Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Are Humans In God’s Image? Even Darwinists like Francis Collins Say, Effectively, No

posted by David Klinghoffer
3043020836_4950c0636f.jpg

When you look at your face in the mirror, is what you see the stamp of God’s own image — not His face, because He doesn’t have a face or a body or any physical aspect, but His spiritual image? Or is your face the mere product of an unguided evolutionary process, a configuration of physiognomic features reflecting God’s intentions partially at best, maybe not at all? Let’s consider the question in light of the interpretative tradition that has been contemplating the Hebrew Bible for three thousand years.

This is one of those points where believers in theistic evolution like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and Simon Conway Morris ask religious believers to pare back key theological beliefs to suit Darwinian doctrine. As I’ve tried to tell you before, the evolution debate should be of urgent interest to the faith community. Even the most religion-friendly Darwinists leave us with a faith severely foreshortened, compared to what most of us think we have learned from the Bible and other religious texts. This is not about science alone. It’s about what a particular interpretation of scientific data seeks to tell us about ourselves as spiritual beings.
You know the key verses from Genesis (1:26-27, emphasis added): 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

On his BioLogos website, genome scientist Dr. Collins cites Cambridge University’s Simon Conway Morris on “convergence.” That’s the idea, very far from being universally accepted by Darwinian biologists, that even unguided evolution would eventually “converge” on a creature somewhat like us. Without God’s involvement as life’s designer, we could expect (emphasis added): 

many of the traits that are particularly relevant for human-like beings. These examples include basic senses like balance, hearing and vision, as well as highly advanced features like the human brain….Characteristics such as a large brain capable of consciousness, language and complex thought would inevitably have to emerge from the evolutionary process….

The exact anatomical features of this ultimate sentient being might not be precisely specified by the evolutionary process, however. This thought can be unsettling to anyone who imagines our particular body plan is part of the imago Dei, or image of God.

What Dr. Collins means is, say goodbye to the idea that your face and body plan necessarily represent God spiritually in any meaningful way. Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God, has been blunter about this. He asks what you’d get if, in Stephen Jay Gould’s famous thought experiment, the videotape of life’s history were re-run from the beginning with, as in the first go around, no purposeful design (emphasis added):

[E]ventually I think you would also get a large, intelligent, reflective, self-aware organism with a highly developed nervous system. Now it might be a big-brained dinosaur, or it might be a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities….[M]y point is that I think eventually under the conditions that we have in this universe you would get an intelligent, self-aware and reflective organism, which is to say you’d get something like us. It might not come out of the primates, it might come from somewhere else.

The brainiest of mollusks are squid, octopus and cuttlefish. So if you’re willing to believe the face or body of one of those (see above) can reflects God’s image as well as ours, then you will be comfortable with theistic evolution.

But in that case, you’d better also be comfortable with abandoning the clear meaning of the verses from Genesis. The relevant Hebrew words, tzelem (image) and demut (likeness), mean respectively “appearance” and “similarity in form or deed.” These are the definitions given by the classical Spanish medieval commentator Nachmanides, based on an analysis of how the words are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
Our being created in God’s image, he writes, is meant to “stress the remarkable phenomenon that distinguished [man] from [all] the rest of the creations.” This includes “[man's] facial expression, [which is an expression of] wisdom and knowledge and perfection of deed.” This is God’s image sealed in our own faces.
The Zohar (1:191a), relating the most mystical interpretation of the Torah, says this:

[W]hen the blessed Holy One created the world, He fashioned every single creature of the world in its own fitting image, and afterward He created the human being in a supernal image [i.e., God's image corresponding to the divine emanations, or sefirot, depicted in a configuration of ten reflecting the shape of a man], granting him dominion over them all through this image. For as long as a human exists in the world, all those creatures of the world raise their heads and gaze upon the supernal image of the human being; then they all fear and tremble before him, as is said: “Fear and dread of you shall be upon every living thing of the earth” [Genesis 9:2].

