catapult magazine

Do we know what that means? Can we guess?

After thinking about it for a while I have come to think that being made in God’s image is at least partially due to man’s ability to create and be creatinve. But is that all?

What do you think (or believe for that matter)?

How about compassion? Not necessarily rationalizing what someone else is going through and coming to a markedly cognitive decision to help them. But to be moved. To feel, to identify, to help and to change. Not that all people have it, but everyone has the capacity for it.
Maybe?

Maybe it would be better to talk about responsibility or responsiveness than instinct and free will.

Instead of saying we have regained free will, we might say that our response to God (which is our religion) can either be one of love (obedience) or hate (sin). The fate of the animals are bound up in our response. The poor creatures, bound up in our sin. They had nothing to do with it! The poor poor animals!

Our responsibility for God’s creatures is why I would maintain that being made in the image of God has very much to do with action. As much as I agree with laurencer that a human who murders does not cease to be human in terms of an animal/human distinction, when God says in Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground…”, he’s putting this “image” in the context of taking care of creation, in terms of action.

that’s interesting. do you think, then, that it is possible to lose the image of God in us?

i tend to think not, but your argument about how the image is tied somehow with our actions seems to suggest otherwise. so, would the image of God then be directly associated with God’s caring for the earth and our mandate to do the same?

I like laurencer’s last idea, I think that far to long Man has taking the idea of God giving the earth over to Man as, we can do what we like, but Christ made it very clear when he said, "not so with you, whoever is to be the greatest shall be the least, he who serves the least shall be the greatest among you.
Sorry that is a little of topic, I just liked what you said

Being made in God’s image automatically comes with responsibility (i.e. hey you, you’re in charge of the earth). Is that actually a characteristic of being made in His image or is it just a charge given to those made in his image? I still think that the capability to love is why we’re set apart, personally I don’t think anything else has the capability to really love including animals. Animals can show great affection for their owner that’s true, but is that really love? It’s all in how you define the term. Isn’t it true that human beings have a different kind of love than animals? Even a mass-murderer has been given the capability to love, I firmly believe that. They have perhaps been shown no love and in return and have buried that capability down in the depths of an abyss of their own making.

I’d like to back up to the beginning again and consider both the possibility that our own creativeness has something to do with our being created in God’s image.

Perhaps the answer to the question does have something to do with making snow angels after all. That is a creative act, and does involve an image. It is even interesting that that the snow angel image is similar to the human who made it, and certainly beautiful, yet significantly limited (mostly one-dimensional, static, transient). The snow angel is made in the image of the human, but it is a distorted image, and anyone trying to figure out what a human looks like on the basis of a snow angel alone would have a hard time. That gets to the problem raised at the beginning of this discussion that the snow angels, not being sentient, cannot conceive of what their creator looks like (or is like).

As to the snow angel’s nakedness, I’m not sure I can help us there. Perhaps our Canadian friend can enlighten us as to whether he is talking about the creator of the snow angels being naked (perhaps a reference to God’s genuine and undisguised nature — he created Adam and Eve to live without embarrassment originally) or whehter he is suggesting that the creator of the snow angels sculpt genitalia upon them (perhaps a reference to how human creative acts are tainted by sin and even the most beautiful creations of ours have a bit of perversion to them.)

The question about free will is a good one, and one I have not thought about before. This discussion has helped, but I am still stuck on the idea that Satan committed a willful act of disobedience that doesn’t seem to have been much different than Adam and Eve’s sin. Yet it seems to me there must be a major difference between the two creations and the two sins. Anyone have any further insights?

p.s. Sam, there’s no such thing as an asinine question.

In response to this, is it possible that the image of God is the soul placed within humans. God has blessed us with intellect, will, emotions, etc. But, I think the image of God possibly refers to the idea that we as human beings can experience God himself within us. Not just as an emotion or a thought, or something. We have this sort of port where God can plug himself into us. This is the Holy Spirit. I don’t think any other creature, Satan, a tapeworm, or even a talking horse, has a soul and can be intimately connected with the creator in this way.
I hope this also answers the question of those who are seemingly incapable of loving (brain injured, psychologically disturbed, those who are so unfortunate as to be suffering with deep, deep, depression.) To use a brief image, it is almost like God took the dirt that he made Adam with and covered himself with it (Naked or not). God says, “I created man in my image and now I fit right inside of him. And, by George, I think I will do that with those who I have chosen to be mine.”

I hope this is helpful, I don’t mean for this to sound like the end all of image discussions, (plese read the rest of this in a spazzed out crazy sort of way) but I was just so excited I could hardly contain myself because it is my first time writing anything on *cino and I am so. . . so. . . yeah! . . . and it is cool because we don’t have to fear culture but we have to do all that we can to be GOd’s people in it and it is about time the churchs general population was able to get its butt out there and do something. Uh, I’m done now. Thanks for the discusion.

I am impressed that the snow angel post has made it this far into the discussion. What an elastic bugger!

I do think creative expression has much to do with being in His image, but again, I’d rather call our act of “creating” culturing. I think of creating as an “ex nihilo” act. I don’t want our creative acts to be at the same level of God’s creation, though it seems that the gospel IS telling us that we are to be God on earth when it says to be Christ’s body.

And I agree that God is “in” humans to some extent, but the sparrow experiences God’s kindness and nourishment as much, if not more, than we do at times. Animal dependence on the Creator is an experience of God. What kind of experience, or what kind of relationship is this human soul to God, though? That’s what I’m trying to get at with the idea of taking care of His creation. Because God cares for us, we are in His image by caring for what He has made (and this is a creative act).

Yes, I think culturing is a good word for human creativity. I will use that one from now on. It really gets at the difference between human creation (which is actually just formation of pre-existent material) and God creation (ex nihilo).

Culturing is a part of humanity that we have to acknowledge, but is it the image of God. It may be the result of having the image of God which is where I tend to come down on the issue. God gave humanity many responsibilities including filling the earth and culturing it according to God’s plan. But what allows us to do such is the presence of the Holy Spirit. If and only if the Holy Spirit is with us can we accomplish anything that the Lord requires. The image of God in humans is the place, the soul, the possibility of having God in us. This seems quite different in my mind from the birds and the bees who simply experience God’s kindness. Just some thoughts.

Okay, I think I agree with Anomos about the Holy Spirit needing to work through us in order for our creations (cultural activities?) to have meaning. And yet it seems to me that it is also true that the Holy Spirit does work through US. My writing style is different than yours. Beethovan’s music sounds different from Mozart’s. Rembrandt and Paul Klee have very different styles of painting. Somewhere in that creative (cultural) act, some part of who we are as humans is leaking through. I think that part may be where the image of God is clearest in us, though we are flawed.

I am not sure that I need the distinction of Culturing vs. creating. When a human creates a work of art, there is a sense in which it does come almost out of nowhere, the notes, the words, the images, at a most basic level seem to come from out of the blue. Now, to be sure, my writing a poem is hardly anything close to God’s creation even of the tiniest grain of sand out of nothing, but it is still a creative (and imitative) act. I guess I hold on to that word because to do so, I think , honors not so much the artist-creator, but rather the Creator God who made such a creation that can itself, in a small way, also create.