Russell Maatman wrote:
..................................
> My thesis which ties these ten points together is this: The image of God is
> not detected or determined by behavior, mental capacity, or body structure.
> Beings which do not bear the image of God could still carry out human-like
> activities and could be physically similar to human beings. Rather, the
> image of God is that which makes human beings human; it is that which needs
> restoring by Christ. ..................................
Russ -
This 1 paragraph from your post is central to your argument and it seems
to me that a lot is left unsaid or is unclear here.
You have not said what you understand "image of God" to mean. There have, of
course, been a number of interpretations of this in the Christian tradition -
rationality, dominion over creation, & having true fear of God & trust in God as some of
the more important. These are not mutually exclusive. & the point is not that humanity
was given some one characteristic, "the image of God", in addition to a lot of other
properties. Rather, being in the image of God means that the human as a whole
"corresponds to God", is able to be in communication with God and respond to God
appropriately.
Now it is true that we're not going to find fossil remnants of the _imago dei_
in that sense. But if the concept means anything at all it will have consequences in
the lives of human beings which may leave clues. E.g., I would suggest that the
indications we have of Neanderthal &c religious practices which Glenn M. e.g., has
detailed suggest, not human beings in the "state of integrity" but those in which the
imago is damaged & distorted. What is restored in Christ is faith in the true God,
& its absence is shown by faith in false gods.
Now whether or not my interpretation of that particular set of data is correct
or not can be debated. But my general point is that unless the imago dei has some
consequences which can be discerned by observation _and theological analysis_ then it's
not a very helpful concept for theological anthropology. If all we can say is that
creatures who are genuinely human differ from other hominids by virtue of the imago dei,
& the imago dei is what makes creatures human, then we haven't said anything.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 20:45:32 EST