Don’t worry if you do not understand exactly what that means. The key point to take away is that even animals somehow perceive the Godly image in man. They would not perceive it an octopus, however intelligent.
Nor is this some kind of exclusively mystical insight. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Darwin’s contemporary, emphasizes the same point in his own classic Torah commentary, and he disclaimed any kabbalistic influence. Instead, he emphasized the practical worldview emanating from the text — conveyed, most characteristically, by an exquisitely careful examination of the Hebrew language in which the Biblical tradition is transmitted.
His approach to Torah was scientific, in the sense that he lets the words, the data, say what they do rather than fitting them to an a priori idea. Based on an etymological analysis, he too concludes (on Genesis 1:26) that “image” (tzelem) “only means the outer covering, the bodily form.” So: “The bodily form of man proclaims him as the representative of God, as the divine on earth,…such as complies with, is adequate to, a being having the calling of being ‘godlike.’” Clearly, not just any bodily form would serve the purpose.
Finally, you can’t get any more basic, fundamental understanding of what the Torah means than from the supreme classical commentator, Rashi. He cites a parable from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b) in explanation of a verse in Deuteronomy (21:23). If a man is convicted of a capital crime and then executed and hung, care must be taken that his body not be displayed overnight: “for a hanging person is an insult to God.”
Why so? 

It is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the likeness of His image, and Israel are His sons. This can be compared to two twin brothers who resembled each other. One became a king, while one became ensnared in banditry, and was hung. Whoever would see him [hanging] would say, “The King is hanging!” Any instance of k’lalah (insult) in Scripture means treating lightly and in a demeaning fashion.

God is demeaned by the person in His image being hung overnight. There are other ways to understand this remarkable parable, but the obvious one, given what we’ve said so far, is that seeing a degraded human body also degrades God, since “man is made in the likeness of His image.”
If you were Francis Collins you might ask what all this matters. Are we insisting on a literal reading of Scripture? Is this all about the dreaded phantom menace of literalist creationism?
Maimonides (who incidentally takes a different, more intellectualizing view on the meaning of tzelem) writes in the Guide of the Perplexed (2:25) that where no larger philosophical or moral issue is at stake, and where science goes against the literal meaning, figurative interpretations of the Scriptural text can be an option. But where such an interpretation would throw an authentic religious worldview into chaos, and where in any event the scientific evidence doesn’t compel it, then certainly we should resist abandoning the plain meaning.
Hirsch, as always, clarifies the relevant worldview implications. It matters urgently that we not entirely spiritualize the meaning of our being imprinted with God’s image. That way lies moral catastrophe, with our bodily acts being relegated in importance to a mere afterthought.
As Hirsch writes, the verses in Genesis teach (emphasis added) 

the godlike dignity of the human body. Indeed the whole Torah rests primarily on making the body holy. The entire morality of human beings rests on the fact that the human body, with all its urges, forces and organs, was formed commensurately with the godly calling of man, and is to be kept holy and dedicated exclusively to that godly calling. Nothing digs the grave of the moral calling of man more effectively than the erroneous conception which cleaves asunder the nature of man. Only recognizing godlike dignity in the spirit, it directs the spirt to elevate itself to the heights, and in mind and thought to soar upwards to a higher sphere, but leaves the body to unbridled license, animal-like, nay lower than animal.

When you hear someone say that our spirit may come from God, but our bodies reflect his will in only the vaguest possible way, that is, in other words, a prescription for moral disaster. Animalism, I mean, of the kind we see around us toda
y.
Do you really still think that ideas don’t have consequences? With theistic evolution, naive to its core, hopelessly determined to surrender to the Darwinian spirit of our age whenever the opportunity arises, this is what we’re up against.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(17)
post a comment
Gabriel Hanna

