Man

[ding]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

 

[Taz]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

 

[ding]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

Logic, like truth exists independent of man, Taz, so no one makes it up. It just is.

 

[Taz]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

Logic, like truth exists independent of man, Taz, so no one makes it up. It just is.

But you're not logical, ever.

 

[ding]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

Logic, like truth exists independent of man, Taz, so no one makes it up. It just is.

But you're not logical, ever.

Way to admit you lost the argument, Taz.

 

[Taz]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

Logic, like truth exists independent of man, Taz, so no one makes it up. It just is.

But you're not logical, ever.

Way to admit you lost the argument, Taz.

See? That's not logical either.

 

[ding]

So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?

Truman called it the lesser of two evils.

Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.

I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.

So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.

I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.

Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.

So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?

I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.

So you tell me.

The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.

Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.

"Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a physical law of nature, dummy.

So who's moral law then, yours?

Logic's.

So you made it up. Got it.

Logic, like truth exists independent of man, Taz, so no one makes it up. It just is.

But you're not logical, ever.

Way to admit you lost the argument, Taz.

See? That's not logical either.

Sure it was. Your response to "Logic, like truth exists independent of man" was I'm not ever logical which didn't address the statement at all. So it was YOUR response which was illogical.

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

 

[Taz]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Still doesn't prove your invisible best friend. Google "proof".

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Still doesn't prove your invisible best friend. Google "proof".

Only to those who are ignorant about it.

 

[ding]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

 

[ding]

Just call me butter because I am on a roll.

 

[.oldschool]

Robes of Royalty - Based on Zohar Shelach 169b

When Esther entered and Ahasuerus saw her light, she seemed to him like an angel of God.

www.chabad.org

 

[.oldschool]

Robes of Royalty - Based on Zohar Shelach 169b

When Esther entered and Ahasuerus saw her light, she seemed to him like an angel of God.

www.chabad.org

THE ROBE OF LIGHT IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM - William Henry

In order to enter the heavenly realms, say numerous ancient spiritual traditions, we must be dressed appropriately…lightly, that is, in a sacred robe of radiant splendor. Attaining this robe is our life’s purpose. For serious seekers of the glorious mysteries of this garment of eternal light...

www.williamhenry.net

 

[Bezukhov]

God created man in his own image.

So He couldn't find a better template? That explains a lot.

 

[ding]

God created man in his own image.

So He couldn't find a better template? That explains a lot.

meh... all that means to me is that man is different than God's other creatures because man is a being which knows and creates.

We won the cosmic lottery and most don't even know it.

 

[Stann]

So He couldn't find a better template? That explains a lot.

Humans are surprising, innovative, adventurous, energetic, intelligent given their circumstance and capable of absolutely wonderful and amazing achievements.

 

[onefour1]

Jesus is a resurrected being who will never die again. In other words, Jesus will live for all eternity in a resurrected body of flesh and bones.

Revelation 1:18
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Luke 24:36-43
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

The resurrected Jesus has a body of flesh and bones and declared that he was merely a spirit but had a body. When one is resurrected they are immortal and will never again part from their resurrected body.

1 Corinthians 15:52-54
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

In the resurrection our bodies are changed from mortal to immortal to no more see corruption or death. Death of the body will no more occur and we will all live in an immortal body.

So when Jesus came to earth he was a man. When Jesus was resurrected he was an immortal man. What did Jesus look like before coming to the earth?

Exodus 33:11,22-23
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
. . .
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

So the Lord, before coming in the flesh, had a face, a hand, and back parts. He had the same features as He did after putting on a fleshy tabernacle. So to me, the Lord at all times, was in the image of a man and will be forever and ever. Does Jesus resemble the father?

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Acts 7:54-56
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

In these verses we see that Jesus is the express image of the person of the Father. We also see that Jesus sat down on right hand side of the Father. In Acts, Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God. So we see that Jesus has always had the image of a man and that Jesus is the express image of the father.

