quote:

---

Originally posted by ModesofThought

Hi all, I don't have time to post right now, but I did notice that Greg is back and so wanted to get this topic back at the top of the charts. I do plan to respond to some stuff here, esp. Brandon and hopefully Doc will weigh in on my initial post.

---

quote:

---

Posted - 08/04/2003 : 5:32:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this has been brought up already, but I think it is clarifying to keep the question of the "imago dei" in this discussion.

One issue is whether Satan is "like" us, and here according to the "image of God" criteria the answer is no. But as far as a "fellow sentient being", the concensus here is yes.

The other way the image of God idea is pertinent is in the very question of solidification that Greg is leaning on so heavily. As I understand it, Greg, you are of the opinion that God is love necessarily, that is, by nature. We are able to become participants in that love by choice. That is, we can become participants in love contingently, but finally and irrevocably.

Here is the question for Greg. Do humans LOSE the image of God when the solidify themselves against God's love? Furthermore, does losing this image somehow allow God to relate in a way that is less than loving toward them? (Something like the way God relates to other sentient beings in this state? ie. Satan and demons...) Seems strange to suggest this. As POW and others have suggested, Love does not always look the way we think it should. It can be expressed as judgement. This says nothing about God's losing love for the one judged. Our emotional response to whether or not we feel we can love Satan is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I am suspecting that Meph is saying no, we don't lose the image of God when we solidify our selves. I agree with him. Seems obvious to me. We are aways going to be in the image of God, but we may forfeit our chance to participate in the life (Love) of God.

So, my conclusions so far are that God does indeed love all people made in the image of God. That is clear. Unconditional love requires this. Anything less is not worthy of the name unconditional love. I would disagree that we control our "being" in the manner described by Greg. No, our being is that we are made in the image of God. Our loyalty is what is at issue. We do not "become" anti-love. That is very abstract and impersonal. We are and will remain persons, if only shadows thereof.

As far as Satan and the other "sentient beings" that are not created in the image of God, I would have to suspect that the same applies to them. (Though I did bring up the image of God here just to show where the ambiguity lies in my mind.) I would never hesitate to say that God loves anyone or anything at all. This is clear if we understand the language of "unconditional love." the ambiguity is in whether the development of a "being" that is angelic is somehow different in terms of how their choices relate to their being. I can imagine that what Greg says about humans and demons is only true of demons, but cannot apply to humans because of the image of God.

BTW: does anyone else find it comical that Mephi (of all people!!!) is out doing Greg in terms of God's love? That's gotta make someone besides me smile.

---