Made in the Image of G-d?

[xkatz]

If Christians believe people are made in the image G-d, then how come people are inherently sinful according to orthodox Christian doctrine? I know there is the concept of original sin from Adam, but wouldn't this also indicate that G-d created us to be inclined sin? Thus assuming the premise that we are made in G-d's image, doesn't that mean G-d is prone to sin?

 

[Shiranui117]

If Christians believe people are made in the image G-d, then how come people are inherently sinful according to orthodox Christian doctrine?

Orthodox Christianity does not teach that humanity is inherently sinful. Western Christianity is another story, since they follow the doctrine of original sin invented by St. Augustine which was first invented in the 300's. He was not trained in Christian teaching, and thus he chose to turn to pagan Latin philosophy instead.

I know there is the concept of original sin from Adam, but wouldn't this also indicate that G-d created us to be inclined sin? Thus assuming the premise that we are made in G-d's image, doesn't that mean G-d is prone to sin?

No, God created us to have free will. Just as He is free to choose what He will do, He gave us that same freedom. And that freedom is to love Him and be righteous and holy and have life within us, or to reject Him and fall into death, sin and estrangement from Him.

 

[Pegg]

If Christians believe people are made in the image G-d, then how come people are inherently sinful according to orthodox Christian doctrine? I know there is the concept of original sin from Adam, but wouldn't this also indicate that G-d created us to be inclined sin? Thus assuming the premise that we are made in G-d's image, doesn't that mean G-d is prone to sin?

being in Gods image means to have his sense of justice, love and wisdom. It means that we are able to think and feel the way he does....this is why we have a sense of morality and justice and righteousness....things that animals do not possess.

But being inclined to sin is a genetic disease. Jesus proved that when he was born into this world and lived a perfectly sinless life. He chose not to sin...something Adam could have done.

So Jesus proved that mankind really are created in the image of God and they can be perfect like God.

Romans 5:12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned...19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam) many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person (Jesus) many will be made righteous.

 

[xkatz]

Orthodox Christianity does not teach that humanity is inherently sinful. Western Christianity is another story, since they follow the doctrine of original sin invented by St. Augustine which was first invented in the 300's. He was not trained in Christian teaching, and thus he chose to turn to pagan Latin philosophy instead.

So what is Orthodox (with a capital 'O') teaching in regards to sin?

 

[Windwalker]

But being inclined to sin is a genetic disease.

Have they identified the "sin gene" yet? This sounds like it's only a matter of time until science can cure humans of their humanness through gene therapy.

Personally, we are what we are because we overcome obstacles, not being born perfect. Perfection is being who you are, true, on your path. Not an end goal.

 

[Pegg]

Have they identified the "sin gene" yet? This sounds like it's only a matter of time until science can cure humans of their humanness through gene therapy.

Personally, we are what we are because we overcome obstacles, not being born perfect. Perfection is being who you are, true, on your path. Not an end goal.

there was an article i read recently about some researchers who taught mice to dislike a certain smell.... the researchers found that subsequent generations likewise were repelled by the same smell.

Traits are not only physical, but also mental. Our mental inclination is given to us by our parents and this includes the inclination to sin.

 

[roger1440]

If Christians believe people are made in the image G-d, then how come people are inherently sinful according to orthodox Christian doctrine? I know there is the concept of original sin from Adam, but wouldn't this also indicate that G-d created us to be inclined sin? Thus assuming the premise that we are made in G-d's image, doesn't that mean G-d is prone to sin?

I touched on the same topic 2 weeks ago on a thread I had started.

Can Israel be the image of God on Earth?
"...Image and likeness are pretty much synonymous terms. By these terms I mean similar in a spiritual sense. Genesis tells us we are all created in God’s image after his likeness. In the beginning mankind was similar to God in a spiritual sense. God was in the Garden WITH Adam and Eve. Being with God implies a sort of sameness. The disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden is a turning away from God, sin. Sin is what distances people from God. Sin is our captor. God is our redeemer. Sin is what keeps people in the house of bondage. It is the willingness to cleave to God that releases people from the house of bondage. The more a person is like God the closer he or she gets to God. “…be holy, because I am holy…” (Leviticus 11:44) ..."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3708082-post14.html

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Orthodox Christianity does not teach that humanity is inherently sinful. Western Christianity is another story, since they follow the doctrine of original sin invented by St. Augustine which was first invented in the 300's. He was not trained in Christian teaching, and thus he chose to turn to pagan Latin philosophy instead.

