There are issues here especially if one goes with @AllenWitmerMiller interpretation.i.e that human beings who did not descend from Adam do not bear the image of God.
This interpretation necessitates the following -
Someway in which other human beings were inferior to Adam because none of the other human females were found to be suitable companion for him.
Adams calling to have dominion over the earth and all in it which is not given to those who don’t bear the image. Thus leading to two classes of human beings. One to rule and one to be ruled over.
And of course, if Adam was created 5000 years ago… then a lot of ancient civilizations like India Nd China were founded by human beings who do not bear the image of God and are in fact “beasts”.
The above scenario is a natural defence for racism and imperialism.
Yet the irony is that God’s chosen people, the Israelites did not spend much time “dominating” other nations.
This doesn’t strike me as the same story of Adam Paul is talking about in Acts 17.
I am not wedded to that interpretation. Nevertheless, it is one I encounter a lot and so I find it important to explain it. Also, the moment you speak of “human beings” you introduce complications of nomenclature which don’t fit what I am describing.
Careful. Once again, I’ve never said that there are “two classes of human beings.” Human being is a modern English language term.
Also, even if all are classified as “humanity”, classification division and categorization is hardly foreign to the Bible. A few chapters after the Genesis creation account we have the story of the continuation of God’s choice to use the lineage of a particular person and people. (Adam leads to Abraham, genealogically and thematically.) Yes, it is hard to read the Bible without noticing the distinction between Jew and Gentile.
Is that some kind of “racism”? Considering that a Gentile could choose to become a Jew and considering how the entire sweeping story of the Bible culminates in an end to “Jewish primacy” in God’s eternal plan, it would be anachronistic to apply that label to God’s choice to use one particular lineage and people to bless all lineages and peoples.
I wonder why that is…
A scenario that involves two kinds of homo sapiens… one with the image of God and the other without naturally leads to "complications’…
You keep falling into the same ditch. I have never described “two kinds of homo sapiens” because I don’t like applying a Linnaean term and taxonomy on an ancient text with a very different agenda and focus.
All sorts of things can be misapplied and become “a natural defence for racism and imperialism.” You are headed towards an Argument from Negative Consequences logical fallacy.
When Jesus divided people into sheep versus goats, was that providing a natural defence for racism and imperialism? Some would say yes and cite the Crusades. (And they would be heading towards the same logical fallacy.)
Yes it is. But it’s also noted that a Gentile can convert to become a Jew. So the difference is not a qualitative difference. It’s a difference in relationship with God.
This is why Jesus’ lineage has people like Ruth who was a Moabite.
Can you say the same thing about the image of God?
Could a non Adamite “convert” to bear the image of God? If not, then Race becomes crucial unlike with Jews.
Two kinds of “homo sapiens” is a direct consequence of what you are saying. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
{I made some clarifying edits to this post soon after the initial posting.}
Like it or not, Genesis describes HA’ADAM (the man) as being endowed with the Imago Dei. It is silent about others and their lineages [notice that I didn’t call them Homo sapiens because the text doesn’t and I don’t know for certain] having the Imago Dei. I should emphasize that point.
My purpose here is not primarily to defend the Biblical text per se (although I certainly do that in other contexts and forums, such as my teaching in my local church.) I’m explaining what the text appears to state while also pointing out where it is silent.
As does @swamidass, I often find myself describing what the Biblical text appears to state and allow—including interpretations which I don’t necessarily personally espouse—while also not necessarily insisting that the scripture texts and/or the science demand a particular hermeneutic. (Perhaps I need to clarify that fact more often, though disclaimers can get tedious.)
If the presence of the Imago Dei reinforces and helps identify the separate creation of Imago Dei HA’ADAM, then distinguishing HA’ADAM and his lineage from other creatures (other created beings) outside of the Edenic garden then is not racism at all.
Also, would God be “racist” for the de novo creation of HA’ADAM just because he chose to create other beings outside of Eden without endowing the Imago Dei upon them as well? Careful where you are headed!
Long-winded but none of this gives an answer. The accusation has been made that those in God’s image will rule over those who are not, or who even start out image-deficient and later acquire that image via reproductive processes. Perhaps there are dangerous theories present here? For instance, who is not to come in sideways on these matters and accuse you all of elitism?
@noUCA, I develop less and less interest in your posts as soon as I see such jibes. As a moderator who encourages productive dialogue, I would remind you that you are more likely to see participants engage your ideas if you keep your posts respectful. Passion is fine. Turn-of-phrase wit is fine. Cheap shots are often permitted here but they don’t necessarily achieve as much as you may think.
Already been answered. That doesn’t make any sense from a GAE point of view. It sounds, unfortunately, like how some fundamentalists understand the relationship between men and women though.
Then give an answer that is worth hearing. @Ashwin_s is posing extremely important questions.
Look. People in the Church are not going to listen to a bunch of long-winded scientific jargon about what you and others here have developed in the way of smooth new theologies. All they are going to hear is that you are possibly trying to create some kind of elitism in society again. Even the hint of it will bring disdain. Are you following me now? This is not good.
Rubbish. (See what I did there? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.)
No, this is not about “smooth new theologies”. Also, some people think they hear all sorts of things which have absolutely nothing to do with what is being said and explained to them. And charges of racism can sometimes be just as ridiculous as charges of elitism. (Have you considered a future as a politician? Labels and one-liners can be very effective in the political arena.)
Another Argument from Presumed Negative Consequences fallacy. Nope. Not interested. You will have to do better.
Whoa. Are you living in the real world or the real Church? People are not going to listen to anything further you have to say once they hear “there were people inside the Garden and people outside the Garden”. After you say that, all they are going to want to know is - Which one am I? And how do I know?
After you give your scientific explanation, do you really think they are going to go home satisfied? Not a chance. They will be wanting to get blood and DNA tests to find out how much of Adam’s blood is flowing through their veins.
Stop thinking like a scientist or theologian. Think like the common person.
Once again, I never said that. If you expect a meaningful dialogue, you will have to read more carefully. (I’m not just referring to your replies to my posts but to many others here.)
God wouldn’t be racist. But Paul would be a liar of what you say is true.
Acts 17: 26 He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
The bible teaches a unity among human beings which is not just biological. But also in spiritual condition. Whether it’s separation from God, or the expectation that we would seek him.
Can you elaborate on how you define “image of God”? I would love to hear a definition that does not relegate a vast part of humanity to be separated from God with no option to seek or know him in a relationship.