Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

one of the earliest known greek philosphers already noted that 
if "horses had a god, their god would be a horse." (paraphrased)

from a male perspective and following the above logic, ie. that one 
is inevitably trapped in one's perspective, i think it not unlikely 
that man (NOT woman) created the biblical god in HIS image instead 
of being created in the image of the biblical god.

> What are the implications of being created in the image of God?

to your question. if man *was* created in the image of god, is the 
image of man unchanging? if the image of man is changing, does this 
change the image of god?


andreas.

 Richard,

 Being created in the image of God means that man displays
 to a lesser degree God's fine qualities such as love, power
 justice and wisdom. However, since mankinds fall into 
 imperfection the image or reflection has become distorted
 (eg a fairground mirror gives a distorted reflection). Hence
 man cannot display these qualities in a balanced way and 
 often uses them in a twisted way. For this reason Solomon observed 
 "that man has dominated man to his own injury" Ecclesiastes 8:9b

 A good example might be, that man has the ability to harness
 great power but rather than using it for mankinds good he
 produces weapons of mass destruction. Therefore he fails to
 balance the quality of power with love, wisdom and justice.

 One difference between man and God, is that we are flesh and
 God is a spirit (John 4:24).

 Phil.


 

    I always thought to be made in the image of God meant we were created
    as a spiiritual being...if you notice later in the chapter it says that
    God formed man from the dust of the earth.  Being made in God's image 
    and being formed are two different things!
    
    

    .3 Jack,
    
    I realize you probably don't accept the JEDP understanding of Torah,
    but if you did, it would be obvious that what we have is two separate
    creation traditions.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    	Is the "image of man" really changing?

>    	Is the "image of man" really changing?

sure. the "image of man" has already changed and is still changing from 
patriarch-ruler-provider to equal partner in all aspects of life.

presumably, all this change suggests is that the "image of man" evolves
from a more imperfect being toward a more perfect being?


andreas.

    	You're talking about the "image of male", not the "image of
    	man".

sure. else i would have used "image of woman", and had i meant both, i would
have used a gender neutral term.


andreas.

An excerpt from "The Mind of the Maker" by Dorothy L. Sayers.  Highly
recommended (as are her mysteries, especially "The Nine Tailors").

   In the beginning God created.  He made this and He made that and He saw
   that it was good.  And He created man in His own image; in the image of
   God created He him; male and female created He them.
   
   Thus far the author of Genesis.  The expression "in His own image" has
   occasioned a good deal of controversy.  Only the most simple-minded of
   any age or nation have supposed the image to be a physical one.  The
   innumerable pictures which display the Creator as a hirsute old
   gentleman in flowing robes seated on a bank of cloud are recognized to
   be purely symbolic.  The "image," whatever the author may have meant
   by it, is something shared by male and female alike; the aggressive
   masculinity of the pictorial Jehovah represents power, rationality
   or what you will: it has no relation to the text I have quoted.
   Christian doctrine and tradition, indeed, by language and picture,
   sets its face against all sexual symbolism for the divine fertility.
   Its Trinity is wholly masculine, as all language relating to Man as
   a species is masculine.
   
   The Jews, keenly alive to the perils of pictorial metaphor, forbade
   the representation of the Person of God in graven images.  Nevertheless,
   human nature and the nature of human language defeated them.  No
   legislation could prevent the making of verbal pictures: God walks in
   the garden, He stretches out his arm, His voice shakes the cedars,
   His eyelids try the children of men.  To forbid the making of pictures
   about God would be to forbid thinking about God at all, for man is so
   made that he has no way to think except in pictures.  But continually,
   throughout the history of the Jewish-Christian Church, the voice of
   warning has been raised against the power of the picture-makers:
   "God is a spirit," "without body, parts or passions;"  He is pure
   being, "I AM THAT I AM."
   
   Man, very obviously, is not a being of this kind; his body, parts
   and passions are only too conspicuous in his make-up.  How then can
   he be said to resemble God?  Is it his immortal soul, his rationality,
   his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim
   to this rather startling distinction?  A case may be argued for all
   these elements in the complex nature of man.  But had the author of
   Genesis anything particular in his mind when he wrote?  It is
   observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man,
   he has given no detailed information about God.  Looking at man, he
   sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to
   see what he says about the original upon which the "image" of God
   was modeled, we find only the single assertion, "God created." The
   characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire
   and the ability to make things.

And you may buy the book and read the rest.

>  The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire
>  and the ability to make things.

i love that! 

this is just the extent to which i can still imagine that, what is usually 
referred to as "god". the creator. the platonic demiurge. the entity which
got the "ball rolling", so to speak, willingly or unwillingly. even scientists
concede that something could have started the whole thing.

