When did Homo Sapiens become 'in the image of God' ?

This is a question for Christians who believe in evolution. It has multiple aspects:1- Biblically, is there a difference between animals and humans ?2- If there are no differences, then why would God regard humans as anymore special than other animals ?3- If there is a difference, what is it ?4- If this difference is that humans are thelogically in God's image, then at what point along their evolutionnary progression did they become 'in God's image' ?Obviously, this topic won't interest atheists, sorry if it is a bit exclusive to christians, but this is a question I have been asking myslef for quite some time.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Bet?---Question 4 is interesting. I think that the flaw in it is that it presupposes a point. Now a waxwork of you is in your image, as to a lesser extent is a hologram ... a color photograph ... a pencil sketch by a gifted artist ... a crude caricature ... a "smiley".The first rough sketch of your face by an artist is in your image, as is, more so, the finished work of art. Is it not a matter of degree? Does there have to be a particular point in evolution at which we have to say: well, these hominids were not at all in God's image, whereas this slightly later group totally are? Does it have to be all or nothing?---To look at it another way, what do we mean by saying that we are in God's image? Well, it has been made quite clear by Christian theologians that it isn't meant to be taken in an anthropomorphic sense --- it doesn't mean that God has underarm hair, for example.So what does it mean? It means that we're smart --- but not as smart as God; we have creative ability --- but not as much as God; we have a moral sense --- but, unlike God, an imperfect one.So clearly Homo sapiens is an imperfect image of God. How perfect does a hominid need to be, then, to be considered "in God's image"?---To look at it yet another way, it is quite conceivable that an adult Homo erectus might have more of the faculties we identify as being in God's image than, for example, a newborn specimen of Homo sapiens. What would we make of that?(You may further ponder where that leaves someone who is a member of our species, but who, through some genetic accident, is born without the usual human mental faculties.)---Finally, I should like to hear the creationist answer to your own question. Whether or not you accept that the hominid fossils are records of evolutionary development, you still have to draw the line --- if a line needs to be drawn, if there is some particular demarcation between that which is, and that which is not, in God's image. Is Homo erectus in God's image? How about Homo habilis? What about the australopithicines? What criterion are you going to use? Cranial capacity? What?I leave you with this image: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi, Slevesque.Cool topic idea!Since I attended a Christian private university (Brigham Young University), this very topic was discussed during my Evolutionary Biology course (the professor did not purport to give an answer to the question, though, because there really isn't an official answer in the LDS Church). Please don't take any of the following as official Mormon doctrine, because I'm just making it up for myself. Biblically, yes.
In reality, who knows?
But, if there is a difference, it isn't nearly as great as most Christians think.----- I'm not convinced that He does, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we wrote a Bible, while the other animals did not.Perhaps if the cockroaches invented a language that had a word for "special," then God would tell them that they were special, too.----- Deodorant.
We invented it: they didn't.
Think about it.----- It was a long time ago. In fact, the Neanderthal was God's perfect image, and, since we are a side branch from a tropical lineage, we've all been cursed to never be granted the privilege of having the heavy brow, giant nose and robust stature of the one true God, and, we'll never be allowed to live in the ice-cold paradise of Heaven, instead being relegated to the warm tropical beaches of pseudo-Heaven: God's just convinced us that this is desirable, when, in fact, it is not.Seriously, I agree with Dr Adequate, that this is somewhat figurative. Maybe we look like God, and maybe God can alter His image to look like any of his myriad creations, but, for the most part, He's more talking about our abilities than our appearance.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Maybe it is just the human ego placing ourselves above the rest of the animal kingdom.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi, Cat. Yeah, probably.Which renders all of Christendom somewhat contradictory: Jesus's whole message was about learning to debase and humble oneself, yet we insist on tauting our self-worth as beloved children of God. The fact that Christians still view certain things as beneath us indicates that we, as a unit, have not learned the principle behind what Jesus was trying to teach us.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Bluejay,Have you ever considered that..."So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;"has nothing to do with bodies.How about this is talking about man as a "spiritual being" who was created in the image and likeness of God?Doesn't matter much if we have a homo sapiens body or a chimp one now does it?

Hi, Petrophysics. Um... yeah.In fact, that's what I said.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Ok i'll develop my idea a bit.I first thought of this when I watched a video in astrophysics class in which the director of science at the Vatican said at one point along the evolutionary lineage, God gave our ancestors a soul, which made them humans 'in Gods image'.It seemed to me at the time (and it still does) that this was just an attempt to mix evolution and chistianity. Personnally, I have always found it difficult to reunite the two without making huge compromise in some critical christian doctrines.Anyhow, to continue on what Dr. Adequate said. I'm not a theologian, but I have always seen the 'in God's image' part as not intellectually nor physically, but more on the human ability to communicate" think this because before Adam sinned in Genesis, God talked with him everyday, suggesting this was the reason he created us for. Of course this is all theology.I agree that animals also have the ability to communicate, and this is why I also think his whole creation is somewhat also 'in God's image'.

Hi slevesque A friend of mine on another board explained it this way: God had an image in his mind of what he was going to create, and then he created man in that (his) image. Likewise, it would follow, everything would be created in his image of what he was then creating, but the bible (as I understand it) is silent on whether or not anything else was created in his image ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

That's a very interesting view I never heard before

Hi Radzthat is an interesting way of putting it and probably a good way of explaining it to someone with not much biblical understandinga more technically correct way of putting it is to say that man was created with the attributes of God...these are Godly qualities as has already been mentioned by bluejaythe hebrew word in genesis for 'image' is literally a 'shadow or semblance' from the hebrew word 'betsalmenu'Because God is a spirit, it rules out any 'physical' likeness between God and man. But we do have some unusual qualities that other animals do not seem to possess.

Hi RAZD The scripture actually says: Image as Peg pointed out comes from tselem which comes from a root that means shade. In the evening you cast a shade or shadow when the sun shines on you. That shade is in your image.The second word likeness comes from dĕmuwth which means likeness, similitude, in the likeness of.That does not sound like a image God had in his mental capacity.God the Father = all knowledge.
God the Son = a physical body.
God the Holy Spirit = Spiritual Being.Therefore being created in the image and likeness of God we have a body, mind, and spirit.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Number 1 can only be answered by one whom represents the full truth of the bible inerrancy. Otherwise the term "bible" is vacuous.The difference between animals and humans is that man is made in God's image, when God created the first man Adam, as stated in Genesis, from the dust of the ground.this does not mean we have an advantage over the animals (Ecclesiastes)...But another difference is that we are stewards over the animals. (dominion over them...........Genesis).As for number 2. Exactly! That's why we shouldn't compromise the word for poor science such as evolution, and even worse - chemical evolution. LoL. Dawkins loves debating Thesitic evolutionists for these very reasons. He will not however, debate a creationist - because a creationist doesn't have these problems.

This is nothing but man's ego talking. Humans are no better than any other living thing. We do not have domain over other animals, we claim this through the bronze age men who first told these mythical stories.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008