tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post1318101948647407004..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: Human exceptionalism matters, even for the bad guysLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-22854286381475115162012-08-15T10:47:43.499-04:002012-08-15T10:47:43.499-04:00Generally, I don't publish personal attacks--a...Generally, I don't publish personal attacks--against anyone, not just myself--so I considered not publishing this.<br /><br />But I decided to do so and just to say this: I don't know exactly in what sense this "issue" (what issue? whether some people really are subhuman?) is a challenge to your faith, or how it could be. But I would guess it is some version of the problem of evil--How could God allow such wicked people to flourish, or how could God allow people to become so degraded, or something of that kind.<br /><br />I would simply suggest that instead of immersing yourself in "race realist" blogs and the like, you investigate the problem of evil generally and what sorts of answers can be given to it in terms of human choice, human freedom, and so forth.<br /><br />Remember too that the evidence _for_ God's existence and _for_ Christianity is extremely strong. It's a tendency of people who are worrying about one issue--the problem of evil, for example--to focus down on that one issue too much and to lose sight of the cumulative and strong case for the claims of Christianity.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-21238696750357537672012-08-15T09:35:30.045-04:002012-08-15T09:35:30.045-04:00Removing VFR from your blogroll over this? You are...Removing VFR from your blogroll over this? You are a petty coward, Lydia.<br /><br />I'm reminded of a prominent theology forum that I used to frequent when I was a new Christian. I haven't participated there in years, and one of the reasons why not is on full display here: every time I go back, I marvel and shake my head at the hilarious and tragic farce of seeing so-called "truth seeking" Christians who are utterly stalwart and earnest defenders of the strictest PC orthodoxy. Oh, yes, they take great pride in being <i>Soldiers For Truth</i> as they <i>stand up for right</i> on a select few issues of the day, but on other questions they are as fervently devoted to the Party as anyone I've seen.<br /><br />Well, I don't know about "real philosophers", but for people honestly seeking the truth, nothing should be beyond examination. I'm tired of Christians who are afraid to ask hard questions, and I'm tired of Christians who are the worst enforcers of the PC straitjacket, worse even than liberals, because they think a Higher Power demands it.<br /><br />Moreover, the specific matter under discussion at Auster's is worthwhile, and has to be asked by somebody. It (along with a host of surrounding issues) is currently one of the biggest challenges to my faith - and I can certainly say that I'm not interested in any faith that tells me I'm not allowed even to think about things that appear to me to be big, obvious, neon-flashing question marks.Samson J.http://samsonsjawbone.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-22959288640023835432012-08-09T12:13:02.939-04:002012-08-09T12:13:02.939-04:00Andrew, I too thought that Joseph A. was probably ...Andrew, I too thought that Joseph A. was probably capable of nuance on this issue in his exposition of the Fathers' position. However, to say that some people really are less than human, when talking to someone who is contemplating attributing subhumanity to "feral" people, is an example of "sloppiness" that really can't be let pass without comment and dissent. That ends up, to use a jargon term, being a form of "enabling" that we really didn't need.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-54464149702039956452012-08-09T11:21:50.828-04:002012-08-09T11:21:50.828-04:00Lydia, just to be clear the image/likeness distinc...Lydia, just to be clear the image/likeness distinction/exegesis is not mine. I'm not capable of valid Biblical exegesis on difficult questions (nor are most all Christians I think, this was a big flaw in the original VFR thread) which is why I turn to the Holy Fathers.<br /><br />I read Joseph A.'s comment from the VFR thread more charitably I guess. I did think his comment was sloppy in a couple places but having read a fair amount of his stuff from his blog it seemed clear to me, nevertheless, that he was attempting to articulate the Patristic consensus on the image/likeness distinction.<br /><br />And I think that consensus does show a way forward towards forming an adequate understanding of the seemingly inhuman depravity we sometimes encounter while remaining within Christian dogma.<br /><br />-Andrew E.