fix it multiple times), so he had to come up with a new, radical plan (we all know what that was). Well, even that attempt has failed, as there are countless variations on what that plan is (despite the fact that the Holy Spirit himself is supposed to be guiding Believers), and the "church" has arguably done as much harm as it has good. There is no one "church", "body of Christ", or "Kingdom" in evidence in this world, and it's been 2000 years and the promised fruition of the plan is still not here.

And yet Christians put their faith in this bumbling excuse for a God, say this account of repeated miserable failures is somehow God's Grand Plan, and that the next time God is going to get things right. With his track record, that's a fool's bet.

Mageth

Case in point, most Christians would say God was/is needed to give direction to Adam/mankind, but by stating the exact opposite of conventional Christian belief you can sound pretty profound!

As per my previous post, Amos may be on to something with this. God, in his unconsciousness, amorality, and lack of self-reflection, needs a relationship with a conscious, self-reflective, moral being to "wake him up", to raise him to consciousness and self-reflection and make him aware of the morality (or immorality) of his actions.

I think this is indeed a profound outlook on the God portrayed in the Bible that better explains his actions than any of the Christian Theologians' attempts to explain them.

(note: of course I'm not saying I believe in God; I think the Genesis and Job accounts are myths, but I think looking at the God portrayed there in this way can help in understanding the biblical portrayal of God).

(further note: Jung equates God with the Self, and Job (for example) with the Ego)

Doctor X

As much as it pains my sensibilities . . . I have to agree with Toto . . . oh the pain!

Seriously, YHWH--as portrayed by the J author--is an anthropomorphic deity. People are trying to "read in" an "omniscient Over-God Big Daddy" that is popular today. That is not the god J portrays.

If one prefers the "omniscient Big Daddy" and all of that, then one has to be honest and state that J was wrong in his portrayal.

--J.D.

Brian_iiiii

==============================================
As per my previous post, Amos may be on to something with this. God, in his unconsciousness, amorality, and lack of self-reflection, needs a relationship with a conscious, self-reflective, moral being to "wake him up", to raise him to consciousness and self-reflection and make him aware of the morality (or immorality) of his actions.

I think this is indeed a profound outlook on the God portrayed in the Bible that better explains his actions than any of the Christian Theologians' attempts to explain them.
==============================================

On to what? Amos can believe any corny idea he want to, but to claim that his idea stems from reading the Bible is being intellectually dishonest.

What you've stated isn't profound, it simply takes standard Christian belief about God and states the exact opposite. If I use a lot of words to essentially state that peace is really another form of war, or freedom is really slavery, it sounds really profound, but all you're doing is playing with opposites.

To claim that Man is really God and God is really Man is creative, but don't call it profound, and don't claim it stems from reading Genesis. It doesn't.

Mageth

On to what? Amos can believe any corny idea he want to, but to claim that his idea stems from reading the Bible is being intellectually dishonest.

I didn't claim that Amos' idea stems from reading the Bible. I don't claim to know where his idea stems from at all (you'd have to ask him). I merely stated that Amos may be on to "something", and then expressed a related, but not the same, idea in my own words (see my previous, longer post for a more complete description of this alternative view of the God-image). For one thing, in the alternative view I expressed I don't posit that man does not also need God - I posit that God benefits from his relationship with man (by gaining self-reflection).

What you've stated isn't profound, it simply takes standard Christian belief about God and states the exact opposite.

No, the alternative view of the God-image I presented does not present an "exact opposite" belief about God. Radically different, perhaps, but not "exact opposite."

To claim that Man is really God and God is really Man is creative, but don't call it profound, and don't claim it stems from reading Genesis. It doesn't.

Well, that's not what I claimed (that man is god and god is man) either. And I think the alternative view I expressed is profound in that, as far as I know, it was an interpretation of the God-image originally expressed in a psychoanalysis of the God-image by Jung (see Answer to Job, where Jung explains how this view of the God-image can be derived from the Bible), and more aptly explains the actions of God as portrayed in the Bible than the conventional explanation (of which it is not merely "the opposite"). Thus, I don't claim the alternative view I expressed stems from reading Genesis; it stems from reading Answer to Job (some of the views expressed therein I happen to find profound, BTW).

In any event, all of this is just interesting speculation on the mythical God-image to me. Thus, I don't think charging me with being "intellectually dishonest" is called for. The alternative view I expressed was merely that - an alternative view that it's interesting to speculate on, and that I happen to think has distinct advantages over the "conventional" view. I think it's worth considering, if one is interested in thinking about the God-image as portrayed in the Bible. I don't think either view is necessarily true or correct because, obviously, I lack belief in said God. Or, rather, I think the God-image is something that emerged from the human psyche at some time in the past, and has "evolved" over time to the point where we can have these conversations and express different views on the God-image.