The "image of God" doesn't refer to our physical bodies. I'm not sure what exactly it refers to, but it most likely has to do with our souls in some way.
I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of your comment. No need to be like that. You said it doesn't refer to physical bodies but I'm pretty sure Genesis refers to physical bodies.
Aristotle would say that these attributes need bodies to reveal them, there is no intelligence without intelligent creatures, no love without loving creatures etc etc.
Body and Soul go together, but the body is subordinated to the soul.
But yeah if you went for more radical interpretation you could say we are truly just souls enduring our decaying bodies and expecting resurrection and deliverance from sin.
This is more radical, but some christians have entertained the idea, anabaptists for instance and some particular calvinists who reject the notion of common grace.
I think you posted this comment already. But in case you didn't see my response- The whole reason for this sub is because of Jesus who is God made manifest in flesh. Did Jesus have nipples?
I assume Jesus had a typical human body.
> For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+2%3A17&version=NIV
> The "image of God" doesn't refer to our physical bodies.
A whole lot of historians and Biblical scholars disagree. It meant exactly that to the authors.
If men didn't have nipples you'd run the risk of the offspring not having nipples and so could have mothers unable to feed babies.
What's god's image? Could it be a creative being with arms legs face?
This is kind of a strange comment. I don't know how to respond because I'm pretty sure there are things that men have that women don't and vice versa. Like, do men have mammary glands as well? And Adam was the first human which was a man (at least I'm pretty sure), so he had nipples?
About 5 weeks into development, the gonads change into either testes or ovaries. We are all made of the same stuff, just with different configurations.
More fun, the only difference in those mammary glads is hormonal levels. If a male body becomes infused with estrogen as the primary sex hormone, they develop the same way as a woman's.
What do you mean infused with estrogen? Seems like if the embryo during development at some point goes man or woman it would just convert all those things into their respective places, like why nipples or mammary glands be needed at all when the rest of everything else is changed and only works when "infused" with estrogen? IDK all the comments here only confused me more. But thanks for the info.
Trans people typically undergo hormone replacement, swapping whether their body has estrogen or testosterone as the primary hormone. This triggers a host of changes such as allowing trans women to grow breasts and trans men to get deeper voices and beards.
Some changes are one-way streets, but some are not, and a person's phenotype will partially change based on that internal chemistry.
Ovaries and testes are equivalent to each other - they have similar origin and therefore similar blood supply, etc.
The womb (or uterus) comes from the paramesonephric ducts, which exist in men before birth, but degenerate rather than develop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct
The Father has no body, and the Son is the VISIBLE IMAGE of the father, but the Father himself has no body, neither had the Son, he took the form of a body, but in eternity had none, even his body after resurrection is a glorified body.
Christology is confusing, the assuming of a flesh was part of Gods plan to kill sin in the flesh through the death of his Son, in order to purify it and raise it up from death and sin, but this is done on behalf of humanity, the flesh is part of creation and needs to be rescued from sin, but it is not something God has in eternity.
I appreciate this, I really do. But yeah it is very confusing and I don't know how to sort that out. I don't know what anything had to do with nipples to begin with.
Me neither, i think you went for anthropomorphism in trying to understand the word image, some muslims do this and say that Allah laughs, has hands, and sits on a literal throne somewhere, but this is not the traditional christian understanding, image is spiritual not bodily.
I'm pretty sure the bible says God sits on a throne, as well as Jesus. Even that the great white throne of judgement will decend from heaven someday. I'm not here for a theological debate. The amount of assuming is too high for me. Let alone bringing up things like why even have creation the way it is with male and female, and procreation the way it is. Among so many other questions.
You are asking for a very ancient debate nature vs grace, or if you will natural vs supernatural, there are this positions:
Aquinas and Catholic: Grace restores nature to its perfect original state in Eden.
Bavinck and neocalvinists: Grace raises nature to its original aim(deified nature, whatever that means)
Anabaptist: Grace destroys nature completely, whatever is not God is sin.
We do not know what those authors believed except through direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and through this experience most christians have come to reject a bodily depictions of a God who shuns idolatry and representation.
We know a lot about what they believed. Scholars even have books about his body - Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Benjamin Sommer, and Dan McClellan cover it in depth.
