Made in Gods Image?

[Halbhh]

Do you claim to know what God looks like? Pretty sure that's not supported by anything in the bible, because that would reduce God in scope versus the magical thinking that makes God unable to be legitimately criticized at all. If anything, the OP is accurate to say we don't resemble God physically, because otherwise God would be reducible to the creation in some way and that contradicts the narrative

I claim to have read the common bible. ( and have more than 1 time also)

John 14:9 Jesus replied, "Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Let me ask you: why would you think to know more about the appearance of God than believers?

Or imagine you know what is in scriptures better than everyone on a global Christian site?

?

(Seems so extremely unlikely if you just consider a moment... try to step back and leave assumptions aside, if you can)

 

[muichimotsu]

I claim to have read the common bible. ( and have more than 1 time also)

John 14:9 Jesus replied, "Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Let me ask you: why would you think to know more about the appearance of God than believers?

Or imagine you know what is in scriptures better than everyone on a global Christian site?

?

(Seems so extremely unlikely if you just consider a moment... try to step back and leave assumptions aside, if you can)

Pretty sure one can interpret that whole message metaphorically: or are you saying God happens to have a physical appearance that is human? Which would, I'm pretty sure, contradict any idea that God is transcendent in nature, because it would make God reducible to human concepts.

I think I'm better versed than many believers, because they pay lip service in the first place. You can claim better knowledge than me, fine, but I don't buy into devotional study of religion, that's tautological and circular in nature, only serving to reinforce presuppositions and not challenge them

 

[Halbhh]

Pretty sure one can interpret that whole message metaphorically: or are you saying God happens to have a physical appearance that is human? Which would, I'm pretty sure, contradict any idea that God is transcendent in nature, because it would make God reducible to human concepts.

I think I'm better versed than many believers, because they pay lip service in the first place. You can claim better knowledge than me, fine, but I don't buy into devotional study of religion, that's tautological and circular in nature, only serving to reinforce presuppositions and not challenge them

Tell you what, if you truly want to know whether we're similar to God's appearance in some ways, then read through the bible.

 

[NBB]

You may need to look at things you take for granted like:

God thinks in his heart and have a mind , we the same
God listens and speaks, we the same
God is spirit, we have an spirit that can communicate with him.
God has emotions, humans are the only on earth to have such complex emotions, yes yes animals have some emotions but is not comparble. God hates things, loves, have compassion etc.
Humans are conscious of themselves, God too
And the list goes on and on.
Humans are smart and can create, God is infinetely more smart and creative.

Basically God is a person.
And you could say we are like 'little copies' of him more or less, without divine attributes etc.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm Christian, and from the text I read we are made in His image.

But, I notice that you are making your own statement about the appearance of spirit.

That makes me wonder: What's the basis for your belief in how spirit appears?

I can only go by what I was taught. There is not text to go to. Most Christians I know do not believe spirit means God looks like us.

I'm going to stick with what the text says. We look like Him. Also, if one does read through the Bible, it becomes quite clear in quite a lot of passages, that our general form is like His.

So, you see, I don't have to speculate at all.

No you just believe without good evidence becasue that is what the book says. How can god the spirit look like us? All you are saying is that we do because the bible says so, it does not say how that is possible.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We are imagers of God as

a pool of water is of an ocean
a rock is of a a mountain
a small stream is of Niagara Falls
a breeze is of a hurricane
a branch is of a huge tree
a flicker is of a forest fire
a ice cube of a glacier
a second is of a year
a baby is of his parents
....etc

In my opinion these are not very much alike at all.

Are they the same? Not there not, are they similar, yes in many ways. In the same way we image God.

The lesser is not the greater yet borrows from the same. We borrow faculties, attributes, traits from God.

We are like mirrors of old which hard gave a poor reflection. It was what it was, and it is what it is with us.

We reflect to one degree or another. It's our choice how we use this reflection.

What we reflect can and will become greater, or we lose even what we reflect now.

Angels reflect his image too, but then so does satan in his own twisted evil way, to his demise.

Our reflection doesn't change the source, who is perfect in every good way.

Thanks for explaining your belief. I think likeness is very subjective. I don't think a breeze is like a hurricane at all.

You are created in God's image, choose what you will to do with it and how you'll reflect it, rather him.

I will when there is sufficient reason to do so.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This isn't an authoritative quote, just something I read recently:

A helpful classification of approaches to the imago Dei was provided by Noreen Herzfeld in 2002, and subsequently developed by Wentzel van Huyssteen in his Gifford Lectures. The four possibilities for interpreting the image of God in humans can be summarised as follows: substantive, based on some property distinctively possessed by human beings; functional, based on some role or vocation allotted by God to humans; relational, based on both capacity and call, to enter into loving relations with God and neighbour; and eschatological, based on the idea that humans' true nature lies ahead of them - it is a goal rather than a present reality.

