In God's Image
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 08:11 AM
RE: In God's Image
(28-03-2016 03:39 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Usually once they realize the impossibility and the silliness of a God looking like a hairless upright primate they say "No, it's not his actual image but his characteristics, like his morality, intelligence, etc." but, even that interpretation is not right, we don't have nearly the amount of intelligence God has, the story of Genesis makes it very clear that God is not like the ignorant, easily tempted, emotionally weak being that Adam is. The Bible states several times when God does something truly awful that it's ok, God can do that but humans can't, we are not on the same level in any way. Is it the the idea that we have a "soul" and so does God? Ok who gave him his soul? Is it a gift only for humans and why are our souls so easily corruptible to the point where it can be damned forever? if God gave it to us and it's his "image" of a soul, shouldn't it be perfect because he's perfect?

We aren't the only self-aware intelligent animals after all, even Gorillas have been taught sign language and can understand death and morality, were they made in God's image as well? So...
When the Bible says we/men were created in God's "image" what does that mean?

While there are a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of the "image of God", almost none of them suggest that it means a physical resemblance. More often than not it tends to have to do with aspects of our nature, like self-awareness and moral qualities, etc...

When it doubt there's always Wikipedia:

"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. This capacity gives the human a centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality (cf. Acts 17:28). However, despite the fact that according to this concept the human is created in God's image, the Creator granted the first true humans a freedom to reject a relationship with the Creator that manifested itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies, thereby rejecting or repressing their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore God, can become neglected and even opposed. The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus acted to repair the relationship with the Creator and freely offers the resulting reconciliation as a gift.[4]"

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:39 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Usually once they realize the impossibility and the silliness of a God looking like a hairless upright primate they say "No, it's not his actual image but his characteristics, like his morality, intelligence, etc." but, even that interpretation is not right, we don't have nearly the amount of intelligence God has, the story of Genesis makes it very clear that God is not like the ignorant, easily tempted, emotionally weak being that Adam is. The Bible states several times when God does something truly awful that it's ok, God can do that but humans can't, we are not on the same level in any way. Is it the the idea that we have a "soul" and so does God? Ok who gave him his soul? Is it a gift only for humans and why are our souls so easily corruptible to the point where it can be damned forever? if God gave it to us and it's his "image" of a soul, shouldn't it be perfect because he's perfect?

We aren't the only self-aware intelligent animals after all, even Gorillas have been taught sign language and can understand death and morality, were they made in God's image as well? So...
When the Bible says we/men were created in God's "image" what does that mean?

While there are a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of the "image of God", almost none of them suggest that it means a physical resemblance. More often than not it tends to have to do with aspects of our nature, like self-awareness and moral qualities, etc...

When it doubt there's always Wikipedia:

"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. This capacity gives the human a centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality (cf. Acts 17:28). However, despite the fact that according to this concept the human is created in God's image, the Creator granted the first true humans a freedom to reject a relationship with the Creator that manifested itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies, thereby rejecting or repressing their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore God, can become neglected and even opposed. The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus acted to repair the relationship with the Creator and freely offers the resulting reconciliation as a gift.[4]"

I've bolded the bits of SitaSky's OP that you didn't address with your copy-pasta Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:39 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Usually once they realize the impossibility and the silliness of a God looking like a hairless upright primate they say "No, it's not his actual image but his characteristics, like his morality, intelligence, etc." but, even that interpretation is not right, we don't have nearly the amount of intelligence God has, the story of Genesis makes it very clear that God is not like the ignorant, easily tempted, emotionally weak being that Adam is. The Bible states several times when God does something truly awful that it's ok, God can do that but humans can't, we are not on the same level in any way. Is it the the idea that we have a "soul" and so does God? Ok who gave him his soul? Is it a gift only for humans and why are our souls so easily corruptible to the point where it can be damned forever? if God gave it to us and it's his "image" of a soul, shouldn't it be perfect because he's perfect?

We aren't the only self-aware intelligent animals after all, even Gorillas have been taught sign language and can understand death and morality, were they made in God's image as well? So...
When the Bible says we/men were created in God's "image" what does that mean?

While there are a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of the "image of God", almost none of them suggest that it means a physical resemblance. More often than not it tends to have to do with aspects of our nature, like self-awareness and moral qualities, etc...

When it doubt there's always Wikipedia:

"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. This capacity gives the human a centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality (cf. Acts 17:28). However, despite the fact that according to this concept the human is created in God's image, the Creator granted the first true humans a freedom to reject a relationship with the Creator that manifested itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies, thereby rejecting or repressing their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore God, can become neglected and even opposed. The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus acted to repair the relationship with the Creator and freely offers the resulting reconciliation as a gift.[4]"

Anyone can post any shit they wish to on Wikipedia. I have a brother who has fun making shit up and posting it there for people to believe and quote as 'gospel.' How dafuq is anyone to have any idea what was in Moses' mind when he wrote what he wrote, and yes I don't believe that Mo wrote it either, just making comment!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 08:25 AM)DerFish Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While there are a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of the "image of God", almost none of them suggest that it means a physical resemblance. More often than not it tends to have to do with aspects of our nature, like self-awareness and moral qualities, etc...

