Given what we know, I think it’s safe to say that humans (maybe others in the genus Homo) are uniquely made in the full image of God. It is the basis of the sacredness of human life (Gen. 9:6). God tasked humanity alone with tending the garden and taking charge of all creatures–we have unique responsibilites. I’ve always said there could be ensouled aliens out there. I’ll cross that bridge if and when we learn more.
There is nothing safe at all about assuming you know things which you do not.
Incorrect. The existence of other non-human people made in the image of God says nothing at all about the sacredness of human life. It is almost as if you believe there is a finite amount of sacredness which has to be divided up among everyone.
The only way for me to even make sense of such a claim is to suppose you assume the Bible is telling you everything. That is not even close to reasonable since it is demonstrable that the Bible is not telling us everything. All we have from the Bible is that God tasked human beings with certain responsibilities and from that you cannot make any conclusion whatsoever about whether anybody else has been given similar responsibilities. Thus this word “alone” is your insertion into the text. Why?
I prefer to stick with reasonable beliefs to begin with, and with what the Bible actually says instead of adding things for no good reason.
And this does not even have to be about aliens. If we found a species of cetaceans had all the intelligence and language that we do, would this be a problem? Not for me. Would the Bible really give us the mandate to treat them as non-persons? No. Do we really have any reason to claim that God has not created them in His image and not given them similar responsibilities? I don’t think so. It is not that I think the scientific evidence supports any such thing. I don’t. But my evaluation of the evidence is an objective one. I think it would be wonderful if we found that another species on the Earth had intelligence and language. We could learn so much from them, I think it would make us better people. But alas… this hope doesn’t appear to be panning out.
Should we give whales the vote? Do we take them to court? If their babies die from neglect can we truly hold them morally culpable?
1 Like
Really? Come on? no relevance here.
Should we give Argentinians the vote? No. Because voting has absolutely nothing to do with being made in the image of God. That has to do with citizenship. Legalities and moral judgments are entirely different issues as well. Moral judgments are dubious even when we are talking about human beings, so usually neglect is more of an issue of legality which like the vote and taking people to court is a matter of the laws of a country – it is a matter of social contracts, not theology.
What is relevant and does apply is as I already mentioned is whether it would be a problem for your theology if we did find that some species of cetaceans had all the language and intelligence we have, and whether you think the Bible gives you the right to treat them as non-persons because you imagine that it means you have some sort of magical divinely-ordained special-ness granted by this book. You may think so, but I do not. And like I said, I don’t think the evidence supports that any of the cetaceans have either language or intelligence comparable to our own. But if they did, rather than being threatened by any bizarre religious hang ups, I would be excited to communicate with them and see what could be learned from them. And yes I would be fighting for their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even more than we do already. And while I would be refraining from making moral judgments even as I strive to do for human beings, I would recognize the need for legalities which would be pursued on the basis of some combination of diplomacy and our own integrity.
By the way… another way to explore these same questions is found in the Freeform network production of the show “Siren,” which brings the mermaid legend to life in this science fiction show. Not only are these creatures superior in intelligence as well as quite capable in language, but they have some rather frightening instincts which challenges efforts to refrain from judgement. Furthermore, there is a group in the military which feels quite free to make them the subjective of their viscious experiments and exploitation. This suggests that we humans have made little progress in morality and integrity in the treatment of those who are not protected by the law – (content removed by moderator).
Because I can’t think of anybody else who might have been given similar responsibilities. Can you?
Should we make whales citizens?
But the cetaceans that are part of reality should be protected by humans. I don’t expect them to return the favor. Perhaps in the future you could be a whale whisperer.
I thought that you prefer to stick with reasonable beliefs to begin with? Science Fiction is great. I have never seen your mermaid show, but the plot looks similar to “The Shape of Water.” That was a great movie. It was hard to watch the abuse of the intelligent water creature. It’s definitely a gift that we can suspend our disbelief and be swept away by stories like these. But it seems you are stewing in moral outrage over the treatment of these mermaids and projecting the faults of the bad guys onto me.
But, is there really an absence of evidence?
Based on John chapter 1, especially verse 1: in the beginning the Word (i.e. THE defining difference between humans & animals as discussed above); and verse 14: the Word became flesh (Jesus took the form of a human - who are created in God’s image). It is remarkable that God created us in such similarity to Himself, that His ONLY Son was able to become alive in our created human form.
Furthermore, humans are THE only biological form that is capable of recieving the Holy Spirit (restored commune with God). Coincidentally, in Acts 10:9-48, Jesus uses a vision of animals of all kinds - telling Peter to kill and eat , as a way of teaching Peter that salvation is available to all of humankind, not just the Jewish ( though animals were clearly distinguished in Peter’s vision as food).
So to me, John chapter 1 is an update of the creation story, in the light of Jesus’s arrival. As discussed by others above, human ability for clear language and transfer of information, is the reaffirmed Biblical evidence that humans are indeed the only creature made in Gods image.
