The 'Image' of God

YaeMPs · Post by **YaeMPs** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:14 pm

The concept of man being made in God's image is often repeated by Bible literalists in discussions about creation and many other topics. It would seem to me that even the most literal fundamentalist must admit the metaphorical character of this idea.
Can someone please fill me on how this passage is interpreted in fundamentalist teachings? If a literal interpretation is possible then I ask (respectfully and without guile) does God have nipples?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:25 pm

According to Biblical theology, it was man not humanity that was made in God's image. Woman was made as a helper suitable for man.

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. ... For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. [/font]

[font=Georgia]
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.[/font]

[font=Georgia]If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

[font=Georgia]Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. [/font]

[font=Georgia]For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living. [/font]

[font=Georgia]You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." [/font]

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:40 pm

I can't speak for fundies, but I take the God's image idea thematically to mean that (hu)mankind is (that is, before "the fall"):
- personal
- rational
- creative, generative
- loving
- just
- meant to be whole
- having a big ol' god-style consciousness
- without fear
and stuff like that.

I think it means that we're good, and if we got out of our own way (sin) we'd be perfect and eternal with complete consciousness. I think it also means that we emanated and share the same essence. We're incarnations who screwed up, vs. Jesus who didn't and showed us what it's supposed to look like.

Or something.

Frankly it's all a little fuzzy.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:36 am

I agree that it is more than a little fuzzy.

The writer(s) of Genesis put in this little gem about man being in the image of God and then no other Biblical writer ever references this thought or expands on this theme. Clear as mud and can mean whatever we want it to mean, as far as I can see.

NMSquirrel · Post by **NMSquirrel** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:57 am

McCulloch wrote: A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak,
it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

do you really believe this or are you just parroting the bible?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:42 am

NMSquirrel, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the Christian god, I do not believe that the Christian Bible is the source of divine truth. I do believe that the teachings in the Bible are prejudicial and detrimental to women in society. I also know of many Christians who wish to promote women' rights. I wish them well, but given the misogyny inherent in their own holy scriptures, I believe that they are spitting into the wind.

The Christian God is consistently presented as male; Father and patriarch. A book which contains the advice, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." is not eligible in estimation to outline the principles of fair egalitarian society. A religion which views God as male, cannot be expected to fairly deal with women's issues.

NMSquirrel · Post by **NMSquirrel** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:01 pm

McCulloch wrote:NMSquirrel, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the Christian god, I do not believe that the Christian Bible is the source of divine truth.

I consider myself a christian because it is the closest label to what i believe,
i do not think the bible is unerring,there is wisdom in it, but it was written bby man inspired by god and thus susceptible to their own humanity, plus the cannonization process corrupted it further..

I do believe in God, but not as the church presents him (there is some truths there,but you have to be able to think for yourself to find them)

The Christian God is consistently presented as male; Father and patriarch. A book which contains the advice, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." is not eligible in estimation to outline the principles of fair egalitarian society. A religion which views God as male, cannot be expected to fairly deal with women's issues.

and if it was taken in context..ie.. those were the attitude of the times for women, i don't believe for a second that God wants us to stagnate, he wants us to grow, the ppl who use that as an excuse for their own bigotry and predjudice, should be held accountable.IOW don't use god as an excuse,god did not make you do it, i believe god will always give us a choice.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:13 pm

NMSquirrel, we might be more alike than you think. I do believe that there are some great words of wisdom in the Bible. If there were not, it would have been thrown onto the scrap heap of history a long time ago. I like that you seem willing to say that it might be wrong in some areas, that your own ability to reason takes president over the ancient text.

OK, we disagree over the god thing, but then again, I don't know the meaning of the word god.

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:48 am

McCulloch wrote:I agree that it is more than a little fuzzy.

The writer(s) of Genesis put in this little gem about man being in the image of God and then no other Biblical writer ever references this thought or expands on this theme. Clear as mud and can mean whatever we want it to mean, as far as I can see.

James references it:

James 3:8-10 ESV wrote:...but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

And Paul expands on it, likening it to renewal, righteousness, holiness and knowledge, and does not limit it to males only, but applies it to all believers:

Ephesians 4:21-24 ESV wrote:...assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Colossians 3:7-10 ESV wrote:In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

My thoughts on it, and this just my opinion, is that the Bible is teaching that prelapsarian mankind was made in the image of God, but postlapsarian mankind does not have the potential to reflect the image of God until he/she is born again, or as Paul states above, puts on the new self.

To address the OP, I think that when the Bible speaks of being made in the image of God, it is not speaking of a human-like body shape, but rather the character of God, as Paul implies.

NMSquirrel · Post by **NMSquirrel** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:04 pm

McCulloch wrote: I like that you seem willing to say that it might be wrong in some areas, that your own ability to reason takes president over the ancient text.

i believe God taught me to be like that...keep in mind i also believe God has a sense of humor..IOW he made me an overthinker (adhd)..and some things are just not worth overthinking..

OK, we disagree over the god thing, but then again, I don't know the meaning of the word god.

what makes you so sure?