We are the image of God because that is what we must be? (we are here after all)
It is a valid crit to which Biblical fundamentalists have no answer. The Bible states it and so mote it be. Surely the Bible couldn’t have been written by vane Humans?
And that is, unfortunately where the argument both starts and finishes.
Almost all the conflict between science and scripture is based on the accuracy or truth of scripture. How mch of it is human and how much of it is God? The Bible fanatics claim complete and utter godly understanding and truth: Immutable and accurate to the th degree. The claim being that if you start doubting one bit you cannot work out what is left to believe. IOW All or nothing.
Common sense and modern theologians have tried to give guidance as to where the human elements might creep in. The inspiration may be from God but much of the details are actually human.(hotly disputed both ways)
As a Christain, I could get proverbially (by some, including some here) excommunicated for even suggesting that any of scripture is human and not direct from God. Oh dear.
To be honest, it would not actually bother me whether we are in the actual image of God or not. If my shape is not 100% intended then evolution gets a massive boost. The cosmic fluke is no longer an issue if God doesn’t mind in the least what we look like.
I will freely admit that my arguments recently are based on the premise that God does care what I look like and Evolution doesn’t.
But, scripture is what it is and I guess you have to draw the line somewhere about how much you are going to either dismiss completely or claim does not matter. I have been accused of diluting the power of Scripture, but it would seem that I do not go far enough for some people. (and too far for others)
I cannot even suggest how much of Scripture may have human influence. It is beyond my pay grade. Perhaps Romans 14 applies? Or maybe that is taking the principle one step too far. I would (not so humbly) suggest that the way 1 Peter 3 is taken is going too far. The actuality is, as usual, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes of Totally God or Totally human.
There’s a lot to unpack in what you said and I perhaps going a little off the topic of this thread to delve deeply into the questions you raise so I won’t attempt a lengthy response. However, I’ll just mention that I interpret “image of God” along the lines of John Walton. As a function or a role assigned to us humans by God, as opposed to a specific physical morphology or trait. So, I think God doesn’t necessarily care what we look like.
In terms of scripture, I have never held to a strict form of textual “inerrancy”. I think the purpose of the text is to point to the perfect (inerrant) living Word of God (Jesus) and that scripture is authoritative and infallible in that purpose. Beyond that, I don’t think God hijacks the minds of the writers, so that the text contains both elements of God breaking though and revealing himself to the writers in their interactions with him, but also (perhaps) some erroneous human interpretations of the world and its events. As you say, there is a lot of debate among Christians about the extent of those two aspects!
I tend to agree. However, from our perspective, a universe with teleological divine intent seems indistinguishable from a purely random one, thus divine intention would not be detectable.
That would apply if you could not discern what the divine intent was. If the actual result doe nt matter then there is no need for specific intervention in a created system. However, if the result does matter then God has to add some sort of guidance which would still only be detectable if you could identify what that guidance was changing or affecting.
The exact definition of free will is an issue as well. If we are free to do what we choose, but because of our nature we are sure to choose a particular way, is that free will? A clear understanding of what is meant in a particular context is important.
Good point. Yes, there are differences between what is defined as “compatibilist free will” and “libertarian free will”. The former is defined as simply a lack of obstacles to do what one wants (or what one is predetermined by one’s nature to do) and so is usually how determinists define “free will”. But many people would think of free will in the libertarian definition-- that our mind allows us to consciously chose between options, independent of the circumstances we find ourselves in.
That is a great question and one no definitive answer will probably be found for. Though the image of God most people have nowadays probably would argue for the former. I think verses like God choosing us before the foundation of the world (et al) would factor in to their decision. The question becomes how to form a coherent image of God throughout scripture.
I’m also not convinced the randomness in evolution or nature is necessarily random to God. Does He know beforehand specifically which things we model as “atoms” in a sample will decay? I would tend to think so. I would tread cautiously in constraining God’s knowledge based on current models of science that while working great, are hardly complete or without serious issues waiting to be resolved. The. Again I like them because they seem to provide and outlet for free will as opposed to determinism which renders life meaningless to me.
I think the typical verses used to justify Calvinism and reformed theology (which I am certainly no fan of) present the biggest challenge to this view of God and OVT.
I was talking about the evolution aspect not OVT. I have no problem with God shaping life as he sees fit during the evolutionary process. Or not. I don’t think it’s necessary but based on how I understand the theology of Genesis 1 I go that direction. Then again, a lot of verses say God formed us in the womb. Don’t we have the science of baby formation worked out? Does this preclude God? Hands off? Hands on? Or maybe all things exist with God and He sustains creation at all times and everything that happens happens through Him. Who knows.
That can also be used as another angle and another possible answer to why the universe is so big and so old.
But depending on how much inspiration you see in scripture, there are quite a few proof-texts pointing against this and humans are given special significance and the breath of life by God, distinguishing us from other things. Lots of questions remain and maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still believe in a souls. I don’t believe biology and physical law can be the totality of humanity.
Inside the text is also a link to the topic ‘Foreknowledge and Free will’, from the viewpoints of philosophy and philosophical theology. These kind of encyclopedia texts are never the deepest source of knowledge but give a basic understanding of the issue from the viewpoint of philosophy.
Based on observation and thinking, I would stress both the existence of free will (we have free will) AND the severe limits to free will (we are not free to do whatever we want). Free will is not roaming where you want. It is more like walking along a path and deciding which way to go at each crossing. Maybe just two or three options at any crossing but those decisions are what takes you where you end up.
