In God's image

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:38 pm
Not really. In "psychology to mathematics, to subatomic physics" you can have a reasoned debate on the probability and possibility of effects, outcomes, and measures, and test them. In religion there are no tests, no statistics, and no proof. (Apart from "I believe this so it must be true.")
Only because some folks define what is a test, what is a statistic and what is proof in a manner to exclude what they don't believe in, a priori.
I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day.
To me it is palpable proof of God's existence, a posteriori.
From: "The Quantbum Measurement Problem" by Dr. J. Thackray
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by Big RR »

Gob--I have to disagree. In religion(s), the debates have been going on for centuries, you need only look at the writings of religious scholars to see them. Indeed, one can see similar debates here on various religious topics. Proofs? Maybe, maybe not. But there are no philosophical "proofs" either, only consistency within the premises; the same is true for math. These are tools which can be used, but you must work within their requirements.

Psychology? sure there are statistic, but extending them to a theory of why something occurs takes a pretty big leap of faith. Some psychologists (like Skinner) basically say that they ignore the "why" and just follow the data, but that is only half the question to thers.

Ditto for subatomic physics or cosmology or other sciences which delve into the" why" vs the "how". Observation and experienentation can show me that if I combine certain chemicals under certain circumstances I will get a result, but it does not explain why. To explain this, we need a theory which is consistent with the observations/experiment, but we are groping into something we cannot see; the theory is consistent aand it works in that it is predictive of behavior, but it is merely a model of something we really cannot fully describe or know (otherwise, how does a subatomic particle have "charm").

We are all blind men groping in the darkness and trying to understand something basically incomprehensible (as Faust learned); religion is just another way of making sense of it all. And if a quark can have charm, then a foghorn's sound may well have color--or not.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: In God's image

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:21 pm
Well, there you go. If it "misses the point" why in the next sentence do you categorically state that the Biblical text is not there to tell us about God because we could never even know such things? That seems to me to be answering the question in the negative - God is not real, although the Bible claims He is, but may be metaphor/fictional/nonsense. Who knows? You perhaps? :D
For me, the question of God's existence is wholly irrelevant and deeply uninteresting.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:21 pm
The rest is interesting though. Noah's silence contrasted with the protests of Moses (and indeed of Abraham) is worth an examination and discussion. Why is he silent? In what does his righteousness exist if he says nothing?
Then we agree.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:21 pm
In that sense, the Bible is a mirror. IMO
Which is pretty much my point. Although perhaps not a mirror, but a lens through which to understand and direct our own actions.
GAH!

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: In God's image

Post by BoSoxGal »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:01 pm
I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day.
To me it is palpable proof of God's existence, a posteriori.
From: "The Quantbum Measurement Problem" by Dr. J. Thackray
I rather think dogs, and especially herding dogs and especially collies, are palpable proof of God’s existence - and that humans are made in her image. God made us in her image and placed in us stewardship over animals and gave us some measure of her intelligence from which we fashioned for ourselves the most loyal, intelligent and loving companion humankind could ever hope to have. A companion even better in some ways than another human being.

Insert here the joyfully anguished sobbing of children upon being presented with a dog, and the promise of truly unconditional love.

My science brain understands that this is an entirely predictable result of millions of years of evolution, but some part of me also dwells in wonder and awe.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:49 pm
For me, the question of God's existence is wholly irrelevant and deeply uninteresting.
I understand but suggest that irrelevance and ennui are insufficient grounds to make a declarative statement that the Bible does not tell us any truths about God because the writers could not know such things.

Yes we agree on the rest - I wanted to make that clear

Perhaps lens more than mirror. It's a good thought. Do you then consider that through such a lens we can view a 'should' or a series of 'shoulds' that er . . . should modify our behaviour?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: In God's image

Post by Bicycle Bill »

I'll just throw this in here....
Archie Bunker:  The Lord God created me in his image.
Michael Stivic:  You mean God looks like you?
Archie Bunker:  I ain't sayin' youse couldn't tell the two of us apart.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: In God's image

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:53 pm
Sue U wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:49 pm
For me, the question of God's existence is wholly irrelevant and deeply uninteresting.
I understand but suggest that irrelevance and ennui are insufficient grounds to make a declarative statement that the Bible does not tell us any truths about God because the writers could not know such things.
I don't know whether the writers "tell us any truths about God" because, as I noted in the OP (quoting Rav Danya), that "depends a lot on what you think God is." In my view, "truths about God" are by definition unknowable, and in this context not particularly important, because the purpose of the text (again, in my view) is to reveal truths about ourselves.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:53 pm
Yes we agree on the rest - I wanted to make that clear