Let's not confuse Augustine with the later total depravity type teachings of the Reformers.

The official position of the Catholic Church, which takes much of their theology from Augustine and Aquinas, is that original sin is the inclination and corruption of the soul toward death.

From the Catechism:

Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

The Catholics and many Western Christians would agree that human beings are inherently good, though have been corrupted by sin. Would you agree with this position?

In answer to the OP, I would say that there are many Christians that share the view that humans are not inherently sinful. Being made in the image of God, we are indeed inherently good, but through the Fall there has been an inclination to sin, a wounding of the soul, in what many would call "original sin".

 

[Shiranui117]

So what is Orthodox (with a capital 'O') teaching in regards to sin?

The view of sin in Orthodoxy is somewhat manifold. There are mountains of Scripture supporting our view, but I'll stick with a few pertinent Scriptures that I can think of off the top of my head.

In the first line, we follow the Gospels, and look at a title of Christ that usually goes overlooked:

Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Christ is the Physician of our souls, come to heal sinners. This means that sin is ultimately a disease to be healed by a Physician, not a crime to be punished by a courtroom judge. And what is the end result of sin? Death. And this ties in directly to my next point.

Sin is also something to which we are enslaved. Looking at Romans 6:

17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In line with sin being a disease, sin is also a fatal disease, which deprives us of life. But when we sin and fell away from God, we became slaves to sin and death. Jesus died to give us a way out of that slavery (Romans 5:12-21; 6:3-4).

If sin is a disease and something to which we are enslaved, then we are freed from it and healed of it. But where does the forgiveness part come in? We know that sin is also something that is forgiven. But is it in a purely legalistic sense? No. God is our Father, first and foremost. Sin is something that alienates us from Him. Just as the Prodigal Son became alienated from his father after wasting his inheritance in favor of loose living, so we became alienated from God after throwing away His grace and offer of eternal life, instead choosing sin and death.

Colossians 1:
17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And again, in Romans 5:
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

So God is angry at us, not because He wants to punish us and destroy us for being bad, but because He wanted to knock some sense into us. If you look through the Old Testament Scriptures, you will see that whenever God is angry with His people, He always says how He wants them to come back to Him, and sends His prophets to exhort them to repent. God is our Judge, yes, but He will judge us as a Father judges His children, not as a cold, impartial courtroom judge passes sentence on a convict. This is why we reject Anselm of Canterbury's idea from the 1100's that Jesus died to pay the debt to God for our sins and satisfy His offended sense of justice, and why we reject John Calvin's idea from the 1500's that God HAD to punish someone for our sins, and Jesus was the only One Who could take the full beating from God and satisfy His wrath. You should note that both Anselm and John Calvin were both lawyers. Figures that they'd invent such legalistic explanations... Rather, Christ's death on the Cross was a means to fully share in our human experience, to defeat death, and to reconcile the entire world to Himself through the Cross. This is the ancient position of Christianity.

That would be the Orthodox position in a nutshell. I'd be happy to clarify further.

 

[Shiranui117]

Let's not confuse Augustine with the later total depravity type teachings of the Reformers.

A fair point. I should admit right about now that I haven't read a whole lot of Augustine myself

The official position of the Catholic Church, which takes much of their theology from Augustine and Aquinas, is that original sin is the inclination and corruption of the soul toward death.

From the Catechism:

The Catholics and many Western Christians would agree that human beings are inherently good, though have been corrupted by sin. Would you agree with this position?

The only nuance I would add is that it is not our nature that has been corrupted, but merely our thoughts, souls, bodies and our hearts. Aside from that, yes, I would agree. For Orthodoxy (and also for Eastern Catholicism) "original sin" (or ancestral sin as we like to call it) is our mortality and susceptibility to suffering and sin.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The only nuance I would add is that it is not our nature that has been corrupted, but merely our thoughts, souls, bodies and our hearts. Aside from that, yes, I would agree. For Orthodoxy (and also for Eastern Catholicism) "original sin" (or ancestral sin as we like to call it) is our mortality and susceptibility to suffering and sin.

Interesting, how would you differentiate the soul from the nature? So the soul has been corrupted, but the nature has not? Is nature the same as substance here, the very ousia of a human being I suppose?

 

[Shiranui117]

Interesting, how would you differentiate the soul from the nature? So the soul has been corrupted, but the nature has not? Is nature the same as substance here, the very ousia of a human being I suppose?

