In the Image of God

We have seen how the Purusasukta goes back to even before time began and explains the mind of God (Prajapati) deciding to sacrifice Purusa. From this decision creation of everything followed – including the creation of mankind.

We often hear and use the phrase ‘Atithidevo Bhava’ (The guest is God) or even ‘Namaste’ (I bow to the divine in you).  These phrases reflect the truth that there is something divine in all people.  The Bible explains in what way the divine is in us, and for its explanation takes us right to the creation of mankind.  It is this which gives value & dignity to everyone.

Let us now consider what the Veda Pusthakam (Bible) says about the creation of mankind so we have understanding of what the Bible teaches about us.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

“In the Image of God”

What does it mean that man was created ‘in the image of God’?  It does not mean that God is a physical being with two arms, a head, etc. Rather at a deeper level it is saying that basic characteristics of people are derived from similar characteristics of God. So for example, both God (in the Bible) and people (from observation) have intellect, emotions and will. In the Bible God is sometimes portrayed as sad, hurt, angry or joyful – the same range of emotions that we humans experience. We make choices and decisions on a daily basis. God similarly in the Bible makes choices and comes to decisions. Our ability to reason and think abstractly comes from God. We have the capacities of intellect, emotion and will because God has them and we are made in his image.

At a deeperl level we see that we are sentient beings, self-aware and conscious of ‘I’ and ‘you’. We are not impersonal ‘its’. We are like this because God is this way.  In this fundamental perspective, the God of the Bible is not portrayed as a pantheistic impersonality like the ‘Force’ in the well-known movie Star Wars. The fact that humans are sentient persons rather than ‘its’ makes sense in light of this early teaching about God. We are this way because God is like this, and we are made in His image.

Why we are Aesthetic

We also love art and drama. We naturally appreciate and even need beauty. This goes beyond just visual beauty to include music and literature. Think about how important music is to us – even how we love to dance. Music so enriches our lives. We love good stories, whether in novels or plays, or more commonly today, in movies. Stories have heroes, villains, drama, and the great stories burn these heroes, villains and drama into our imaginations. It is so natural for us to use and appreciate art in its many forms to entertain, reinvigorate and refresh ourselves because God is an Artist and we are in his image.

It is a question worth asking. Why are we naturally aesthetic, whether in art, drama, music, dance, or literature? Whenever I travelled in India I was always amazed at the Indian movies which feature music and dance even more than Western-made movies. Daniel Dennett, an outspoken atheist and an authority on understanding cognitive processes, answers from a materialistic perspective:

“But most of this research still takes music for granted. It seldom asks: Why does music exist? There is a short answer, and it is true, so far as it goes: it exists because we love it and hence we keep bringing more of it into existence. But why do we love it? Because we find that it is beautiful. But why is it beautiful to us? This is a perfectly good biological question, but it does not yet have a good answer.” (Daniel Dennett. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. p. 43)

The materialistic perspective on mankind has no answer to this fundamental question about our human nature. From the Biblical perspective it is because God is artistic and aesthetic. He made things beautiful and enjoys beauty. We, made in His image, are the same.

Why we are Moral

In addition, being ‘made in God’s image’ explains the natural moral capacity that is so common in all cultures, and which we covered in the moral teachings of the guru Sai Baba. Because we are made in God’s image and morality is intrinsic to Him, like a compass aligned to magnetic North, our alignment to ‘fair’, ‘good’, ‘right’ is this way because this is the way He is. It is not just religious people who are made in this way – everyone is. Not recognizing this can give rise to misunderstandings. Take for example this challenge from the materialist American Sam Harris.

“If you are right to believe that religious faith offers the only real basis for morality, then atheists should be less moral than believers.” Sam Harris. 2005. Letter to a Christian Nation p.38-39

Harris is simply wrong here. Our sense of morality comes from being made in God’s image, not from being religious. And that is why atheists, like all the rest of us, have this moral sense and can act morally. The difficulty with atheism is to account for why we have our morality – but being made in God’s moral image is a simple and straightforward explanation.

Why are we so Relational

Biblically, the starting point to understanding ourselves is to recognize that we are made in God’s image. Because of this, as we gain insight into either God (through what is revealed about him in the Bible) or people (through observation and reflection) we can also gain insight into the other. For example, reflect on the importance people place on relationships. It is OK to see a good movie, but it is a much better experience to see it with a friend. We naturally seek out friends to share experiences with. Meaningful friendships and family relationships are key to our sense of well-being. Conversely, loneliness and/or fractured family relationships and breakdowns in friendships stress us. We are not neutral and unmoved by the state of relationships we have with others. Bollywood movies are so popular precisely because they place great emphasis on the relationships between characters (between lovers, family members etc.)

