@Patrick , it’s called “astrophysics,” not astronomy.
But then, you already knew that. Why the little digs?
You are going to say Genesis 9 creates the death penalty of the Noachide law because the murder victim LOOKS like God? That is a non-starter.
You’re not understanding. A reality in which there is no deliberate creator to account for what exists does not logically stand. That’s not created as a problem because I labeled it that way. It’s a problem because it doesn’t hold up to logic.
It’s not the thinking that’s the problem. That’s what the people in my church thought too. I was just thinking about it too much. The problem is the viewpoint. It’s flawed. There are holes and it doesn’t make sense to ignore the holes in the foundation you’re standing on top of.
I assume you’re referring specifically to verse 6 …
Gen9:6- “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
In Gen1 God creates the humans in His image, then gives them dominion over the animal kingdom. He’s establishing a hierarchy of authority. The above verse, to me at least, reads to be an amendment to that hierarchy. In the case of human on human violence, humans have dominion.
Dominion or not… this is not a percentage concept.
I don’t know what that means, but with what little information is given I’m not sure how you determine what kind of concept it is or isn’t.
I fixed the typo:
With as little as we know, @Jeremy_Christian, we know the image of God is not a pro-rata concept… subject to dilution. You either have it or you dont.
Is that known? I mean, I get the idea, but I don’t get the certainty. I’m not sure this determination can be set in the definition of “image” where all other considerations beyond it are then weighed against it. What makes you certain?
Don’t we first have to know what “God’s Image” is to then know anything about it for certain?
@Jeremy_Christian, you write: “I get the idea, but I don’t get the certainty. I’m not sure this determination can be set in the definition of “image” where all other considerations beyond it are then weighed against it. What makes you certain? Don’t we first have to know what “God’s Image” is to then know anything about it for certain?”
The most crucial hint about the nature of bearing God’s image is that it is the determinant of why there shall be a death penalty for shedding the mortality of someone who bears God’s image. Is this a gradient? Are you allowed to kill or avoid the execution of a human hybrid derived from the Angels and the women of humanity? Is the blood that cries out from the ground … is it a little quieter or less outraged if the victim is not a pure-blood something?
I’m not sure I see the same. This comes just after God sent the flood after stating seeing an increase in evil in humanity. It’s God carrying out the bloodshed. In this covenant God is also promising to never again flood the earth. It seems here that he’s stating that from this point forward humans will deal with murder of other humans. No more punishment doled out from above.
The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion in the kingdom of life.
You write: “The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion.”
Well, I like to be helpful. But I have to say that this is the very first time I’ve heard of that explanation. I find it to be relatively thin soup.
I don’t know. Two mentions of “image of God”. Both are spoken of in comparison to animals and plants. Humans are said to be in God’s image and in dominion of animals and plants. That’s the distinction being made, both times.
Not that thin.
The choice to use the words “image” and “likeness” is telling. There were words to describe a spiritual aspect if that’s what was meant. Right?
You write: “The choice to use the words “image” and “likeness” is telling. There were words to describe a spiritual aspect if that’s what was meant. Right?”
And in another post you wrote: “The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion.”
And so you want us to agree that the reason God set up a death penalty is because God doesn’t like anyone who looks like him to be murdered? And that if you marry someone outside of your tribe, you no longer look like God?
I don’t think He’s setting up a death penalty. He’s just saying that He will no longer be doling out the punishment. That it’s in the hands of humans to administer their own.
Im not too interested in who administers the code… im more interested in the why. And the dominion angle might make sense to you… but why this should have to do with a like appearance seems less than logical.
If we assess what it is that separates humans from animals … and that separates live oeople from dead people is: “the mind”, “self awareness”.
I get that. But I get hung up on the choice of wording: “image”, “likeness”.
These are words that specifically refer to appearance. There are words that could have been used instead if what was intended was the mind/psyche.
I feel it’s important to key in specifically on what’s given. This wording. We can speculate all kinds of things, but it begins to go away from the word choice.
The Hebrew for “likeness” is a cognate of “shadow”… where a shadow “models” the object’s appearance.
In Egyptian metaphysics, the spirit can have a shadow like presence… which is essentially a THINKING shadow.
Thinking is really the only thing to go on here. God isnt going to set uo a death penalty based on anatomy… especially since a dead person’s appearance doesnt have to change when he dies.
But… it is absolutely true that his thinking stops.
Humans have dominion over animals… because we THINK.
Right, Hebrew use of the word speaks of “appearance”. Not sure Egyptian views can be applied in its meaning.
I agree thinking is one of the primary attributes that separates us from the animals. All animals do think, we just have a higher capacity. But I don’t think there’s enough here to justify projecting this view onto the text.
If thinking was the determining difference, I feel it would have said that. But instead it uses words that speak of physical appearance.
This idea of a “death penalty” seems to be coloring your perception. I’m not sure that’s what this is saying. I feel it’s more passing on responsibility from God to humans in this regard. Not that God is calling for required corporal punishment.