In class discussions, we have gathered a few different
definitions of what the image of God is.
There is the ancient/ medieval definition of the ability to reason, the
post-reformation definition of human relationality, the enlightenment
Schleiermacher definition of self-consciousness, and the modern definition of
“human continuity with nature.” The
Bible even describes an image of God in the Covenant Story. God acts like a random deity to Abram who is
a nomadic polytheist. But despite Abram’s
beliefs, he follows this in-charge but distant God who claims He will give him
blessings for following His orders. God
entered into a covenant with Abram to show His trustworthiness and to ensure
that his promises to Abram would be fulfilled.
Abram believes that it was a good thing to enter into this covenant with
God. His image of God from thousands of
years ago seems much clearer and stronger than that of our class discussions
recently. This might be because every
person’s image of God is different and concrete in their own mind. What is your image of God? How different or related is your image from
that of “Imago Dei” and the Covenant Story?
If we define that image of God as only being through reasoning, how do
the images of others that are incapable of reasoning change (i.e. people in a
coma, children, senile, mentally challenged, etc.)?
We have discussed what different generations have thought
about the image of God in our assigned texts.
How do we combine those different definitions on this subject? Who is right and wrong? Could there be an element of truth in each
definition?
By: Lucy Downey and Schultz McLean
When Bonaventure spoke about humans being in the image of God because they use reason, I found this difficult to take in. As I was thinking about this, I found this to be true. Humans are in the image of God because they use reason; however, this cannot be the only way a human can be in the image of God because like you stated what about a mentally challenge person or a child? I mean this obviously cannot be true because then why is the Church against abortion if that child is clearly not in the image of God since the fetus can't reason? I think that Bonaventure was right in the aspect of the ability to reason. A child cannot use reason fully but that child has the ability to reason, the capacity for reason is within the child even though the child hasn't developed it yet. An example of this would be permanent teeth. Children have baby teeth; they don't "have" their permanent teeth yet but they will have them. They just haven't developed yet. Even with one mentally disabled, that person is a human, they have the capacity for reason even though it is clouded or under developed. It is present. So to conclude, if humans are in the image of God that means that they are made for reason even if they cannot or do not use it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gina that being made in the image of God involves the ability to reason, no matter if that ability is hindered or unused. However I feel that there are more dimensions to being made in the image of God. I believe it also involves the ability to have choice, to decide, to have free will. One might say that animals have some sort of free will to chose their actions. However, it would seem that animals act based on their senses and based on their need to survive. They don't seem to be capable of processing the knowledge that humans can. And it is with that knowledge that we make our informed decisions. They are in a sense forced to make decisions because of their natural instincts. Animals do not have the capacity to understand the world as humans can and they cannot connect time in memory like we can. (In the Aristotilian thought of interiority) Within this ability to free will, the most important choice is to be able to choose to love, which I don't believe animals can really do. For if God is the supreme Love as he is often considered, then we in his image should have the capacity to act like Him, to love.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gina that being made in the image of God involves the ability to reason, no matter if that ability is hindered or unused. However I feel that there are more dimensions to being made in the image of God. I believe it also involves the ability to have choice, to decide, to have free will. One might say that animals have some sort of free will to chose their actions. However, it would seem that animals act based on their senses and based on their need to survive. They don't seem to be capable of processing the knowledge that humans can. And it is with that knowledge that we make our informed decisions. They are in a sense forced to make decisions because of their natural instincts. Animals do not have the capacity to understand the world as humans can and they cannot connect time in memory like we can. (In the Aristotilian thought of interiority) Within this ability to free will, the most important choice is to be able to choose to love, which I don't believe animals can really do. For if God is the supreme Love as he is often considered, then we in his image should have the capacity to act like Him, to love.
ReplyDeleteSorry I posted this twice!
DeleteI disagree with Bonaventure and Aquinas, because human rationality is limiting and does not fully answer what it means to be human. I think that we as humans have, to some degree, creative intelligence. In other words, we have the capacity to create art - to take something from nature and make it something else - and to dream and do so many awesome things. I separate creative intelligence from rational thought because I do not think that rational thought produces individuality like creative intelligence does. As creators, we can make an impact on the world as we can create things, both physically and intellectually. Furthermore, creative intelligence does not exclude people that are severely handicapped or children. Is an autistic child or a person with down syndrome made in God's image... ABSOLUTELY. People will always have different ideas about the image of God, but that is alright. While we may never agree on what the image of God is, we will never know the right answer.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of creative intelligence that Andrew brings up. The idea of God as the ultimate creator creating other creators is fascinating. He creates beings that can in turn create other beings. We get the privilege to participate in life giving acts. This may be yet another addition to a way that creation reflects God. ( Maybe more a of a vestige though because animals can procreate?)