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15071413357901396149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-84021469279224821302012-08-09T10:28:42.964-04:002012-08-09T10:28:42.964-04:00Bruce, I in fact don't attribute malicious mot...Bruce, I in fact don't attribute malicious motives to Auster here. So I was trying to explain why the silly exaggeration to the effect that I'm attributing bad motives to him and to his readers. To my ear, this sounds like a kind of reverse argument: "You're criticizing them quite strongly for these threads. Therefore you must be attributing bad motives to them. But you're wrong, because they don't have bad motives."<br /><br />Why drag motives into the matter at all, when I didn't do so? I don't know for sure, but at a guess, I'd say because of a tacit implication that good motives are a kind of ethical cleanser for any speculations. Similarly for Christianity.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-47344202720475981642012-08-09T10:20:53.712-04:002012-08-09T10:20:53.712-04:00What’s the big deal? Just say Laura Wood. She name...What’s the big deal? Just say Laura Wood. She named you. Talking around who’s saying these things kinda makes it look like one thing they’re accusing you of (treating them as if they’re unmentionable) is true. <br />I’m sure she meant something like “accusing him of coming close to advocating genocide” but was careless in her writing. I don’t remember seeing anything like that in what you wrote so maybe she’s wrong. But I don’t agree that they’re making the liberal argument that they have good/benevolent intentions or are good people. And the argument that you’re imputing bad motives to them isn’t the same as an argument that they get a pass for benevolent motives. He stated that he had a visceral reaction that was an attempt to understand the reality of what he’s seeing. I don’t think that’s either a benevolent or a malicious motive.Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-52101212651469057022012-08-09T09:02:22.651-04:002012-08-09T09:02:22.651-04:00Hmm. Well, it seems to me not so very unreasonable...Hmm. Well, it seems to me not so very unreasonable that the notion of a spiritual caste system with "untouchables" on the bottom would have political implications. It certainly does in India historically! So I'm not convinced that keeping spiritual and political equality strictly separate is entirely possible, depending on what one means by "spiritual inequality."Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-36156202176137831832012-08-09T04:45:56.543-04:002012-08-09T04:45:56.543-04:00Lydia,
I appear to be misunderstood. I am not reco...Lydia,<br />I appear to be misunderstood. I am not recommending Hindu notions of liberty, spiritual or otherwise.<br /><br />My point was made before. Auster is confounding politics with theology and must be called on this. <br /><br />British labeled as Criminal Tribes certain troublesome groups in Indian Empire that were subject to special regulations. So this is a case of political inequality.<br /><br />But they never suggested any theological meaning nor searched for some Biblical support or otherwise. They kept politics strictly apart from Theology and we should do the same,<br /><br />You may also like to remind Auster of the concept of Thinking with the Church. I haven't come across it here too.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-36334723658279218912012-08-08T19:40:22.901-04:002012-08-08T19:40:22.901-04:00Oh, absolutely Lydia. The main point - the crucial...Oh, absolutely Lydia. The main point - the crucial point - is that the Image in Genesis 1v26 was interpeted as a very special form of righteousness by the Reformers. They did not think that it referred to human nature - but Calvin certainly believed in the dignity of our common human nature.<br /><br />Luther and Calvin equated the image with innocence, and did not believe that any of us could get that back in this present age. <br /><br />So there are the two great "equalisers" - our common human nature and original sin. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-72555557529749451282012-08-08T16:45:01.415-04:002012-08-08T16:45:01.415-04:00I thought of that, Graham, but isn't there the...I thought of that, Graham, but isn't there then some idea that those who have been called by God and received the Holy Spirit have had the image restored? So if it did have something to do with human nature, that would still create a two-tiered system. To my mind the bigger point is that such thinkers didn't identify the image with human nature at all but rather with righteousness.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-21149695823800774822012-08-08T16:14:59.385-04:002012-08-08T16:14:59.385-04:00It's worth noting that those Protestant theolo...It's worth noting that those Protestant theologians who believed that humans lost the "image of God" in the Fall believe that we <i>all</i>lost it. We are <i>all</i> depraved. There's no ground here for a perverted theology that believes one class of people to be less human than another. <br /><br />There is no wriggle room here. If you believe in sub-humans you are not an orthodox Christian. <br /><br />I'm also getting impatient with the "you're only attacking our ideas because you think we're politically incorrect" defence. <br /><br />Here's the thing. Suppose you believe that 2+2=5, and someone tries to corrects you. It doesn't really matter why they're correcting you. You were still in the wrong! And it was a pretty terrible mistake on your part.Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-80545567652047288592012-08-08T15:53:40.747-04:002012-08-08T15:53:40.747-04:00Andrew, your exposition of the image/likeness dist...Andrew, your exposition of the image/likeness distinction is one with which I don't have an ethical problem, though I still think it's exegetically quite shaky. But of course, given that exposition, one would never use it to say, "This person is less than human." Merely to say that someone lacks a certain degree of moral perfection, virtue, etc., clearly is no threat to his humanity.<br /><br />When one reader brought that distinction up at VFR, the reader however actually did use some phrase like "less than human" to describe lacking the likeness of God. Now, maybe he didn't mean it, but he said it. Moreover, it was definitely being seized upon opportunistically to deny full humanity and was clearly the barest of terminological shifts for describing the initial idea: "There are these 'feral' people out there who might really be less than human." So to me that was just term juggling.<br /><br />In a purely theological context where "likeness" is clearly defined simply to refer to virtue, wisdom, perfection, and the like, it does not raise the same moral problems.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-80180432308998330442012-08-08T15:31:14.833-04:002012-08-08T15:31:14.833-04:00I've recently been reading much of Fr. Seraphi...I've recently been reading much of Fr. Seraphim Rose's work and through it became aware of the English translation of Fr. Michael Pomazansky's <i>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. </i> As you may know, Orthodoxy considers Christian Truth to be the Scriptures as understood by Church Tradition (being guided by the Holy Spirit, thus making unnecessary and false later innovations such as papal infallibility and sola scriptura) via the Holy Fathers. Fr. Rose considered Fr. Pomazansky's work an excellent distillation of Orthodox dogma and used it as the primary text in his theology courses of the New Valaam Academy which were part of his missionary work at his monastery in Platina, CA. According to this work the Holy Fathers did in fact make a distinction between the "image" and "likeness" of God. I'll just copy the relevant section below:<br /><br /> In summary, one may say that all of the good and noble qualities and capabilities of the soul are an expression of the image of God in man.<br /> <br /> Is there a distinction between the "image" and the "likeness" of God? The majority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church reply that there is. They see the image of God in the very <i>nature</i> of the soul, and the likeness in the moral <i>perfecting</i> of man in virtue and sanctity, in the acquirement of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we receive the image of God from God together with existence, but the likeness we must acquire ourselves, having received the possibility of doing this from God. (Footnote 20)<br /> <br /> To become "in the likeness" depends upon our will; it is acquired in accordance with our own activity. Therefore, concerning the "counsel" of God it is said: <i>Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness</i> (Gen. 1:26), but with regard to the very act of creation it is said: <i>God created man in His own image</i> (Gen. 1:27). About this St. Gregory of Nyssa reasons: By God's "counsel," we were given the potential to be "in His likeness."<br /> <br />(Footnote 20) St. John Damascene: "From the earth God formed man's body and by His own inbreathing gave him a rational and understanding soul, which last we say is the Divine image--for the 'according to His image' means the nous and free will, while the 'according to His likeness' means such likeness in virtue as is possible" (<i>Exact Exposition</i> 2.12; FC, p. 236).<br /> <br />p. 139 Fr. Michael Pomazansky Orthodox Dogmatic Theology<br /><br />-Andrew E.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15071413357901396149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-90478980002934609372012-08-08T15:25:48.420-04:002012-08-08T15:25:48.420-04:00These people are being willfully dishonest, and it...These people are being willfully dishonest, and it's not nice seeing a friend being treated that way. I'm choosing my words very carefully, because I'd want to be much blunter than good manners allow.Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-74805541720955612712012-08-08T15:12:00.245-04:002012-08-08T15:12:00.245-04:00Wow, I accused him of something close to genocide,...Wow, I accused him of something close to genocide, huh? I must have missed the part where I did that. :-)<br /><br />I guess people are incapable of distinguishing deliberately wandering about in dangerous and dark ideological territory from actually going out there and doing a concrete evil deed oneself. <br /><br />Or maybe they recognize that these are different but think that any of us who are very perturbed by the former must be accusing a person of doing the latter.<br /><br />Really, it sounds to me like this all just comes down to the "I'm a good person" defense. "I'm a good person, so how can you be horrified at any idea I choose to flirt with? If you do get horrified, you must be saying that I'm a very bad person. So you're attacking me. But *I* know I'm a good person, so I know that, no matter what the idea in question might be, you must just be overreacting and attributing badness to me unfairly." Smart conservatives would never in a million years let liberals get away with that.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-16910616468909030502012-08-08T12:47:43.370-04:002012-08-08T12:47:43.370-04:00I've seen on another website (not VFR) discuss...<i>I've seen on another website (not VFR) discussing this flap someone saying that I'm uncharitably attributing bad motives to people.</i><br /><br />It is ridiculous how our opposition in this discussion has demonstrated a basic incapacity to even begin to paraphrase correctly. One blogger says of you, <br /><br /><i>'She soon accused him of something close to genocide. This was not simply “taking him to task.” She also decided that he is henceforth unworthy of attention and all his previous writings are nullified because of these statements.'</i><br /><br />I speculate that some subjects cause some people to lose the capacity to read: call it loss of the <i>imago pellego</i> or something.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Zippy-who-is-MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-63778706279337555652012-08-08T12:19:21.842-04:002012-08-08T12:19:21.842-04:00I didn't notice Fake Herzog's link. Thanks...I didn't notice Fake Herzog's link. Thanks for pointing it out.<br /><br />Don't worry about seeming patronizing. I have a lot to learn and I didn't bring it up to convince anyone. I wasn't challenging you, I was interested in what you'd have to say.Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-19322615729226142212012-08-08T11:50:32.863-04:002012-08-08T11:50:32.863-04:00I wanted to say something about this idea that &qu...I wanted to say something about this idea that "we're Christians" so it's all supposed to be okay.<br /><br />This argumentum ad christianorum is truly absurd. Has God promised Christians infallibility? Think what this is saying,<br /><br />"Y'know, maybe some people really are less than human. Yeah, it kind of seems so. I mean just look how feral and evil they are. Maybe they've really lost the image of God. Maybe they are subhuman. Wow, how interesting. This thought just keeps occurring to us as we're trying to process what we're seeing, and I really think that maybe...What? What's the matter with you? Why are you so horrified? We're _Christians_ saying all of this. Don't you TRUST us?"<br /><br />That just simply will not wash.<br /><br />And let me add that this is not about motives. I've seen on another website (not VFR) discussing this flap someone saying that I'm uncharitably attributing bad motives to people. What nonsense. That's liberal-speak--asking to be given a pass on outrageous ideas because they have "good motives." This is about not giving any quarter to morally heinous ideas. People don't get to entertain such ideas seriously as real candidates for truth and then get a pass because we're supposed to believe that they have good motives!Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-59840880947635784132012-08-08T10:04:15.198-04:002012-08-08T10:04:15.198-04:00Actually, there's a great little book by Dewey...Actually, there's a great little book by Dewey Hoitenga - <i>John Calvin and the Will: a Critique and Corrective</i> <br />Much more helpful than the title implies. He very persuasively argues that Calvin should have recognised that the human will has the ability to choose. Moreover, we retain the ability to choose some good things. <br />What we do not have is the ability to regenerate ourselves. We cannot choose to love God with all our strength and understanding without God's intervention.<br />Unfortunately Calvin thought that he had to deny all power of choice to the will to guard against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. He overcooked the goose, so to speak. <br />But - to get to my point - Hoitenga refers to passage after passage in which Calvin praises the human intellect. Even though it has been damaged by the fall, it remains remarkable, and retains much of its dignity. <br />So much so that it leave <b>all</b> without excuse. So Calvin praises our common human nature. <br /><br />I'll add another thought...