Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

[Machinist]

The conversations that take place here on Theologyweb should really be done in about 10 different languages, so that the participants are more able to see the multiple nuances that keep getting equivocated which always result in a highly annoying miscommunication/dead end.

[Machinist]

Just saying.

[Machinist]

I'd probably be 10% more efficient in all domains of my life if I stayed off of this forum.

[seer]

Another one who dislikes defining their terms.

Definition of what the image of God is (which I did define) does not bear on the fact of whether it confers absolute value or not. That is a category error on your part.

You are the one making pronouncements concerning" transcendent and absolute value", not me.

No you are the one who brought up enlightened values - so what are these values and who decides if they are enlightened? What makes them so?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The modern ideas about what we now perceive to be human dignity et al" has precursors in ancient thought, most notably with the Imago Dei beginning with Gregory of Nyssa, which I cited. Seer's usage of the Imago Dei as a foundation of human dignity isn't an retrojection of modern ideas into the past, as it's already in the past.

Although it clearly does not include the morality of the primitive god of the OT.

Furthermore Seer has yet to define what he understands by the phrase the "image of God" although you seem to offering an explanation on his behalf.

[Diogenes]

Although it clearly does not include the morality of the primitive god of the OT.

Christians don't go by the bulk of the morality of the OT as to them, it's relative to the situation of the ancient Israelites.

Furthermore Seer has yet to define what he understands by the phrase the "image of God"

I would imagine he understands it within the context of Christian theology. Through my conversations with Christians, it's helped having an idea of Christian theology and Christian terms.

although you seem to offering an explanation on his behalf.

I'm just giving what supports what I'm saying. If that assists seer, I have no issue with that.

[seer]

Furthermore Seer has yet to define what he understands by the phrase the "image of God" although you seem to offering an explanation on his behalf.

Yes I did: "But I would say that God is a moral and spiritual Being, and men have these moral and spiritual qualities."

And this:

To assert that humans are created in the image of God may mean to recognize some special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans. For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God may mean that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God's plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized; humans, in this way, can interact creatively with the rest of creation. The moral implications of the doctrine of Imago Dei are apparent in the fact that, if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans whom God has created (cf. John 13:35), as each is an expression of God. The human likeness to God can also be understood by contrasting it with that which does not image God, i.e., beings who, as far as we know, are without this spiritual self-awareness and the capacity for spiritual / moral reflection and growth. We may say that humans differ from all other creatures because of the self-reflective, rational nature of their thought processes - their capacity for abstract, symbolic as well as concrete deliberation and decision-making.

[Machinist]

"For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God may mean that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God's plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized; humans, in this way, can interact creatively with the rest of creation."

Are animals not aware of being part of creation?


"To assert that humans are created in the image of God may mean to recognize some special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans. For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God may mean that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God's plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized; humans, in this way, can interact creatively with the rest of creation. The moral implications of the doctrine of Imago Dei are apparent in the fact that, if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans whom God has created (cf. John 13:35), as each is an expression of God. The human likeness to God can also be understood by contrasting it with that which does not image God, i.e., beings who, as far as we know, are without this spiritual self-awareness and the capacity for spiritual / moral reflection and growth. We may say that humans differ from all other creatures because of the self-reflective, rational nature of their thought processes - their capacity for abstract, symbolic as well as concrete deliberation and decision-making."

I like that though. It's got some substance.

[seer]

Are animals not aware of being part of creation?

Not in the way we are, I don't think.

[Machinist]

"To assert that humans are created in the image of God may mean to recognize some special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans."

To paraphrase (and please correct me if I get this wrong), there are recognizable special qualities in humans, a limited set of qualities that allow God to be made manifest in humans. For God to be made manifest through humans, the human must first possess these special qualities of human nature.

"For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God may mean that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God's plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized; humans, in this way, can interact creatively with the rest of creation."

This is alot to unpack here. This recognition of the image of God means that we are aware of being part of God's creation?


.

[Machinist]

No you are the one who brought up enlightened values - so what are these values and who decides if they are enlightened? What makes them so?

This is a good question that I would like to see answered. What makes an enlightened value an enlighten value and gives it that level of transcendence? Did I ask that correctly?


But I do have a quick observation here : I understand where you are going, I think. Obviously to God, that is, He is the source of this value, and this "enlightenment", I mean, it's a long way of just saying God did it. I think that is ultimately where you're going with that. That God is the source. That is the entire Transcendental Argument for God is it not? Sometime I am not so sure that I'm looking at things from the right perspective. It's like from the top view, everything is a circle, but from the side it's a spiral.

