Adrian wrote: " the theologian Berkouwer explained that there are at
least two
other ways of understanding the imago dei: as an
office/responsibility/function, and as a relationship in conformity to
God."
That's all very well and good -- perhaps even true. But I see no
way to approach it scientifically. Such a definition must remain, I
think,
in the realm of religious philosophy; untestable.
Because of that -- an alien from space who looks like, suppose, a fire
breathing dragon but in other respects behaves as a human being is ?
To say "not imago dei" is to make an untestable claim.
Same argument goes for the bicentennial man in the recent movie.
Same argument goes for Hal in the movie of 20 years ago.
Same argument goes for my cat if she would suddenly exhibit human
behavioral characteristics.
Like most origins arguments -- what constitutes imago dei seems not
capable of being answered definitively. Or at least with substantive
agreement.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 14:01:40 EST