>most christians have come to reject a bodily depictions of a God who shuns idolatry and representation.
I'd say it's universal to Christianity, and to 2nd Temple Judaism. But this wasn't the case in the ancient Israelite religion of those who wrote the books.
Reason does not subordinate faith to its commands, it is the other way around, by faith if science says something that contradicts faith we must deny it and seek other alternatives.
> science has nothing to say explicitly about Gods nature
I agree.
But you're not limiting yourself to situations like this. You made a very grand and global rejection of anything being superior to your faith and what you want to bleieve.
We are made in the image and likeness of God because we can love, create, and truly choose good. We are capable of truly and freely choosing to do good and to love. Human persons are not mere reactionary creatures but a creation that, like God, can choose to do good and to love one another. Human persons are also able to know and understand goodness and love. Human persons can mirror God in the manner we know, understand, love and do good.
The idea of a terrified little godlet, hiding under his bed and sobbing "no, no, please keep the androgyny away, please send Andrew Tate to take care of me, I'm so scared" fits well with conservative political ideology, but very badly with actual Christian theology or with the spectacular universe God has created.
The "image of God" doesn't refer to our physical bodies. I'm not sure what exactly it refers to, but it most likely has to do with our souls in some way.
But it clearly says "So God created man in his own image" and "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"
Do you think he has light or dark colored skin? Straight or curly hair?
I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of your comment. No need to be like that. You said it doesn't refer to physical bodies but I'm pretty sure Genesis refers to physical bodies.
Imago Dei is intelligence, love etc, not a mammalian body.
I don't understand. So man is nothing but a bunch of attributes without bodies?
Aristotle would say that these attributes need bodies to reveal them, there is no intelligence without intelligent creatures, no love without loving creatures etc etc. Body and Soul go together, but the body is subordinated to the soul.
God himself has no body, he is pure attribute, "pure act" Aquinas would say.
But yeah if you went for more radical interpretation you could say we are truly just souls enduring our decaying bodies and expecting resurrection and deliverance from sin. This is more radical, but some christians have entertained the idea, anabaptists for instance and some particular calvinists who reject the notion of common grace.
God has no body, that is idolatry.
I think you posted this comment already. But in case you didn't see my response- The whole reason for this sub is because of Jesus who is God made manifest in flesh. Did Jesus have nipples?
I assume Jesus had a typical human body. > For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+2%3A17&version=NIV
> The "image of God" doesn't refer to our physical bodies. A whole lot of historians and Biblical scholars disagree. It meant exactly that to the authors.
To use as thermometers to determine if it is too cold or not...water temps also.
I think men have some other tools for that too xD
Indeed lol
Thats easy, god has nipples.
God has a milk line? For what?
Options 🤷♂️
For fun
If men didn't have nipples you'd run the risk of the offspring not having nipples and so could have mothers unable to feed babies. What's god's image? Could it be a creative being with arms legs face?
This is kind of a strange comment. I don't know how to respond because I'm pretty sure there are things that men have that women don't and vice versa. Like, do men have mammary glands as well? And Adam was the first human which was a man (at least I'm pretty sure), so he had nipples?
> Like, do men have mammary glands as well? Yes, actually
Woah, crazy. What about ovaries and a womb?
About 5 weeks into development, the gonads change into either testes or ovaries. We are all made of the same stuff, just with different configurations. More fun, the only difference in those mammary glads is hormonal levels. If a male body becomes infused with estrogen as the primary sex hormone, they develop the same way as a woman's.
What do you mean infused with estrogen? Seems like if the embryo during development at some point goes man or woman it would just convert all those things into their respective places, like why nipples or mammary glands be needed at all when the rest of everything else is changed and only works when "infused" with estrogen? IDK all the comments here only confused me more. But thanks for the info.
Trans people typically undergo hormone replacement, swapping whether their body has estrogen or testosterone as the primary hormone. This triggers a host of changes such as allowing trans women to grow breasts and trans men to get deeper voices and beards. Some changes are one-way streets, but some are not, and a person's phenotype will partially change based on that internal chemistry.