At this point though, I would like to offer one possibility, and it might be far out there, but I think it's a possibility of how to answer where this value comes from, and not just the value, but the very category of "enlightened values", the idea, the capacity to perceive that idea, etc.

It's hard to articulate, but it's like it comes from the body I guess, and the mind, etc. Isn't that the atheist short answer? That it's just inherent, that it just evolved?

What if it did? That's a question to you. What if our bodies, and our minds, and our nervous systems evolved in a way to perceive things one level above us in logic? And it's that level of supra logic that we all can glimpse, and we all share, and we call things that spring from this place enlightened values. So in effect, these enlightened values would essentially be coming from us. We, not God, would be generating it. In a sense, and I guess in a very real sense depending on how you want to define God, this process is God. But it's more like this God isn't a anthropomorphic God, rather a pantheistic type set up. But instead of many Gods, it's really only One Self Existent Consciousness. And that, could be God. It really wouldn't have a central focus I wouldn't think. I don't see any religions or temples in honor of this great....thing? I guess it's a thing. Whatever it is, this Universe, for lack of a better term just is, and it's evolving, and with every iteration, comes with it, sorta like a blueprint for higher abstractions. We can't really access it directly, but we can Deify it, and worship it. It lends itself to Deification, because it's perfect, it's the very idea of perfection, it's the abstraction of absoluteness. We carry that, inherently. This was told to me by an Elephant.

[seer]

But I do have a quick observation here : I understand where you are going, I think. Obviously to God, that is, He is the source of this value, and this "enlightenment", I mean, it's a long way of just saying God did it. I think that is ultimately where you're going with that. That God is the source. That is the entire Transcendental Argument for God is it not? Sometime I am not so sure that I'm looking at things from the right perspective. It's like from the top view, everything is a circle, but from the side it's a spiral.

I'm not really using TAG here, see below.

What if it did? That's a question to you. What if our bodies, and our minds, and our nervous systems evolved in a way to perceive things one level above us in logic? And it's that level of supra logic that we all can glimpse, and we all share, and we call things that spring from this place enlightened values. So in effect, these enlightened values would essentially be coming from us. We, not God, would be generating it. In a sense, and I guess in a very real sense depending on how you want to define God, this process is God. But it's more like this God isn't a anthropomorphic God, rather a pantheistic type set up. But instead of many Gods, it's really only One Self Existent Consciousness. And that, could be God. It really wouldn't have a central focus I wouldn't think. I don't see any religions or temples in honor of this great....thing? I guess it's a thing. Whatever it is, this Universe, for lack of a better term just is, and it's evolving, and with every iteration, comes with it, sorta like a blueprint for higher abstractions. We can't really access it directly, but we can Deify it, and worship it. It lends itself to Deification, because it's perfect, it's the very idea of perfection, it's the abstraction of absoluteness. We carry that, inherently. This was told to me by an Elephant.

If enlightened values are merely our invention then we are back square one. Who gets to decide what is enlightened or not? There is no universal or objective standard to judge by. The Maoists believed it was morally acceptable to murder millions of dissenters to create a more fair and cohesive society. In their mind they were enlightened - and China today is still following the same model in principle. As far as your One Self Existent Consciousness - is it a moral being? Does it even care what we do, good or bad? Does it have an opinion on ethics? If not it would be a useless addition to the conversation.

[Machinist]

I'm not really using TAG here, see below.



If enlightened values are merely our invention then we are back square one. Who gets to decide what is enlightened or not? There is no universal or objective standard to judge by. The Maoists believed it was morally acceptable to murder millions of dissenters to create a more fair and cohesive society. In their mind they were enlightened - and China today is still following the same model in principle. As far as your One Self Existent Consciousness - is it a moral being? Does it even care what we do, good or bad? Does it have an opinion on ethics? If not it would be a useless addition to the conversation.

It wouldn't be our invention. It would just be the way things evolved.

[Machinist]

I'm not really using TAG here, see below.



Does it have an opinion on ethics? If not it would be a useless addition to the conversation.

I would say it has multiple opinions on ethics.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Christians don't go by the bulk of the morality of the OT as to them, it's relative to the situation of the ancient Israelites.

The exchange I have been having in this thread has been with regard to what is understood by Genesis 1.26 "Let us make humankind in our image according to our likeness" .[my emphasis].

Furthermore, the various concepts of deity that we find in the Hebrew texts do not bear out the contention that god is completely good.