 |
| 
skepticbud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 1/7/2003 11:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | hello, I'm a new dude here. Used to be a fundamentalist Calvary Chapelite for about 15, and was heavy into apologetics (carried around a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, as if it was the other half of the bible).
But I'm an atheist now...long story.
Anyway, I figured I'd get aquainted by asking a most relevant question for this forum:
"Where did the term 'anthropomorphism' come from, and isn't it fair to say it's just a desperate concoction of the fundamentalists to rescue their "classic theism"?"
For example, "let us make man in our image", why must that HAVE to mean "moral freewill"? Why can't it mean "let us make humans so that they look like us"?
In short, how differently could we expect the author of Genesis 1:26 to word his phrase, if he meant humans look like god? Image? Likeness?
thanks,
skepticbud
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/8/2003 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, skepticbud,
Welcome to the site!
You asked, "In short, how differently could we expect the author of Genesis 1:26 to word his phrase, if he meant humans look like god? Image? Likeness?"
Well, Jesus said God is Spirit (John 4:4). Can't say that I look much like a spirit! Further, nothing is infered in the passage that causes us to insist that we are made to "look" like God. I don't think that was the author's point. That the it is Adam naming the animals (and not the animals naming Adam), and that the first two people know something of love and reason is, I believe, commentary a meaning of what it is to be made in the image of God.
For the image of God,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/8/2003 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | skepticbud-
Welcome to the site. Appreciate your being here. Apologist to Atheist. As time goes by and you stick around, I'd love to hear your story.
In the meantime, about anthropomorphisms, and the likeness of God in particular, it would seem to me that before one could claim that the author meant "physical likeness" that one would have to demonstrate that the author could have believed such a thing. That would be hard to do. And if one (on other grounds) holds to the entire Bible as a trustworthy revelation of what God is like, including the unity of its message, then as Starkman points out there exist other passages which clearly tell us God is immaterial spirit.
But something tells me you knew this already. 
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/8/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Another relevant consideration, of course, is how the concept of "image of God" (or gods) functioned in the cultural milieu. I've read recently that even in pagan Mesopotamian cultures it didn't have the connotation of "picture of the god" but rather " expression of the god" (as in character). How much less, then, should we think "image of God" among Hebrews, who stressed God's otherness, was not physical?
At the same time, I have to agree with skepticbud that the concept of anthropomorphicism is often overused by people to salvage a "hyper-spiritualized" (and hyper-platonized) concept of deity.
Nice having you aroudn skepticbud.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
skepticbud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 1/9/2003 1:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:
Well, Jesus said God is Spirit (John 4:4). Can't say that I look much like a spirit!
skepticbud:
God appeared to Abraham near the oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18, meaning, 3 men appeared to him.
Starkman:
Further, nothing is infered in the passage that causes us to insist that we are made to "look" like God.
skepticbud:
There ain't much more than "image" or "likeness" the author could have used to express the idea of physical resemblence. Those two terms are used all over the Old Testament to describe the physical appearence. I suspect most Christians reject the "we look like god" because they are so concerned to make sure that Genesis 1:26 can be harmonized with other texts. Assuming that the bible is inerrant is not a presumption that an honest scholar would make when trying to learn the authors intentions IN context. In other words, you don't throw away the plain meaning of Genesis 1:26, just because that would contradict John 4:24 (or, just because the plain meaning of Genesis 1:26 would disturb your believe in biblical inerrancy). If that was proper hermeneutics, then contradictions are ruled out in the beginning, when it is supposed to be an investigation, not a sermon.
Stark:
I don't think that was the author's point. That the it is Adam naming the animals (and not the animals naming Adam), and that the first two people know something of love and reason is, I believe, commentary a meaning of what it is to be made in the image of God.
skepticbud:
Sure, Adam and Eve were declared made in god's image, and the animals weren't but humans have a different physical appearence than animals. Just because animals and humans both have physical images, doesn't rule out the fact that human physical images ARE DIFFERENT, thus could still account for why humans were said to made in the image and not the animals.
TGB:
Postmillennialist
skepticbud:
Post-mill, eh? Matthew 16:28, the controversial phrase that Jesus would return before some of his contemporaries "standing there" tasted death. We should always interpret things in context. Verse 27. There, NOW what does verse 28 mean?
