Re: How and when did we become "men"?

From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 03:47:20 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: How and when did we become "men"?"

    Glenn,

    You quoted Dick as saying: Okay, it's a case of pick an activity, any
    activity, out of the air. Then see when that arbitrary activity first
    appeared, changing the date every time
    there is a new discovery with an earlier date.
     
    You then responded to his comments by saying: Besides the useless, silly
    sarcasm in the above, why on earth would you not consider religious activity
    in the form of altars to be evidence of well, religion and spirituality? I
    may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that a good case can be made between
    spirituality and the building of religious altars. Or do you deny this link?
     
    Though Dick's reply was obviously laced with sarcasm and/or humor, I think it
    was a fair assessment of the situation he was referring to.

    I think you missed his point. I think his point was that those of us, like
    myself, who believe being created "in the image of God" referred to more than
    just being given "spiritual" qualities, but also referred to our being given
    qualities of "creativity" and "great intelligence," can point to virtually
    any activity in man's history as being evidence that mankind had, by the time
    that activity was engaged in, been "created in God's image." The time when
    man first made an "artistic" object can be pointed to as proof that God had,
    by that time, bestowed upon evolved primates His "image," since they were at
    that time displaying the "godly" quality of "creativity." The time when man
    first made and used "tools" can be pointed to as proof that God had, by that
    time, bestowed upon evolved primates His "image," since they were at that
    time displaying the "godly" quality of "great intelligence."

    If those of us claiming that being created "in God's image" didn't assign
    that phrase such a broad meaning, and instead firmly maintained that it
    referred only to God giving us the desire to worship Him, then Dick's charge
    of choosing activities arbitrarily to define when man was created "in God's
    image" would not be valid. As it is, I think his sarcastic/humorous critique
    was a fair one.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 19 2002 - 03:48:05 EDT