DeleteWhen it comes to the Image of God, I tend to also disagree in that I do not think possessing the “Image of God” requires the ability to reason. I think it would be hard to argue that everyone has mastered this proverbial ability to reason. Bonaventure said that the ability to reason included memory, intellect, and will. I think that those can be separated from the ability to reason. Children have memory, intellect, and will, but that doesn’t mean that they have a perfect ability to reason. I really liked Andrew’s point about creative intelligence compared to the ability to reason. Everyone is made in the image of God, not just those who have mastered that ability to reason. To recognize that we are made in the image of God, I believe that having “self-consciousness” proves more useful. When it comes down to it, though, the ability to recognize that you are made in the image of God has nothing to do with whether or not you actually are. I think we’d all agree that every single person is made in the image of God, regardless of whether they can recognize that themselves.
ReplyDeleteI was going to end this blog post with the idea that because we’re lucky enough to recognize that we’re made in the image of God, we should strive toward being in the likeness of God. However, that made me think: does the lack of the ability to “contemplate” make someone totally incapable of achieving this likeness? Is Bonaventure’s definition of likeness true? I realize that, operating under Bonaventure’s definition, we can only actively pursue likeness. Is likeness ever attainable? Can children or mentally disabled people achieve likeness? I like to think that in some way, they can.
On the subject of whether or not certain definitions of the Image of God are right or wrong, I think that the answer is neither. Perhaps people have defined the term "Image of God" differently in different generations or cultures because it means something unique to each individual. However a person chooses to define it could be in the best way for him/her to relate to God and faith. Some people may see the Image of God through reasoning, others may see it as one's relationship with God, and some may not have faith at all. I think that there is truth to each definition in that the Image of God may vary in how different people think about their faith and about the presence of God in their lives.
ReplyDeleteTo Lauren's point: can we talk about "acheiving" likeness? If we are getting this term from the book of Genesis, we were created in the image and likeness of God. I don't know exactly what that image and likeness is, but I think that all of humankind is already in it. God saw that his creation was very good, and I think that includes all human beings no matter what their capacity for reasoning may be. I also like Andrew's point about art, and Jackie's about our ability to make choices (and not just follow instinct). There is definitely something, maybe not reason per se as we understand it, but something that makes us different from animals. I was always told that "image and likeness" refered to the fact that human beings have immortal souls, but I have to confess I'm not sure where that idea comes from.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren that having the Image of God doesn’t require a complete ability to reason. I liked Gina’s point that there must be other ways to achieve the Image of God besides through reason. There are exceptions to every rule and I think in this case, children and the mentally disabled are the exceptions. Do they need to be able to reason to be in the Image of God? I think there are a lot of good definitions of the Image of God but none are entirely complete. I think there is truth in each one but none tell the whole story.
ReplyDeleteI think our ability to reason is one of God’s greatest gifts to creation. Every individual is given the opportunity to form their own reasoning, whether they are young or old, mentally capable or incapable. Although children or those who are senile may not be able to perfectly form their own opinions in their states, they can still ponder and reflect and reason. However, I do think that those who are not as capable of reasoning as others are influenced by the individuals that surround them (such as their family, friends, or communities). In response to the question of who is right and who is wrong when it comes to reasoning, I do not think there is a correct answer. Our ability to reason is a gift and having the freedom to have our own thoughts, whether we think they’re right or wrong or others disagree is a blessing. No one individual is going to have the exact same image of God and there is not one perfect definition of this image. In fact, I believe that all possible thoughts of this image contribute to a holistic view that incorporates a wide variety of thoughts and reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to propose that the "Image of God" is the relational aspect of humans and God. We can relate to God in many ways: through reason and rationality, through spirituality and soul-searching, through Andrew's aptly introduced phrase "creative intelligence." After all, in Summa Theologica didn't Thomas Aquinas himself say that God can be reached through both reason and faith (though reason takes a lot more time effort and skill than the average man has)?
ReplyDeleteSo, if "Image" means the relational aspect, I would say "Likeness" would mean just what it sounds like: to be "like God," somewhat akin to the angels and archangels (incidentally, "Michael" means "Like God" I'm reminded of Psalm 8:5, "He has made him little less than the angels.")