Perhaps lens more than mirror. It's a good thought. Do you then consider that through such a lens we can view a 'should' or a series of 'shoulds' that er . . . should modify our behaviour?
Sure, there are 613 "commandments" in the Pentateuch, but I don't see it as The Big Book of Rules. I think of it more as, "What is the meaning to be derived from this portion of text and how (if at all) is it relevant to our condition, our values and our relationship to the world today?" These are points of discussion in a continuous process that has been ongoing since the reign of Hezekiah. It is the learning, the discussion and the search for understanding and perhaps even wisdom that is the important thing.
GAH!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Thank you.
In my view, "truths about God" are by definition unknowable, and in this context not particularly important, because the purpose of the text (again, in my view) is to reveal truths about ourselves.
What then is the definition to which you refer? It would appear to be "knowing something true about God" (assuming you will aver that "God is unknowable"). It seems logical then that whether God is or is not, knowable or unknowable, you are asserting that he/she/it is incapable of communicating with any part of the existant universe? Is that not "knowledge" that you claim is impossible to possess?

And is not the issue important in the context of determining the purpose of the text, granting that one of us or both of us together may well be mistaken in our "view"?

Is it not the case that if scripture is not (even a bit) truth about God, then it's just another self-help book by some chaps who had the delusion that they were saying something true about God?

Again, I do not disagree with your final paragraph as to the utility of those words in exploring our own relationship to self, to each other and to the world as we grow in wisdom and in stature (hopefully)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: In God's image

Post by Burning Petard »

In religion there are no tests, not statistics, and no proof. (Apart from "I believe this so it must be true.")

Oh my, Gob. If you believe that statement above, I hope someday you encounter a mature Jesuit Priest or Conservative Rabbi, who is willing to talk to you and compare theological and scientific ontology

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: In God's image

Post by Scooter »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 3:05 pm
I rather think dogs, and especially herding dogs and especially collies, are palpable proof of God’s existence - and that humans are made in her image. God made us in her image and placed in us stewardship over animals and gave us some measure of her intelligence from which we fashioned for ourselves the most loyal, intelligent and loving companion humankind could ever hope to have. A companion even better in some ways than another human being.
Image

A story I think you'll appreciate, BSG. Google translate does a pretty good job with it, except near the end where it translates "raté" as "missed", when in this context it should be botched, messed up.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by rubato »

Image of? In what sense image of? I've never understood this. Physical image would be trivial and not very interesting unless god looked like Ingrid Bergman or Sophia Loren in which case I would be signing up for classes tomorrow. ( a more recent example would be Penelope Cruz or Sophia Vergara)

But how else do you mean it? Does god reason like we do? have similar emotional responses? Does god like Bach? Does he weep when movies are shown of Bergen-belsen or Changi? And while we're on the subject, why didn't he help the poor men dying in Changi death camp of horrific abuses?

I think a god in my image is a far better person than the one we've got. I would not allow children to die of bone cancer. And I know some who have.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Jane, you ignorant slut.

You know full well that Adam was created in God's image and likeness - that is, as a reasoning, self-willed and innocent entity. You also know that after the fall from grace and innocence, Adam created Seth in his OWN likeness and image and that's how we are no longer conformed to the image and likeness of God.

Whether one believes that or not, it's so low to criticize a self-created distortion as if it were the real thing.

As to what you would do if you were God, I have no doubt you'd start by curing babies of cancer and end up dictating to everyone how they should live their lives and enforcing it upon them. Then you'd start killing everyone you didn't like.

God does none of those things. I prefer his way
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by Big RR »

God does none of those things.
Really? From biblical stories such as the great flood, the destruction of Sodom (because Abraham couldn't find 10 righteous men), closing the parted Red Sea and drowning the Egyptians, freezing the sun in the sky to permit Joshua more time to kill his enemies, ... we know god can and does kill those he doesn't "like" (and whether you take these accounts as historically factual or not, it reveals something of the nature of god (or our perception of it). We are given stories which show god does not do this gleefully (from his behavior at the end of the Noah story to his discussion with Jonah after he spared Ninevah), but this is part of the bilbically imparted understanding of god.

Personally, I think many of those stories say more about the people who recorded them and the qualities they want in a god (one who can kick the ass of all their enemies), but I'm sure some would disagree.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: In God's image

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:21 pm
Personally, I think many of those stories say more about the people who recorded them and the qualities they want in a god (one who can kick the ass of all their enemies), but I'm sure some would disagree.
I think perhaps not so much "qualities they want in a god," but qualities needed to advance the narrative. And that is my point here: I think it is erroneous to focus on the nature or character of God as depicted in "the Bible," as these features are clearly treated differently among the different Biblical texts depending on the time each was written, the time they were edited/integrated into the canon, and the message intended to be conveyed by both the original story and its later redactors. From the Elohim to El Adonai to YHWH -- not to mention Baal, Ashera and other rival deities -- the nature and function of the deity/ies is a constant evolution. And depending on whether the texts are derived from the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic or Priestly sources (or others), their contextual meaning and historical purpose may vary. But as I see it, the Bible ("Old Testament," anyway) is not about the nature of God, it is about the nature of man --and also, not incidentally, the origin folklore of my people. The Bible is not intended to deepen your understanding of a deity; it is to aid in understanding yourself and your role as human on this planet.

