### The three transcendentals and *imago dei* Medieval scholastic theology inherited the notions of [transcendentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals) from Greek metaphysics. CCC 41, interpreting [Wis 13:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom%2013%3A5&version=NRSVCE) , teaches that our soul has the ability to perceive God through the 3 transcendentals Truth, Goodness and Beauty in created things **by resemblance**, because our soul has *imago dei* stamped on it: > All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator". A [*Reasons to Believe* article](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/the-3-transcendentals-truth-goodness-beauty) quoted Stephen R. Turley saying that the 3 transcendentals to provide **divine meaning to 3 capacities**: > Truth, goodness, and beauty are cosmic values that communicate divine meaning to the **intellectual**, **moral**, and **aesthetic** capacities of the human soul, which brings a balance in the soul, which, in turn, harmonizes the human person with divine meaning and purpose of the cosmos, which was considered the prerequisite to human flourishing. The same article quoted Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft who connects the 3 transcendentals to **created things**: > When God created, he imbued the cosmos with truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosopher Peter Kreeft says: “Everything that exists is in some way true, good, and beautiful.” and continues to associate the 3 transcendentals to **3 verbs** "know", "desire", and "love": > And humans via the imago Dei (image of God) are able **to *know* the truth, *desire* the good, and *love* the beautiful**. The fall of humankind into sin disordered man’s natural capacities but through the redemption found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ humans are brought back into a right relationship with God and with these revealed values. ### My question It seems that the last 2 pairings are not technically consistent. Shouldn't it be: 1. ***Know* Truth** by our **reason** (because by **intellectual** activity in our mind we grasp & form concepts and we reason discursively) 2. ***Love* Goodness** by our **will** (because inspired by divine Love we *ACTIVELY resolve* to love others, usually with great effort unless aided by virtues, in the sphere of Christian **morality**, i.e. love = "willing the good of the other") 3. ***Desire* Beauty** by our **passion** (because our **aesthetic** sensibilities is *PASSIVELY drawn* to all things beautiful or by *being led* to them by simply perceiving or immersing ourselves in them with little effort) I am seeking a Catholic answer linking Catholic psychology to Catholic doctrine of God. I hope that CCC, an encyclical, St. Thomas Aquinas, or a post Vatican II theologian says something about it. ### P.S. It seems there are other meanings at play here, such as "love" as attraction ("love" is such a complex multivalent word!) or "good" to mean how we desire created goods (such as wealth, honor, food, sex, etc.) we aim to possess to be happy. I'm simply using that article as a motivating resource to ask this question. It's important for the answer to this question to get those multiple meanings of the words in order, refined within the discipline of Catholic psychology, so we can focus on the right terminologies for the 3 faculties of our soul (covered heavily in St. Thomas's *Summa*) and how they connect to the 3 transcendentals in Catholic theology.

St Paul, while referring to the need for a women to cover her head during worship says in 1 Cor 11:7 (NSRVCE): > For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. But then, we read in Gen 1: 27: > So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. One can hardly interpret the terms ‘humankind’ and ‘them’ as comprising only Adam and his male progeny . In fact they comprise both Adam, Eve and their progeny of both sexes. But then, why does St Paul give a different type of interpretation of Gen 1: 27, putting a limit to the concept of creation in God's image? Is he only referring to the physical appearance of man and woman for the purpose of supporting his teaching that woman should cover her head during worship ? In fact, he goes on to state in Verses 14 & 15: > Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. **My question therefore is**: According to Catholic scholars, is St Paul referring to physical appearance of man and woman when he tells of creation in God's image, in 1 Cor 11: 7?

> No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) QUESTION: **Is there anything in Catholic doctrine which prohibits or restricts displaying an image in the "likeness" of God the Father?** *Remark:* I ask, because I seem to be coming across more and more such images. Yet, I thought that such was not permissible. Consider, for example, the Name of God for the Israelites (abbrev., *The Tetragrammaton*), then replaced by LORD (in smallcaps). Finally, somewhat recently, I thought that the Catholic Church had forbidden the pronunciation of the HOLY NAME alluded to, thus producing a change to some of the Catholic hymns to reflect this.

