How many times have you heard or read the statement, “Man is made in the image of God,” or, “God made man in his image”? Plenty, I would imagine.
Aside from this remark being sexist, it leads one to wonder what God used as a pattern for the design of woman. If the word, man, is supposed to mean men and women, as in two eyes, two ears, one nose and so on, one still has to question the gender difference. It’s interesting to contemplate God, with absolutely no past experience and no model, contemplating the complexities of fallopian tubes, ovaries and wombs (it seems appropriate here to stick with biblical nomenclature).
Now, if God used himself as a model to make human beings, how did He decide to make them in assorted colors? One rapt Christian enthusiast maintained in a letter to the editor that God is sexless and colorless. As if that answered the question!
Whenever I am in a group, or part of a crowd, or just sitting somewhere, engaged in people-watching, I look around trying to decide which body type would most reflect the image of man’s creator. Hard choice. The fat? The thin? The short? The tall? The old? The young? A baby?! A baby God is rather appealing, babies being the nearest thing to perfection, what with their smooth and firm packaging. Their dewy look and clear solemn eyes hint at profound knowledge of the universe. Whoever looked into the eyes of a baby and was not filled with a sense of awe (as well as wild curiosity as to what was going on in that baby-brain), would be an odd person indeed.
But the baby-God theory does bring up that worrisome chicken/egg question, (although it seems never troubling outside the context of chickens and eggs). My reason for ruling out the baby concept is all that engineering of internal construction involved in human creation. That would defeat a baby because a baby’s instinct is to de-struct, not con-struct.
And, speaking of internal construction, what about God’s insides? Designing livers and spleens, kidneys and bladders, hearts and pituitary glands, etc., would imply that the “made in His image” clich? would carry straight on through in minute detail. If that is so, then God has all of these things including a digestive tract and accompanying waste disposal system. Otherwise women and men would be empty shells. And wouldn’t those “shells” all look exactly alike? Just asking.
One hears a lot about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, and that when people die, they will go to Heaven where they will be allowed to sit at God’s feet, which sounds like a pretty boring way to spend eternity, besides implying some very large feet indeed! Certainly much larger than human feet.
But, to backtrack a bit, if God is indeed the prototype for human design and he’s got all those parts and organs, then He needs to eat. What does God eat? Well, there used to be a lot of talk about nectar of the Gods and ambrosia, but I think those were sustenance for those “other Gods,” the ones The God is so jealous of, and which he mentions, no holds barred, in the Big Ten. I guess the question of food, like all the other questions of shape, size, color, and internal organs will have to go on hold.
Over the years, reading about, and listening to people talk about God, it strikes me that their ideas about Him are pretty much a reflection of themselves. This would imply, then, that there are as many gods as there are believers! The idea of one God (big G) is then knocked into a cocked hat. And the idea that God used himself as a model for creating man is then equally ridiculous! The truth of the matter is that man makes god in his image (each man/ woman creates his/her god), which means that the creation process is a work in progress. As long as there is God indoctrination from birth, with its accompanying idiotic statements about making man in His image and being all-wise, all- powerful and all-loving (even though he wreaks havoc on those he “loves” with his psychotic volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and hurricanes, etc.), the work is never going to be of better quality, and it will always be related to the character of the indoctrinees.
How many times have you heard or read the statement, “Man is made in the image of God,” or, “God made man in his image”? Plenty, I would imagine.
Aside from this remark being sexist, it leads one to wonder what God used as a pattern for the design of woman. If the word, man, is supposed to mean men and women, as in two eyes, two ears, one nose and so on, one still has to question the gender difference. It’s interesting to contemplate God, with absolutely no past experience and no model, contemplating the complexities of fallopian tubes, ovaries and wombs (it seems appropriate here to stick with biblical nomenclature).
Now, if God used himself as a model to make human beings, how did He decide to make them in assorted colors? One rapt Christian enthusiast maintained in a letter to the editor that God is sexless and colorless. As if that answered the question!
Whenever I am in a group, or part of a crowd, or just sitting somewhere, engaged in people-watching, I look around trying to decide which body type would most reflect the image of man’s creator. Hard choice. The fat? The thin? The short? The tall? The old? The young? A baby?! A baby God is rather appealing, babies being the nearest thing to perfection, what with their smooth and firm packaging. Their dewy look and clear solemn eyes hint at profound knowledge of the universe. Whoever looked into the eyes of a baby and was not filled with a sense of awe (as well as wild curiosity as to what was going on in that baby-brain), would be an odd person indeed.
But the baby-God theory does bring up that worrisome chicken/egg question, (although it seems never troubling outside the context of chickens and eggs). My reason for ruling out the baby concept is all that engineering of internal construction involved in human creation. That would defeat a baby because a baby’s instinct is to de-struct, not con-struct.
