God created man in his own image?

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image..."

what exactly does this mean?

it does not mean physical image. It means the ability to reason,think,create, etc.

yours in Christ

sherm

I take this to mean a fusion between animal and spirit. Part ape, part angel if you will. The difference I see between man and the animals is his spiritual aspect which can be seen through such things as art, music, moral law (nobody accuses animals of murder or theft), awareness of the numinous, suicide, etc. It is that spiritual aspect, which God breathed into a primate in the first person of Adam, that is "in his image"

By the way, this isn't meant to be a supportive statement of cross-species evolution.

Man is made in the image of God. Mind, body, Spirit. God made man in His image. But you ask, "God doesn't have a body." Sure He does. He made Him in the image that He would take on, as Messiah. Adam was made in the image of Jesus.

Ridgeback: In your belief why was a primate chosen and not say, a yak or an octopus?

Joe Ray and Bludhall are correct.

SCRAP

I am only using the term "primate" because that is how humans are classified in terms of physical bodies, not because I necessarily believe humans developed from apes.

Bludhall,

 Assuming you believe in evolution and that humans slowly developed into what they are today how would you explain the existence of things like art, religion (numinous), music, suicide, moral laws, etc. when the nearest relatives of humans don't even show the faintest beginnings of these things.  While humans can fool themselves into believing false things about the universe they live in I don't think that really accounts of the existence of these things.

  I personally believe that the earth is very old, that many species lived and went extinct long before humans walked the earth, but I do believe that humans are set apart by God as a totally different kind of creature and that the part made in his image is what defines humans from all the other animals.  As far as whether or not humans developed physically from the lower animals and were then imbued with spirit or if they were created as a literal first man and woman I don't know.  Like everybody else I wasn't there and can only speculate from science and scripture.

While humans can fool themselves into believing false things about the universe they live in I don't think that really accounts of the existence of these things.

I think you should read some Peter Singer who discusses some of the "only human" societal properties that primates seem to share. Primates have been shown to know a sense of moral justice, memory, social structure, family orientation, etc.

Like everybody else I wasn't there and can only speculate from science and scripture.

Science according to science or science according to the Bible?

A.W. Tozer puts it like this " You and i are in little (our sins excepted) what God is in large.being made in his image we have in ourselves the abilty to know him.In our sins we lack only the power. We have almost forgotten that God is a person and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can. It is inherent in personality to be able to know other perosnalites, but full knowlede of one personality by onter cannot be achieved in one encounter. it is only after long and loving mental intercourse that the full possibilities of both can be exploerd.
All social intercourse between human beings is a response of personality to personality, grading upward from the most causl brush between man and man to the fullest most intimate communion of whivh the human sould is capable. religion, so far as it is genuine, is in essense the response of created personalities to the creating personality of God. 'this is life eternal that they might know thee only true God and Jesus Chirst, whom thou hast sent' (john 17:3)

God is a person, and in the deep of His mighty nature He thinks, wills, enjoys, feels, loves, desires and suffers as many other person may. In making himself known to us he stays by the familiar pattern of opersonality. he communicates with us through the avenues of our minds our wills and our emotiions. the continuous and unembarassed interchange of love and thought between God and the soul of the redeemed man is the throbbing heart of the testament religion." (taken from the first chapter of The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer.)

scrapper: I think you should read some Peter Singer who discusses some of the "only human" societal properties that primates seem to share. Primates have been shown to know a sense of moral justice, memory, social structure, family orientation, etc.

me: poppycock ;-)

"societal properties" that primates share are interpretations of God given insticts. However, I've yet to see a primate come up with a concerto, a dramatic play, a bill of rights, a legal system etc.

scrapper: Science according to science or science according to the Bible?

me: true science which confirms the bible, not interpretive science trying to explain origins of the universe or man using convulted and contradictary theories.

me: poppycock ;-)

You said cock. ;)

Rooster: >i?me: true science which confirms the bible, not interpretive science trying to explain origins of the universe or man using convulted and contradictary theories.

