Made In God's Image?
- Thread starter bobinfaith
- Start date
Perhaps the Simpsons are typical of families in New Zealand and/or Australia, Britain and/or other countries, but not in my town.
If the families in our town were as dysfunctional as the Simpsons, they all may as well join hands and walk into a set of helicopter blades.
Humorizing dysfunctionality seems to be the forte' of a dysfunctional Hollywood crowd of really warped people.
MM
There are two creation accounts, meant to be coordinated, but the 1st one is a structured poem, while the other is more of a narrative that is concerned with explanations of humanity and work, and humanity and the genders.
The poem of ch 1 is much wider in scope. It has quite a bit of structure, going something like this: the earth is originally 'tohu wa-bohu' (formless and unfilled.). The first 3 days create forms:
atmosphere
oceans
land
But at this point these are empty/unfilled. So the days 4-6 are about filling those.
birds life
marine life
animal life and mankind
All the poem is interested in is showing that God the creator took the undone condition and fixed it. In later Hebrew we find that 'tohu wa-bohu' is used when a structure has been condemned and are being punished, such as a city. Thus, the OT goes in a 360 degree circle in which Yahweh creates complete functioning structure and life out of unformed and unfilled earth, but Jerusalem at its lowest point, rejecting Jeremiah's warnings etc., becomes 'tohu wa-bohu'.
None of this seems to matter in ch 2's. You may even find some things that don't match well.
Genesis 1-11, according to the wide-ranging work of the documentary THE MOSES CONTROVERSY was verbal recitation. There was no Hebrew until Joseph, and there may not have been any semitic alphabets until Joseph departed from the Egyptian priestcraft of images (hieroglyphs) to sounds which could be infinitely shuffled through actual spelling rather than pictography.
Some research indicates that Gen 1 is Joseph's rendering while 2 and following were traditional oral recitation that he preserved.
Back to the question: the 2 accounts have 2 different reaons for putting the creation of society last. In ch 1, it is to complete the 'filling' of the earth--to not be unfilled. In the 2nd, God does not want man to be alone. We have only known for a couple decades that while males are born through women where cognitive functions are more joined than distinct, males have always had more distinct-operating brains, not as part of the curse but from creation itself. There's a great value on single-purpose concentration, but it can be lonely, and the gift of woman to mankind is to balance that.
tsk, tsk, does this happen often?
The Simpsons are actually American, not Australian or NZ or British.
So don't know where you get that idea from! Esp if you've never watched it.
sounds like your town is pretty affluent.
Or, as comedians Kath and Kim say in Australian..effluent! I want to be effluent!
As I said, just not a show for you if you are a snob, or lack a sense of humour.
Last edited:
When made in God's image in the Bible..its said Adam was made of 'dust of the earth'. Or maybe clay (God is likened to a Potter, we are the clay). Adam is Hebrew for ground or earth.
Note that this isn't said of any other creature, only man.
And that men are said to have 'feet of clay'.
So it bear looking into what a wonderous substance this clay is. When gardening, the first thing we do is a soil test to find out what kind of soil we have. Is it sandy, loam, or clay? We can do a sausage ring test. If the earth is wet and can be rolled into a sausage without crumbling, and can be joined together into a ring...congratulations! You've got clay.
Or rather commiserations you've got clay!
Note that this isn't said of any other creature, only man.
And that men are said to have 'feet of clay'.
So it bear looking into what a wonderous substance this clay is. When gardening, the first thing we do is a soil test to find out what kind of soil we have. Is it sandy, loam, or clay? We can do a sausage ring test. If the earth is wet and can be rolled into a sausage without crumbling, and can be joined together into a ring...congratulations! You've got clay.
Or rather commiserations you've got clay!
Marge is the stoic one. Nothing seems to fazes her, yet she has faith. She has to! When something isn't right, she just makes that hrrrm sound.
There was actually a book published called 'The Gospel according to the Simpsons' about some of the biblical/Christian aspects of the show...although it leans more toward favouring Jewish point of view than Christian.
In one episode the Simpsons actually visit Israel. They go to Jerusalem and Homer gets Jerusalem syndrome.
Another has Lisa questioning her faith and dabbling in Wicca. It's Marge that worries that Lisa is losing faith.
Nope. Not a snob or anything of that nature. Just trying to get a grasp of your take on that show when you said that it's typical of "most" families. You didn't qualify that with what global area that relates, so I assumed that, with you being in NZ, that you were speaking of your neck of the woods, and that it's not typical of mine. Affluence has nothing to do with finding contentment and joy in family life that's nowhere near the dysfunctionality of the Simpsons. Yes, I saw some of the episodic captures on Youtube, and have to admit that the cartoon is just that, a cartoonish rendition of something that I find foreign to typical experience, except perhaps in the more liberal, large cities that find themselves under the constant barrage of offspring miscreants who think it virtuous to loot, kill and destroy in the name of their particular "protest" that the liberal politicians desire to protect as an entitlement.