Yes, I believe nature is basically the same thing as ousia, or essence (substantia in the Latin). Thus, Catholics and Orthodox alike say that Christ has both human and divine natures united in His one Person. I think somewhere there might be a difference between nature and essence, but it's a total pain to figure out what the difference actually is, if there is one.

Also, the soul cannot be the nature, because nature (if in fact it is synonymous with our essence) is what makes us fundamentally what we are. And as we both know, humanity is properly both soul and body together.

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the rest of your question, our souls and bodies have been stained, but not our nature.

 

[Windwalker]

there was an article i read recently about some researchers who taught mice to dislike a certain smell.... the researchers found that subsequent generations likewise were repelled by the same smell.

Traits are not only physical, but also mental. Our mental inclination is given to us by our parents and this includes the inclination to sin.

I don't doubt that we inherit traits somehow. I do doubt its all simply genetics or even passed on through behavioral practices, but that's another discussion.

It's the notion that humans have an inclination to sin that I some issue with on a number of levels. I'm appreciative of what others in this thread have pointed out that the orthodox position, prior to Calvin in the 1500's has not viewed humans as inherently depraved (this is the dominant view of Protestant Christianity today). I see humans as inherently good, not evil. From a sheer logical consideration, if we were inherently evil, our dominant inclination towards death and destruction, we'd have long ago killed ourselves off. But instead, because we strive towards life and towards good we have grown and thrived! Something is wrong in someone's theology it seems.

Furthermore, I believe the story of creation in Genesis is simply a way to speak metaphorically of the human condition in our state of "half-awake", realizing we are not fully what that is which we are compelled to strive for from within ourselves. "That which I would do, I do not," laments Paul. I do not believe it is a historical record of events, nor a literal explanation of this condition, of exactly how it happened. It is simply a way to talk about it, to express that angst in a story form. There are many ways to talk about it.

There has never been a time in human history where we existed as a whole in perfected union with the divine. For if we had, no such choice of "disobedience" would be possible. We would have been fully perfected, which mean no imperfection would have existed. We could never act against that nature, unless we were in fact incomplete, not aware of the existence of nature of sin. In which case we were naive, ignorant. Which would means we were not in full union with God, and got ourselves thrown out by disobedience. We would have failed because we were naive, and thus not mature. We would have been innocent infants, who simply made errors of judgement acting out of that naivety.

If you read Genesis literally, than these are sorts of reasonable, literal conclusions one must make.

Instead I see Genesis as a myth of a fall, to describe what is instead a path of awakening. We are not "genetically" predisposed to sin. We are predisposed to Life. Our "sin" is simply errors, or avoidance is a better way to put it, on this path of growth. If we sin, we do so to learn, painfully if necessary, that those actions (attitudes, views, etc), fail us on our path to Union with Spirit. That imagined Unity of the past, is in fact that which lays yet ahead for us and that to which we strive in fits and starts. Jesus and salvation takes the myth of the fall, and creates a vision of that future Union with God. So then as Paul says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus...". These are visions of our conditions, symbols of our sense of separation and our hope of redemption.

We didn't literally get thrown out of Eden. We stood up and walked out because we wanted to find God. Eden, as a metaphor, really is more the womb we were born out of where we began to open our eyes to realize our nature of incompleteness. It is literally a story of our anguish and also of our dignity.

I'll leave it at this for now.

 

[Pegg]

I don't doubt that we inherit traits somehow. I do doubt its all simply genetics or even passed on through behavioral practices, but that's another discussion.

It's the notion that humans have an inclination to sin that I some issue with on a number of levels. I'm appreciative of what others in this thread have pointed out that the orthodox position, prior to Calvin in the 1500's has not viewed humans as inherently depraved (this is the dominant view of Protestant Christianity today). I see humans as inherently good, not evil. From a sheer logical consideration, if we were inherently evil, our dominant inclination towards death and destruction, we'd have long ago killed ourselves off. But instead, because we strive towards life and towards good we have grown and thrived! Something is wrong in someone's theology it seems.

having a tendency toward sin does not make us inherently evil. That is a misconception of what sin is. Sin is not 'evil' .... it really means to miss the mark of perfection. We are inherently prone to miss the mark of the perfect standards set by God.

Thats what it means. It doesnt mean we are inherently evil.

Furthermore, I believe the story of creation in Genesis is simply a way to speak metaphorically of the human condition in our state of "half-awake", realizing we are not fully what that is which we are compelled to strive for from within ourselves. "That which I would do, I do not," laments Paul. I do not believe it is a historical record of events, nor a literal explanation of this condition, of exactly how it happened. It is simply a way to talk about it, to express that angst in a story form. There are many ways to talk about it.