When it doubt there's always Wikipedia:

"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. This capacity gives the human a centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality (cf. Acts 17:28). However, despite the fact that according to this concept the human is created in God's image, the Creator granted the first true humans a freedom to reject a relationship with the Creator that manifested itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies, thereby rejecting or repressing their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore God, can become neglected and even opposed. The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus acted to repair the relationship with the Creator and freely offers the resulting reconciliation as a gift.[4]"

Anyone can post any shit they wish to on Wikipedia. I have a brother who has fun making shit up and posting it there for people to believe and quote as 'gospel.' How dafuq is anyone to have any idea what was in Moses' mind when he wrote what he wrote, and yes I don't believe that Mo wrote it either, just making comment!

The Wikipedia article provided a summary of a variety of common interpretations of the meaning of the image of God, and in general way Wikipedia is fairly accurate in these summarizations.

And the problem you paint is one that wouldn't apply to Moses, but any dead writer, yet we do it all the time, and argue about that meaning, appealing to context, and how it's been understand by their early communities, the meaning of terms in Hebrew etc... all of which would indicate that if someone interpreted it to mean a physical resemblance, that this wouldn't be a very accurate interpretation.

Sometimes the context etc..can suggest one interpretation is likely to be more accurate than others, sometimes it can allow for the possibly of a variety of interpretations, while still excluding a variety of others.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 08:50 AM
RE: In God's Image
I just don't get why Christian elements, especially the book of John or Acts would be added or taken earnestly as understanding of the meaning and point the ancient Hebrew knowledge given.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When it doubt there's always Wikipedia:

[Image: e5794c995122bac94eeacaa112be0213c3296886...842fbf.jpg]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 09:11 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: In God's Image
(28-03-2016 03:39 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Every once and awhile during a debate with a Christian I bring up how the Bible says Adam was made in God's image. What does this mean? It wouldn't make any sense for God to have a mouth for example, he doesn't need one to eat or speak, he doesn't need eyes to see or ears to hear, being an incorporeal all knowing being and immortal it wouldn't make sense for God to have any of the physical traits of a man.

Usually once they realize the impossibility and the silliness of a God looking like a hairless upright primate they say "No, it's not his actual image but his characteristics, like his morality, intelligence, etc." but, even that interpretation is not right, we don't have nearly the amount of intelligence God has, the story of Genesis makes it very clear that God is not like the ignorant, easily tempted, emotionally weak being that Adam is.

I don't think your interpretations of their interpretations is right, lol. While they point to aspects like our self-awareness, our moral and creative capacities, and ability to reason etc.. as aspects of the meaning of the image of God, all of them would likely inform you if asked that this doesn't mean that we are as intelligent or as moral as God, or perfect. That's not about being a God, but in our desire to know God. They just mean that we share something in shared in our nature, even if it's in a more limited sense, and not necessarily in a one for one depicition. Like we might say of other animals we share a variety of these same aspects with, but in a more limited sense.

It's not so much about man's ability to be Good, as much as in his capacities to recognize Goodness and strive for it, not so much in about his knowledge of the truth, but that he can strive towards knowing it. He can also rebel agains that basic striving, take that which he was given to create, and be destructive with it, to take that which he was given for the sake of doing Good, and do evil with it, etc..

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 01:29 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 09:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:39 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Every once and awhile during a debate with a Christian I bring up how the Bible says Adam was made in God's image. What does this mean? It wouldn't make any sense for God to have a mouth for example, he doesn't need one to eat or speak, he doesn't need eyes to see or ears to hear, being an incorporeal all knowing being and immortal it wouldn't make sense for God to have any of the physical traits of a man.

Usually once they realize the impossibility and the silliness of a God looking like a hairless upright primate they say "No, it's not his actual image but his characteristics, like his morality, intelligence, etc." but, even that interpretation is not right, we don't have nearly the amount of intelligence God has, the story of Genesis makes it very clear that God is not like the ignorant, easily tempted, emotionally weak being that Adam is.

I don't think your interpretations of their interpretations is right, lol. While they point to aspects like our self-awareness, our moral and creative capacities, and ability to reason etc.. as aspects of the meaning of the image of God, all of them would likely inform you if asked that this doesn't mean that we are as intelligent or as moral as God, or perfect. That's not about being a God, but in our desire to know God. They just mean that we share something in shared in our nature, even if it's in a more limited sense, and not necessarily in a one for one depicition. Like we might say of other animals we share a variety of these same aspects with, but in a more limited sense.