1 Like
I would have guessed you and @mitchellmckain would agree that responsibility in the case of humans had been given, a phrasing I of course wouldn’t choose. But I get the impression that more of what Mitchell thinks does not stem directly from the bible. For example I believe he thinks free will arises naturally with life, perhaps proportionately to neurological capacity of animals? If that is right then I can see where becoming capable of being held accountable would seem to be a natural extension of free will.
Of course I may be off base but I wouldn’t mind the clarification if my hunch is off. If so, I’m sure I’d find it interesting.
Humankind as image bearers of God is an idea I first encountered here. One general question I would be interested to know how this community would answer involves the transfer of God’s image to mankind. I think most would hold that as a special gift requiring creative intervention in our development. But I wonder if it would be a reasonable position for a Christian to take to see becoming image bearers of God as a natural extension of life, complexity and free will. If so, conceivably, other life forms could join us in achieving that status. (This is my own question and not something I’m suggesting is part of Mitchell’s position.)
For that to be true one might envision the onset of life, its evolution, and becoming bearer’s of God’s image as stemming from a single creative act that never needed correction or divine adjustment. I wonder if any EC’ers actually hold that view? If so I think it would require a major revision in the interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection and message.
No I certainly do not think that John chapter 1 supports divine anthropomorphism. There is no evidence whatsoever that being created in the image of God has anything do with shape. That is the same kind superficiality which is behind such things as racism and sexism. No, I do not think God shares such stupid ways of thinking.
Yes humans are different from animals. We are “very good” rather than only “good” for because of language God can communicate with us and share of Himself with us more directly. But there is NOTHING in the Bible to say that God has not created others elsewhere with the same capabilities and just as much in the image of God as we are. And what a blow to our racism and anthropocentric arrogance it would be if they did not go down the same road of sin and separation from God as we have?
The difference between man and animals is great indeed, for meme life is a vastly greater measure of life than mere biological life. A zygote is no more a human being than a cancer cell. It is not biology and genetics which makes us humans or even special as the racists would like to believe.
Nope John chapter 1 doesn’t say anything like this any more than Genesis chapters 1-2 says anything of the sort. The Bible just says that man is created in the image of God, not that ONLY man is created in the image of God. But I do find this reading of anthropomorphism into the Bible curious because of the logical connection with racism. Is this why a sector of Christianity clings to this unreasonable creationist reading of the Bible, because it supports their preference for racism and the justification of human slavery?
On the contrary, I stopped watching the series because I find this sort of thing a little boring. I prefer to think people are more intelligent than this even though recent evidence suggests otherwise.
Power and responsibility go hand in hand. Our responsibilities are logically connected to our capabilities.
But this is my position. Being in the image of God is already basic to the nature of life itself. We are only the more perfect image of God (“very good” instead of only “good”). I will give my exact position here once again. Infinite potentiality is implicit in the ability of life to become more than it is through growth and learning, and it is our infinite potentiality which is the image of God’s infinite actuality. It what makes us capable of receiving all the infinite things God has to give in an eternal relationship – this is the meaning of “eternal life.” With language we can at least in principle receive what God has to give from God directly rather than learning everything from scratch on our own. That is a very big difference.
But I see no evidence, in the Bible particularly, that the only ones in the universe made in the image of God is the human race or that this has anything whatsoever to do with our shape. It is not that I believe this to be the case, or that we are not the first in some sense (though the relativity of simultaneity makes this somewhat meaningless). But I think it is a possibility and we should accept that this is possible and abandon the superficialities of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism along with racism and sexism.
I do not share this view however. That is more one of theism versus deism. I certainly do believe in an on-going involvement. God is a loving parent not a disinterested scientist. God created us in order to have a relationship with us, not simply to watch and see what happens.
1 Like
thanks for these responses. I only saw them now
This is all from a view that we got here through evolution and the interpretation of scripture.
(1.) If original sin is just a metaphor then that means Jesus died for a metaphor?
First is that original sin is not mentioned in scripture anywhere, and it is not hinted at either. I’m not guilty of Adam’s sin. I’m not guilty of Eve’s sin. But their sin did have consequences for the world but those consequences were not biological and they were not used to determine our afterlife. All sin is a choice. God has seen in his wisdom that all fall short of the glory of God. Who is the all? It’s clearly those who can understand it. So Jesus did not die just because of Adam. He did not resurrect just for Adam. He died because of all of our transgressions we commit and to pay our debt so we may have eternal life. Being born is not a sin. Being evil is.
1 Like
(2.)
Why did God not just say he created them from animals as opposed from a rib as a metaphor?
To me the stories in genesis are ahistorical. That’s not a typo for a historical but a ahistorical. That means it’s a combination of fiction and reality with the goal of directing people towards the truth. The reasons why he choose the metaphors he chose goes through a complexity of ancient Semitic views on humanity , spirituality, and creation. Look at all the other ancient myths about humans born out of this and that which is older than Judaism. Have you applied the same literal views on job? Job talks about “science” and “creation” as well. Genesis was written as poetry as well. Similar to many ancient and epic style poems. Here are some creation science in Job inspired by God as well.
