"That is, you can point out how rational, religiously oriented, and morally
aware they were, and Jim can just claim that you need to raise the bar
higher to -truly- have the imago Dei"
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
Of course, it can easily be viewed as Glenn lowering the bar. That is why
it is important not to make it my claim, but the claim of our standard,
which is Scripture.
<<Given the Scriptural and theological vagueness of the term, even when
derived from the (in this context) very vague "Henry criteria", how do you
ever hope to resolve this, even if somehow you come to complete
-empirical-,
or even -paleopsychological-, agreement?>>
I don't agree with you that these criteria are vague (see the excellent
Henry quote in Steve Jones's post). They are, in fact, quite clear. If
context doesn't help the meaning here, we can just throw out the whole
enterprise of exegesis.
OTOH, terms such as "spritual" and "art" and "worship" are much too fuzzy
to be of any use. They can be raised or lowered to anyone's standard, and
then you're stuck in the muck of subjectivism.
Jim