Results 1 - 1 of 1
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Discussions of the Imago Dei | Gen 1:26 | DocTrinsograce | 154332 | ||
Dear Bob, This is in answer to post 154312: What I meant to say is that the full answer probably lies neither fully in the question of "kind" nor does it lie fully in the question of "degree." I believe that the answer spans both areas, as I described in my first post. You asked, "Is there anything else specifically that you can think of that: 1. would distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom and; 2. which would be part of that image of God that we were designed to reflect?" When you talk about ontological, cognitive, spiritual, and relational questions, you pretty much have run out of areas to discuss. So, I guess not. You asked, "Would you not agree that the Scriptures teach us that we are responsible (accountable) for our actions (and that animals are not) because we have at least some ability choose (that animals do not have)?" That sounds like a reasonable presupposition. I can only think of one passage where God speaks of holding animals accountable: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man." (Genesis 9:5) There might well be others in the Mosaic Law. Honestly, Bob, your assumption of moral volition as the distinguishing feature between man and beast is as good as any and far better than most. John Calvin would have agreed completely, as would others, such as Theodore Beza, John Knox, John Owen, Thomas Watson, and many others. As I pointed out in a previous post you will still find this taught in the more conservative branches of the Presbyterian Church. I'll see if I can answer your question regarding platonic solids and planetary orbits. It was probably a bad example. (Other members of the forum, please excuse my momentary digression into things non-Biblical.) In brief, there are five platonic solids (or three dimensional regular polyhedra): tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron. The Greeks were the first to realize that there were five and only five. That sort of thing was really compelling to them. Consequently, Plato figured they must be the fundamental building blocks of the universe, even assigning the "elements" of fire, earth, air, and water to them. (That's only four, so Plato assigned something he called "cosmos" to the fifth, figuring that that was the substance from which the stars and planets were made.) When the heliocentric theory of the universe was proposed by Aristarchus, and later picked up by Copernicus, it was assumed that the orbits of the planets were circular. Johannes Kepler spent a significant portion of his life trying to fit the five platonic solids into the orbits of the five known planets. Finally he had to toss out the whole idea and use ellipses instead of circles. Its a lot messier, and a lot less satisfying to nice, structured, Greek thinking, but its hard to argue with the proofs of the truth. If you want to see pictures of some of Kepler's attempts, go to the Google image search and enter "Mysterium Cosmographicum." In Him, Doc |
||||||
Up | | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Gen 1:26 | Author | ||
|
zoe989 | ||
|
LSmith | ||
|
Tamed | ||
|
chair | ||
|
karenc | ||
|
FUTURES | ||
|
FUTURES | ||
|
pretrib | ||
|
Chusarcik | ||
|
DocTrinsograce |