> Hello Russell,
> You wrote in part re: Ape talk
> >But human-like behavior of animals does not demonstrate relationship
> >between animals and human beings. I won't re-state the details of the
> >argument I presented in "Social Problems--Part E," recently posted.
> >believe the Bible teaches (1) human beings are those beings descended
> >Adam and Eve, all bearing God's image; and (2) human beings are the only
> >beings that bear God's image. That image, defaced by sin, is redeemed by
> >Christ when his people once again bear his likeness, his image.
> What is the image of God, and how do you know that those who...
> >...buried their dead, carried out crude
> >surgergies, and all the rest...
> ...did not possess that image?
The image of God is not identified by, nor does it consist of, some bundle
of behaviors, such as burying the dead, etc. It was given to Adam and Eve
and their descendants. Paul said that Christ restores that image in his
people. So, if you want identification, consider that it is something which
requires restoration by Christ. Not tool-making, not building of huts, not
burying the dead, but rather sin is that which requires redemption.
The image was harmed by sin. Again, according to Paul, it was one man,
Adam, whose sin brought sin to the human race. It sdeems to me that it
follows that Adam and Eve's descendants are the ones, and the only ones,
whose image of God was received, broken, and needs restoration.
> >.... Let's not limit God by insisting that they
> >were therefore human...
> Or, IMHO, that they were therefore not. Or that non-humans are a priori
I think my argument above answers this. But it's good discussing this with
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250