I think the difference between Image and Likeness would be akin to the difference between a 2d painted portrait and a 3d sculpture. The 3d sculpture has form and substance, the 2d painting is beautiful but flat. I think that what separates Image from Likeness is rationality; like how it's nearly impossible to wrap your mind around the idea of a 4th, 5th, 6th dimension. So literally, there's a separate dimension that we have to penetrate in order to become "like God" again. Our minds cannot fully grasp that, and so we shy away. Is there any possibility we can fully grasp through reason and rationality? I don't know, though Thomas Aquinas thinks so...
I agree that the capacity to reason is not the be all and end all of bearing the Image of God. Each person bears different aspects of the Image of God in different proportions. For example, Sally Jane bears more prevalently the characteristic of God's mercy and tenderness, Johnny Joe possess more of God's fierce justice, and baby Susie portray's God's simple, unqualified and unspoiled love. There are so many more characteristics than just the capacity to reason, and that they all come together to make an incredibly complex Image, parts of which some bear more than other but that is present to at least some degree in all persons. Even those people with disabilities that prevent them from actualizing their capability to reason were still created to be bear the Image, because they once had the potentiality to reason and somewhere along the developmental timeline something happened that caused that capability to become effected. This does not mean that they are lacking in the Image at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haley - I do not know if there can be one standard definition of the Image of God. It is all based on our understanding of who God is, but can we ever, as humans on this earth, ever fully understand who God is? Perhaps each definition holds a piece of what the image of God truly means. I also like what Gina brought up about the capacity to reason, rather than the ability to reason. I have had many arguments with people who are prochoice, who state that if reason is what makes man so different from the rest of creation, then those who cannot fully reason - the severely mentally disabled - do not possess the same human dignity. I think this “capacity to reason” is a great argument for the prolife movement.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the capacity of humans to have a relationship with God is an important element of being made in the image of God. God did not bestow this gift on any other part of creation. God made humans as the pinnacle of creation and established relationship with them from the very beginning. Just the fact that we can contemplate these questions is a gift from God! And this capacity for a relationship with God includes the mentally disabled, children, those in a coma, the senile, etc. God established this relationship with ALL humans. There are conditions that can block this and the relationship may not be fully developed, but nothing can ever completely take it away.
I also, like Mary, would be more inclined to view the "image of God" not in terms of the ability or capacity to reason, but more so in the "relational aspect" as she terms it. I think that the "image of God" relates to what it means to be a person--to be a person means to be able to exist in relation, in relation to others and to God. In Genesis, when God creates humanity, He gives them dominion over the earth and He creates them male and female. So right away humanity is created in relation, in relation to each other (male and female) and in relation to God (as creator). And I would say that having dominion also plays a part in what it means to be in the "image of God." So the "image of God" would be a combination of the two.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mary about the 2d and 3d comparisons of image and likeness. God's likeness is more defined because it includes our rationality. However, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, humanity lost our likeness to God; for me this means that we lost some of our intellect, the part of our reasoning that allows us to understand who God is. Adam and Eve knew God, but once they sinned they lost His likeness; likewise, we have too. However, in God's covenant with Abram, God is trying to reconcile us, especially our rationality, to Him. He promises Abram descendants, land etc. Eventually, Jesus will be a descendant of his line. Without the covenant between God and Abram, we would not have any way of regaining the likeness to God that we lost in the beginning. Therefore, I believe that the covenant between Abram and God was reforging the relationship between humanity and God that was lost through our sin, and this was only possible after Jesus' death; through inspiration, direct accounts, and traditions that were handed down we were able to slowly regain this likeness, which was made possible many years ago through God's promise to Abram.
