Imago Dei

So far as I can tell the idea that we were created in the image of God is found only in the Abrahamic religions, that is, it is only found in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And too often within those religions it appears that the truth of the matter is that God was created in the image of humanity. I suppose that one could infer from the Greek pantheon that they also were created in the image of humanity. At least that is the case of the artwork and myths. However, that doesn’t mean that humanity was not created in God’s image. If there is a God, and I believe there is, then God is not corporeal or material as we understand it. God is of a substance that we cannot see or touch. For millennia, it has been called spirit, and the metaphor for God is the wind or breath. One cannot see the wind except for the way that it interacts with other things. We can see it move the trees; we can see it create waves in water, yet we cannot see it itself. However, we can feel it. We can feel gentle cooling breezes, it can exert force on us and it can be destructive. That may be where the metaphor breaks down unless we are referring to spirit. In that vane it can be beneficial, and it can be destructive.

I personally intuitively believe that the creator is conscious energy. For me the word spirit and the word consciousness are interchangeable. Likewise, the word God is synonymous with creative consciousness.

This means that to say that humanity is created in the image of God one is saying that the human is first and foremost, divine, eternal, conscious creative energy. However, when one looks a little deeper, one finds that the aboriginal people across the globe and millennia thought that we were essentially and foundationally spirit. What they meant, and what the idea in the Abrahamic Religions must mean, is that humanity is composed of eternal spirits at the core. Hinduism and Buddhism believe that the human is essentially spirit and on a cycle of samsara. This is the Hindu word for reincarnation. Taoism sees the Tao as an ineffable and unknowable spirit. The American indigenous people speak of and teach their people that there is a great spirit of which they participate in.

Likewise, the Egyptians believed in a conscious creative spirt and it was allegedly passed on to the Greeks by Pythagoras. The Greeks then developed the idea of the Logos as being the creative source and the divine seed. Plato believed and taught that there was a spiritual and ideal object for all of material reality. They likewise believed in a reincarnation of sorts.

Today, panpsychist ideals teach that consciousness is foundational to reality. There are physicists and cognitive scientists theorizing the same idea. So, to say that this concept is ubiquitous is a definite understatement of fact.

Is it possible that we can be spiritual and not religious? I think so. It should be agreed upon that the term God describes the creator, and even in polytheism, there is always one supreme creative source. Is it possible to redefine God? I believe it is. If we realize that there is one foundational source of reality, and it is consciousness, then it follows that we are describing God. Whether one calls the creator God or consciousness it is still the same concept. It is describing the same exact thing. It is through our consciousness that we participate in the divine nature. We are indeed creators, and as a scripture states it is yet unknow what we may become. I personally believe that it is unlimited. Yes indeed, we are Imago Dei, born in the image of God.

Reimagining Reincarnation

 The idea that mind or in other words consciousness is foundational to reality is as old as recorded history. Likewise, some form of reincarnation is as old as these spiritual traditions. The concept of judgment and heaven or hell related to one lifetime is not historically ancient compared to the idea of reincarnation.

And yet, the theories of the operation of reincarnation are less than optimal. The concept of being trapped in circular perpetuity, solely based on the judgment of good and evil deeds, is based on superstition. It begs the question who is judge and what qualifications do they have? However, in my opinion, the concept of some form of reincarnation is the only spiritual explanation that makes sense to me if indeed we are eternal spiritual beings. Of course, there is the possibility that we are not eternal and the one life we have is a mere matter of lottery. That certainly is not very appealing. Especially when one looks at the development of humanity in a historical sense. Very few people, in view of the myriad of individuals who have lived win the birth lottery. Most over history do not.

Further, if consciousness is foundational, and we are sentient conscious beings then we are directly related to the source of creation via our consciousness. This brings to the front the question. Is the creative source a singular entity or is it a collective? If a singular entity to what purposes does it create and if a collective how does that work practically? My answer to the first question is that it is a collective. My answer to the second question is it is a paradox. It is both singular and a collective. Which is which is decided by the point of view or perspective of the observer.

At the foundational level is appears as a collective, that is God is in all and all is in God which is a pantheistic view. However, from the viewpoint of the individual conscious agent, or if you prefer individual soul, the source is greater than and outside of the individual and while the individual is conscious and a part of consciousness it is not the whole and therefore appears to be panentheistic. Now, if you are an evangelical Christian reading this, before you blow an aorta, realize that Jesus taught pantheism. He said that he was in the father and the father was in him and subsequently that he and the father was in humanity and humanity was in he and the father.

So what’s to reimagine you ask? I will try to answer. If consciousness is the creative source, and if it is a collective in which the whole is greater than the parts it must be acknowledged that the parts are the same substance as the whole. In other words, the parts are consciousness as is the whole. This is why the metaphor in Genesis states that we were made in the image of God. God is equal to creative consciousness. As the Kybalion states the ALL is mind. The ALL is merely one of the names we give God. It is the all-mighty creator. Guess what, we are each severally and jointly an integral part of it.

Most all ideas of reincarnation have the whole in charge and the parts subservient to the whole. This is the idea behind karma. It is also the main idea with reincarnation in Jewish Kabbalah. The idea is that the soul revolves and revolves until it earns either Nirvana or Ola Ham Ba. In the Hindu expression it is called Samsara and in the Jewish view it is called Gilgul. The end goal in each of these is becoming reunited with the creative source. However, in reimagining reincarnation I believe that one is never separated from the divine source.

What then is the purpose of creation? Here is my opinion of it. For me it is the only thing that makes sense. Consciousness has knowledge. However, it does not have experience. That’s where we conscious agents come into the picture. We incarnate to gain experience of the knowledge that we have as a collective. The knowledge is eternal. The dimensions are infinite. The exploration is likewise eternal. However, we choose to incarnate, and we choose to rest in the collective. In our choices we all equally experience pain and pleasure; we participate in good and evil. Eternally we are amoral. Eternally we are love and peace. Eternally we cannot be harmed. Yes, I am thinking of an infinite myriad of experiences.

I will leave you with this thought. Dr. Bernardo Kastrup is a computer scientist, a psychologist, and a philosopher. He theorizes that we all may be dissociative personalities of the one great creative mind. For me, while not totally convinced, it is a real possibility.