posted June 22, 2009 at 7:52 am


1.) I thought “intelligent design” wasn’t religious; that the “designer” didn’t have to be God. So why does Man have to made in God’s image then?
I see that we have one version of ID for the Abrahamic faiths, and another for everyone else. Every time I see you advocating we teach in this schools I’m going to quote you.
2.) I wasn’t raised Jewish, but I did come across this:
The Bible states that humanity was created in the image of G-d, but what does it mean to be created in the image of G-d?
Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as “image” and “likeness” in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for “image” in Gen. 1:27 is “tzelem,” which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, “you will despise their image (tzel’mam).” You despise a person’s nature and not a person’s physical appearance. The word for physical form, Rambam explains, is “to’ar,” as in Gen. 39:6, “and Joseph was beautiful of form (to’ar) and fair to look upon.” Similarly, the word used for “likeness” is “damut,” which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, “He is like (damuno) a lion” in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.
What is it in our nature that is G-d-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like G-d, who perceives without having physical senses.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image
At least some Jews don’t seem to have a problem with octopi made in God’s image.
3.) You are criticizing a religious version of evolution based on what some guy SAYS about what might POSSIBLY happen if the Universe were rewound and started over?
Well, I say that if God started the Universe over it would all happen exactly the same way again. (Cf Newtonian mechanics and Laplace.) So theistic evolution works. QED.
Taking the 3 points together, you criticize the compatibility of religion and evolution based one one guy’s idea of evolution and another guy’s idea of Man in God’s image, and then say that God couldn’t possibly have anything to do with evolution. Because you’ve covered the bases so THOUROUGHLY.
We can add Logic 101 and Religion 101 to Biology 101 and Hitler 101 as courses you must have failed in college.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 22, 2009 at 9:15 am


So here’s the question, David–
ID is not religion pretending to be science, right?
But you say horrible social consequences follow from thinking that Man is not God’s image. Theistic evolution can’t stop them.
Yet you espouse ID as an alternative. Is “Man is made in God’s image” a tenet of ID?
If it is, then you are caught trying to deceive people about what ID is–you’ve put religion right in it. If it isn’t, then ID is ALSO compatible with man not being made in God’s image and hence cannot avoid the horrible social consequences that theistic evolution leads to, and so ID cannot be a valid alternative to evolution. What’s the point of trading one set of inevitable, horrible social consequences for another?
Hitler believed that Man is made in God’s image, but that didn’t stop horrible social consequences either…
I can’t believe you have thought about this very hard.
I used to think you were reasonably bright but quixotic–there are people who will tie you in knots arguing that the Earth is flat.
But either you are unaware of the contradictions in the views you espouse, or you don’t care–you are just trying to say anything which might discredit evolution and promote religion, regardless of whether you contradict yourself.
In that case, you are no scholar, no scientist, no lover of truth.
You don’t have to do this. You can manfully admit you’ve been wrong about some things and try to make up for it, and encourage your colleagues at DI to do the same.
I won’t sit up to find out if you do.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 22, 2009 at 10:26 am


David: When you look at your face in the mirror, is what you see the stamp of God’s own image — not His face, because He doesn’t have a face or a body or any physical aspect, but His spiritual image?
OK, so David begins by admitting that since God has no body, the “image and likeness” of God doesn’t mean that we “look like” God, but bear His “spiritual image”, and then spends the whole rest of the post arguing that our body had to be like it is to manifest God, and couldn’t have been based on some other form. Consistency, please?
[Hirsch] too concludes (on Genesis 1:26) that “image” (tzelem) “only means the outer covering, the bodily form.” So: “The bodily form of man proclaims him as the representative of God, as the divine on earth,…such as complies with, is adequate to, a being having the calling of being ‘godlike.’” Clearly, not just any bodily form would serve the purpose. (emphasis added)
It seems to me that Hirsch is saying what all Jews and Christians believe, that the body is not just a shell that serves as the repository for the soul (as in Hinduism and Buddhism) but a sacred and holy vehicle for the human soul. How your addition, in the boldface, logically follows from this, is not clear to me. Had God chosen to make us octopi or felines or whatever, our bodies would still be sacred and holy, since we would still be “representatives of God on Earth”, right? In short, it is the bearing of the soul which is in God’s image which makes the body holy, much more than just a shell, not the particular form the body takes. Or, turn it around: some in the past used to argue that only men, or only certain races bore the full image of God–others were clearly and visibly inferior. Thank God, such views are now fringe. However, there is still a point there: all humans, men and women, white or black, healthy or disabled, born or unborn, genius or mentally disabled, even those who are in a vegetative state–all of them are in God’s image and likeness. If the physical variety of humanity or even physical deformity is no impediment to bearing the image and likeness of the invisible, bodiless God, then how could having the form of a reptile or cephalopod or other creature be an impediment?
I might point out that in the Christian tradition, “image and likeness” are understood to have no physical referent at all, but to refer to the intellect, will, and mind contained in man’s immortal (and immaterial) soul, as you can read here. Of course, this is a different interpretive tradition from that which you put forth, but you do admit that some, such as Maimonides, did take a similar view.
As to the implications–well, Hindu and Buddhist thought actually does denigrate the body, seeing it as the mere repository of a soul that may incarnate in many different forms, and I do think that is a problem; but I don’t think you can call Hindu and Buddhist cultures “animalistic”. Certainly I don’t think theistic evolution suggests that we be animalisitic!
Finally, I want to reiterate, as I discussed at some length in a series of posts here, that David and anti-evolutionists in general misunderstand the concepts of “random” and “undirected” in these discussions. For a detailed discussion, go to the above link–in short, from the Divine perspective there are no random and undirected events, “random” merely indicating human ignorance of processes complex beyond the ability of our minds to comprehend. I would make this argument against both IDers and the Dawkins types. In any case it comes down to people thinking they know how God works (or doesn’t work) in the world. Some of us would urge a greater level of humility in admitting that His designs and modes of operation are far more complex and subtle than we think.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 22, 2009 at 10:57 am