Science has proven God and Hell exist? Is that the article I read in Sun Times where those Russians were drilling for oil and heard the screams of tormented souls and confirmed that Hell is in the middle of the earth? [/sarcasm]

Peter Singer wasn't using his articles to talk about the origins of the universe, as if that really matters. He was using his SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to show that what we consider "lower life forms" (and therefore, 'ok' for mistreatment) just might be able to enjoy the same rights that humans extend to each other.

Of course, you are free to believe that God put Man on top of the pyramid and we can do whatever we like to animals, the environment, etc.

'Cause we are THE ONE'S....right?

SCRAP

This should be good.

Not sure what you are referring to w/ the Russian article. Science is 1) useful 2) fallible 3) driven by personal agendas and biases. Therefore, to cite "science" as a formula for "truth" or even "reality" is a fallacy.

I have a biblical view. As such, maggots do not equal humans in terms of inherent value.

God created man in his own image

and man returned the favour-Tony Campolo

the rev

Not sure what you are referring to w/ the Russian article.

The Sun Times is one of the checkout isle mags that feature Bat Boy, sightings of Elvis, and yearly predictions of End Times. There really was an article that claimed Russians had discovered Hell because they heard screams from an oil drilling site.

Obviously, it was crap. ;)

Science is 1) useful 2) fallible 3) driven by personal agendas and biases. Therefore, to cite "science" as a formula for "truth" or even "reality" is a fallacy.

and

me: true science which confirms the bible, not interpretive science trying to explain origins of the universe or man using convulted and contradictary theories.

So what's your definition of 'science' (which according to you does NOT confirm the Bible, since the Bible is truth...right?) and TRUE SCIENCE?

I have a biblical view. As such, maggots do not equal humans in terms of inherent value.

Valued because you believe God placed you above a certain species or due to your own projections about one species being more valuable than the other?

SCRAP

scrap: So what's your definition of 'science' (which according to you does NOT confirm the Bible, since the Bible is truth...right?) and TRUE SCIENCE?

me: I'm just distinguishing between observational science and interpretive science.

scrap: Valued because you believe God placed you above a certain species or due to your own projections about one species being more valuable than the other?

me: because God has placed man above the animals. You certainly see the value of a babe over a maggot correct?

me: I'm just distinguishing between observational science and interpretive science.

It would seem, according to your post, that Physics would be interpretive? Clearly, physics doesn't really prove God's existence...does it?

Please clarify your definitions of observational science (which sounds more to me like selective faith based reasoning) and interpretive science which attempts to describe reality/things we don't understand.

me: because God has placed man above the animals. You certainly see the value of a babe over a maggot correct?

This is the fun fundamental view that everything is always black and white with no gray area in between (like all gays being immoral deviants). Instead of comparing something almost anyone would value (like a baby) and something almost everyone is disgusted by (like a maggot), let's use something from the other end of the spectrum:

Do you think a serial pedophile has more inherent value than, say, a dog?

I'll play Jinx for a second:

Say you were on a flight to Hawaii with your family (wife and two kids), including your dog in the cargo hold. Suddenly the pilot announces that, due to some technical difficulties, a well-known criminal will have to be on this flight. You recognize the name and it's a recently caught child molestor accused of raping dozens of children and killing even more.

In mid flight, the plane crashes into the ocean. Miraculously (and you thank God for it), you and your family are able to escape the sinking plane and have secured a liferaft...and look! Your dog was thrown from the wreckage and is swimming to you. You look around and see that there are no other survivors which is good because there is only enough room for one other person...or your dog.

Then you hear some splashing and you look to see the serial child killer swimming towards your raft. You know that it could be days before you're rescued but you can't have both dog and killer in the raft, there simply isn't enough room. It's one or the other.

What would you do?

1) Let the child murderer in your raft with the possibility that you could fall asleep and your children will end up raped and dead (after he kills you and your wife, of course). This means that your dog will swim next to the raft, become exhausted and will drown. Better Rex than a precious human tho, right?

2) Bring Rex into the raft and defend yourself against the molestor. This means that you would probably have to bash his head in with an oar or something because you know he's not going to buy "hey man, we just don't have enough room for you because of our dog" excuse.

Make your choice bro.

SCRAP

Good questions, give me some time. I've been travelling. thanks!

Travelling? Ya lucky bastid! ;)

Have fun wherever you are going bro.

SCRAP