[TXnMA]

Most of you are aware that I am distressed by the enormous resources wasted by a large number of our believing brethren who make a crusade of attacking the scapegoat called "evolution" rather than focusing those resources on furthering the work of Our Lord's "Great Commission".

Both of us say, "God Said it; I believe it; and that ends it." and we mean what we say. Unfortunately, many folks hide behind that simplistic declaration, and use it as a shield against faithfully seeking to understand what God really said in Genesis.

Face it: acknowledging that one is "made in the image of God" is heady stuff. It is also dangerous, in that misunderstanding the true nature of God can lead one to hurtful hubris and wasted emphasis on the importance of this mortal body.

IMCO, whether they will admit it or not, the interpretation of Genesis by many "anti-evolution creationists" has been mis-directed and deluded by anthropomorphic images like this famous, but very seductive painting:

One (erroneous) message inherent in this image is that the body on the left was modeled after ("in the image of") the body on the right. Even subconscious acceptance of that message can color a believer's understanding of Genesis so as to place undue importance on how man's physical body arrived at its present state. That is a slippery slope toward hubris and undue emphasis and energy expenditure on antievolutionism.

I know whereof I speak: I was under that selfsame delusion -- until intense study of Scripture and of physical science -- together -- led me to understand why this Commandment,

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

Was placed second only after,

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Clearly, the Second Commandment not only prohibits the creation and worshiping of "graven" (frescoed?) images, it warns us away from the dangerous, but mortal, temptation to "put a human face on God", who, according to Scripture, is Spirit. Such anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of this earthly body to the point that many feel the need to defend its (non-existent, IMCO) sanctity from any attempt to discern the processes involved in its development.

I find it to be curious, indeed, that many believers who (like I) look forward with hope to our souls' discarding of this frail, aching, fat, skinny, ugly, etc. vessel, perversely defend its genesis as if it were something more than a mere container for their souls and spirits.

To Michaelangelo's credit, the center of his painting is not the fully-formed (evolved from the "dust of the earth"?) and mature body of Adam on the left -- already matured, awake and aware...and reaching out to God. Nor is it the absurdly anthropomorphized representation of God on the right. (Why not a burning bush, or a pillar of fire or smoke or some other form in which God's Spirit has manifested?)

The center of his painting is, indeed, the narrow gap between God and Adam -- bridged by a tiny spark representing the "pneumos" -- the "Breath of Life" -- the Spirit and Likeness of God -- indwelling the first Man whose body and brain were (finally) developed to the point of being capable of housing God's Spirit.

I rejoice in having a spirit and soul, "in the image of God". But I place minimal importance on how my fellow scientists attempt to explain how my soul's mortal transporter reached its present state of development.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, I have my own explanation for this particular body's sorry state: genetics, old age and bad diet... '-)

[hosepipe]

I Don't know whether to be offended on being called ugly in such a creative style or to be impressed by this bit of wisdom written in your post..

[ I rejoice in having a spirit and soul, "in the image of God". But I place minimal importance on how my fellow scientists attempt to explain how my soul's mortal transporter reached its present state of development. ]

If you are not a comedian, at least you're quite an interesting person read..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and perspective on the crevo wars - and especially, your testimony!

Seems to me the most combative correspondents on the one side are those who believe reality is "matter in all its motions" - and those on the other side who believe that Adam was the first mortal man.

[betty boop]

Clearly, the Second Commandment not only prohibits the creation and worshiping of "graven" (frescoed?) images, it warns us away from the dangerous, but mortal, temptation to "put a human face on God", who, according to Scripture, is Spirit. Such anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of this earthly body to the point that many feel the need to defend its (non-existent, IMCO) sanctity from any attempt to discern the processes involved in its development.

Indeed. This point about "graven" images of God the Creator came up on another post a few days back. By "graven," I understand any graphical depiction of God, which would include paintings, frescoes, and sculptures, but not such images as poetry or psalms, for instance. The only such depiction I am aware of is Michelangelo's, which you show. And I agree that the painting is actually misleading. For here we have the birth of Adam. And the way the artist has imagined this event is as a touching of the divine and mortal fingers, as if a physical "spark" of some kind has been propagated from God and transmitted to Adam. But the transmission of man's full humanity -- that is, his birth as a man -- comes by pneuma, the divine Breath, not by any physical contact between God and man.

Notice there are zillions of paintings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But what is depicted is the man's body that Christ employed during His incarnation as Man. And most of the depictions of Christ show the Man hung on the Cross, his body wracked and wrecked, tortured, abused.... There is no "glorification of the body" in such scenes; rather the opposite is the case. The entire message of the Crucifixion is that the Spirit is irreducible to the body; the body is mortal, but Spirit is not. Spirit -- soul -- is of infinitely greater importance. Body can be destroyed; but Spirit, being eternal, cannot.

So I agree with you that the idea of man's being in the image of God does not refer at all to his physical body. He is in the image of God in the likeness of his spirit and his reason to God's. As you wrote, Michelangelo's "anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of [his] earthly body."

Notice the word "likeness." In the ancient Greek, the word is syngenes, denoting "alike" or "akin." There is no suggestion of any substantial identity of the two, thus no way to equate them. All that can be suggested by syngenes is that God and man are partners in a "common cause." And not because of the likeness of their bodies (for as you said, God has no "body" that could be imagined by us, for He is Spirit), but because of the fact that man is ensouled, a spiritual being akin to God because of the breath of God at the birth of Adam, which constitutes the human being as a participant in the divine, alone of all the denizens of created Nature.

Michelangelo has painted a powerfully masterful fresco here; but it actually falsifies the subject matter he paints, and thus tends to mislead....

Thank you for your wonderful post, TXnMA!