Made in God's image

[Wertbag]

The famous line from Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness..." has been debated for centuries as to what this means.  Many scholars say that God was originally thought of as a male figure.  He walked in the garden, he spoke face to face and the stories mention his back, hands and face.  This would mean God was fully male, having genitals and a physical form, and in the ancient misogynistic world it is highly likely they would think a perfect being is a perfect man.

Apologists will try to say this line refers to some intrinsic characteristic, perhaps our ability to learn, to grow, to love or to feel.  Exactly which characteristics count seem to be subjective, as they don't accept our ability to rage, hate or kill are features that reflect His image, even though those characteristics are just as core as any of the positive ones.

 

Only a few chapters further on we have Genesis 5:3 "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.".  Which uses the exact same terminology to refer to a physical likeness between father and son.  Now the apologist is forced to say one use of that phrase refers to internal characteristics, while the exact same phrase to Adam's son is used in a physical sense.

 

Scholars say that the image of God changed once Greek philosophy became the ascendant thoughts.  The Greeks had concepts of spirits and gods who were fully spirit so could surpass the physical world.  Of course, if you are trying to say your God is the greatest God, then you can't have them less than the ideas being put forth.  So, there was a conceptualization change with God, moving from physical to spiritual.  Having made that move they then had to reinterpret the old stories to match.  Sayings like "God walked in the garden" got handwaved away as metaphor, while God's image could no longer be physical so numerous ideas got inserted into the gap, but none quite match as they aren't what the author had in mind.

 

Now days Christians have taken the term in a new direction, saying that it represents human value.  If we are all in God's image then we are all equally valuable, and the meaning is therefore equality.  This modern idea is then pasted back to say the bible is against slavery, as who could enslave God's image?  Women's rights, gay rights, anti-abortion rhetoric, or whatever the modern moral debate is, this line can be thrown at it to say "We are right because God's image".

To non-believers this is a ridiculous position, as the OT makes it clear that there is not equality.  God has His chosen people and has no issue with killing or enslaving those who are not part of His group.  Being in God's image didn't stop Him setting bears on kids, killing the Egyptian first born or putting in place capital punishment laws.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

According to some translations (if that is the right term) of ancient Sumerian cuneiform (much older than the Bible), two (of several) gods made "man" in their own image. Their wording is very similat to the Bible.  And these writings also have another phrase very similar to later Biblical scripture.  The sons of these gods found the daughters of these humans attractive, and took them as wives.  Does that sound familiar??   No metaphors needed to make it fit the Abrahamic God.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

 two (of several) gods made "man" in their own image

 

My understanding is that the gods made humans to be obedient "servants", and wanted them to literally look like themselves.  And hey!  Don't most males want thier wives to be obedient servants??     

 

You raise some excelent questions in the post, and I don't mean to sidetrack the subject, but both the bible and Sumerian stories are myths.  But If humans were "created" by a god, or gods, doesn't the Sumerian story sound more logical than the convoluted bible story??  

[older]

Flip-flop-flip-flop. The cult says that a given part of the Bible is to be taken literally when it fits their view, but when it doesn't fit, it is a metaphor. It just depends on what day it is.

 

 

Wertbag's comment tubes the metaphorical approach:

14 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Being in God's image didn't stop Him setting bears on kids, killing the Egyptian first born or putting in place capital punishment laws.

 

 

As to the literalist view, here's what I wrote last year responding on the main blog to an article: 

Intelligent design? How about stupid design? If I was a professor of industrial/mechanical design and someone turned in the human body as a project, I'd probably flunk the student. To perch something that has a center of gravity way high in proportion to its width, atop such tiny pedestals is plain idiocy. Then to concentrate the command and control center in a sphere that is set atop the already too tall pile, where it can be easily damaged, and to even design such a control system in a central place with no backup, shows the student must have slept through the classes. Not to mention that the control lines all run inside a central distribution tube which is also subject to catastrophic injury. The visual system functions only to a maximum of 190 degrees leaving almost half of the working environment out of view. The ventilation system shares an intake port with the fuel system which, if blocked by solid fuel shuts off the air supply thus strangling the entire unit. There's more but this is enough to show that no half-way intelligent designer who gave any thought to the conditions under which this assemblage is to function could create a disaster like the human body. 
 

 

[Crithin8]

15 hours ago, Wertbag said:

The Greeks had concepts of spirits and gods who were fully spirit so could surpass the physical world

I had noticed that the Bible books shifted on this, as well as the Christian beliefs that didn’t make it into the canonized Bible. I thought maybe it came from traditions farther east. But I am unfamiliar with the Greek’s beliefs about Spirits. Do you have a lead-in on it so I can research it some? Or any clues to the origins of historical spirit beliefs?

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 hours ago, Crithin8 said:

 

 Or any clues to the origins of historical spirit beliefs?