(although I am worried that I'm answering a fool according to his folly) ...<br />If we lose our human nature, we lose our moral understanding and our ability to choose.<br />So a "subhuman" would not be responsible for any acts that they perform while they are subhuman.<br />Therefore we should not find an alleged subhuman's actions morally reprehensible. <br />So Himmler, Heydrich, Greiser, Hoppner, Karadzic, and Breivik are depraved, sinister and deeply wicked humans. But if they were subhuman they could not be wicked. <br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-77810569311764333532012-08-08T09:21:08.503-04:002012-08-08T09:21:08.503-04:00Oh, Bruce, Fake Herzog linked a _huge_ (Catholic) ...Oh, Bruce, Fake Herzog linked a _huge_ (Catholic) document that contains _tons_ of stuff on the history of the Christian concept of the image of God, including in the Reformation. Why don't you go read it and do some research, if the purely theological terminology and history interests you so much? Here's the URL again.<br /><br />http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p80.htmLydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-6538904093934120052012-08-08T09:17:04.483-04:002012-08-08T09:17:04.483-04:00As far as "what could little old us do, nobod...As far as "what could little old us do, nobody's listening to us," that really goes nowhere. For one thing, you can damage your own souls by thinking that, hey wow, maybe some of these "feral" people really are less than human. You damage each other's souls by mutual encouragement and back-patting over the "courage" it takes to invite such ideas in. And you can damage anyone who is ever influenced by the blog. If you want to pretend that that blog has no influence, you can pretend that, but it isn't true. It's not a huge influence, but one _constantly_ reads people writing in saying, "Oh, gosh, I'm so glad I've found this blog; it's helped me so much. It's clarified my thoughts" etc., etc.<br /><br />If one has *no* influence, why blog at all? One blogs because one thinks that there is a point to such public conversations. Bloggers can't have it both ways. They can't publicly say, "Hmm, maybe this heinous idea is really true" and then, when called on it, say, "What does it matter? I don't have any influence anyway. Nobody listens to me." If that were true, why *wouldn't* it be a problem for an "uninfluential" group of people to sit around talking about why maybe genocide or pedophilia isn't wrong?Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-16690718690089982422012-08-08T09:17:00.175-04:002012-08-08T09:17:00.175-04:00Bruce, I've published your second comment, but...Bruce, I've published your second comment, but the way I handle it is intended to make it unequivocally clear that *in no way* am I treating these things as _open questions_. I'm merely working with you to try to increase _your_ understanding. If that sounds patronizing, I'm not too worried about that, because it's far more important to me not to seem to be entertaining these questions as open. So, to proceed with that clear:<br /><br />First, yes, the Bible expressly states in Genesis 9:6 that the death penalty is justified because man was made in the image of God. In other words, the murderer deserves to be punished because his victim is in the image of God. This is Noahide. It is post-fall.<br /><br />Second, a definition is an explanation. My _argument_ is an argument that people cannot be subhuman. If you want to make up some idiosyncratic definition of "the image of God" so that it means having brown hair or something irrelevant like that, you're free to do so for your own personal purposes. But both in the threads to which I was objecting and also in most of Christian usage, the phrase refers to what it means to be human. That is why it was unequivocally clear that in the conversation I have condemned it was being considered an open question whether *some people were less than human*. There was no question that that was the issue being given a very positive hearing. Frankly, I don't really _care_ whether someone uses the phrase "image of God" in asserting that you can't be less than human. If someone is an unbeliever, he's probably not going to use that phrase, but he can still assert that there are no subhumans and can never be, and he can realize that to think there might be is to contemplate something monstrous. Conversely, even Christians can flirt with that monstrous idea, as they did at VFR, though Christians will be more likely to use a phrase like "image of God" in the discussion. The terminology is not so important as the ideas. As you saw, the opportunistic attempt to say that some people are, really, metaphysically less than human but to couch this as their losing the "likeness" of God was not something I considered debatable either.