So it says. Made in his image. That is certainly appropriate. Think of a human image – a Polaroid, a picture, 35 mm, digital, painting – even portrait if you will. All images. The comparison of the two-dimensional image of a picture of a person to a real person is an appropriate metaphor for humans compared to that thing, being, spirit, wisp, divinity we call God. J. K. Rowling was astute enough to grasp this concept – pictures of wizards in the Harry Potter stories were animated – she toyed with the idea of depth in a two-dimensional object.
Imagine a being living in a two dimensional world – like on a table top. He can neither see up nor down – only front and back, left and right. To him there is no such thing as up and down, he cannot fathom the idea. To him, up and down do not exist.
OK, so he lives on a table top – and some three dimensional person walks by. What does our two dimensional friend see. Merely a slice of us. That two-dimensional understanding of his world. Something moves across his landscape that he does not understand – what must he think? That depends on if he went to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist College or to some Liberal Arts wacko place that teaches him to think and wonder. It depends on whether his upbringing was one of open mindedness, open to the idea that he might never really know everything, that he might be limited by his very nature.
We again use imagery, metaphor, something to try to contain this thing we call God because we cannot get our minds around a concept of up and down. George Bernard Shaw was correct in his assessment.
Why do humans insist on defining God in terms of humans? God did not make man by cloning himself with his DNA! Cloning was against his religion!
Five great men who influenced the history of Western civilization. Moses said the law is everything.
Jesus said love is everything.
Marx said capital is everything.
Freud said sex is everything.
Einstein said everything is relative.