Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ultimate reason why anyone acts is because of the dissatisfaction with the present state of existence, otherwise the person would not act. Now since nothing existed prior to the act of creation the only thing in existence was HaShem. As such why was HaShem dissatisfied with his state of existence so as to prompt him to create? Seems at odds with a being supposedly who is all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing, and eternal who needs absolutely nothing. The whole story of this kind of God creating is whimsical.
No, you can't change your initial statement in your response to me and then claim I was strawmanning you.
Nope, nope, nope.
That's cheating.
My post to you in regards to what god wants addressed precisely what you said -- that, essentially, without quoting scripture, we can't know what God wants.
And I responded by arguing that the scriptures don't show what God wants -- but what humans want.
It's not MY fault that you didn't make yourself clear enough in your original post.
I would post a picture of a referee captioned with "Illegal use of a fallacy accusation" but, alas, there doesn't seem to be one anywhere on the internet.
Judaism teaches that Hashem wished to do good, so He created beings that could appreciate it. - Why Did G-d Create the World?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So he could drown it, apparently.
And then regret doing so.
Just to put a bit spice in the thread, I would be playing devil's advocate here.
Did Hashem need that appreciation? I don't think so. Hashem is not in need of anything. If Hashem created us in His image, we too shouldn't be in need of anything. Therefore, understanding that Hashem created us in His image is not correct.
The explanation in the article:
"Hashem created us in His image. It is impossible to give anything to Hashem, because everything comes from Hashem. Hashem cannot receive something for nothing. Hashem must create it first."
But what does Hashem need? Does He need anything from us? If not, we do not need to give Hashem anything.
"Similarly, our very nature demands that we do something to receive something. Just as Hashem cannot get something for nothing, Hashem created us in that image."
We were not created in Hashem's such image because Hashem is not in need of anything and did not need to do anything or create anything. Hashem was not in need of us but we ARE in need of Hashem. Where is the similarity to show that we are in Hashem's image?
09-28-2017, 09:20 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
To be created 'in' the image of God does not have anything to do with an ontological attribute - it is functional. The text can be read as 'to' image God. They were created with the capacity to act like God would act and do his will, particularly in ruling over the earth. God had given them delegated authority over the earth and they were to rule it as he would so he gave them the capacity to do so.
The preposition 'in' as in English has varied uses. They were created 'to' image God.
To be created 'in' the image of God does not have anything to do with an ontological attribute - it is functional. The text can be read as 'to' image God. They were created with the capacity to act like God would act and do his will, particularly in ruling over the earth. God had given them delegated authority over the earth and they were to rule it as he would so he gave them the capacity to do so.
The preposition 'in' as in English has varied uses. They were created 'to' image God.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the means doesn't sit well with me. The Hebrew has a prefix with means "in" (as opposed to a different prefix which would mean "to.") "In" is a useful preposition here and elsewhere grammatically but shouldn't be parsed for its meaning. I can get my homework done "in time" or be "in the moment" -- the operative word follows the "in" part, and the concept of "image" or "likeness" is what is not strictly the literal/visual aspect (as God has no actual form).
You were presenting a strawman argument. The bible is more than just a collection of stories told by goatherders.
Sorry, but to me, the Bible is just a collection of scrolls discovered by goatherders -- and that's exactly what the Dead Sea Scrolls are -- and, I might add, it is historical FACT that goatherders found the scrolls stuffed in jars in a desert cave. There is no disputing that.
Now, to YOU, the Bible might be the divinely inspired word of God -- but not to me. Thus, I'm not strawmanning you. Rather, we're simply at one of the basic impasses that believers and non-believers often reach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
And you are wrong. To suggest that is not correct.
Speaking of bad umpires (referring to your quote below) I'm not wrong simply because you say that I'm wrong.
If you're going to accuse me of being in error, you have to explain why. Otherwise, you've essentially said nothing. Seeing as how you're not the final umpire in regards to who is right and wrong, a simple assertion that I'm wrong just doesn't cut the mustard -- or the cheese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
And you would be as bad as the umpires I watched in last night's baseball game.
Of course you would think that. Because I'm an atheist and you're a Christian.
I don't believe for a nanosecond that the Bible was divinely inspired -- or even all that inspired (well, except by the myths and legends of previous civilizations like Sumer (Gilgamesh) and the Greeks (Pandora) among several others).
You don't agree with that. Okay, that's fine. But the fact that we disagree in no way means I've committed the Strawman fallacy.
Yikes, I would have an easier time deciphering alien hieroglyphics than I would using that program.
09-28-2017, 10:30 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the means doesn't sit well with me. The Hebrew has a prefix with means "in" (as opposed to a different prefix which would mean "to.") "In" is a useful preposition here and elsewhere grammatically but shouldn't be parsed for its meaning. I can get my homework done "in time" or be "in the moment" -- the operative word follows the "in" part, and the concept of "image" or "likeness" is what is not strictly the literal/visual aspect (as God has no actual form).
Yes, the image 'form' is abstract not literal. But why should the 'in' not be parsed? In Hebrew the preposition has multiple meanings like English - 'means' is only one of them. If I say 'I am in electronics' or 'the pen is in the trash' or 'the building is in ruins' none of those uses of 'in' are 'means.'
If Hashish created the world, more might pay attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