ReplyDeletei agree with Dan in the fact that God is both intelligent and relational and that we, therefore, are intelligent and relational by nature of our being created in his image and likeness. to answer Schultz and Lucy's question about our own image of God,i think that because we are relational and intelligent, we formulate our personal image of God through our relationship with him and those that surround us. we apply knowledge to understand our God because knowledge increases love, and our greatest pleasure is to love God, who made us beautiful and good. we come to know God through an intimate dialogue of praise, thanksgiving and adoration. we then, as is our responsibility and joy, go out into the world and share this dialogue of love with all we encounter. it is through this relational and intelligent Yes that we come to figment an image of God: who he is to us, who is to others. we come to see and know how readily we allow him to permeate our lives, to help us love and ponder upon his mysterious qualities as creator and benefactor. every gift that is given to us (obviously including intelligence and our relational quality) is made to be a gift, in turn, to God, thought the perfection of our mother mary.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Laura's example of three different representations of God's image, I'm led to believe that each person's share of God's image reflects a different aspect of God so that it would be more appropriate to say that each person has an image of God, but that no one possesses the image (as in the whole image) of God. So, for instance, humans have the capacity for mercy because God has that power which we then have access to because of our share in his 'image,' but some are more inclined to be merciful than others because this aspect of God is more dominant in them than in others. Similarly, perhaps we can say that reason is another trait of God accessible to humans because they bear His image, and that some people reflect this part of God's image more than others do.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that Evangeline made an important point about us already being in God's image; it's his likeness that we strive for. So maybe this means that we use the fraction of God's image already in us in order to access the whole image of God and when someone does bear the image of God, they are said to have achieved his 'likeness.'
I have to agree with Sarah and Haley in that the definition of the 'image of God' isn't singular. We are all striving in different ways to attain the likeness of God, so it is logical that there are different ends, 'images of God,' that is to say.
ReplyDeleteAnother point of agreement, the capacity to reason is an excellent distinction because all people, children, comatose, impaired, are all the children of God. To say that only those able to reason rationally are capable of obtaining the 'image of God' would be narrow.
In terms of agreeing or disagreeing with sources we've read in class, I'd have to say I like the idea that there might be a hint of truth in each. Understandably, Bonaventure would like to separate the animals from humans, and does so by defining the human ability to reason. While this dichotomy is not soundly constructed, and so there is debate about what it means to reason. I am fond of the concept that Andrew developed of "creative intelligence," I think this is more on track with what it means to have humans in the likeness of God.
As many of the others have stated previously, the "image of God" isn't singular. Each generation of scholars have their own perceptions of what "the image" was and what it represented. We also attempt to attain the knowledge of what understanding can be passed down to us from God. In terms of Bonaventure, I do agree that there are grains of truth behind each interpretation, but I do find the harsh separation between human and animal a bit distasteful. There is an understood difference between humanity and those of the beasts, but how do we truly know what the beasts' capacity are to think beyond themselves? There might be even some hidden capacity to understand that we have yet to conceive. The "image" if we allude to biblical references, may be found in all of creation. One could argue since God created all that is around us, and that when an object is created a part of the creator could be instilled within that specific element. Creator and creation are pretty similar in spelling maybe that is a giveaway of the relationship between what the "image" is and what it actually means to us, in this time.
ReplyDeleteWe ask who is right and who is wrong regarding the image of God. And the answer is that no one knows. I know that does not seem like an answer, perhaps and easy way out of a dilemma, but it's true, especially since we say that God is basically unfathomable. I see God as forgiving and understanding, but the God we see in the Old Testament has a more so forsaking and judgmental nature. Through Jesus, we see, we see God in a much more loving way. I think that all of these biblical and theological descriptions of God are equally as opinion based as my own description.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with the "relationality" aspect of "image of God." We are made in His image, and God is love. The Trinity is a relationship of love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore to be made in the image of God would mean to share in this ability to love God and each other. Jesus said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love" (Jn 15:9). Clearly, we are called to love so completely and self-sacrificially as Jesus did. To be made in the image of God means to be born with the capacity to love as God loves. God is also Creator. He created all things into existence. Humans are made in His image, in this sense, by our ability to participate in His creation. We have the capacity to create life. Man and woman He created them, and together they have the ability to bring a brand new person into this world; a person to love and be loved!
ReplyDeleteWe as believers do have an ever evolving relationship with God like the Protestants suggest. However, I would posit that God is much more mystical than we think and that His Image is ubiquitous. What makes it unique to humans is that we can develop an inclination for empathy, a quality shared only with God. We enter a covenant with God by virtue of merely being born. God will give us wisdom and peace in exchange for loving on our part.
ReplyDeleteCan animals be in the Image of God? I know they can have memory and intellect. For example, an experiment was done on some animals - I don't remember which ones. When these animals would pull a lever, they would receive food, so eventually they learned to pull down the lever in order to receive food. Clearly then, they could remember previously pulling down the lever and receiving food, and they had an intellect because they could associate pulling the lever with receiving food. Did they choose to pull down the lever? Was it merely a survival instinct, or could they use reason in order to make a decision?
