In My Image

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:35 pm

When God created humans "In my image" what did 'in my image' mean?

ryo dokomi · Post by **ryo dokomi** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:54 pm

it was 'in OUR image'
what was meant was the image of the trinity. God is one God, but 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
we as humans have three parts too: mind, soul, spirit. our mind is our mental thinking, soul is emotions and such, and the spirit is, well the spirit.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:55 am

For me, now that I think of it, and this does have to do with evolution (so don't jump on me atheist evolutionists and this isn't a place to post that material), is that perhaps the body and everything is simple as explained by evolution but done so by God (which science pretty much rejects), that is where in Genesis, God breathes life into man, breathes our "being" into us. We are really so many more times complex than our own physical body. We are shells, we contain the spirit and the breath, does a body then have to be complex? And also used for reproduction, all for God's glory. That's my take, take it or leave it

.

hetfield · Post by **hetfield** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:37 pm

ryo dokomi wrote:it was 'in OUR image'
what was meant was the image of the trinity. God is one God, but 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
we as humans have three parts too: mind, soul, spirit. our mind is our mental thinking, soul is emotions and such, and the spirit is, well the spirit.

that makes sense, but i'm open to more interpretations, in the book of psalms it claims that God is something other than man having no image, or something like that. I don't know where the verse is at though

Atticus Finch · Post by **Atticus Finch** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:42 pm

ryo dokomi wrote:it was 'in OUR image'
what was meant was the image of the trinity. God is one God, but 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
we as humans have three parts too: mind, soul, spirit. our mind is our mental thinking, soul is emotions and such, and the spirit is, well the spirit.

That's rather silly.

Mind is the conscious awareness of "I" and contemplation on that.

"Soul" whether it exists or not is generally used to describe the essence of a person which makes them animate and different from a non-animate being. We suspect the soul to depart upon death since there's no visible life in the body.

"Spirit" is used in a similar sense to soul by most people in that it represents a sort of living awareness that doesn't seem to be in other life.

Those are the simplified views which should be easy to understand. However, as most parents have found out, the question of whether dogs have "souls" and whether cats have "souls" comes up. Well, do they?

Many people will say that dogs have souls. I ask you, do rabbits? If so, do mice? If so, do spiders? If so, do plants? If so, do atoms? It seems obvious to me that the more consciousness a being has the more we attribute "soul" like qualities to it.

A dog can show a very simple form of love and compassion. However, there's no free-will in any other life other than humans. All creatures besides us are slaves to the enviroment and pure instinct. A human can override ALL of that even in the WORST and most compelling situations.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:46 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:Those are the simplified views which should be easy to understand. However, as most parents have found out, the question of whether dogs have "souls" and whether cats have "souls" comes up. Well, do they?

Many people will say that dogs have souls. I ask you, do rabbits? If so, do mice? If so, do spiders? If so, do plants? If so, do atoms? It seems obvious to me that the more consciousness a being has the more we attribute "soul" like qualities to it.

Animals don't have a spirit, although they have a mind. They can't communicate with God. Hence, no metaphysics, no art, no culture, no religion, no philosophy.

Atticus Finch wrote:All creatures besides us are slaves to the enviroment and pure instinct. A human can override ALL of that even in the WORST and most compelling situations.

In the power of Christ, I would say -- for this sounds dangerously humanistic...

Atticus Finch · Post by **Atticus Finch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:02 pm

An atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Hindu can all overcome instinctual desires and base motivations without Christ.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:54 pm

Even in the worst and most compelling situations, as you claimed?

In God We Trust · Post by **In God We Trust** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:28 pm

Turgonian wrote:Animals don't have a spirit. . .

Then what does Ecclesiastes 3:21 mean?

Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

To me, this implies that animals have spirits.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:30 am

Atticus Finch wrote:An atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Hindu can all overcome instinctual desires and base motivations without Christ.

To a degree that is true. That is because the image of God is present in all men regardless of whether they acknowledge the source or not. This is often referred to as common grace.