imago Dei definition
Examples of imago Dei in a sentence
One of the most striking instances of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s re-reading disclosing a new insight, or a different way of taking the text, concerns his interpretation of the imago Dei.
As the undifferentiated man’s solitude was deemed ‘not good,’ the implication is that relationality - living with, or for, someone else - is a necessary good and is one marker of the content of the imago Dei.
Aside from the charge of introducing novelty to the concept of the imago Dei, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ objects to the inclusion of spousal sexual relations because those relations are exclusively heterosexual.
On this account, man’s similarity to God (imago Dei), which constitutes that which s/he is, affirms ‘the absolute impossibility of reducing man to the “world”’ (TOB 2:4).
His 2012 essay, ‘Nuptial Mysteries,’ criticizes the ▇▇▇▇ on the grounds of introducing novelty into the concept of the imago Dei, and owing to that novelty, excluding some categories of people from the concept.121 Much in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ argument relies upon his reading of the Genesis creation stories and his handling of metaphor.
In ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s reading, inter-personal communion is not just one manifestation among a number of what constitutes the divine image but is the bedrock of the image; ‘the very bone marrow’ (TOB 9:4) of what it is to be human: ‘reciprocal enrichment’ (TOB 9:5).117 The imago Dei can be summarized in the term, ‘person’: that which constitutes man as a distinctive, and superlative, creature.
Coakley concurs with John Paul’s reading that sex differentiation is a crucial part of the imago Dei (Gen.1:26-27); she departs from him in her preparedness to include within gender, not only ‘difference,’ but Judith Butler’s idea of ‘performativity.’186 Coakley, like Butler, wants to eschew both restrictive gendering and restrictive sexual categorizing.
Two of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s readings that have attracted criticism: his inclusion of spousal union as an especial signifier of the imago Dei, and his purported sexual essentialism, are looked into from the point of view of two critics, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and measured against their criticisms.
Avoiding any taint of sexual hierarchy, such as reservation of the imago Dei as primarily man’s over woman’s, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ sees man in his personhood imaging God precisely ‘inasmuch as he is male and female’ (TOB 9:3).
Two aspects of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s theology as it relates to the imago Dei and human sex distinction are considered from the critical perspectives of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.