If God wasn't designed because he always existed, and Man was created in 
God's image, doesn't that mean Man wasn't designed either? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

I would imagine that Man was his first attempt at creating something in his 
own image, much like my attempt at sculpting a bust out of clay my first 
year at community college. There is some pride that goes along with the 
achievement but the result is still flawed.


"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:49b89f38$1@news.povray.org...
> If God wasn't designed because he always existed, and Man was created in 
> God's image, doesn't that mean Man wasn't designed either? :-)
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
>   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:
> I would imagine that Man was his first attempt at creating something in his 
> own image, much like my attempt at sculpting a bust out of clay my first 
> year at community college. There is some pride that goes along with the 
> achievement but the result is still flawed.

Aren't you forgetting something? HE is Perfect. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If God wasn't designed because he always existed, and Man was created in 
> God's image, doesn't that mean Man wasn't designed either? :-)

  If you build a doll to resemble yourself, does that mean the doll has
all the same characteristics as you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If God wasn't designed because he always existed, and Man was created in 
>> God's image, doesn't that mean Man wasn't designed either? :-)
> 
>   If you build a doll to resemble yourself, does that mean the doll has
> all the same characteristics as you?

I'm not sure I'm following what your analogy is trying to imply. It would 
seem that you're implying that the creative design part is the extent to 
which humans are *not* godlike and therefore flawed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm following what your analogy is trying to imply. It would 
> seem that you're implying that the creative design part is the extent to 
> which humans are *not* godlike and therefore flawed.

  I don't think anybody has said that God made people to be equals to God
(except perhaps Mormonism). It is usually interpreted that "in his image"
means immortal, like God.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> It is usually interpreted that "in his image"
> means immortal, like God.

OK. I find this interpretation dubious given that they were kicked out of 
the garden of eden lest they eat the tree of life and become immortal. But 
I'll not pursue this one farther, since I never really learned all those 
kinds of details myself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> It is usually interpreted that "in his image"
>> means immortal, like God.
> 
> OK. I find this interpretation dubious given that they were kicked out 
> of the garden of eden lest they eat the tree of life and become 
> immortal. But I'll not pursue this one farther, since I never really 
> learned all those kinds of details myself.
> 

Yes, well. I doubt it would help. The so called "experts" have more 
waffling explanations as to which it is than we could ever come up with.

On a side note, recent research has shown that when "thinking about 
god", we do so in the same way that we would think about, "What would 
the neighbor do, if I took his news paper." I.e., we imagine what would 
would do as such a thing, and draw attributions from that. Which is of 
course, why gods never "reveal" to people things that contradict their 
own prejudices, tell them to do things they didn't one some level want 
to do, or otherwise add anything useful to the conversation. One might 
as well be watching someone employ the so called "solicited 
communication" method, by which people convince themselves that their 
own "helping" of an autistic child is "really the child", and not, as 
evidence shows, the parent/practitioner themselves expressing their own 
"knowledge" and understanding through the medium.

In other words, the moment we went from general, "The other ape may 
steal my food.", to, "I would steal his food, so he is probably plotting 
to steal mine.", we "invented" god to fill in the gaps where the world 
acted against or for us, as an explanation for why things seemed to 
either go right, or wrong, for us. Call it, another nail in the coffin 
of the idea that design was involved from something else's side of the 
equation. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Mike Hough wrote:
>> I would imagine that Man was his first attempt at creating something 
>> in his own image, much like my attempt at sculpting a bust out of clay 
>> my first year at community college. There is some pride that goes 
>> along with the achievement but the result is still flawed.
> 
> Aren't you forgetting something? HE is Perfect. ;-)


You could still hold that since man would be only part of God's creation 
it's incorrect to consider the "perfection" of a part in isolation of 
the whole, and since we can't see the whole it's entirely expected that 
things might look imperfect from our viewpoint.  An analogy would be 
asking if each note in a very good song is "very good" when considered 
by itself -- the concept isn't really meaningful at that scale.

A bit of a philosophical dodge, I'll admit, but it seems to work in 
getting the desired answer from those premises.  That said, I find the 
`lumpy clay bust' theory a somehow more satisfying response to the question.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message 
news:49bac4fe$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>> Mike Hough wrote:
>>> I would imagine that Man was his first attempt at creating something in 
>>> his own image, much like my attempt at sculpting a bust out of clay my 
>>> first year at community college. There is some pride that goes along 
>>> with the achievement but the result is still flawed.
>>
>> Aren't you forgetting something? HE is Perfect. ;-)
>
>
> You could still hold that since man would be only part of God's creation 
> it's incorrect to consider the "perfection" of a part in isolation of the 
> whole, and since we can't see the whole it's entirely expected that things 
> might look imperfect from our viewpoint.  An analogy would be asking if 
> each note in a very good song is "very good" when considered by itself --  
> the concept isn't really meaningful at that scale.
>
> A bit of a philosophical dodge, I'll admit, but it seems to work in 
> getting the desired answer from those premises.  That said, I find the 
> `lumpy clay bust' theory a somehow more satisfying response to the 
> question.

This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe is 
infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there can 
still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite universe. Had 
trouble wrapping my mind around that one.

Post a reply to this message