<br /><br />If you are unconvinced by my ethical reductio and continue to think that, hey, maybe it would be just fine to treat some people as less than human, there's not much more I can do to help you. That it would be heinous to do so _is_ one of my premises. But that wouldn't have anything to do with your being unconvinced because of some "circularity" in a definition. (By the way, definitions are often in some sense circular, because if we're trying to explain a concept, we try to access various other words that our audience knows the meaning of. That's not the same thing as a circular argument.)Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-76182010842583606052012-08-08T09:16:44.580-04:002012-08-08T09:16:44.580-04:00I'm not a card carrying Calvinist, nor a Calvi...I'm not a card carrying Calvinist, nor a Calvin scholar but - <br /><br />I think it's important to realise that Luther did not identify the image of God with human nature. It Image wasn't a set of powers or capacities - it was it is a state of affairs. The image was a reflection of God's righteousness -like an image in a mirror, I suppose. Of course we no longer resemble God's goodness - the mirror of human nature no longer reflects that image. <br />This is one reason why the Lutheran's had to go to some lengths to explain their position on human nature. <br />It's interesting that while Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1v26 accepts Luther's interpretation (the image of God refers to Adam's pure moral nature) Calvin is already beating a retreat - <br />"But now, although <b>some obscure lineaments of that image are found<br />remaining in us</b>" By the time we get to James Orr the retreat is complete. The "image of God" primarily refers to a set of capacities<i>and</i> secondarily <i>can</i> refer to a restored righteous character. <br /> <br />But neither the Reformed nor the Lutherans have argued that we have lost, or can lose, our human nature. They simply disagreed with the majority exegesis of Genesis 1v26. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-87096730094445616702012-08-08T08:58:55.007-04:002012-08-08T08:58:55.007-04:00Gyan, I'm pretty unimpressed. "Political ...Gyan, I'm pretty unimpressed. "Political equality," in one trivial sense, sure. For example, children can't vote. Big deal.<br /><br />But if your idea is that teaching "spiritual inequality" in the Hindu sense is not a problem, yeah, it's a problem.<br /><br />Of course we as Christians can talk about great souls, people who are prayer warriors or especially close to God or something.<br /><br />But any notion that some people are in a spiritual caste system is pernicious in the extreme.<br /><br />Graham, thanks, that's useful. Yes, if one has a extremely narrow (and, as you say, wrong-headed) definition of the imago dei as "our original righteousness," then it doesn't affect one's view of a person's humanity to deny it to everybody or even to say that in salvation it has been restored to some people or whatever. Righteousness before God is obviously not the same thing as humanity.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-37922171074089814372012-08-08T07:56:10.719-04:002012-08-08T07:56:10.719-04:00I’ve also considered what Jeff mentioned about Lut...I’ve also considered what Jeff mentioned about Lutherans and Reformed. It isn’t clear to me that we didn’t all lose imago dei in the Fall. Do we regain it when we are saved? I can’t remember “image” being used outside of Genesis.<br /><br />Lydia, the problem I have with your definition of imago dei is that it seems like a circular definition (Q:What is it to be human? A:To have imago dei. Q:What is imago dei? A:It’s what makes us human.) and one that’s constructed to reach the conclusion that you’ve already made. <br /><br />What if we can lose imago dei and regain it? Since I don’t know for sure what Imago Dei is I’m not sure this isn’t possible.<br /> <br />I just don’t see the danger of traditionalist/Christians discussing this before they’ve reached a firm conclusion. No one is listening to us and if they did they wouldn’t be murdering their babies and comtose relatives anyway. We’re talking about acts of extreme depravity. The only people that could be affected by our dialogue would be a rare type of criminal and that assumes that we actually had influence. But if we did we wouldn’t start doing animal experiments on the rare criminal because we don’t know for sure if they can lose imago dei and we don’t know for sure if an individual has lost it and we don’t know that he can’t regain it. So there’s multiple layers of protection for the rare criminal that might be affected by our dialogue even if we had any influence. I understand your concern that we might contribute the the culture of death in some small way but I just don't see how.<br /><br />I’m still surprised that someone hasn’t given an orthodox, formal definition. Jeff mentioned that the Lutheran definition is different that the Catholic. What are they?Brucenoreply@blogger.com