Do feral children invalidate the Christian argument that "Man is created in the image of God"?

Question

A feral child is a human child who, from a very young age, has lived in isolation from human contact and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior, and, crucially, of human language. Feral children are extremely rare having been brought up by animals, confined by humans (often parents) or live in the wild in isolation.

Answer 1

The image of God reflects the fact that man was created both flesh and spirit and the two are one living soul God is Father Son and Holy Spirit and they are one God. Man was given an eternal spirit in which is the image of God above the ani,als who are mere flesh.

Answer 2

It would seem to me that feral children neither validate or invalidate anything about any christian argument about man being created in the image of God.

Why?

Well, first of all I do not believe there is a definitive, all encompassing--or for that matter an accurate or universally accepted definition of what God is or isn't to be able to have something to meaure against.

Secondly, I believe that only thing that a feral child validates is man's potential for inhumane treatment of, and atrocities to each other, and has nothing to do with what God may otherwise have created--including man.

Thirdly, all you are observing is a form of sensory (social) deprivation, and follow-on studies of these children reveal that although they may 'intellectually' change (learn to read, etc.) they still view and interpret the world at whatever age they were 'deprived'.

Note that the phrase is that man was created in the IMAGE of God--as I do not believe that the loving God that I am aware of would do such a thing--only we (being at the level of evolution we are) would or could--and as an "IMAGE" and not "a god" also relieves God from all responsiblity for our decisions and actions, and places it squarely on our backs.

Regards,

Answer 3

Heavens no. In fact, look at the differences between the feral child and the normal child. God said, in Gen. 1.26, "Let *Us* make man in *Our* image according to *Our* likeness." The Christian God is Trinity, and Christ prayed that we may be one even as He and the Father are one (Jn. 17.23). That is what it means to be truly human, and our turning inward, away from others, is a sign of our fallen state.

To the extent that we are human, true persons, we are also deeply connected to others. The feral child not given human company is even further denied the possibility of realizing their own humanity. To quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's paraphrase of Descartes, "Would it not be more accurate to say 'I love, therefore I am'?" (rather than "I think therefore I am"). Without the ability to love another human being, these poor children must become more like wild beasts than men. It would bury the image of God even deeper and tarnish it even further. No, poor children, on the rare instances we encounter them, fit in with what we would expect, and it is so terribly tragic when it does happen.

Answer 4

I have never heard of a feral child, other than the mythical Tarzan. Still, even if what you are saying is real, that does not in any way invalidate the argument that "man is created in the image of God". The image of God may refer to how we look (our human form), but more importantly, it refers to our soul, our ability to think critically and logically, our capacity to love and to feel (emotions) and to create things. The same cannot be said of most animals.

Answer 5

No, this does not invalidate the Christian assertion.

These cases are extremely rare examples of horrific abuse, or miraculous (considering the odds) survival. Abuse is simply sin, obviously NOT part of God's make-up, and is just further evidence of Humanity's rebellion against its Creator. The Survival episode just shows the flexibility of the created being.

These children CAN be habilitated, by the way. We are not talking about mindless drones here! There is a lot of work involved, obviously, but wouldn't it be worth the effort, to save such a child?

Answer 6

I honestly don't follow you . Yes man is created in the image of God. In other words as homosapiens, humanoid. You know we aren't all the spitting image of God . In other words we look just like we did before we came into this earthly body. In both places we look the same. But what has being feral have to do with what we look like? We definitely are not created in his image as far as behavior is concerned if that is what you are getting at.

Answer 7

Why should it. The animal didn't have the child, ignorant parents did. Nor did the wild have the child. (hey that rymes) God did create man in His image. Explain to me how the question is NOT invalid.

Answer 8

i'm no longer advocating, however the common theological premise is that God created guy & lady to be compliments to a minimum of one yet another and be waiting to partake in His (or Her) resourceful ability. In different words, the theological reasoning is that God would not have or desire reproductive organs and guy and lady do, via fact their "image" is done while they're united. yet like I pronounced, I neither settle for or reject the assumption.

Answer 9

A. Very few feral children.
B. Still human
C. God is created in the image of Man.

Answer 10

The image of God is more a matter of our souls, not necessarily our physical characteristics. Mankind is unique from animals in that we have things like developed societies, history, culture, art, justice, morality, technology, science, philosophy, transcendence of environment, a sense of self-awareness, and most importantly; religion and knowledge of God.