Re: More on the Image of God

Christopher Morbey (
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:50:34 -0800

John W Burgeson wrote:

> John Neal wrote, referring to George Murphy:
> "You're nasty, and you're also wrong. You may manipulate what is the
> plain truth for your own self aggrandizement, but God knows your heart."
> George -- there are some folks it is probably not worth responding to.
> John Neal may be one of these folks.

Excuse me, but here is a good example what a person can turn to if he is
unable to discuss things effectively. Christians themselves are not immune.
Direct _ad hominem_ invectives are one thing but note the implicit if not
explicit blasphemy. There is the implication that George is a manipulator of
"plain truth". Obviously, John thinks *he* has possession of this "plain
truth" and anyone who tampers with that notion is a selfish "manipulator".
Then John (for his own purposes) puts himself above God and declares what
God actually knows!! In time, John will probably realize what he has said,
and, like all of us at times, wish we hadn't.

As mainly an astonished lurker I hope that others would not be intimidated
by immature comments of a few. I would hope that the abundances promised
(and experienced!) would allow a greater visibility of the criterion of all
moral obligation and/or gratitude.

By the way. I haven't read any comments that entertain the notion that
"image of God" may mean that we, of all the creation, are the only means
whereby there can be access to and from God. Something like an holy icon
that mediates expression through the one Mediator.

Christopher Morbey