A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

[AntoineSuarez]

@mitchellmckain

Those are about Jesus not mankind. Which underlines the Genesis claim that mankind was created in the image of God, not that he remains so. That would only be Adam and this recalls that Jesus is named the 2nd Adam.

An alternative interpretation is that ‘mankind’ is defined by Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word of God. In other words, we are human not because we descend from Adam, but because we share a body like Jesus’ body. Accordingly, ‘mankind’ was not only “created” in the image of God, but will always remain the image of God.

Jesus is named “the last Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:45. This can be better understood in the light of 1 Corinthians 12:13: “We were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body”. By doing God’s will “I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24), and thus what is lacking to the body of Christ. In the end humanity and with it the whole cosmos will become the body of Christ: “the firstborn over all creation” in Col 1:15f, is also “the last Adam”, the “last mankind”. Then, God’s incarnation and man’s divinization will be complete, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).

@mitchellmckain

Thus it remains an exaggeration to say that according to the Bible mankind is primarily “the image of God.” According to the Bible, man is primarily just a creation of God like all the other plants and animals.

You are right in the sense that the same term ‘living nefesh ’ (‘living creature’) in the immediate context of Genesis refers clearly and repeatedly to non-human animals: these and Adam are made from the dust of the ground, and are each a ‘living nefesh ’. As Gordon Wenham states: “It is not man’s possession of ‘the breath of life’ or his status as a ‘living creature’ that differentiates him from the animals”. By contrast Genesis never says that animals are made “in the image of God”. An important aspect of Genesis 9:3-9 is the statement that humans have a special dignity with relation to animals because “God has made humankind in the image of God”.

@mitchellmckain

But part of why you make a big deal of this is that you attach such a different meaning to the words than I do. For you it seems to be all about human rights and a reason for treating people different from animals, while for me the “image of God” stuff is about purpose for which God created mankind, i.e. for an eternal relationship of parent and child.

I absolutely agree with you that the “image of God” originates from the fact that God created mankind for the purpose we become children of God, and thereby entirely (also the body) like God. But how can a body become like God? Only if previously God becomes a body! Thus, the Word became flesh in order humans can become God. Animals were not created to become like God by freely doing God’s will, but to support the flourishing of humanity on earth.

And so your interpretation and my interpretation dovetail into one another: We are the image of God because we are the image of Jesus Christ for the purpose of entering “a childhood relationship” with God the Father. And it is because God became a human being that humans have a special dignity and are called to respect each other, guiding their lives by morality and law. Humans are allowed to use animals as resources for food and work, but not to exploit animals at will. We have rather to treat animals and other resources with respect, and taking account the needs of all the human generations to come.

@mitchellmckain

Nevertheless, I do believe we ARE radically different from the animals AND we are closely related to them – it is both. As far as our bodies go, we ARE animals. And most of our abilities are shared by various animals. Only in the human mind are we radically different.

Me too, I believe “it is both”.

As far as our bodies go, we ARE animals, but we are also in the image of God (as St. Irenaeus magnificently argues) because God in Jesus Christ assumed a human body.

As far as our “human minds” go, for them alone, they do not found “a radical difference”. I paraphrase what you state in another thread:

@mitchellmckain

We are [witnessing] the advance of AI and computers where they can do most of things we associate with intelligence and reasoning so much better than we can, beating us all at our hardest strategy games. […] with computers beating as all of our hardest strategy games, it is becoming clear that much of what we have been calling intelligence is really just an ability to follow a set of rules systematically. And that is really rather fundamental – something which even elementary particles can do.

Now I think that is a good reason for rethinking the traditional theological ways we have been trying to set humans apart from animals, and made in the image of God as if the most important thing about God and human beings is their intelligence.

Indeed, it is not our mental capabilities what make us radically different from animals or machines and in the image of God, but the fact that “God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

The statement that “God made mankind in the image of God” is intimately related to the statement “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14): it is like a first announcement of God’s incarnation.

@mitchellmckain

I certainly don’t believe in your divine magical transformations or endowments.

Are you trying to get rid of my explanation by claiming I presuppose God acts in a “magical” way? So far your claim is a non sequitur . Could you please explain what you mean by “magical”, and the reason why you think my explanation presupposes God acting “magically”?

@mitchellmckain

It is our own choices which is our essence and not something inserted into us by God. Otherwise the problem of evil brings theism down and atheism would make more sense.

Our capacity to make choices is certainly part of our essence. But animals make choices too. So choices as such do not make us more valuable than animals.

I don’t understand why assuming that human dignity derives from the fact that God’s Son became man and was born of a woman “brings theism down and atheism would make more sense”.

@mitchellmckain

Another reason I am not buying into this rational that a God given difference from the animals is so essential for human morality is that atheists have no problem with morality without such a philosophical prop. In fact, many of them see all this as devaluing human beings and they reject god(s) and religion in order to uphold a greater morality.

It would be useful if you could present more in detail the arguments of the atheists you refer to. Otherwise we cannot engage in a serious discussion.

This said, I thank you again for all the thought provoking contributions.