So, Lanolin, it was just an observation I've made from the excerpts I've seen of that very show.
MM
That wouldn't be a vehicle I would hop aboard...
Philippians 4:11-12 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.
Hebrews 11:35-39 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
CN is correct. The contentment the affluent enjoy seems to be less a joyous contentment than that we see in the lives of the not-so-affluent, and even downright poor, and yet who were joyfully content within their lives in a more godly way. The difference is in the love for money those who have it possess in their lives versus those who don't have it, don't know they're poor, and are content and happy regardless.
So, affluence is not, therefore, an absolute path for finding contentment...not for everyone. Some who have lots of it engage in philanthropic endeavors to try and find that contentment, others by filling their lives with stuff, stuff and more stuff, and to no avail. So, the broad brush strokes tend to introduce error of various types in assumptions.
MM
Agreed.
Having come from and grown up in a POOR family......I can tell you that affluence does not make one happy.
Originally Adam and Eve had everything - the entire planet, and their garden that God specially planted just for them to look after. It had everything they need for food, and they were already clothed in God's glory.
So could say they were affluent or well-off. Then they lost everything.
I find that the affluent these days often worry that they WILL lose everything that they have gained, rather than what has been given to them. When you have nothing to lose, I guess you don't worry about it so much...but then you have a different set of worries like what will you eat, where will you live etc.
What I think is most important, like your family members, people often don't prioritise. If a child goes missing, thats devastating, but often it's the case the parents were not really looking after them in the first place.
Then there's marriages were one spouse will keep their other half captive, but that in turn makes it difficult for the captive often they might feel stifled. I guess thats why theres a lot of divorce. People lack faith in each other or trust.
So could say they were affluent or well-off. Then they lost everything.
I find that the affluent these days often worry that they WILL lose everything that they have gained, rather than what has been given to them. When you have nothing to lose, I guess you don't worry about it so much...but then you have a different set of worries like what will you eat, where will you live etc.
What I think is most important, like your family members, people often don't prioritise. If a child goes missing, thats devastating, but often it's the case the parents were not really looking after them in the first place.
Then there's marriages were one spouse will keep their other half captive, but that in turn makes it difficult for the captive often they might feel stifled. I guess thats why theres a lot of divorce. People lack faith in each other or trust.
Hello Lanolin;
Adam and Eve did have everything while God gave them a stern warning, they were affluent from all God's blessings.
The affluent in the most of the world's view does come with worry, just trying to sustain what they did gain. Life and work is hard and this tempts most of the world affluent to cut corners and give in to temptation.
I remember when we didn't have plenty growing up when my Mom was raising us. A plate of beans and tortillas was our meal. It was humbling, inexpensive and the beans have protein, calcium and potassium.
To this day I still love frijoles (refried pinto beans) and tortillas, while posting at Christian Forum Site. lol!
A marriage works through all the difficulties if they will entrust each other with the freedom to be themselves. But the wife shouldn't measure the husband's wealth if he is doing the best he can, and a husband shouldn't have to put a lease around his wife and blame her when God is questioning them. (Sound familiar?)
Well I have had plenty of baked beans for lunch during lockdown..!
In fact its better than the chicken and carrots we get given at school.
I find that if a wife starts complaining then it might be time for her to get her own paid job. Husbands working full time will be exhausted if they have to work overtime. I get that marriage is a bond, but I kind of think it should be like elastic or a rubber band rather than like a ball and chain.
Well, when the kids come, the relationship is more like Silly Putty. (remember that?)
Generally speaking, I find it interesting that so many are caught up in the soap opera practice of dredging up hypotheticals for all manner of dysfunctional marriage scenarios, and rarely talk about the healthy relationships...as if they are the less desired examples.
Frankly, the dysfunctional relationships always have one of the two labeled as "the bad guy," when in fact it took both of them to make the choice to enter into the relationship in the first place. In other words, when one of them is considered the culprit, it still took the other to be lacking in discernment and trust in the Lord to show to them the dysfunctionalities in the other, and therefore refuse to enter into the relationship in the first place. That means they were BOTH dysfunctional at the moment they both decided the relationship was a good one to embark upon. This phenomenon is almost never discussed with young, middle aged and even older singles, divorcees, widows and widowers.
As soon as one of the two in the failed marriage is identified as the culprit, the other is generally let off scott-free from any responsibility for the choice that they BOTH made together. Rarely, if ever, can it be said that either one is totally free of any and all blame for the choices made at the beginning of the relationship by BOTH parties. If they are unbelievers, then they are completely on their own, but professing believers need to start taking responsibility for the choices they are faced with by taking the time to discern the will of the Lord, and listening to others who may be warning them for whatever reason. With deception and lies being the key go-to's for most, it's not uncommon for the allegedly "innocent" party to walk away under the deluded assumption that they are blameless in and of themselves, and thus free to remarry so long as the silly legal system allows for the divorce.