Now, if we are in God’s image, then we would expect to find this same relational emphasis with God, and in fact we do. The Bible says that “God is Love…” (1 John 4:8).  Much is written in the Bible about the importance that God places on our love for him and for others – they are in fact called by Jesus (Yeshu Satsang) the two most important commands in the Bible. When you think about it, Love must be relational since it requires a person who loves (the lover) and a person who is the object of this love – the beloved.

Thus we should think of God as a lover. If we only think of Him as the ‘Prime Mover’, the ‘First Cause’, the ‘Omniscient Deity’, the ‘Benevolent Being’ or perhaps the ‘Impersonal Atman’ we are not thinking of the Biblical God – rather we have made up a god in our minds. Though He is these, He is also portrayed as almost recklessly passionate in relationship. He does not ‘have’ love. He ‘is’ love. The two most prominent Biblical metaphors of God’s relationship with people are that of a father to his children and a husband to his wife. Those are not dispassionately philosophical ‘first cause’ analogies but those of the deepest and most intimate of human relationships.

So here is the foundation we have laid so far. People are made in God’s image comprised of mind, emotions and will. We are sentient and self-aware. We are moral beings with our ‘Moral grammar’ giving us an innate orientation of ‘right’ and ‘fair’, and what is not. We have instinctive capacity to develop and appreciate beauty, drama, art and story in all its forms. And we will innately and naturally seek out and develop relationships and friendships with others. We are all this because God is all this and we are made in God’s image. All these deductions are at least consistent with what we observe about ourselves as we laid this foundation. We continue in the next post to look at some difficulties.

3 thoughts on “In the Image of God

  1. it may be very truth that bible__sorry–the holy bible (veda pusthakan) is very correct and very reliable for you. It may also be correct that your god did make you and may be unfortunately me like him(in the sense not physically but as you mean to). But how to believe in it when you talk on his side so foolishly. how foolish to say that Hindu culture depicts the god to have a physical appearance. we always say every one to be Shiva. we always talk about shiv to be the ultimate soul. make note “soul” paramaatma is the word we use. that is the form linga. we say atma linga. dam you who talk with half knowledge.
    OK! I accept you are so foolish that how can you think of reading and kindly understanding the 108 Upanishads, 4vedas ,and what bible being one you can understand. please don’t talk about the 325 or so types of bible. they are types only.
    what more do you say. Jesus you say. for his own sake, he is the son of god. then don’t you agree gods other name is ISHA according to the very bible of yours. ISHA do you know is the very old name of lord Siva. the books of this Hindu culture is very old. older than time immemorial or immortal. the word you are saying proudly -veda pusthakan-is just taken from Sanskrit not from English . how can you deny the truth that Sanskrit is the language used by Hindus not by Christians.
    oh! let go. answer me can you deny the fact that your ten very rules told by god and given to you by his most famous follower is having one rule stated”prey me-praying or even reciting any other name than mine is a sin”.oh! brother i ask what god is so who says he alone is grate . a man is said to think so. isn’t he? so how is a god so who states if someone is grate than it is he and destroys everything for believing some other religion . dam such god. if he is true god than it is very correct of the English dictionary to not have any meaning for the word god. no god Hindu Purana states so. instead tit is only stated that any one you pray is is that culture and traditions which say “manav sava is madhave save” not any mother Teresa. dare not to say so again. ask your hart. is not my statement correct. if you want say something please write back and wait for the answer.if you want to question first read the books and then comment on .

    1. Hi Shiv. Thanks for your long comment. You make many points. I am not sure where you get ISHA from in the Bible. You are correct that Veda Pusthakam is a sanskrit word. I do not hide that. And ‘Bible’ is not derived from English either. It comes from Latin and the Latin comes from the Greek. When we deal with ancient books of any kind English is too recent. So Sanskrit can be used by Christians and Hindus. Why not?
      I am not sure what you are referring to in your quote (presumably from Bible) ”prey me-praying or even reciting any other name than mine is a sin” Perhaps you are refering to First commandment “You shall have no other gods before me” What this means is not to worship idols but rather the Creator. Creator in Bible uses many names, always refering to that ‘Ulimate Spirit’ which created the world. In fact the English word ‘God’ was not used in original Bible. So I do not think there is any limitation placed on the name used.

Comments are closed.