I think I’d like to second Gabriel in pointing out a quotation from ID proponent Michael Behe:
The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley’s was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel–fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton’s phrase hypothesis non fingo. (Michael Behe, “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165 (emphasis added)
Even if ID is right (and I think it’s not), all it can prove is that somebody or something made the cosmos and us. Beyond that, Hindus could happily assume it was Brahman, New Agers might think it was the Ascended Masters, sci-fi types might think it was aliens from Alpha Centauri, and so on. Certainly, many of these views would have no problem with humans not being in the image of God, or with intelligence in other life forms.
Which actually suggests an ancillary question: David, is it possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in space? If not, why not? If so, might it be in the form of octopi or reptiles? Or does your theological argument imply that all possible intelligent aliens look exactly like us?
Anyway, back to the topic: I agree with Gabriel that David is trying to fudge here. If he wants to promote Judaism or ethical theism more broadly, then fine–he’s free to do so. If he wants to argue that the scientific basis for evolution is flawed, he’s also free to make that argument (but it’s an awfully hard one to defend!). What he can’t do is try to argue what horrible moral consequences ID averts by making a quasi-religious argument, and then turn around and say it’s not about religion but about the science.
Or maybe, David, you think it is about the religion. Well and good–then the whole ID movement needs to come clean about its real motives. Or do some of your Discovery Institute fellows think that maybe aliens from Alpha Centauri did create life on Earth?



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted June 22, 2009 at 11:58 am


There’s the stark reality that we have solid evidence that humans were “made” in the ape’s image, and vice versa.
The real question is, why do some theists get the importance of dealing consistently and properly with the evidence, and other theists do not?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 22, 2009 at 12:40 pm


Glen: The real question is, why do some theists get the importance of dealing consistently and properly with the evidence, and other theists do not?
Because, alas, for many theists (as for many “-ists” of any flavor) it is more important to promote or (in their minds, defend) the agenda than to worry about trifling things like logic and consistency.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted June 23, 2009 at 1:47 am


I do not agree that a translation of the the text in question (Gen 1:26-27) conveys the idea that we are created in the physical likeness or resemblence of God. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. I argue that an equally valid alternative translation is:
And God imbued mankind with the capability of making moral distinctions.
My argument is not that the idea of physical resemblence is wrong (tho’ I believe it is). My argument is that an equally valid interpretation of the text exists and you can read my argument (and translation of the Hebrew text) here:
http://thussaidthelord.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-be-created-in-gods-image.html
In short, I interpret the text to mean that God imbued in mankind at creation with the capability, among other things, of making moral distinctions — quite apart from, and independent of, any biological imperitive. More to the point, the argument that evolutionary forces gave rise to a human morphology that physically resembles God is, well, not clearly supported in the Biblical text.
In other words, my Biblical view would not be overthrown if the following scenerio occurred:
Once upon a time aliens from outer-space landed in Seattle. The aliens, it seems, were silicon, not carbon-based life forms. Fortunately, they used a mathematical language that could be decoded into a series of musical themes.
Anyway, after some initial difficulty, the humans and aliens were able to establish communications. So, what was the first message the aliens transmitted to mankind?
“Where is the nearest Church? We have only 2 of your days till our Sabbath”
Cheers,
Michael