 

A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION by Richard Kolloway gives a good summary of how religions got started.

[Crithin8]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION by Richard Kolloway gives a good summary of how religions got started.

Thanks. 

 

unrelated how do I put the thank you reaction to someone’s post? (Down at the bottom next to the quote button)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Crithin8 said:

Thanks. 

 

unrelated how do I put the thank you reaction to someone’s post? (Down at the bottom next to the quote button)

Certain features of the website, such as the reactions, get "unlocked" once you reach a certain number of posts.  Keep going; you're almost there.

 

If you're more impatient, of if you really want to give someone a BIG "thank you" you could always modify a screenshot into a jpeg and then just attach it to your post, thusly:

 

 

[Dsred19]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:21 PM, older said:

Flip-flop-flip-flop. The cult says that a given part of the Bible is to be taken literally when it fits their view, but when it doesn't fit, it is a metaphor. It just depends on what day it is.

 

 

Wertbag's comment tubes the metaphorical approach:

 

 

As to the literalist view, here's what I wrote last year responding on the main blog to an article: 

Intelligent design? How about stupid design? If I was a professor of industrial/mechanical design and someone turned in the human body as a project, I'd probably flunk the student…..
 

 

Thousands of genetic disorders too! But apologists will come back and say that “sin” ( of course only their definition off sin) entered the world and caused all the problems….. I will still never make sense of the belief that god blessed me with wonderfully healthy children, but then turns around and gives a more devout person a severely disabled child or one with a terminal genetic disease. I find it much easier to reconcile these tragedies as an atheist.

[Dsred19]

And yes, flip flop, it is always changing what is literal and what is a metaphor. How is his “perfect word” so utterly confusing!

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, Dsred19 said:

And yes, flip flop, it is always changing what is literal and what is a metaphor. How is his “perfect word” so utterly confusing!

 

The inconsistancies of the bible was one of the things that started my serious questioning.  

[Wertbag]

Another verse that apologists have to try to work around when it comes to God's image is 1 Corinthians 11:7 "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man". So, a man is made in God's image, but woman is not.  Of course, in modern moral standards where we have equality between the sexes this idea is abhorrent, and so apologists have had to work hard to change the meaning to be less offensive.  Perhaps being in the glory is as good, if not better, than being in the image?  

But we are back to this strange idea, what does "being in the image" even mean?  It can't be human physical shape if women aren't it, and characteristic wise we are pretty much the same.  If you accept that God was male, then man is literally the same while women are similar but unique enough to be a different image.

[Crithin8]

20 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Another verse that apologists have to try to work around when it comes to God's image is 1 Corinthians 11:7 "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man". So, a man is made in God's image, but woman is not.  Of course, in modern moral standards where we have equality between the sexes this idea is abhorrent, and so apologists have had to work hard to change the meaning to be less offensive.  Perhaps being in the glory is as good, if not better, than being in the image?  

But we are back to this strange idea, what does "being in the image" even mean?  It can't be human physical shape if women aren't it, and characteristic wise we are pretty much the same.  If you accept that God was male, then man is literally the same while women are similar but unique enough to be a different image.

You got me studying…

 

Image: Old Testament, Strongs h6754-selem: 17 times in 15 verses. 

Seems literal of image, representative figure, or a vain image. I don’t think the argument of a mental likeness, ie attributes, applies to Genesis 1:27 from the other uses of the word. 

 

Image: New Testament, Strongs g1594-eikon: image, figure, likeness used 23 times in 20 verses. 

Seems mostly a literal image but also has some likeness applied and suggests some likeness of attributes. 

 

My opinion of Paul’s opinion is that it is just that, Paul has an opinion. Paul writes: “follow me”, “remember me”, “keep the traditions” before making his argument. Then concludes “we have no such customs.” His argument reaches into the Hebrew texts for supporting evidence. It looked like Paul was grabbing at ammunition to win at or pick a side in a debate. 

 

Rhetorical or Socratic I duuno about the image of God. Maybe something along the lines of self attribution. Probably relating to primitive societal hierarchies. 

 

But if we are causing the Paulians to kick against the pricks:

 

-Paul, being the  physically raucous persecutor converted, seems to have held on to his pugnacious former image within some of his intellectually raucous and contentious writings. “Let her be shorn,” bah! Really? Appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

-And for the image of a Biblical God that doesn’t author confusion there is a a lot of confusion coming from apologist. Maybe apologist should apologize for the logical fallacies and lack of objective reasoning that inhibits them from seeing the historical writings for what they are.  

-And for fun. Why does the Bible tell me to love my wife as my own body and in another place tell me to want her to cover her head when she prays while I do not? If I love her as my own body then I would want her head to not be covered like mine?

 

Or a serious note I think it was Daniel Goleman’s book Social Intelligence that I found the idea of a division of power that is agreed on