"creator" though, conjures up different associations in me than "ruler", 
"father" or "mother" does. unlike a mother with her children, a creator does 
not necessarily stay with his creation. a creator may turn his attention to new 
creation, may only retrospectively discover what it is he has created or may 
even be destroyed by his creation.

how much closer in contrast and how much more enduring the softness, the 
unconditional love of "god" as mother, although such unconditional love may 
at times appear irrational. i admit, i must be amongst the "simple-minded" 
who are influenced by the pictorial representation of the creator as that 
"hirsute old gentleman in flowing robes seated on a bank of cloud", despite 
such representation being merely symbolic. 

just last weekend this symbolism was the subject of a lengthy interview in my
paper. the priest interviewed lamented the fact, that god, symbolically 
depicted as a woman with a large bosom, was still to this day unthinkable.

now if only those symbols were more balanced between the genders, they would 
have reached even such "simple minds" as mine. :-)

seriously though, the symbolism as it stands today, according to dorothy sayers,
homes in on "the aggressive masculinity", "power, rationality or what you will".
attributes, which, surely cannot be amongst the first and foremost of that god
which jesus brought to earth.



andreas.

Being created in the image of God carries with it awesome responsibility.

It suggests that, though I may not fully comprehend it, my life is of
sacred and incalculable intrinsic value.  And this doesn't apply only
to me, but to others -- even those who I don't like -- even those who
do not wish me well.  It means that I must love my enemies, because that's
what God does.

It means that, wherever I can, I must separate the light from the darkness,
because that's what God does.  It means that, wherever I can, I must practice
random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty (Sadly, now a cliche),
because that's what God does.

Shalom,
Richard

>random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty
>because that's what God does.

I don't think God is either random or senseless, though we may not always
see his pattern or perceive his purpose.

/john

Note 1039.13

>I don't think God is either random or senseless, though we may not always
>see his pattern or perceive his purpose.

Perhaps this is true.  I only hoped to convey the message that I need to work
on setting aside my human inclination to decide who is deserving of kindness
and who is not, what situation is worthy of beauty and what situation is not.

  (Jesus speaking)  "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in
  heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
  sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." [Matthew 5:45, KJV]

Shalom,
Richard

The image of God?

	This is an interesting topic to do research on.  Today most 
Christians (born again belivers -  body, soul, and spirit) and natural men 
(unbleivers -  body and soul) do not have a clear understanding of what the
 Word of God says on this subject.

When doing research on God's Word one must let traditions of men stand in their 
way of learning.  When traditions go against the Word of God, one must change 
and follow God's Word.  See Mat 15:1-3.

A good place to start to understand about body, soul, and spirit is Isaiah 
43:7.

	Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my 
glory, I have formed him, I have made him.

A question are the three words "formed, made, and created" synonymous?  I say 
no they are not.  If God wanted to say formed in all three places He would of 
said formed.

I Thessalonians 5:23
 
	And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your 
whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the comming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ.

Again are these three words "body, soul, and spirit" synonymous?  One must go 
to the Word and let it speak as what is created, made, formed, body, soul, and 
spirit.

In the begining man was formed, made, and created.

	Genesis 2:7

	And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground......

The Hebrew word for formed if "yatsar"--- "to fashion out of something that is 
already in existence.

Man's body is composed of the same elements that are in the dust of the earth 
see:

	Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 3:20.

The next word to look at is "soul" which in Hebrew is "nephesh"--- The soul in 
man is that which gives the body its life.

	Genesis 2:7

	And the Lord God formed man {man's body} of the dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


"Breathed into his nostrils" is a figure of speech "condescensio".  God put 
life into Adam; He made man a living soul. Soul is nothing more or less than 
thatwhich gives life to a person's body.  So long as a person breathes, he has 
soul. (Christian or non-Christian).

see I Petrer 3;20, Acts 27;37.

	Genesis 1:30

	And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to 
everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life...

The word "life" is "soul".  This verse says that every beast has a living soul.

	Genesis 1:20

	And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature 
that have life...

Where there is soul in an aminal, there is movement, there is breath-life.

see Genesis 1:21, 24  Leviticus 17:11

To find the first use of "create" we must look at Genesis 1:1

	In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. 

To create means to bring something out of nothing or to bring into existence 
something which never existed before.  One must read the Genesis chapter 1 very 
carefully as not to mis understand the difference between and God said and God 
created.  The second usage of created appears in Genesis 1:21 when God created 
great whales and every living creature {soul}.  The next use of created is in 
Genesis 1:27 when God created man afetr his own image {spirit}.

	Thus man had three parts:  

	1. A body - formed from the ground
	2. A soul - breath life
	3. A spirit  - the image of God

	God created within man spirit, His image. This is the part of man which 
makes it possible for God to talk to man and man to communicate to God.

I Corinthians 2:13,14 sums it up.


S.I.T.

Tom