There has never been a time in human history where we existed as a whole in perfected union with the divine. For if we had, no such choice of "disobedience" would be possible. We would have been fully perfected, which mean no imperfection would have existed.

if an imperfect person has the ability to make a right decision, then it stands to reason that a perfect person has the ability to make a wrong decision. And that is exactly what the account about the first man revealed. He was perfect, but made a wrong decision.

Even Jesus believed the account to be a factual account. He based his ideas on divorce on the account in Genesis so he certainly believed it to be a true account of two original people.

We could never act against that nature, unless we were in fact incomplete, not aware of the existence of nature of sin. In which case we were naive, ignorant. Which would means we were not in full union with God, and got ourselves thrown out by disobedience. We would have failed because we were naive, and thus not mature. We would have been innocent infants, who simply made errors of judgement acting out of that naivety.

If you read Genesis literally, than these are sorts of reasonable, literal conclusions one must make.[/quote]

No, i dont believe it has to be read like that and i certainly dont read it like that.
I see two perfect people who knew the law, knew what the consequences would be and who chose the wrong course.

Instead I see Genesis as a myth of a fall, to describe what is instead a path of awakening. We are not "genetically" predisposed to sin. We are predisposed to Life. Our "sin" is simply errors, or avoidance is a better way to put it, on this path of growth. If we sin, we do so to learn, painfully if necessary, that those actions (attitudes, views, etc), fail us on our path to Union with Spirit. That imagined Unity of the past, is in fact that which lays yet ahead for us and that to which we strive in fits and starts. Jesus and salvation takes the myth of the fall, and creates a vision of that future Union with God. So then as Paul says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus...". These are visions of our conditions, symbols of our sense of separation and our hope of redemption.

We didn't literally get thrown out of Eden. We stood up and walked out because we wanted to find God. Eden, as a metaphor, really is more the womb we were born out of where we began to open our eyes to realize our nature of incompleteness. It is a story of our dignity, not our disgrace.

I'll leave it at this for now.

The bible doesnt say that Adam and Eve 'walked out' of Eden. It is very clear that God removed them and he even prevented them from returning by posting Cherubs to guard the entrance.

Gods word does not need to be changed....it presents the story as God wants it told and its the truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gods word does not need to be changed....it presents the story as God wants it told and its the truth.

And your evidence for this is … ?

 

[Windwalker]

We are inherently prone to miss the mark of the perfect standards set by God.

We are inherently prone to reach for and realize that perfection as well. In fact, without sin, there would be no growth. We would be infants, not adults. And if infants, then there is no Unity with God. There would be a simple state of unawareness. We would have no self-sense, no self-awareness, and hence Unity is impossible. In order to have Unity, you must have two or more realized individuals. An infant is not self-realized. And to be self-realized we must grow developmentally.

The idea we were created fully self-aware individuals, "perfect", would mean we bypassed any experiences at all to make us individuals. We would have been created Zen Masters. This is absurd, in that in order to become a Master, you must of necessity have to master something!

Adam and Even are important figures in a story about our human condition and our relationship with the Absolute, or God. But the story cannot be understood literally. It makes no sense, and in fact becomes problematic and unhelpful to understanding our condition when taken literally in every way. Literalism becomes a stumbling block in our growth to God.

if an imperfect person has the ability to make a right decision, then it stands to reason that a perfect person has the ability to make a wrong decision.

No it doesn't make sense. Perfection is maturity. It means you have become a Master. You have grown beyond the need for self-destructive impulses. If you are Perfected, you would not make a choice of self-destruction because you have knowledge of it and are consciousness attuned with the Infinite Divine Mind and Will. "In Him there is no darkness". End of story. If they were in fact Perfect in this way, they would have been aware of sin and death, but instead the story makes them appear unaware - which makes them naive, which makes them not mature, not Perfect.

The literal understanding falls apart.

And that is exactly what the account about the first man revealed. He was perfect, but made a wrong decision.

Which I have shown is not possible. He was unaware, and acted as a naive child anxious for a path of self-discovery. That is not a Perfected being, but a naive, immature child.

Even Jesus believed the account to be a factual account. He based his ideas on divorce on the account in Genesis so he certainly believed it to be a true account of two original people.