Edit:
A general note is that the decisions are usually more dependent on feelings than rational thinking. Research has observed that those who lack emotions are often unable to make simple decisions, like which packet of cereals to choose in a store. In more influential decisions, we often have an emotional leaning towards one option and then invent logical reasons to support our emotional choice. It may be hard to accept an option that is against our emotional choice, even if rational thinking shows that the wise decision would be something else.
If our decision is based on emotions rather than rational thinking, is it still free will?
Any sort of manipulation or predestination from God would cancel it
It could be argued that God presents us with limited options thereby allowing us a modicum of self-determination within HIs overall planning but that still means that we do not have complete free will. It would make us no better off than rats in a maze.
If you are walking a very long path with thousands of crossings, does it take your free will away if someone puts a sign ‘road closed’ and a barrier to one of the crossing roads that you might think as one of the potential alternatives?
My interpretation is that it will limit your options but does not take your free will away. As I believe that our options are severly limited anyway, one more limitation should not ruin the free will although it might change our future.
If someone thinks we have free will without limitations, could that person fetch a fresh dinosaur egg from the past and then fetch some dust from Mars? A fresh dinosaur egg placed on dust from Mars could be a nice demonstration of free will.
I think we are talking degrees here. I know that I cannot fly without assistance. I know thatg I cannot give birth because I am a male. I know that there are some occupations or activities that are beyond either my abilities or qualifications or both. I knwo that where I was born (globally) and the family I was born into has affected my paths and even my prefences or methods of choosing, but
There is a difference between assigning the constraints to fate or chance and assigning them to God. Chance, by definition, has no purpose or destination. You can moan as much as you like but it cannot change. God on the other hand…
Once God is introduced into the mix you get the addition of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and cruelty, and all the other baggage associated with a controlled or idealised path.
It is not so much a difference in reality as a perceived difference about manipulation or some other control. It is philosophical which only comes into play if you are sentient and self-aware.
In theory a goldfish in a bowl has no idea that it is confined, or a hen in a battery setting has no concept of freedom. We superimpose our notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. we are controlling them. Whether they are aware of it is a mute point. But when it comes to our own lives we would like to think that we are not at the mercy of any superior being by default. IOW that we could be snuffed out on a whim instead of by accident. Or even that good behaviour can produce benefits that bad behaviour cannot. In reality it would appear that a moral compass is a disadvantage rather than a beeficial one.
Which is where Original sn comes in, It claims that we have no choice but to be evil.
Religion has to be voluntary. If we choose constraints that is one thing, but it is completely different to impose them on everyone. And a manipulating God would be doing just that as well. (and Christianity claims the choice is ours)
Freedom can only be free if there is no consequence in terms of reward or punishment (Obvioously any action has some sort of consequence). Any notion of detriment puts a proverbial gun to your head every time you make a decision. In theory the Passion was supposed to eliminate that problem, but instead Christianity has turned it into the opposite of freedom. Christianity demands an allegiance and a removal of free will.
I have to disagree at this point. We have courts and people are punished for crimes, with the assumption that they had enough of free will that they could have chosen otherwise. A total lack of free will would undermine the moral basis of punishment.
Protestant christianity stresses the importance of faith. The word ‘faith’ means in both Hebrew and Greek also faithfulness (have faith, be faithful). It is not enough to be a temporary believer, there is an expectation to stay in faith, follow Jesus. As you know, we are far from perfect but being faithful means an attitude to follow Jesus and if we stumble, to rise up (repent) and continue on the road towards God. Although there is this basic expectation to be faithful, it does not remove free will.
I like the orthodox expression of synergy between the believer and the Holy Spirit. The believer cooperates with the Holy Spirit. God saves and leads the believer but it happens in synergy with the believer that has at least some amount of free will.
I guess our apparent disagreement is at least partly a semantic one. We seem to define ‘free will’ in a different way.
There have been many comments about free will. I think that free will matters also in our attitude towards the creation, how we treat what God has created, different species and the people who suffer because of environmental changes and other adversities. The basic principle is relevant also from the point of evolution because it is a difference between determinism vs. no determinism.
How deterministic or teleological is evolution?
If we think purely from the point of science, natural selection favors individuals that produce more grandchildren. To have much grandchildren, the individuals need to be well adapted to their environment. This gives the expectation that evolution drives populations towards a particular goal. It happens in a ‘blind’ way in the sense that there are no teleological tendencies. Despite the blind approach, in practise the endpoints converge, at least to some level, if there are no big external changes in the environment. If we would start from scratch, the new creatures would evolve towards a likeness of the previous ones. Vertebrates in the sea would develop towards being better swimmers etc.
If God intended to have something like humans, it did not necessarily demand special creation, Adam made of dirt within a day. It could have happened through evolution. If God used evolution when He created, then evolution would be teleological, development towards a wanted endpoint. There are several potential ways how God could guide evolution and most of these ways would be such that we would not see the handwork of God without faith. God does not usually sign His works in a manner that would be obvious to humans.
The rules, the insistance, are all part of the church or the people bit.
God says all are forgiven The Chruch says only if you are a Christian
God says all are forgiven The Chruch says Only if you believe
God says all are forgiven The church says Only if you repent
God says all are forgiven The church says all need to be forgiven
God says all are forgiven The church says “NO”
IOW the church adds to the basic notion that Jesus died for our sins
The church removes our freedom not God
I am a Christian because I want to be. it is my choice.
The church says Become a Christian or else!
That is your choice and prerogative. But why must everyone else ?
Fine if that is what you want.
Some people, even many prefer to leave the nest and go it alone. Something about independence. Are you claiming that is wrong? if so why?
why should you or anyone else dictate the way to live (even God?)