Are We Really Made In The Image Of God?
I tend to think God has a bit of a sarcastic streak in him. First, have a look at
Job 9:5-11
5 He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger.
6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars.
8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
9 He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.
10 He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted.
11 When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.
Then in the bible, you can hit something like Psalm 2:10-12
Psalm 2:10-12
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
The grander of God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful turns around and says now be wise you Kings. I can’t help it, I sometimes wonder if he is just taking the piss. Wise in comparison to him, how is that not going to end up looking dumb? How about, you will be like God if you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
The whole eat from the tree of good and evil and you will be like God. (image of God?) Well, it’s all just an opinion but I am curious. It was, after all, the whole theme for the fall of man to consider yourself like God. Might that include the way we express that even today, of being made in the image of God? I am starting to think I might need to tread carefully with my attitude around a finite man being made in the image of God. The Spirit is something else but then not everyone goes to heaven.
There are plenty of bible verses to look at and I have copied just a small section from the wiki. Even if you just scan it will give you some idea of the foundational pillar being made in the image of God for Christianity. There are moral understandings to grasp as it has had a pivotal role in the forming of human rights. Some of the traditional arguments go like this....
Image of God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God
Three ways of understanding the image of God
In Christian theology there are three common ways of understanding the manner in which humans exist in imago dei: Substantive, Relational and Functional.
Substantive
.jpg)
The substantive view locates the image of God within the psychological or spiritual makeup of the human being. This view holds that there are similarities between humanity and God, thus emphasizing characteristics that are of shared substance between both parties. Some proponents of the substantive view uphold that the rational soul mirrors the divine.[12] According to this mirroring, humanity is shaped like the way in which a sculpture or painting is in the image of the artist doing the sculpting or painting.[13] While the substantive view locates the image of God in a characteristic or capacity unique to humanity, such as reason or will, the image may also be found in humanity's capacity to have a relationship with the divine.[14] Unlike the relational view, humanity's capacity to have a relationship with the divine still locates the image of God in a characteristic or capacity that is unique to humanity and not the relationship itself. The substantive view, however, need not focus on a single specific way in which humanity is like God. It can apply to every way in which humanity is like God, just as Seth could be like his father Adam in multiple ways[15] What is important is that the substantive view sees the image of God as present in humanity whether or not an individual person acknowledges the reality of the image
Relational
The relational view argues that one must be in a relationship with God in order to possess the 'image' of God. Those who hold to the relational image agree that humankind possess the ability to reason as a substantive trait, but they argue that it is in a relationship with God that the true image is made evident. Later theologians like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner argue that it is our ability to establish and maintain complex and intricate relationships that make us like God. For example, in humans the created order of male and female is intended to culminate in spiritual as well as physical unions Genesis 5:1–2, reflecting the nature and image of God. Since other creatures do not form such explicitly referential spiritual relationships, these theologians see this ability as uniquely representing the imago dei in humans.
For Severian of Gabala (AD 425) the Image of God does not refer to any human nature (corporeal and spiritual), but the relationship with God. "From this we learn that man is not the image of God because of his soul from him or because of his body from him. If that were the case, woman would be the image of God in exactly the same way as man, because she too has a soul and a body. What we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship. For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does she has man over her".
In the Modern Era, the Image of God was often related to the concept of "freedom" or "free will" and also relationality. Emil Brunner, a twentieth century Swiss Reformed theologian, wrote that "the formal aspect of human nature, as beings 'made in the image of God", denotes being as Subject, or freedom; it is this which differentiates humanity from the lower creation." He also sees the relationship between God and humanity as a defining part of what it means to be made in God's image.[25]
Paul Ricoeur, a twentieth century French philosopher best known for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutics, argued that there is no defined meaning of the imago dei, or at the very least the author of Genesis 1 "certainly did not master at once all its implicit wealth of meaning."[26] He went on to say that "In the very essence of the individual, in terms of its quality as a subject; the image of God, we believe, is the very personal and solitary power to think and to choose; it is interiority."[26] He eventually concluded that the Image of God is best summed up as free will.[27]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, " It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God," that man has been created "in the image and likeness" of the Creator.[28] Pope Benedict XVI wrote regarding imago dei, "Its nature as an image has to do with the fact that it goes beyond itself and manifests .…the dynamic that sets the human being in motion towards the totally Other. Hence it means the capacity for relationship; it is the human capacity for God."[29]
Functional
The functional view interprets the image of God as a role in the created order, where humankind is a king or ruler over creation/the earth. This view, held by most modern Old Testament/Hebrew Bible scholars, developed with the rise of modern Biblical scholarship and is based on comparative Ancient Near Eastern studies. Archaeology discovered many texts where specific kings are exalted as "images" of their respective deities and rule based on divine mandate.[30] There is some evidence that imago dei language appeared in many Mesopotamian and Near Eastern cultures where kings were often labeled as images of certain gods or deities and thus, retained certain abilities and responsibilities, such as leading certain cults.[31] The functional approach states that Genesis 1 uses that common idea, but the role is broadened to all humanity who reflect the image through ruling the created order, specifically land and sea animals, according to the pattern of God who rules over the entire universe.
Reformation theologians, like Martin Luther, focused their reflections on the dominant role mankind had over all creation in the Garden of Eden before the fall of man. The imago dei, according to Luther, was the perfect existence of man and woman in the garden: all knowledge, wisdom and justice, and with peaceful and authoritative dominion over all created things in perpetuity.[32] Luther breaks with Augustine of Hippo's widely accepted understanding that the image of God in man is internal; it is displayed in the trinity of the memory, intellect and will.[33]
The twentieth and early twenty-first centuries saw the image of God being applied to various causes and ideas including ecology, disabilities, gender, and post/transhumanism.[34][35][36][37] Often these were reactions against prevailing understandings of the imago dei, or situations in which the Biblical text was being misused in the opinion of some.[citation needed] While some would argue this is appropriate, J. Richard Middleton argued for a reassessment of the Biblical sources to better understand the original meaning before taking it out of context and applying it.[38] Instead of various extra-biblical interpretations, he pushed for a royal-functional understanding, in which "the imago Dei designates the royal office or calling of human beings as God's representatives or agents in the world.