Theological Fatalism

Originally posted by Palynka
It depends on what type of God LJ is targeting. Wouldn't a God that 'created man in His own image' be anthropomorphic?

Unless that's just an archaic way of saying that the structure of human beings reflects the mathematics of creation.

Originally posted by Palynka
It depends on what type of God LJ is targeting. Wouldn't a God that 'created man in His own image' be anthropomorphic?

It isn't anthropomorphic at all. Ascribing to God human physical characteristics is not what is intended when Genesis says, "Let us make man in our image." The image referred to relates to the overall composition of man, not his physical characteristics. Body, soul and spirit: one trichotomous being.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It isn't anthropomorphic at all. Ascribing to God human physical characteristics is not what is intended when Genesis says, "Let [b]us make man in our image." The image referred to relates to the overall composition of man, not his physical characteristics. Body, soul and spirit: one trichotomous being.[/b]

And you know this...how?

Edit - Not to mention that your version of 'our' and 'us' is one I've never seen. I mean Genesis 1:27.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Unless that's just an archaic way of saying that the structure of human beings reflects the mathematics of creation.

This sort of thing, you know...

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/GoldenSectionandyourBody.html

🙄😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This sort of thing, you know...

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/GoldenSectionandyourBody.html

🙄😵

If "The lesser is to the greater as the greater is to the whole" then I don't see why the greater wouldn't be anthropomorphic.

For the theists' perspective, I would say it is the usual meaning of anthropomorphic that is deceiving and perhaps somewhat shocking initially. But it is but a word that must go both ways. If man is made to resemble God (in any way) then God must resemble man (in that same way, but in opposite sense).

Originally posted by Palynka
If "The lesser is to the greater as the greater is to the whole" then I don't see why the greater wouldn't be anthropomorphic.

Why don't people look like nautilus shells then? The same number is at work.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why don't people look like nautilus shells then? The same number is at work.

You're not making any sense or I'm not following you. How is a nautilus shell anthropomorphic? Surely, a simple relation regarding shapes isn't sufficient.

Originally posted by Palynka
You're not making any sense or I'm not following you. How is a nautilus shell anthropomorphic? Surely, a simple relation regarding shapes isn't sufficient.

In terms of sacred geometry the same "divine proportion" determines the form of nautilus shells, human beings and just about everything else. From that viewpoint God would be as nautilomorphic as it is anthropomorphic. The "divine image" being the mathematical proportion in question. See?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In terms of sacred geometry the same "divine proportion" determines the form of nautilus shells, human beings and just about everything else. From that viewpoint God would be as nautilomorphic as it is anthropomorphic. The "divine image" being the mathematical proportion in question. See?

I see. But then even the nautilos would be anthropomorphic, would he not?.

Originally posted by Palynka
And you know this...how?

Edit - Not to mention that your version of 'our' and 'us' is one I've never seen. I mean Genesis 1:27.

A thorough reading of Scripture will confirm that God is spirit.

Here is a slice of transliteration from the source, Genesis 1:26. Sorry I haven't figured out a way to reproduce the Hebrew characters herein.

uiamr aleim noshe adm btzlmnu kdmuthnu
and-he-is-saying Elohim we-shall-make human in-image-of-us

kdmuthnu uirdu bdgth eim ubouph
as-likeness-of-us and-they-shall-sway in-fish-of the-sea and-in-flyer-of

eshmim ubbeme ubkl eartz ubkl ermish
the-heavens and-in-beast and-in-all the-earth and-in-all the-moving-animal

ermish ol eartz
the-one-moving on the-land

You're right, though: many versions use the singular despite the obvious pluarality of the Hebrew.

Originally posted by Palynka
I see. But then even the nautilos would be anthropomorphic, would he not?.

And vice-versa! We are made in the image of octopi and mountain goats.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In terms of sacred geometry the same "divine proportion" determines the form of nautilus shells, human beings and just about everything else. From that viewpoint God would be as nautilomorphic as it is anthropomorphic. The "divine image" being the mathematical proportion in question. See?

One should not confuse the expression with the image.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
And vice-versa! We are made in the image of octopi and mountain goats.

But that's what I was saying! It goes vice-versa. 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
I would reject Premise 2 as well. The example you cite (LJ tied his shoe at 3 pm yesterday), if true, I would argue is necessary – not logically necessary but necessary in the sense that it is not causable, it is not within influence or control. I would argue that such a proposition becomes accidentally necessary once it becomes true.

The prob ...[text shortened]... icle by Plantinga that I cited discusses this in much more depth, and I think it’s a good essay.

I've only recently started to read about this idea of temporal necessity (i.e. past events are necessary because you can't do anything about them), but I have to say I don't buy it.

For me, necessity isn't about whether something can be controlled or not. It's either logical (e.g. Pv~P, 1+1=2, the sum of angles in a triangle is two right angles etc.) or metaphysical (i.e. given the same set of causal factors not including the agent, the event occurs in all possible worlds). The proposition "X will do action A at time T" is true or false, necessary or contingent whether or not T is in the past, present or future.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A thorough reading of Scripture will confirm that God is spirit.

Here is a slice of transliteration from the source, Genesis 1:26. Sorry I haven't figured out a way to reproduce the Hebrew characters herein.

uiamr aleim noshe adm btzlmnu kdmuthnu
and-he-is-saying Elohim we-shall-make human in-image-of-us

[i]kdmuthnu uirdu bdgth eim ubouph ...[text shortened]... re right, though: many versions use the singular despite the obvious pluarality of the Hebrew.

Very interesting.

But still, despite my tangent regarding the physical aspects of man with Bosse, if we consider the original meaning of 'anthropomorphic' used in this thread it was regarding the non-physical characteristics of God.

I never interpreted the passage as a physical resemblance myself, but that serves my original point. If man resembles God in both mind, spirit and soul (and are these not, in a theist view, the things that distinguish man from other living beings?) then surely God must be somewhat anthropomorphic. Like I said, it goes both ways as if man is 'theomorphic' then God is also 'anthropomorphic' as these are relativistic concepts.