TGB:
In the meantime, about anthropomorphisms, and the likeness of God in particular, it would seem to me that before one could claim that the author meant "physical likeness" that one would have to demonstrate that the author could have believed such a thing. That would be hard to do.
skepticbud:
God walked in the cool of the day in the garden of eden. (Genesis 3:8) Can a spirit walk without having a physical image? With all the talk that Conservative Christian Inerrantists give about skeptics and liberals needing to just 'let the text speak for itself', I remind you that Genesis 3 is a story told in straightforward fashion, and according to conservative interpretation principles, should therefore be interpreted in it's plainest sense unless there is evidence from the immediate context that the disputed text is to be understood differently from the way the rest of the story is understood. Under these assumptions. God was walking around in Eden, and there's nothing in the story to suggest that it was other than literal walking. In fact, god expresses human ignorance, another human trait, when he says "who told you that you were naked?" The genesis author says god placed cheribum and a sword to guard the way to the tree of life, physical references, and I could cite many conservative Christians who accept this story as literal history and deny it's a legend or fable.
TGB:
Love never ends
skepticbud:
I find it difficult to believe that among all currently divorced couples, NONE of them were truly in love when they got married. Losing your love for somebody doesn't mean what you felt the whole time was something other than love.
GregBoyd:
Another relevant consideration, of course, is how the concept of "image of God" (or gods) functioned in the cultural milieu. I've read recently that even in pagan Mesopotamian cultures it didn't have the connotation of "picture of the god" but rather " expression of the god" (as in character). How much less, then, should we think "image of God" among Hebrews, who stressed God's otherness, was not physical?
skepticbud:
The references to god's physical attributes in the Pentateuch cannot all be lumped under "anthropomorphism". I argued above that there is nothing about the Garden of Eden story that would tip off the reader that god's walking in the cool of the day is supposed to be understood less literally than Adam's hearing the same and hiding himself.
And, i owned a copy of "Oneness Pentacostals and the Trinity" back when it was my goal to be the next Walter Martin. It was a real eye-opener at the time because I thought at the time that only Mormons, JW's and Christian Science were the only pseudo-Christian views of the godhead...(!) oh, the days of blissful ignorance....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/9/2003 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Skepticbud: Post-mill, eh?
Tom: Actually no. “Postmiller” is the nickname the website automatically gives to anybody who posts over 1,000 times. It’s not something I chose for myself.
Skepticbud: God walked in the cool of the day in the garden of eden. (Genesis 3:8) Can a spirit walk without having a physical image? With all the talk that Conservative Christian Inerrantists give about skeptics and liberals needing to just 'let the text speak for itself', I remind you that Genesis 3 is a story told in straightforward fashion, and according to conservative interpretation principles, should therefore be interpreted in it's plainest sense unless there is evidence from the immediate context that the disputed text is to be understood differently from the way the rest of the story is understood. Under these assumptions. God was walking around in Eden, and there's nothing in the story to suggest that it was other than literal walking.
Tom: Immediate literary context is only ONE hermeneutical context you have to face. As I said, knowing what we know about ancient Israelite religion, how likely is it that the author here intended this particular description to be taken literally? Culture context is a context that influences how we interpret the text as well. If one can show that a particular understanding of a text is one of several “grammatically” possible understandings within the immediate literary context but not a possible belief of the author, then I think it’s ruled out.
Skepticbud: In fact, god expresses human ignorance, another human trait, when he says "who told you that you were naked?"
Tom: Rhetorical questions are just as literal as non-rhetorical questions.
Skepticbud: The genesis author says god placed cheribum and a sword to guard the way to the tree of life, physical references, and I could cite many conservative Christians who accept this story as literal history and deny it's a legend or fable.
Tom: I have no problem with “literal history.” Whatever the author intended by his descriptions of these events, I agree they are literal events, or literal history. What other kind of history is there? If we need to posit a form of interaction between the physical and non-physical worlds that was more “visible” than what we have today but was somehow affected by sin, I don’t have a problem with that. This would include God’s “walking in the cool of the day.” I don’t have a problem with this referring to some real manifestation of God’s presence. Does this mean God possesses a material body like ours? I don’t see that it does.
Skepticbud, being an atheist, what’s your interest in this? Do you feel there something here that feeds into an atheistic worldview?
Tom: Love never ends
Skepticbud: I find it difficult to believe that among all currently divorced couples, NONE of them were truly in love when they got married. Losing your love for somebody doesn't mean what you felt the whole time was something other than love.
Tom: You’re quite right. The phrase is simply a quote from 1 Cor. 13 and refers not to the all too human trait of failing to love (which doubtless happens every day), but to the ultimate triumph of God’s love in those who hang in there. Some fail TO love. This is not the failure OF love. For those who do not fail to love as God loves, such love never ends. The grave isn’t the end for those who die loving God and others. That’s the point.
Again, welcome aboard!
Peace,
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/9/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Gotta go back to what Jesus said: God is spirit (translated God is a spirit in some versions).
That God can appear to mankind is only to say that He can assume a physical body when needed. It isn't proof that He exists in such ontologically.
I'm with you, however, about over anthropomorphis...yeah, that long word!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:11 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|