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:36 am


If the image or spirit of God is to be understood by his actions–drownding humanity, destroyer of cities and nation, torturing Job, the serial killing of Egyptian infants, turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, etc., then that supremely sadistic image does not appeal to me at all! Fortunately, all religions are human inventions and can be changed.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:54 am


The URL pointed to in my previous comment (the one just prior to the comment by Dennis, above) has been changed. The correct URL is
http://thussaidthelord.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-be-created-in-gods-image_23.html
Thanks,



report abuse
 

Ilene

posted June 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm


I am an artist. I create my work in my own image. My own image is from my own imagination. God (if we must use the word “God” for the Ineffable One) is an artist. God creates works in God’s own image. God’s own image is from God’s own imagination. I do not see what is hard to accept about that, assuming, of course, anyone has not placed Darwinian evolution above God’s creative activity within many aspects of evolving through a continuum of being. . . . If anyone does not accept God or Such as the Creator, but prefers an atheistic or scientization of all life all the time, then whether or not we are created in God’s own image is a moot point. Faith and peace, Ilene



report abuse
 

Di1980

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:35 pm


The way I usually interpreted what ‘being created in G-d’s image’:
1) The human soul was created in G-d’s image, the body is the vessel/container which contains the soul/the spiritual essence. I think it is a suitable metaphor, because both the body and the vessels (e.g. cups or vases) are often made of earth/clay (according to the Bible originally human body is created from earth (adamah) and after death of a person, the body disintegrsates to dust/soil/earth. hence the first human was called ‘Adam’.
2) Hence we need to respect the body (the vessel which contains the soul) and take care of it well, because it contains the soul. Also, obviously we need to respect the appearance and features of the human body, because tthe body (the vessel) was designed to be a suitable container for the soul (which is holy).



report abuse
 

Di1980

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:39 pm


I edited my previous comment, because it had errors of expression
The way I usually interpreted what ‘being created in G-d’s image’:
1) The human soul was created in G-d’s image, the body is the vessel/container which contains the soul/the spiritual essence. I think it is a suitable metaphor, because the vessels (e.g. cups or vases) are often made of earth/clay (according to the Bible originally human body is created from earth (adamah) and after death of a person, the body disintegrates to dust/soil/earth. Hence the first human was called ‘Adam’.
2) Hence we need to respect the body (the vessel which contains the soul) and take care of it well, because it contains the soul. Also, obviously we need to respect the appearance and features of the human body, because tthe body (the vessel) was designed to be a suitable container for the soul (which is holy).



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 24, 2009 at 5:15 pm


I do think that ideas have consequences, but that does not justify lying about what scientists have discovered or implying that we are better off being ignorant than learning something that might show a religious teaching to be erroneous. The evidence is clear. If you cannot defend your religious teachings without lying about this evidence, you are not doing anyone a favor. Choosing to demean and attack those who support theistic evolution does not make your doctrines true. Mocking scientists and misrepresenting what they have discovered won’t fix the problems that your dogma has to deal with.
People did not become bad just because scientists discovered that a lot of religious origins doctrines were mistaken. They were bad and good in similar measure before then.