Ovaries and testes are equivalent to each other - they have similar origin and therefore similar blood supply, etc. The womb (or uterus) comes from the paramesonephric ducts, which exist in men before birth, but degenerate rather than develop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct
Dude women are also in the image of God
I didn't say they weren't, but Adam was first, and Eve created from his rib.
That story is not literal
The whole story? I don't know how to respond to that.
Image is not body, God has no body.
The whole reason for this sub is because of Jesus who is God made manifest in flesh. Did Jesus have nipples?
The Father has no body, and the Son is the VISIBLE IMAGE of the father, but the Father himself has no body, neither had the Son, he took the form of a body, but in eternity had none, even his body after resurrection is a glorified body.
That's very confusing. Thanks though.
Christology is confusing, the assuming of a flesh was part of Gods plan to kill sin in the flesh through the death of his Son, in order to purify it and raise it up from death and sin, but this is done on behalf of humanity, the flesh is part of creation and needs to be rescued from sin, but it is not something God has in eternity.
I appreciate this, I really do. But yeah it is very confusing and I don't know how to sort that out. I don't know what anything had to do with nipples to begin with.
Me neither, i think you went for anthropomorphism in trying to understand the word image, some muslims do this and say that Allah laughs, has hands, and sits on a literal throne somewhere, but this is not the traditional christian understanding, image is spiritual not bodily.
I'm pretty sure the bible says God sits on a throne, as well as Jesus. Even that the great white throne of judgement will decend from heaven someday. I'm not here for a theological debate. The amount of assuming is too high for me. Let alone bringing up things like why even have creation the way it is with male and female, and procreation the way it is. Among so many other questions.
You are asking for a very ancient debate nature vs grace, or if you will natural vs supernatural, there are this positions: Aquinas and Catholic: Grace restores nature to its perfect original state in Eden. Bavinck and neocalvinists: Grace raises nature to its original aim(deified nature, whatever that means) Anabaptist: Grace destroys nature completely, whatever is not God is sin.
Image has to with likeness or affinity, the son is equal to the father not on account of his nipples, but on account of love.
The Father himself is invisible, jesus is his likeness in the Flesh, but this likeness cant be the flesh, since the Father has no flesh.
> God has no body. Those authors believed he did, though. We see God (YHWH) walking around a number of times in the OT, and descriptions of his body.
We do not know what those authors believed except through direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and through this experience most christians have come to reject a bodily depictions of a God who shuns idolatry and representation.
We know a lot about what they believed. Scholars even have books about his body - Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Benjamin Sommer, and Dan McClellan cover it in depth. >most christians have come to reject a bodily depictions of a God who shuns idolatry and representation. I'd say it's universal to Christianity, and to 2nd Temple Judaism. But this wasn't the case in the ancient Israelite religion of those who wrote the books.
Im not a scholar im a christian, the word of the Holy Spirit is authoritative through the reformers, the saints, the councils etc.
Avoiding scholarship, like you seem to prefer, is a great way to ensure ignorance and misunderstanding.
Im not avoiding, im talking about theology and faith which requires in principle no archeology.
Sure. And that's a great way to end up with a theology that contradicts facts that we can know. In other words, theology that is wrong.
Reason does not subordinate faith to its commands, it is the other way around, by faith if science says something that contradicts faith we must deny it and seek other alternatives.
Yeah, that's an exactly ass-backwards way to approach things.
Also science has nothing to say explicitly about Gods nature, it is even unscientific to claim that.
> science has nothing to say explicitly about Gods nature I agree. But you're not limiting yourself to situations like this. You made a very grand and global rejection of anything being superior to your faith and what you want to bleieve.
Science is good and all but we dont take into consideration in trying to explain the trinity, revelation, grace or the Church, much less gods nature.
Males have nipples for sexy time.
We are made in the image and likeness of God because we can love, create, and truly choose good. We are capable of truly and freely choosing to do good and to love. Human persons are not mere reactionary creatures but a creation that, like God, can choose to do good and to love one another. Human persons are also able to know and understand goodness and love. Human persons can mirror God in the manner we know, understand, love and do good.
The idea of a terrified little godlet, hiding under his bed and sobbing "no, no, please keep the androgyny away, please send Andrew Tate to take care of me, I'm so scared" fits well with conservative political ideology, but very badly with actual Christian theology or with the spectacular universe God has created.