And, speaking of internal construction, what about God’s insides? Designing livers and spleens, kidneys and bladders, hearts and pituitary glands, etc., would imply that the “made in His image” clich? would carry straight on through in minute detail. If that is so, then God has all of these things including a digestive tract and accompanying waste disposal system. Otherwise women and men would be empty shells. And wouldn’t those “shells” all look exactly alike? Just asking.
One hears a lot about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, and that when people die, they will go to Heaven where they will be allowed to sit at God’s feet, which sounds like a pretty boring way to spend eternity, besides implying some very large feet indeed! Certainly much larger than human feet.
But, to backtrack a bit, if God is indeed the prototype for human design and he’s got all those parts and organs, then He needs to eat. What does God eat? Well, there used to be a lot of talk about nectar of the Gods and ambrosia, but I think those were sustenance for those “other Gods,” the ones The God is so jealous of, and which he mentions, no holds barred, in the Big Ten. I guess the question of food, like all the other questions of shape, size, color, and internal organs will have to go on hold.
Over the years, reading about, and listening to people talk about God, it strikes me that their ideas about Him are pretty much a reflection of themselves. This would imply, then, that there are as many gods as there are believers! The idea of one God (big G) is then knocked into a cocked hat. And the idea that God used himself as a model for creating man is then equally ridiculous! The truth of the matter is that man makes god in his image (each man/ woman creates his/her god), which means that the creation process is a work in progress. As long as there is God indoctrination from birth, with its accompanying idiotic statements about making man in His image and being all-wise, all- powerful and all-loving (even though he wreaks havoc on those he “loves” with his psychotic volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and hurricanes, etc.), the work is never going to be of better quality, and it will always be related to the character of the indoctrinees.
How many times have you heard or read the statement, “Man is made in the image of God,” or, “God made man in his image”? Plenty, I would imagine.
Aside from this remark being sexist, it leads one to wonder what God used as a pattern for the design of woman. If the word, man, is supposed to mean men and women, as in two eyes, two ears, one nose and so on, one still has to question the gender difference. It’s interesting to contemplate God, with absolutely no past experience and no model, contemplating the complexities of fallopian tubes, ovaries and wombs (it seems appropriate here to stick with biblical nomenclature).
Now, if God used himself as a model to make human beings, how did He decide to make them in assorted colors? One rapt Christian enthusiast maintained in a letter to the editor that God is sexless and colorless. As if that answered the question!
Whenever I am in a group, or part of a crowd, or just sitting somewhere, engaged in people-watching, I look around trying to decide which body type would most reflect the image of man’s creator. Hard choice. The fat? The thin? The short? The tall? The old? The young? A baby?! A baby God is rather appealing, babies being the nearest thing to perfection, what with their smooth and firm packaging. Their dewy look and clear solemn eyes hint at profound knowledge of the universe. Whoever looked into the eyes of a baby and was not filled with a sense of awe (as well as wild curiosity as to what was going on in that baby-brain), would be an odd person indeed.
But the baby-God theory does bring up that worrisome chicken/egg question, (although it seems never troubling outside the context of chickens and eggs). My reason for ruling out the baby concept is all that engineering of internal construction involved in human creation. That would defeat a baby because a baby’s instinct is to de-struct, not con-struct.
And, speaking of internal construction, what about God’s insides? Designing livers and spleens, kidneys and bladders, hearts and pituitary glands, etc., would imply that the “made in His image” clich? would carry straight on through in minute detail. If that is so, then God has all of these things including a digestive tract and accompanying waste disposal system. Otherwise women and men would be empty shells. And wouldn’t those “shells” all look exactly alike? Just asking.
One hears a lot about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, and that when people die, they will go to Heaven where they will be allowed to sit at God’s feet, which sounds like a pretty boring way to spend eternity, besides implying some very large feet indeed! Certainly much larger than human feet.
But, to backtrack a bit, if God is indeed the prototype for human design and he’s got all those parts and organs, then He needs to eat. What does God eat? Well, there used to be a lot of talk about nectar of the Gods and ambrosia, but I think those were sustenance for those “other Gods,” the ones The God is so jealous of, and which he mentions, no holds barred, in the Big Ten. I guess the question of food, like all the other questions of shape, size, color, and internal organs will have to go on hold.
Over the years, reading about, and listening to people talk about God, it strikes me that their ideas about Him are pretty much a reflection of themselves. This would imply, then, that there are as many gods as there are believers! The idea of one God (big G) is then knocked into a cocked hat. And the idea that God used himself as a model for creating man is then equally ridiculous! The truth of the matter is that man makes god in his image (each man/ woman creates his/her god), which means that the creation process is a work in progress. As long as there is God indoctrination from birth, with its accompanying idiotic statements about making man in His image and being all-wise, all- powerful and all-loving (even though he wreaks havoc on those he “loves” with his psychotic volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and hurricanes, etc.), the work is never going to be of better quality, and it will always be related to the character of the indoctrinees.
