|
"Image" needn't necessarily mean a visual image, but rather a conceptual one. In a Christian sense, the idea that God made man in his image is a metaphorical one that often gets interpreted far too literally; it refers to the essense of the human soul as being God like rather than anything physical.
From a Christian standpoint, it's likely that, assuming such existence, God's true nature is such that we can't comprehend it with our senses, so it's necessary for God to conceptualize things for us in such a way that we're capable of understanding it. Because we're designed for communication with other humans, taking human form would be one way of connecting that would make the people more comfortable. Humans like physical representations, particularly visual or aural, to help them understand things. In other words, when we encounter spiritual entities (God, angels, etc.), they take a form similar to ours to comfort us, rather than our being a copy of their physical form, which they likely do not posses in the first place. It is our essence, our soul, that is "in God's image," not some physical manifestation. As C. S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity (paraphrased), you don't have a soul, you are a soul; you have a body.
From an anthropological perspective, it works the other way. We conceptualize supernatural beings to explain things we don't understand. The physical form that those concepts take is going to reflect that which is familiar to the culture in which the concepts form, and are going to reflect the value those cultures place on various physical aspects of their environment. Humans also tend to see themselves as higher than other animals, so when giving physical form to those abstract concepts, they're going to tend to use an extension of what is seen as the highest form. This is often human, so gods are seen in human form. In cultures where other things are often seen as superior to humans, the gods might take the form of animals, trees, idols, natural forces.
So, getting back to the question in the OP, lets assume for a moment that a supreme being goes to some cattle. To communicate with the cattle, this entity might take a form familiar to them, in the form of a cattle like god, or might take the form of a symbol of something that has power of them, such as a human.
Similarly, if cows were conceptualizing a deity to explain something they didn't understand, they might choose a physical concept close to themselves, one that has power, or even a combination. A minotaur would work well, combining the physical power of a bull with upright stance of a human.
In simplest terms, gods have the form they do because that form makes them easier to understand in physical forms. Whether that form is chosen by the gods themselves or by the worshippers, the principle remains the same.
It does lead to some distortions, such as to what degree we should be free to interpret historical figures that are of religious significance, both in terms of historical representations and artistic ones, but that's a different issue.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.
~Steven Colbert
|