Well, did he now? Based upon him using them as examples? This is what metaphors are for. We cite them to speak of truth beyond them. They were a vehicle of communication because it was a living story that was part of their culture. The literalness aspects of this were not a question in their minds at all. Only Modern people think like this. The important point was about relationship, and he mere used the Adam and Eve myth to speak to truths that infused their own culture.

It's like me saying, "True love can be seen in Romeo's love for Juliet". I just spoke truth. But do I believe Romeo and Juliet were actual historical people? Does it matter if I do or I don't? Would you then misuse my use of them to prove to others that I believe they were real, historical people? There's no difference here. Historical facticity is not the point, nor is that proved by Jesus' use of Adam and Eve. I use them myself, but I do not believe they were historical, literal people, in a literal Garden, with a literal talking snake, etc. But they serve a great purpose in citing them, just like they did when Jesus cited them.

I see two perfect people who knew the law, knew what the consequences would be and who chose the wrong course.

Which of course is not borne out in the story, if taken literally. If anything, it says they were naive children who God was their parent trying to teach them right from wrong, and that they acted according to their actual nature which was to come to self-knowledge and make choices for themselves, for right or for wrong. This is the only way people grown. It is a story of a child leaving the nest in order to become who they needed to become as individuals in order to fully know God - face to face.

What other choice would there be? To stay at home, and never explore the world, never grow, but to remain an infant soft and warm and protected from the pains and rewards of life inside our mother's womb? They made a choice to grow up, in order to know God. That is a noble choice. We chose death, we chose pain, in order to come to know ourselves and God in a mature, perfected reality. And that would take thousands of years, but worth it.

See, now that to me is how Genesis is better understood, and it fits the reality of what we know of the human experience, understanding developmental studies, evolutionary theory, spiritual practices and realizations of Masters, Wisdom paths, and so on. But it does serve a purpose to tell a child "obey your daddy, or else!". But that's not the Perfection that Paul speaks of for the mature believer. Is it?

The bible doesnt say that Adam and Eve 'walked out' of Eden. It is very clear that God removed them and he even prevented them from returning by posting Cherubs to guard the entrance.

It can be understood within how I am speaking as well. Once you've left your mother's womb, there's no going back! The way is barred. To "ungrow" is death. That way lays death. That was is suicide. You must grow forward, out into the world to experience pain and death and learn to overcome as you grow up to know God. Amen.

Gods word does not need to be changed....it presents the story as God wants it told and its the truth.

No one is changing it. It's changing how you understand it. And that is important to do, otherwise we remain infants in our understanding.

 

[Pegg]

And your evidence for this is … ?

Numbers 23:19 God is not a mere man who tells lies,
Nor a son of man who changes his mind.
When he says something, will he not do it?
When he speaks, will he not carry it out?

 

[Thief]

Before the formation of Man.....what life shall we say there might have been?

Spiritual life?

God first.....then the angelic.

And that relationship was lacking something?

I say a reflection of God is exactly that.
And His Voice in response is an Echo.

Perhaps the item desired was an affirmation.
Someone other than heaven to say 'yeah' in response to....'I AM!'

So 'image' would be spiritual...but held in flesh.
This thing called Man resembles God in spirit.
God is spirit.

(of course, some of our pronouncements are something less than....spiritual)

 

[Windwalker]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a mere man who tells lies,
Nor a son of man who changes his mind.
When he says something, will he not do it?
When he speaks, will he not carry it out?

This of course does not support what you said which was "Gods word does not need to be changed....it presents the story as God wants it told and its the truth." Everyone's understanding of what is presented is not the same. Some believe the presentation of the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be taken literally, others believe it is meant to be taken figuratively. Maybe this is exactly as it is supposed to be! Maybe what God wants to be told is something for us to think about and see different things in order for us to stretch our understandings which opens us to ever-greater truths. And that by insisting how you understand it is the only correct way to understand it frustrates what God actually wants for us? Ever think about that?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes, I believe nature is basically the same thing as ousia, or essence (substantia in the Latin). Thus, Catholics and Orthodox alike say that Christ has both human and divine natures united in His one Person. I think somewhere there might be a difference between nature and essence, but it's a total pain to figure out what the difference actually is, if there is one.

Also, the soul cannot be the nature, because nature (if in fact it is synonymous with our essence) is what makes us fundamentally what we are. And as we both know, humanity is properly both soul and body together.

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the rest of your question, our souls and bodies have been stained, but not our nature.

Okay lemme try and get my Greek words right.

So Jesus has two ousias in one hypostasis, right?