report abuse
 

Realist

posted June 25, 2009 at 11:28 pm


David Klinghoffer said:
“… not His face, because He doesn’t have a face or a body or any physical aspect, but His spiritual image?”
Now David, how can you make such a claim? The Bible clearly states, and we must take it literally, contrary to your claim, that we look just like your deity because man created God in his own image. Can you provide any evidence to bolster your claim rather than mine?
Furthermore, you said:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…”
Just who, David, is the “US” and “our likeness” in your statement? Are there now multiple intelligent designers vying for the prize of creating humans in THEIR own (real) image? Does that include the Flying Spaghetti Monster as one possible designer? Can you demonstrate otherwise that the FSM is not a viable designer?
You like to take your Bible/Torah literally, except when it doesn’t suit your line of argument. You add your own interpretation when it doesn’t come out to your liking, don’t you?



report abuse
 

francis

posted June 27, 2009 at 11:24 am


G-d’s image in the oldest Judeo-Christian tradition involves intellect (i.e.reason, intelligence) and free will (volition). G-d and His image are in no way constrained by the limit of the range of human corporeal form seen on planet Earth We as humans enjoy such a privelege as to have intelligence, and free will. Intellect and free will define humanity’s reflection of G-d’s image. To the first point, intellect: it is through centuries of empirical observation and experimentation that humanity has developed something called the scientific method. Our efforts have revealed much about the processes and results therefrom in the physical world and universe. If reason (a gift from G-d that is part of what defines us as humans and being in G-d’s image), has brought forth rational investigation, direct observation, measurement, calculation, etc., and finally conclusions that some form of evolution exists, how can these results be denied prima facie. Through time we may be confident in the truth that science can bring forth. In some sense, such results may be described as Divinely-revealed through the gift of intelligence that G-d has granted us as humans. We as humans also enjoy the ability to choose freely amongst various options. Not all choices are mutually exclusive. Believing in evolution, in no way, excludes room for belief (Faith) that existence itself came forth (or derives) from an act of choice . . . in the Judeo-Christian tradition, from the will of G-d. As humans, perhaps the greatest challenge is to expand always the realm of understanding through reason, but never to lose sight of inspiration and possibilities that derive from free will and faith. Peace and goodness.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted July 13, 2009 at 11:46 am


I’m a newbie Christian – 61 years old – a high school biology teacher. Evolution always kept me from being a Christian. Is the “science” of evolution right but the “science” of salvation and resurrection wrong? I always believed the science of evolution until I looked at the evidence – the fine print. There is none.
Science tells us you don’t come back from death. So, can the Bible be right on some things but wrong on others? The whole Bible is right or it is wrong. If the Bible was written by God (inspired) then I assume we can understand it without a PH.D in theology. It is not God’s intention to trick us. It is easily understood. It means what it says. The message of salvation is simple. The instructions are simple and easily understood.
To me, the Bible clearly states that we are formed in God’s (Christ’s) physical image.
In John 5: 46-47 we are told by Jesus that if we do not believe what Moses wrote about him (Jesus), how can we believe what Jesus says?
Moses wrote that we are formed in the Creator’s image.
Jesus, the Creator, told Moses about Creation.
In John 1: 1-3 we are told that Christ (the Word) was with God before the world was created. We are also told that not only was the Word with God but the Word was the same as God. We are also told that through the Word God made all things, that not one thing in Creation was made without him.
That makes Christ the Creator.
In Col 1:16 we are told that the whole universe was created through Him and for Him.
Further, In Revelation 21 We are told there will be a new earth with a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven from God and that now (vs 3) “The dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.”
This is simple: Christ is the Creator and we are made in his image. He died so that we may live. Eventually there will be a new earth and we will live with him for eternity.
It is easy to make things complicated and confusing with different points of view from PH. D’s that aren’t based on evidence. “Science” does this all the time as the current theme seems to be to hype everything – from the latest flu to global warming. Conjecture is a fancy name for guessing. Reasonable, informed, logical guesses are still guesses.
To me it’s simple.



report abuse
 

radndalflaggsghost

posted January 28, 2010 at 7:56 pm


I am a Christian theistic evolutionist. What do you mean by Go’ds “supernal Image,” exactly, if you don’t mean God isn’t a man, or at least look like a man? I always thought “made in God’s image” meant that humans were like God becuase they were creative, sentiant beings who could understand morality, not becuase of how humans look. Also what does how humans look have to do with morality and human behavior? If there is no connection at all, then there is nothing spiritual at stake here.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.