-Christopher Southgate, Theology in a Suffering World: Glory and Longing, 227-8

​

Here is the Catholic Catechism on the question:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul, the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake." From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil." Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church, Man: The Image of God
​

The tradition I am familiar with is basically substantive, where the image of God is seen in such powers as rationality, freedom, the ability to love, etc. It is such things that set man apart from lower creation and allow him to know and love God.

Thanks for your explanation. This could be the correct interpretation. How do you know it is?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Tell you what, if you truly want to know whether we're similar to God's appearance in some ways, then read through the bible.

I have many times. I don't think we are very much like God as described in the bible as my initial post described.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You may need to look at things you take for granted like:

God thinks in his heart and have a mind , we the same
God listens and speaks, we the same
God is spirit, we have an spirit that can communicate with him.
God has emotions, humans are the only on earth to have such complex emotions, yes yes animals have some emotions but is not comparble. God hates things, loves, have compassion etc.
Humans are conscious of themselves, God too
And the list goes on and on.
Humans are smart and can create, God is infinetely more smart and creative.

Basically God is a person.
And you could say we are like 'little copies' of him more or less, without divine attributes etc.

Thanks. I can pick many attributes that we are not like God at all like in my initial post. It seems very subjective. Thanks for your reply.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for your explanation. This could be the correct interpretation. How do you know it is?

I gave you the traditional Christian interpretation of the text. If you want to scrutinize the precision of an interpretation of an ancient text you would have to engage in exegesis, and clearly that's not what you're interested in. For example, literally nothing in the context of that verse supports the objections you gave in the OP. The context doesn't tell us what God looks like, whether he is all knowing, whether he is all powerful, etc.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I gave you the traditional Christian interpretation of the text. If you want to scrutinize the precision of an interpretation of an ancient text you would have to engage in exegesis, and clearly that's not what you're interested in. For example, literally nothing in the context of that verse supports the objections you gave in the OP. The context doesn't tell us what God looks like, whether he is all knowing, whether he is all powerful, etc.

I agree. But I find the attributes of God as described in the rest of the bible not very much like us.

 

[zippy2006]

I agree. But I find the attributes of God as described in the rest of the bible not very much like us.

That's interesting, because lots of Christians feel that the God of the Bible looks too much like us. They believe the sacred authors engaged in undue anthropomorphism. But sure, many of God's abilities are clearly out of our reach.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's interesting, because lots of Christians feel that the God of the Bible looks too much like us. They believe the sacred authors engaged in undue anthropomorphism. But sure, many of God's abilities are clearly out of our reach.

As this thread has demonstrated you can pick and choose what attributes you want to list. Some are like us some are not. People and dogs have two ears, eyes, hair, lungs a nose and feet etc. But if you look at the distinguishing qualities and differences in the lungs, eyes, nose, hair etc. We are not very much alike. If God is omniscient, all powerful and all good then we are not like God at all. We are not close to those things per Christian doctrine. These are the most important and distinguishing attributes of God.

 

[Halbhh]

I have many times. I don't think we are very much like God as described in the bible as my initial post described.

Hundreds of millions of Christians share common viewpoints of this --

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. "

@SPF already gave you a common Christian view (shared by hundreds of millions of Christians):

"He made us to resemble Him in some, but not all, ways...."
What does it mean that humanity is created in the image of God? (link via @SPF )

@~Anastasia~ even gave you a deeper full interpretation, past the basic level.

Also, others have given you great answers (some of them listed below). They are representative of mainstream Christian views. You've even been offered the more subtle meanings, which themselves are traditional and well established views.

Take the opportunity to just learn from all you've been offered here, if you really want to know what Christians think.

@SPF
@theoneandonlypencil
@Kenny'sID
@Paul4JC
@NBB
@zippy2006

 

[zippy2006]

As this thread has demonstrated you can pick and choose what attributes you want to list. Some are like us some are not. People and dogs have two ears, eyes, hair, lungs a nose and feet etc. But if you look at the distinguishing qualities and differences in the lungs, eyes, nose, hair etc. We are not very much alike. If God is omniscient, all powerful and all good then we are not like God at all. We are not close to those things per Christian doctrine. These are the most important and distinguishing attributes of God.

I'm not sure if you will believe me, but you are fundamentally misunderstanding Christianity if you think things like omniscience and omnipotence are more central to God's essence than freedom, love, and intellect. Power and knowledge are corollary attributes in natural theology, and in revealed theology there are actually some Christians who even reject those characteristics (e.g. Open Theists). Atheists seem to have this idea that God is a really powerful and knowledgeable old man who hides up in the clouds and makes appearances from time to time. On that conception extreme power and knowledge (or goodness) seem like unique attributes so that must be what differentiates God, right?