( Job 38:8-11 )
8 “Or who enclosed the sea with doors
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9 When I made a cloud its garment
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 And I placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,
11 And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
And here shall your proud waves stop’?
Or did God create a dragon as described in Job?
Or in Psalm 74:12-17.
Psalm 74:12-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 Yet God is my king from of old,
Who works deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth.
13 You divided the sea by Your strength;
You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters.
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
15 You broke open springs and torrents;
You dried up ever-flowing streams.
16 Yours is the day, Yours also is the night;
You have prepared the light and the sun.
17 You have established all the boundaries of the earth;
You have made summer and winter.
Do you really think that during creation shortly after creating the great sea monsters he then killed them by smashing their heads and throwing their corpse pieces around throughout the world feeding them?
Or is Satan really a snake , and a dragon, sort of like a flying Leviathan that is king of the waters and prince of the air?
Why is it that some poetry is true and some poetry is not true? Is there really a giant door out there holding water that God opens and closes to let water in just like he kept the ark door shut to keep water out?
(3.) If Adam was a metaphor why does the Bible mention his lineage and age and ect…
I don’t think Adam is a metaphor. I think God through his infinite wisdom when he sparked life knowing eventually it would result in us. It’s not a contradiction to me. God is Alpha and Omega. He knows all things including what will happen. That’s how prophecy works. God knows what all of us are going to do. He knew Jesus would be born, he knew judas would betray jesus, and he knew when and who would conquer the Jews. But he did not make everything with those as his purpose. He simply knew it would happen.
But let’s say Adam is a metaphor. In general the first 11 chapters are often viewed as a metaphor. If so, that would mean his lineage was a metaphor and Jesus genealogy was meant to be inspired by it. Also, myths, metaphors and analogies often contain backstories to its characters. Entire fictional biographies significantly more detailed are created all the time.
(4.) Why believe in a miraculous birth and resurrection but not believe that creation is literal and a miracle as well.
For me it’s because of the scriptures themselves. The entire Torah hints are a coming messiah show is a god in the flesh. The Torah mentions his birth and many other details. The whole point of his birth is to restore humanity by fulfilling the law.
With creations we see major things happening in two chapters. God dedicated more time to counting the numbers of sheep the tribes owned.
(5.) Adam and Eve could not tell right or wrong but had human the ability to reason just like we do.
Well this has two main issues. The first is what determines right from wrong? It’s the law. Without the law there is no accountability to sin. As soon as God says what is right there are two choices. To obey or to disobey.
Romans 5:12-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
The other issue is directly in the story itself. If the tree gave knowledge of good and evil, and that meant until they ate of it they had no understanding of good and evil then how did Eve know to not to trust the snake immediately. She first said no.
So before this, sin was already here but there was no law to hold you accountable it. Can dogs sin? The answer is no right? Yet my dog will lower his head knowing he did something wrong before I even know what he did. If dogs can tell they messed up then how could ancient humans from which Adam was called out of not know at least that much?
- If knowing right and wrong is what makes someone guilt of sin then if does that mean severally mentally handicapped people don’t need redemption.
Two parts again.
All of creation is waiting to be restored. Including the planet. The planet has never sinned. So every person, including the mentally handicapped is awaiting restoration.
If you don’t know right or wrong you can still sin. You’re just not help accountable to it. It’s a similar situation to kids.
Isaiah 7:15-16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
The mentally handicapped that can’t choose right or wrong does not need to saved from sin anymore than a infant, animals, or earth but humanity and nature is awaiting restoration.
(7.) If physical death was a consequence of sin then did natural selection occur?
I know you believe physical death was the result based off the verses about returning to dust(death). I disagree.
First to think that nothing could pass away would mean plants could not die. Which would contradict the fact we ate plants. Would it also mean mushrooms did not exist then? Or was it just fleshy creatures that could not die?
I believe scripture leaves this open as a good interpretation. As stated earlier Adam and Eve were historical people to me. The story mentions a tree of life and after Adam and Eve is drove out of the garden God worries that what if they came back and ate of a fruit that would keep them alive forever. I think that the garden was a foreshadow of them arc on earth and it’s just how God saved Noah through arc, saved numerous Jews by leading them to the promise land , and how god back to back has chosen remnants of people and provide a path to life. For Adam it was the garden with the fruit of life.
(8.) According to evolution there was no first human and you can’t conceive a primate without a soul? Well i would argue what is a soul? Scripturally a soul seems to be a living thing.
If you are familiar with the task of re-writing a popular myth to shape the audiences’ views with a re-worked vision then you wouldn’t be surprised to learn the Babylonian version of human creation included the the phrase “Lady of the Rib”.
The story of Eve being made from a rib was “inside joke” written by someone who knew the Sumerian version and this Sumerian language.
Thanks! I actually did not know that one. But will look it up. I’ve always wondered what drove that particular metaphor and have been interested but not yet digging more into ancient Semitic and Sumerian stories.