Gen. 1:27 (NRSV-CE) says: > So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. See that the author of Genesis puts two accounts: one, on the creation of humankind in God's own image and the second, on the creation of humans as male and female, in one single verse as if in one breath. Note that the two parts are not joined (or separated) by a conjunction like `and', *therefore* or *but*, but are only divided by the punctuation of semicolon. One could be pardoned for doubting if the second part of Verse 27 owes its origin to the first part . In other words, does the “image” of God in which mankind was created, contain primordial elements of both masculinity and femininity? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, does the second part of Verse 27 of Genesis 1 have any connection to the first part?**

**Which Christians have asserted that women are not made in the image of God?** Another question asks about the biblical basis for the claim that women are made in the image of God . I'm wondering which Christian authors throughout history have disagreed with this interpretation. Related claims I have heard include: * We know God is male because men are made in the image of God. * "a man... is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Corinthians 11:7) I'm especially interested in notable historic theologians, and am not interested in contemporary writers unless they have a substantial following.

According to an Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast man is no longer born in God's image due to the Fall. What is the biblical support for this assertion? ---------------------------------------- The broadcasts are archived here ; the one I heard was the Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast today, 8:30 AM (from the Truth Network's flagship station at 11 am EST). This radio show is *Love Worth Finding* and has been aired for many years.

My pastor says that only men are made in the image of God, not women. He's not a sexist. He believes the verse in Galatians which says we are all one in Christ Jesus but he says God only created Man in His own image because God looks like a Man/Man looks like God. He showed me a lot of scriptures from the King James Bible which proved he was right. His biggest proof text was 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Can you please give biblical support for his position?

[Genesis 1:26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&version=NIV) : > Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Does this mean humans look like God, complete with hands, feet, and sexual organs? Or is it referring to something else?

As far I can tell, being made in the image of God refers to how human beings reflect God's nature since an image, according to Google definition, is "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art". In what way, exactly, do we reflect God? Perspectives from any Christian denomination are allowable.

Lately, I've been checking out "Mary Worship" videos and "Praying to Saints" videos online from Protestants who protest the Catholic practice of statues of Christ and Mary. Pastors or lay Protestants oftentimes smash statues of the Mother of God to make a point. Why do I never see them, even the most aggressive anti-Catholic, anti-Statuary Christian videos, smashing an image of our Lord? As a Catholic, I can say if my Mary statue had a chip in it or gets old, I might just throw in the bin, maybe even break it so it fits better. I'd do the same thing with an image of the Lord, a Bible that gets old and worn, whatever. As a Catholic, I know these things are nothing. In anti-Catholic circles, is smashing a statue of the Lord Jesus Christ just something they will not do? Is there a biblical reason for not doing so?

This question is not made to defame Biblical doctrines or teachings, just a genuine curiosity that no one I talk to has an answer for. Genesis 1:27 states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them." So when 'man' in the singular is mentioned, I saw that it was the historical use of 'mankind' or 'human' and the Bible referred to both man and woman collectively in the singular (conf. Genesis 5:2). But this explanation became confusing considering 1 Corinthians 11:4-13. I don't even understand what _the image of God_ really means nevertheless. While it seems obvious that women are held in much higher respect in both the real world and the Bible than, say, animals and plants, there is also plenty of Bible to justify a subordination. And when proponents for the view 'woman are not made in God's image' are brought up, they bring up passages like 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 and 14:34, as well as the fact that every church traditionally forbade women from ordination. Ultimately, **I'd like to know what the Biblical basis is for the belief that women are made in God's image, in light of the restrictions set upon them.** Again, this is a real question not meant to defame anyone or belief and I am not advocating for any reform or anti-church political agenda. I am a God-fearing, albeit doctrinally-ignorant and confused, Christian.

### Why am I here In Swedish Lutheran church today (which I belong to), it seems to be "obvious" that *All humans are worth equal*. I'm not questioning the statement itself, I am just interested in the origins of it - when did the Church started to state this? ### What does the UN say? The [United Nations universal declarations of human rights](http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop) state: > All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. This sounds like "all humans are worth equal" to me. ### What does the bible say? Genesis 1:27 > So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Nahum 1:14 > The Lord has given commandment about you: “No more shall your name be perpetuated; from the house of your gods I will cut off the carved image and the metal image. I will make your grave, for you are vile.” I haven't been able to find any place in the bible where it says that All humans are worth equal. Being created in the image of God does not automatically lead to *All* humans being worth *equal*. The text from Nahum more seems to say the contrary (there are some other texts just like it). ### Question I have heard "All humans are worth equal" being spoken about as a *Christian idea*. I'm not interested in the origin itself of the concept of all Humans being worth equal, I want to know **When was this idea incorporated into Christianity?**