But even if you don't accept that your argument is still quite strange. This is how I understand your argument:

1. God's most distinguishing attributes are X, Y, and Z.
2. X, Y, and Z are distinguishing attributes precisely because humans (and other creatures) don't have them.
3. Because humans don't have God's distinguishing attributes, they are not like God, and are therefore not made in the image of God.

Of course if you define God as what humans are not then you won't see any similarities between God and humans. You've rigged the game. On your view the only thing that could be like God is God himself (or another "God" - which is instructive because that is impossible and takes us back to the strange notion of God that atheists uphold). Further, this approach contradicts the very definition of "image" or "likeness." If thing A has all of the essential and distinguishing attributes of thing B then it either is thing B or is of the same species as thing B. In either case it wouldn't be an image or likeness of thing B. For example, Fido isn't an image of Lassie. They are just two dogs.

 

[zippy2006]

As this thread has demonstrated you can pick and choose what attributes you want to list. Some are like us some are not. People and dogs have two ears, eyes, hair, lungs a nose and feet etc. But if you look at the distinguishing qualities and differences in the lungs, eyes, nose, hair etc. We are not very much alike. If God is omniscient, all powerful and all good then we are not like God at all. We are not close to those things per Christian doctrine. These are the most important and distinguishing attributes of God.

Even if we focus on quantitative "possessions" rather than capacities I don't see the problem:

• Humans are somewhat good - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically good
• Humans are somewhat just - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically just
  
• Humans are somewhat knowledgeable - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically knowledgeable
  
• Humans are somewhat powerful - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically powerful
  
• Humans are somewhat loving - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically loving
  
• Humans are somewhat free - God is perfectly/infinitely/asymptotically free

How does this contradict the idea that humans are made in the image of God?

 

[timothyu]

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God punished man for attaining this aspect of God so obviously this was not part of the image of God we were to have received.

 

[ChetSinger]

What does it mean that we are made in Gods image as stated in Gen 1:27?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. - ESV

We don't look like God,
We are not all knowing,
We are not all powerful,
We are not all good,
We are not triune,
We are not omnipresent,
We cannot read minds,
We cannot perform miracles,
We have a gender,
We cannot create something out of nothing,
etc.

So how are we made in Gods image?

Are you asking how the ancients would have interpreted this? After all, it was written to them in their own language, not to us in English.

It means that he created us to represent him on earth. We exercise authority here on his behalf. We "image" him here. He has shared with us enough of his attributes that we can do the job, such as creativity, intelligence, and free will.

 

[timothyu]

It means that he created us to represent him on earth. We exercise authority here on his behalf. We "image" him here. He has shared with us enough of his attributes that we can do the job, such as creativity, intelligence, and free will.

I beg to disagree. The original intention before being booted from the Garden was under His will only. We were an extension yes, but we took it upon ourselves to self determine and fell out of favour. The Bible from beginning to end is one long account of God saying His will be done before the will of man, and the results of man failing to adhere to that commandment. The good news of the Kingdom was that God's will would indeed be done in earth once again as it was in Heaven.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not sure if you will believe me, but you are fundamentally misunderstanding Christianity if you think things like omniscience and omnipotence are more central to God's essence than freedom, love, and intellect.

And I can find many christians that will say they are. Why is your brand of Christianity the correct one?

Power and knowledge are corollary attributes in natural theology, and in revealed theology there are actually some Christians who even reject those characteristics (e.g. Open Theists). Atheists seem to have this idea that God is a really powerful and knowledgeable old man who hides up in the clouds and makes appearances from time to time. On that conception extreme power and knowledge (or goodness) seem like unique attributes so that must be what differentiates God, right?

I don't care what other atheists or other Christians believe about Christianity. I want to know why I should believe your version of god and Christianity?

But even if you don't accept that your argument is still quite strange. This is how I understand your argument:

1. God's most distinguishing attributes are X, Y, and Z.
2. X, Y, and Z are distinguishing attributes precisely because humans (and other creatures) don't have them.
3. Because humans don't have God's distinguishing attributes, they are not like God, and are therefore not made in the image of God.

Of course if you define God as what humans are not then you won't see any similarities between God and humans. You've rigged the game. On your view the only thing that could be like God is God himself (or another "God" - which is instructive because that is impossible and takes us back to the strange notion of God that atheists uphold). Further, this approach contradicts the very definition of "image" or "likeness." If thing A has all of the essential and distinguishing attributes of thing B then it either is thing B or is of the same species as thing B. In either case it wouldn't be an image or likeness of thing B. For example, Fido isn't an image of Lassie. They are just two dogs.

Ok, then why should I believe your idea of our likeness with god?