We have threads about Islam and about Intelligent Design.

I would like to know how believers in the OT feel about God creating man in his own image, when we all know that there were other men on earth before homo sapiens.

The Bible implies that there was nothing, and then there was something, and amongst the something were Adam & Eve.

If that is in any way correct, then Adam & Eve must have been Homo-something-other-than-homo-sapiens.

For those who believe that Genesis is literally true, this is an important matter.

mbas400, if you want to compare joseph smith, who could well have been nothing more than an obscure fruitcake to a prophet who kickstarted one of the most extensive faiths in human history, then you go, boy, but i'm not gona bother to dignify it with a response. its just too silly. you might as well compare a banana to a motorbike.

PDM--

Well we all pretty much know by now I am not a Bible literalist--so my theory is the creation of heaven and earth, and man took place over a great period of time--evolution was part of the that process. As the human race continues to evolve-who is to say we have yet reached the point that we are actually in "God's Image"--I would say Neanderthals were just another step in the process.

Janimal--I am not sure about rocks--but I do believe animals have souls.

"In the beginning man created god in his own image"

That pretty well sums it up for me.

Mohammed started out with very few followers in the 700's.

Joseph Smith started out with very few followers in the early 1800's.

Mohammed has an 1100 year head start. Give Mormonism another 1100 years and we'll see if Mr. Smith is an obscure fruitcake.

Right now, the LDS Church has enough members to qualify as a regular Christian denomination and is still growing.

Since you want to toss around labels, both seem like fruitcakes - hearing the word of God, starting new religions, etc.

I think the problems arise from humans trying to put the vastness of God and his wisdom into human words.

A human writes that God made man in his "image" so that other humans may understand that we are all a part of the Great Spirit, the Creator, the Whateverword you want to put to God. That doesn't make "image" mean "form". It doesn't make God blond and blue eyed or hairy with a brow ridge. "image" is only a word that man used at some point in time to connect with the Spirit that is in all of us.

Since the earliest humans had, from what we can now gather from archeologists, a religious belief system, rites and rituals for burial etc, it's not a far jump to think they too were "made in His image" and felt part of Him. (sorry for the use of gender, again, just words)

There is a thread on Latter Day Saints here:
Topic: Latter Day Saints / Mormons
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000091#000000

There's a thread on Islam here;
Topic: Islam
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000138#000000

Intelligent Design is mentioned here:
Topic: Creation or evolution
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000249#000014

Please try to keep threads on topic.

Where the above subjects relate to Neanderthals, and other early 'humans', it is perfectly fine to post comments here. Where they don't relate, please use an alternative, relevant thread.

Thanks!

Kateyes & Dagobabe, I think that those are fair comments on God's image.

I wonder, though, if Christian fundamentalists - those who believe 100% in the Genesis story - would agree that Neanderthal people, and other early 'men', were made in God's image.

i don't think we were created in gods image any more than anything in this world - thats if we're talking literally.

the literal interpretation bring all sorts of problems. ok, man is not supposed to attempt to depict god; graven images and all that. if we are indeed created in his image then this rule is completely meaningless, because you're basically saying that god looks like a human. which is fine if you want to simplify your world view to the level of an andersen story.

i'm more inclined to think that we couldn't depict god if we tried. maybe this is whatthe graven images thing means, rather than that we shouldn't - an observation rather than a rule.

maybe by saying we are created in gods image, it is not talking about physical attributes, but implying that we have access to a relationship with god that other creatures do not.

i think its unhelpful to quantify all this in terms of physical attributes because what is being implied is that we are the pinnacle of creation. which of course is a bunch of fetid dingo's kidneys, because we are one species in an evolutionary continuum which stretches out billions of years into the past and will most likely continue for billions of years.

Janimal--I think this is a very good point.

I had thoughts along the same lines--but felt perhaps the in God's Image line was put in by man to make create a feeling of superiority to the animals etc. The literalists of course wouldn't buy my theory.