Which View of the Image of God Is More Consistent with Christian Orthodoxy?

 If the ontological image of God is moral responsibility and decision making, intellect, relational, etc. then is not man also made in the image of anything else that has those qualities? Does he not image the devil? Demons? Angels? Even other men? What special relationship is there between man and God if man also images all of these other beings too? 

Is it not that man is physical and these others are spiritual? Is that not the difference between them all? But is not that also the difference between man and God? So how is it that man's physical nature can be God's image?

Most of these advocates don't believe that man images God physically, as that would make God physical in their minds, since they think that the word "image" means "reflection in some way." But this is part of the problem. The word "image" does not mean "reflects an appearance of" or "looks like in some way" to where we can only look at spiritual qualities of God and see how the relate to us.

The word "image" here refers to a cult image. A cult image is a physical image that provides a medium for the god to work in the world. Through this physical image, the deity uses it to create order in a particular area, in his temple and then in the city in which the temple resides. It represents the deity's domain and sphere of rule. From that sphere, chaos is thwarted by the deity's presence and work through the idol/image. But one would have to say that the image of God is functional and not ontological in order to say that man is God's image in his physical nature. In other words, if man is God's image in his physical nature and the word "image" means "looks like" then either the Mormons are right or the word "image of God" refers to man's function as God's physical medium in the world, not something that evidences that man is like God in his ontology in some way.

I think this is a real problem for those who define the image of God the way that they do. They are essentially arguing that man only images God in some spiritual way. which is the adoption of a gnostic view. Man, in his spirit, reflects the divine, but not in his crude or evil physical form. 

Hence, it seems that the functional view would be the view more in line with orthodoxy and the ontological view assumes a gnostic view of man, where his physical nature must be disregarded when speaking of the image ontologically.