It's not so much about man's ability to be Good, as much as in his capacities to recognize Goodness and strive for it, not so much in about his knowledge of the truth, but that he can strive towards knowing it. He can also rebel agains that basic striving, take that which he was given to create, and be destructive with it, to take that which he was given for the sake of doing Good, and do evil with it, etc..

I still reject this interpretation of being made in God's image for two reasons. First, the wording itself is clear, it says God's "image". It doesn't state he gave man his ability to reason,creativity, emotions, empathy, etc. In what context would you ever say "That child looks like his father, he clearly has the same sense of humor." That sentence would be very confusing since you are talking about two different aspects of a person, their looks and their personality. If the writers of the Bible used to think God was an actual man, just very powerful but limited in scope and then changed their mind later then clearly there's a problem here. If God is real he can only be one or the other, the Bible is his word? Why is it so confusing as to the the nature of this God? This entire section of the Bible concerns the creation of our species, it's kind of important so the wording needs to be clear, anyone who rejects creationism is expected to be clear and concise in their theories but you don't have to be because The Bible is all you need right?

The second reason is what I already stated before, other animals have shown great intelligence, empathy, problem solving skills, creativity, etc. If we are so special what did God give to us that is not shared with any other animals? You mentioned self awareness, other animals are self aware including apes, monkeys, dolphins, etc. Just because humans have created a written language, built impressive structures, and made many technological and medical breakthroughs doesn't automatically mean a God had anything to do with it. All of our progress can also be attributed to evolution and it makes much more sense than just saying "God made us smarter than all the other animals, because he's smart." In reality it was through a combination of natural selection, adaptation, gradual change and lot's of time that Homo sapiens were able to develop brains capable of higher thought processes. There is no God needed to explain our unique nature compared to other animals.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: In God's Image
Quote:While there are a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of the "image of God", almost none of them suggest that it means a physical resemblance.


Rest assured that we understand that religious jerk offs re-define anything embarrassing into something that is not so embarrassing. I doubt that the fucking goat herders who invented this shit were capable of such nuanced thinking.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: In God's Image
(29-03-2016 12:44 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I still reject this interpretation of being made in God's image for two reasons. First, the wording itself is clear, it says God's "image". It doesn't state he gave man his ability to reason,creativity, emotions, empathy, etc. In what context would you ever say "That child looks like his father, he clearly has the same sense of humor."

Noticed you choose the word look here as opposed to like his father. Where look tends to indicate a physical resemblance, and like often used to indicate similarities in character, like a child's humor, generosity, shyness, etc....

The english word image is just the chosen translation of the word tzelem in Hebrew, which tends to mean a shadow of, or a reflection of. Look wouldn't be an appropriate synonym. You can argue whether or not image is a good rendition of the Hebrew, but it hasn't really been a problem for the religious audience it's directed to, where regardless of reading, no one particularly imagines it to be a physical resemblance. You may be confused by that, most of readers are not.

Quote:The second reason is what I already stated before, other animals have shown great intelligence, empathy, problem solving skills, creativity, etc. If we are so special what did God give to us that is not shared with any other animals?

You mentioned self awareness, other animals are self aware including apes, monkeys, dolphins, etc. Just because humans have created a written language, built impressive structures, and made many technological and medical breakthroughs doesn't automatically mean a God had anything to do with it. A

I would argue that higher thought processes, higher creative capacities including morality, etc... are what makes us unique to other animals. Am I supposed to be bothered by the fact the others animals have such capacities as well, but to a lesser extent, because I'm not? Nor do I call writers of scripture commenting much on the supposed distinctions between man and others animals.

Quote:ll of our progress can also be attributed to evolution and it makes much more sense than just saying "God made us smarter than all the other animals, because he's smart." In reality it was through a combination of natural selection, adaptation, gradual change and lot's of time that Homo sapiens were able to develop brains capable of higher thought processes. There is no God needed to explain our unique nature compared to other animals.

This wouldn't be entirely accurate either. If natural selection, adaptation, etc.. didn't have a genetic code that when organized in certain way had the capacity to produce self-aware creatures, a means for the universe to know itself, a creature with considerable moral and creative capacities, that can recognize concepts like goodness, and pursue truth, than we'd be speaking of an entirely dead end, regardless of how much selection pressures you can throw at it.

We could have been looking at a situation in which at best all it could produce is a variety of different forms of bacteria evolved to withstand a variety of pressures from different ecological niches. But lucky for us this is not the case.

We could have also easily just have been zombies, or perhaps not exist at all. If we could rewind the clock once again, a creature like ourself might not be a inevitable outcome.

You can see it all as some sort of cosmic luck, not just in the circumstances that brought us about, but also in regards to the ingredients preordained before the formation of the world, or believe it was a purposeful outcome. But to each his own.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: