Creationists: What would happen if you de-converted from creationism?

[46AND2]

Ok, but my premise is the "origin of life" not how it changed over time.
Thanks for the engaging!

Then your premise is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Because evolution ONLY concerns how life changes over time.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Then your premise is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Because evolution ONLY concerns how life changes over time.

Yep!

 

[durangodawood]

....I also don't think that our descent from primates conflicts with us being made in the image of God, since I would say that the latter refers to our capacity for rational thought (particularly moral reasoning and creativity)....

Should we be understanding "image" as something poetically broad rather than strictly as physical-likeness?

My sense of "image" is about what something looks like.

 

[Ophiolite]

My sense of "image" is about what something looks like.

Don't seek work with advertising agencies.

 

[Silmarien]

Should we be understanding "image" as something poetically broad rather than strictly as physical-likeness?

My sense of "image" is about what something looks like.

Christian tradition has actually always understood the Imago Dei as figurative and referring to intellectual capacities rather than physical likeness. It's a common theme throughout Patristics, due to the Platonic influence, but you can even see it in the New Testament notion that Christ is the image of the invisible God--that can't be a physical resemblance, because an invisible God wouldn't have a physical appearance at all.

The Hebrew context is trickier, and I know less about it, but there's a long tradition there with treating the language itself in a fairly symbolic fashion (think of Kabbalah). The most obvious example is the name of God, YHVH, which might not have an etymological link to the word "to be" (HYH), but it's common to see the similarity as meaningful. I've also seen the local rabbi derive theological meaning from other features of Hebrew, so I think highly figurative interpretations might actually be more appropriate than highly literal ones when dealing with Hebrew Scripture.

 

[durangodawood]

Christian tradition has actually always understood the Imago Dei as figurative and referring to intellectual capacities rather than physical likeness. It's a common theme throughout Patristics, due to the Platonic influence, but you can even see it in the New Testament notion that Christ is the image of the invisible God--that can't be a physical resemblance, because an invisible God wouldn't have a physical appearance at all.

The Hebrew context is trickier, and I know less about it, but there's a long tradition there with treating the language itself in a fairly symbolic fashion (think of Kabbalah). The most obvious example is the name of God, YHVH, which might not have an etymological link to the word "to be" (HYH), but it's common to see the similarity as meaningful. I've also seen the local rabbi derive theological meaning from other features of Hebrew, so I think highly figurative interpretations might actually be more appropriate than highly literal ones when dealing with Hebrew Scripture.

Interesting. Thanks.

I must say tho, interpreting the bible is hard enough without all the special language that connects to current usage by barely a thread.

 

[Silmarien]

Interesting. Thanks.

I must say tho, interpreting the bible is hard enough without all the special language that connects to current usage by barely a thread.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "current usage" in this context, since this is definitely still the standard way of understanding the term "Image of God." You're not going to find many people who actually take it to mean that God is a physical entity that we happen to look like, especially in the more traditional denominations. Or at least I hope not, since that's wildly pagan.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "current usage" in this context, since this is definitely still the standard way of understanding the term "Image of God." You're not going to find many people who actually take it to mean that God is a physical entity that we happen to look like, especially in the more traditional denominations. Or at least I hope not, since that's wildly pagan.

Current usage of "image" is what Im referring to.

Yes I did think the Bible meant there's a congruence of visual form between God and man.... even if God's substance isnt at all physical.

(Not sure how that would be, as we understand visual form in pretty strict physical terms. So there's some mystery there.)

 

[Silmarien]

Current usage of "image" is what Im referring to.

Yes I did think the Bible meant there's a congruence of visual form between God and man.... even if God's substance isnt at all physical.

(Not sure how that would be, as we understand visual form in pretty strict physical terms. So there's some mystery there.)

One problem is that the word "image" is actually used differently in theology. This is most noticeable amongst the Catholics and especially the Orthodox, where icons play a large role in worship and tend to be considered physical representations of metaphysical realities. Look at the Sacraments, for example--I've read Catholic theology that claims that marriage is an icon of the inner life of the Trinity. It's a representation. An image. None of this is to be understood in strictly physical terms, however, except insofar as we are physical.

 

[durangodawood]

One problem is that the word "image" is actually used differently in theology. This is most noticeable amongst the Catholics and especially the Orthodox, where icons play a large role in worship and tend to be considered physical representations of metaphysical realities. Look at the Sacraments, for example--I've read Catholic theology that claims that marriage is an icon of the inner life of the Trinity. It's a representation. An image. None of this is to be understood in strictly physical terms, however, except insofar as we are physical.

I can certainly accept that the typical contemporary understanding of the word "image" doesnt match up with intended biblical usage.

(Interesting examples you provided, btw)