Other scriptures tell us that God the father is the father of our spirits and that we are his offspring.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You would think that if we are God's offspring and He is the Father of our spirits that we would be like him in very image and likeness and the same specie. Why is it that it is so difficult to see that God is a holy exalted man and that we are created in his very image?

 

[Stann]

Jesus is a resurrected being who will never die again. In other words, Jesus will live for all eternity in a resurrected body of flesh and bones.

Revelation 1:18
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Luke 24:36-43
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

The resurrected Jesus has a body of flesh and bones and declared that he was merely a spirit but had a body. When one is resurrected they are immortal and will never again part from their resurrected body.

1 Corinthians 15:52-54
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

In the resurrection our bodies are changed from mortal to immortal to no more see corruption or death. Death of the body will no more occur and we will all live in an immortal body.

So when Jesus came to earth he was a man. When Jesus was resurrected he was an immortal man. What did Jesus look like before coming to the earth?

Exodus 33:11,22-23
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
. . .
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

So the Lord, before coming in the flesh, had a face, a hand, and back parts. He had the same features as He did after putting on a fleshy tabernacle. So to me, the Lord at all times, was in the image of a man and will be forever and ever. Does Jesus resemble the father?

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Acts 7:54-56
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

In these verses we see that Jesus is the express image of the person of the Father. We also see that Jesus sat down on right hand side of the Father. In Acts, Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God. So we see that Jesus has always had the image of a man and that Jesus is the express image of the father.

Other scriptures tell us that God the father is the father of our spirits and that we are his offspring.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You would think that if we are God's offspring and He is the Father of our spirits that we would be like him in very image and likeness and the same specie. Why is it that it is so difficult to see that God is a holy exalted man and that we are created in his very image?

We are not yet like " him ", the potential for that still remains hidden inside us.

 

[HaShev]

With all due respect as a very religious person, I don't believe any of that is literally true.

• God created man in his own image? What does that mean? Does it mean that we literally look like God or that God looks like a man? I seriously doubt that. The Bible was written by MEN hundreds of years after Jesus died. Much of what they wrote was anecdotal, word of mouth, and based on primitive knowledge and driven by socio-political reasons.

• Man occupies a unique place in creation? What does that mean? Some other religions also place man at a unique point between those above him and below, but as a scientist, I expect that given similar opportunity on a similar planet elsewhere in the galaxy, life something like man would emerge.

• God created everything for man? What does that mean? Animals, plants, resources, even the Earth and sky itself were all placed here just for man? BALONEY. Now you know that some man WROTE THAT. That is the same kind of idiotic prejudice that allowed white men to decide they had manifest destiny over other races, dominion over animals, etc. How convenient for man that he got to decide for himself that he was the most important thing in all of creation.

This is the kind of crap that I believe gives religion in general a bad taste in a lot of other people's mouths and drives many of them away.

The Hebrew word for image here is tselem which is a nature (of righteousness) type image not a physical appearance type image.
The Genesis creation story is the "Essence of Creation" we call God (not a man nor form) did not create from nothing, but is that explained most finite Essence which made order "out of the chaos". This is why that Essence is called Shalem (stability, completion/wholeness) because it is that Nature to progress to be all that can and should be in completion, wholeness, stability aka order out of the chaos or as we call EVOLVE.

Sources:
Isaiah 42:8 we can't pray to any image of anything physical- Exodus 20:3-7 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10

God is not a man nor form-(Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9, Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and the 13 major principles of the Jewish faith based on the Rambam's teaching of "ain lo demus haguf ve'ayno guf" -- that Hashem has no physical form.)

The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name(description)& essence.

In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name(the messenger of God shares this name and reflects this Essence). That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.

Shalem means completeness/wholeness thus describing the Essence to be all we could and should be aka evolve/progress.

YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 &
in dead sea scrolls: Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23)

Why it's in the top messenger's scroll?
Because Shalem is the Evening Star
(Michael who rises-Dan 12:1-4)

Note: Shalem or (Shelim) is not the original spelling or transliteration of the name in the Holy city. Just as the scrolls forecasted, there was a stone found (white stone carved with the name) that had the original Canaanite name and transliteration.