ReplyDeleteWe are created in the image of God because we are the only creatures who He loved into being. We are the only creatures capable of knowing and loving our Creator. Though the rest of creation reflects God's love for us, animals and plants are not only incapable of reasoning like we can, but they also are unable to love Him. I agree with Andrew when he says that the idea of the image of God is based solely on our ability to reason is limiting. We are in the image of God because we possess the capacity to know not only ourselves but God who gave us life. Going off of this, I think that those humans who are incapable of reasoning fully are still in the image of God. Though they may not be able to reason fully, they still have the same unique ability to love completely.
ReplyDeleteWe talked about this in class (and it's something that still bothers me), but what do you think of children, those who are in a coma, mentally disabled, etc... Do they still reflect the image of God? According to most of these definitions, the answer would be know based on the impaired ability to reason. With children, I understand their potentiality/growth, but what about the others?
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that these groups of people aren't in the image of God, I just want to know what you guys think, because I myself have trouble with technicality.
I agree with Haley in saying that reasoning is one of the God's greatest gifts and I believe that everyone has the ability to reason. In the cases of children, the senile and the mentally handicapped all have an ability to reason although it may differ from other's definitions of reasoning. I believe most of these writings that have been brought up have a truthfulness in their definition and through time we gain more of an understanding of these image. Each part contributes to a whole and greater definition. I believe that the reasoning was a gift given along with self - conciousness to make a decision on whether or not we want to believe in God and to have a choice.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Chris. These are all definitions, however we do not truly know the image of God, but I believe each definition grasps a part and comes closer to a mutual understanding of he meaning of the image of God.
I believe that as humans in the Image of God we are beings with the potential for many things - rationality, wisdom, goodness, free will, self-consciousness, and love. The Image of God is not a singular idea and how the Image of God applies to and is understood by each person is undefinable. Each person sees their Image differently because no person's relationship with God and with others is the same. No idea of the Image of God is wrong, and, at the same time, nobody knows which belief is right. We are all children of God created in His image.
ReplyDeleteAbraham, however, had a clear idea of the Image of God, unlike our differing and contrasting beliefs. Abraham heard God's call and honored them without fail. By free will and in goodness and love, Abraham carried out God's requests and created his own Image. Through Abraham, humanity began to regain the likeness of God.
Those who know that they are fully in the Image of God, like Abraham, know that God is their motivation - both their beginning and their end.
Most ideas, if pursued rationally and within the realm of moralistic behavior, will have some element of truth in them. Furthermore, "outdated" ideas still hold true to an extent, as long as one views them in their proper context. I believe that the views on the Image of God are great examples of this. The ancient views are just as useful today as any other views. The image of God must be something more than just reason, however, because that would exclude those who are unable to truly rationalize, as stated above. While I don't know what it really is (nor does anyone else, really!), I believe we can discover what it is not.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Rhodes said, I think humankind is in the image of God in what we have the capacity to do. As Rhodes said, we have the ability to create in a way that is parallel to the way God creates. While God ultimately creates life, we are his instruments. The same can be said for composers and writers who work by inspiration. We also have the capacity for reason, love, truth, beauty, goodness, justice, and more! And while God is the ultimate source of all these great things, we can, by His grace, "reflect" a semblance of them. To dive deeper, a father (when he is being true to his role as a father) is in the image of God the father by giving life to his children, sustaining them, and even administering justice on them in order to protect them.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Anika's question, I think children and those with disabilities can still reflect the Image of God because they still carry traits and aspects that derive from God.
ReplyDeleteI like Meagan's point about how everyone's Image is different because everyone has a different relationship with Him. Our perceptions vary and that is why it is impossible to define exactly what the Image of God is. However, this does not mean that we cannot partially define what it is. The traits that everyone have have to have come from Him since He created everything.
I agree with some of my peers in the idea that the "Image of God" is a direct connection God draws between himself and human life. It then follows that the "Image of God" can be based entirely on our ability to think rational or entirely based on any one aspect of our being for that matter. Our faith and belief in God is such an individual experience that defining it can be near impossible for some. This makes it so that one definition of the "Image of God" is not either right or wrong and there is no absolute conclusion that can be made as to the definition of this entity of faith. This false in accordance with many ideas of faith. Faith is such a personal part of human life that there really cannot be one sweeping definition of everyones faith.
ReplyDelete