I believe it is a mistake to interpret God’s “image” as God’s material “likeness.” I do not believe God has a material being. Being created in his image, to me, can only mean that I am a creature of his “imagining,” a material projection of his “mental” image of his human creatures. That’s the best I can do, the product of a fallible human mind striving to describe a mystery. If that sounds confused and confounded, so be it.
It's a tough thing to put in words, I agree. And to be honest, I was being a tad flippant in my comment.
The nature of God is indeed a mystery, and even were I as a human fortunate to stumble upon such knowledge, I'd probably have no way of knowing that I had done so!
Most religions identify God in terms of human form, language, habits, actions, emotions. Other religions prefer non-human animals, or an odd combination of the above. Protests that these aren't meant to be taken literally are mostly ineffective -- if you could get inside most Christians' minds, and tap their idea of God, he'd be a human male, speak English, walk magestically, and probably look a lot like Charleton Heston.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But the article says:
... the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:I think the author is an exception. I would bet a month's rent that most Americans mental image of God is not that far from Zeus. Or at least, Zeus as played by Charleton Heston... ;-)Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).
- spaceless because it created space
- timeless because it created time
- immaterial because it created matter
- powerful because it created out of nothing
- intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
- personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
I liked your statement, and agree that this stuff sure is confusing.