ETA:

Some scholars argue (with considerable archeological support) that the Israelite religion did not become reliably monotheistic until the Babylonian Exile, a rather recent event in context. And if that is the case, what are we to make of the previous millennium or two of "God"'s existence? (BTW, the annual memorial of the Exile happens to be coming up this weekend.)
GAH!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:21 pm
God does none of those things.
Really? From biblical stories such as the great flood, the destruction of Sodom (because Abraham couldn't find 10 righteous men), closing the parted Red Sea and drowning the Egyptians, freezing the sun in the sky to permit Joshua more time to kill his enemies, ... we know god can and does kill those he doesn't "like" (and whether you take these accounts as historically factual or not, it reveals something of the nature of god (or our perception of it). We are given stories which show god does not do this gleefully (from his behavior at the end of the Noah story to his discussion with Jonah after he spared Ninevah), but this is part of the bilbically imparted understanding of god.

Personally, I think many of those stories say more about the people who recorded them and the qualities they want in a god (one who can kick the ass of all their enemies), but I'm sure some would disagree.
I cannot really imagine you having difficulty discerning the difference between "does" and "did". So you're obviously just foolin' around :lol:

I note you ignore curing babies, dictating opinions and enforcing rigid behaviour. Didn't want to deny or endorse any of those???? Hmmm?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by Big RR »

Meade--weren't you the one who said god doesn't change his mind (or something very close to that? So if god did that before, I would presume that he still does do that (or maybe he can change his mind?).

Not sure what "curing babies" or the other things you state have to do with killing one's enemies.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:08 pm
Meade--weren't you the one who said god doesn't change his mind (or something very close to that? So if god did that before, I would presume that he still does do that (or maybe he can change his mind?).

Not sure what "curing babies" or the other things you state have to do with killing one's enemies.
Now you're getting very silly. What does "not changing his mind" have to do with killing people? You imply that God has a normal mode of operation in which he must kill people - BUT - has recently changed his mind and isn't doing that any more. It's as valid (and more rational) to argue that God has killed people (recorded in the OT), may one day kill more people (logically undeniable), but currently is not killing people (observed reality today).

I take it you are not a proponent of the argument concluding that "God kills everyone who dies"?

(b) it has nothing to do with killing. It has everything to do with you cherry-picking one of four mutually supporting claims to argue (errantly) but not wanting to touch the other three. The point is that rubato as god would be a disaster, even when starting from good intention (or me for that matter). God does not "do" any of those things - and you still have not 'fessed up :D that you mistakenly thought "did" equals "does"
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by Big RR »

I'm getting silly? Your the one who said "difficulty discerning the difference between "does" and "did"". I interpreted it as saying god did that in the past but does not now? Why? My only conclusion is he changed his mind and no longer does what he did. If this is not what you intended, then perhaps you can explain. Is it perhaps you intention that god did not "do" any of the things attributed to him--from destroying people in the great flood to the other examples I raised?

As I said, I have no problem with believing that the reports included are based upon the state of mind of the reporter(s) and how they viewed god (or wanted god to be), but from some of your previous posts I do not think you'd agree.

As for "The point is that rubato as god would be a disaster, even when starting from good intention (or me for that matter)"; without a doubt--any of us would be a disaster in that role.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: In God's image

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

My only conclusion is he changed his mind and no longer does what he did.
The first part is what's inadequate. It's based on an assumption of continuation of action when no such continuation is required, suggested or evidenced. You allow for no conditional response.

One puts down one's dog if it persists in savaging children. One pets a friendly puppy rather than offing it. Is that a "change of mind" or is it simply responding differently to different situations? (Of course, you think differently of the two but that's not "changing" your mind). **

Clearly God can react in one circumstance by doing X and in other circumstances by doing Y. Doesn't seem so hard to follow IMO

**Yes, if your only experience of a dog was a child-killing teeth machine, then you might conclude "all dogs are bad" and change your mind when you meet a nice gentle one. Fortunately, God being omniscient he already knows about bad dogs and good dogs. Never taken by surprise or making a false conclusion that needs to be corrected
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: In God's image

Post by Big RR »

So you really think mankind changed for the better, going from the child killing dog to the family pet? I don't see much evidence of that. I think people are pretty much the same as they have always been--some good, some not.. And FWIW, killing the first born male of each Egyptian family does not show that sort of deliberation; at least anymore than Herod did in the killing of all male children under two. Yet one is a miracle of liberation, the other is one of the most dastardly acts in history, even though both involve slaying children.

Post Reply