1 Chronicles 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
Uzza had good intentions, after all, by trying and keep the ark from falling off the cart...never minding that he failed to object to the ark ever being carried upon a cart in the first place, which was clearly contrary to the commandments of the Lord in how it was to be transported. The Lord is exacting in all things, and modern Christians trying to skate by with their milk-toast and wet-noodle excuses in trying to escape responsibilities in this life wreaks of the stench of post-modern relativism in values and personal stature.
MM
Frankly, the dysfunctional relationships always have one of the two labeled as "the bad guy," when in fact it took both of them to make the choice to enter into the relationship in the first place. In other words, when one of them is considered the culprit, it still took the other to be lacking in discernment and trust in the Lord to show to them the dysfunctionalities in the other, and therefore refuse to enter into the relationship in the first place. That means they were BOTH dysfunctional at the moment they both decided the relationship was a good one to embark upon. This phenomenon is almost never discussed with young, middle aged and even older singles, divorcees, widows and widowers.
As soon as one of the two in the failed marriage is identified as the culprit, the other is generally let off scott-free from any responsibility for the choice that they BOTH made together. Rarely, if ever, can it be said that either one is totally free of any and all blame for the choices made at the beginning of the relationship by BOTH parties. If they are unbelievers, then they are completely on their own, but professing believers need to start taking responsibility for the choices they are faced with by taking the time to discern the will of the Lord, and listening to others who may be warning them for whatever reason. With deception and lies being the key go-to's for most, it's not uncommon for the allegedly "innocent" party to walk away under the deluded assumption that they are blameless in and of themselves, and thus free to remarry so long as the silly legal system allows for the divorce.
1 Chronicles 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
Uzza had good intentions, after all, by trying and keep the ark from falling off the cart...never minding that he failed to object to the ark ever being carried upon a cart in the first place, which was clearly contrary to the commandments of the Lord in how it was to be transported. The Lord is exacting in all things, and modern Christians trying to skate by with their milk-toast and wet-noodle excuses in trying to escape responsibilities in this life wreaks of the stench of post-modern relativism in values and personal stature.
MM
Hello MM;
What I blue-lighted, I linked lacking in discernment and trusting in the Lord with Uzza overlooking the ark being carried on the cart instead of the Levites carrying the ark which was God's instruction.
The intentions for both may have been good but lack of discernment and trust of God's Way was being displayed. Blessings are given by God when His instructions are carried out especially in marriage, not perfectly, but nevertheless carried out. But discipline comes from Him when His instructions are disobeyed with an attitude of lackadaisical, in this case marriage.
A marriage in God's image goes beyond just being a good husband and wife. It includes when an unpleasant situation arises, a disagreement, an intense argument, judging each other, not seeing things the other spouses way, and so on. Those times are part of the marriage package. In God's image is "how do we respond to the challenges?" God provides the way to reconcile and getting back on the same team.
It's easy to justify being the victim and blaming the other instead of taking responsibility on their part and doing whatever it takes to make it right.
I'm not talking about the spouse bringing the worst of harm to the other. I'm talking about a man and woman dedicated to God's image in matrimony and walking in serious obedience the rest of their days with each other.
I love to give my wife the highest esteem and honor but it doesn't mean we were exempt from the worst of times. Even when we tried to work it out, almost split, and times when we just couldn't get back on the same team. Those were awful times.
But God always has a way of working things out but not when He sees in the heart that we are carelessly lazy and instead searching for the quick fix.
If more marriages would only humble themselves and keep God in the center is the first step to functional.
Very good point, Bob. Extreme abuses are not necessarily matters to be judged as a dual fault, per se. However, the local woman who chose to marry the guy who became the BTK serial murder, for example, it's interesting that she had to go into hiding to shield herself from the angry and hateful people who issued threats against her very life for even having married that guy, and yet those same people who threatened her will give other men and women a free pass who, as I had said, fail to exercise proper discernment in trusting the Lord for Him to say to them, "NO! Not that one! He is not the one for you!"
Those whom I feel for are they who become believers after already being married to an unbeliever, and find they should never have married such a one, but Paul instructs believers to remain with such rather than to leave because of their unbelief. However, the responsibility for where they are still rests squarely upon their shoulders, and heavily I might add. I don't envy anyone who must endure such, but that's one of many burdens that exist in this life.
The lack of commitment in marriages is openly and blatantly displayed by those who run to the divorce courts under the assumption that man's legal system is somehow authorized by God to declare legitimate divorces, let alone to declare who is married. Given that the Lord never, at any time throughout His inspired word we call the Bible, relinquished over to mankind, our laws and our courts, His sole authority over marriage and its definition, this idea that courts can therefore legitimize marriages and divorces in the eyes of the Lord is absurd.
Again, generally speaking, our having been made in God's image should intimate to us all that we are subject to His higher law and definitions for all things in all of life above and beyond all man-made traditions and laws.
MM