How did you interpret it in this way? Just curious...did you copy this from a scholar that you heard from or just something you decided upon?
Judging from the lack of responses to this idiotic statement I suppose you could look in the mirror to find someone just as narrow minded... Seriously, can you ever remember a time when you weren't completely religiously melded into the person you parents wanted you to be? I imagine most religiously focused folks can't...
It's way more complicated than Max implies. Max's opinion is essentially that of Irenaeus. There are others.
Wait...waaa? "There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term. The remainder of this article focuses on Christian interpretations of the term." So senor madmax just decided that this sounded best to him? Ummm, ok... It truly is way more complicated than anyone implies...even scholars of christianity. Oh and for the record I voted yes...I don't think anyone that has a clear mind can say there is NO God...it cannot be ruled out, but it cannot be proven (at least not yet) either....
This isn't a rationale for the existence of god or diety. The op defined the positive atheist with a special knowledge about god's existence, or non existence: so I posted questions about man, because IMO what we know about man is relevant to what we know about every other subject. I propose that we know no more about god than what we can understand about man. Jesus can swim and walk on water and he said to love each other the same way he loved people. God is love.
Why do you need others to interpret this for you? Read into it as you will and decide for yourself. Obviously, a bunch of dudes sitting around couldn't come to a unanimous decision; so who cares about their inabilities? Come about that decision based on your interpretation as you will and then, live with the consequences.
I think that's unfair. Max' real point was that the idea that god created man to literally look like him is way oversimplifying the connotation of the phrase. Arguably, Max's viewpoint is inclusive of most major interpretations... What's more interesting to me, anyhow, is that this phrase only exists in the P versions of Genesis, implying that it was added later. I note also that the phrase uses the term elohim which is plural for gods. Ironically, this might better justify the "Relational" viewpoint mentioned in the wiki link (at least, in my opinion).
Why should I not try to understand others answers to this question? Do you think anyone that has interpreted this particular question has a unique or unimagined idea of the answer and had suddenly just 'come up with it' and have not taken the idea from a surmon or scholarly interpretation that has been developed in the past 2000 years? Personally, I don't have the time to sift through thousands of years of philosophers trying to decide what the best interpretation of "the imagine of god" is...maybe you have and you've come to an all knowing celestial conclusion to the question...if so I'd like to hear it. If not, don't come in here with the "Quit asking questions about the subject, just read what you can and come up with your own conclusions." BS about the subject. Obviously you are a huge expert on the subject...why don't you contribute, if you can...
My apologies to you for my harsh reply on such a sensitive topic. I just don't feel any man should answer to another on this interpretation. It all seems entirely subjective based on the desire to research and investigate the topic based on ones own experiences.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm Was reading this yesterday and found it extremely interesting, thought it might be of interest to this thread.
I was taught this...it's an age old concept in Christianity that goes back to the early church. The idea that God had an actual form was considered heresy in Judaism and in early Christianity. You can read through the OT enough to clearly see the God the Hebrews worshipped was without form. Both OT and NT talk literally of an "invisible God." Christians say Jesus was the visual image of the substance of God. That's what I believe. The concept of man created in God's image is defined as Imago Dei. Again, that concept predates Christianity and relates to man being given a nature of freedom, self-awareness, the ability to create, to see and inspire beauty, etc....not actual physical form. I'm unaware of any mainline denomination of Christianity or major branch of Judaism that teaches that man was made in the physical form of God...or that God has physical form. To do so would to read this one verse literally while virtually ignoring verse after verse throughout both the OT and the NT which speak of an invisible God. It would also contradict the very Genesis story it is a part of, that speaks of God as spirit.
Yes, it's complicated...but none of the different branches of through on Imago Dei suggest that God had physical form...they disagree on what it means to be created in the image of God...but none of those disagreements are that he had physical form. That's all I was commenting on.
Just read through this thread and this is they type of thread that keeps me coming to the D & D. Very reasoned discussions with poster using their knowledge to add to the thread and challenge the other posters. Throwing in my two cents. I think any position that states unequivocally that God(s) exist or doesn't exist is by nature a faith position since it is impossible to prove either way. A being that created the universe would have to be beyond the universe and not bound by space time, physics or even mathematics as we understand them so there is no way to conclusively prove or disprove such a beings existence using the science as is. In that sense I would agree it is narrow minded to positively assert that God(s) don't exist. On a slight tangent I'm going to give a Buddhist view regarding the nature of gods. Buddhism takes the Spinoza view that humans are part of the nature and that essentially the Universe is actually undifferentiated so there really is no difference between a human, a blade of grass and a god. Gods exist in Buddhist cosmology but they the products of the Universe and come about as a function of the Universe. Buddhism also views the Universe as existing forever renewing itself cyclically. So while we may perceive a beginning that is only because our inability to perceive beyond our present cycle. In this sense Buddhism is very different from the Judeo-Christian view of God as a prime mover of the Universe that existed before and created the Universe. God(s) is a part of the universe and existence is bound up with the existence of the universe. I am going to put another thing out there that might blow some minds. If you accept the Infinite Worlds model then if there are truly an infinite worlds there should be realities where deities, Zeus, Odin, Thor and etc.. exist. They might make complete sense in those realities as they might be beings who developed with a technology that allowed them to have those powers or even quantum changes at the time of the Big Bang might have led to alterations in the laws of physics in those realities to make their existence and powers possible.
