theists, please give us the creation of man theory

[ding]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

 

[HaShev]

could a theist please give us a concise theory of creation of man....in about 10 sentences
IF you have one
thank you

YOU MUST secret where (what) heaven (olam habah) is to understand the Genesis story is not coming from Begining of time, but that the end (of chaos and disorder & linear time)is where the begining (of the world to come=olam habah) is.
Now reread the creation story: notice things you missed before, that creation is not out of nothing, but out of the existing chaos was created order.
The process to fix our chaos is of God's essence of Shalem (to become complete/whole and stable).

 

[Mac1958]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

 

[ding]

creation is not out of nothing

Rambam disagrees with you.

Rambam and creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and de novo (anew)

Rambam and creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and de novo (anew)

www.jewishmag.com

 

[ding]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

 

[HaShev]

creation is not out of nothing

Rambam disagrees with you.

Rabbis always disagree with each other, but what would Rambam possibly know about a process way to advanced for his time to fathom?
Rambam is talking about the general creation of the Universe while the question was about a created from that chaos in creation.
The Torah's intent is to create Shalem out of that chaos through guiding through the knowledge to come (future) to the past that needed the stable path.

 

[Hollie]

Although, once anyone strays from literal interpretation, one enters that realm of subjective interpretation.

Ironically, a literal interpretation is subjective. That is why intent takes precedence.

A “literal interpretation is subjective” requires one to ignore definitions of words / terms and their meaning.

Who decides “intent”?

I’m perplexed as to how someone can suggest that “intent takes precedence” when the intent of a supernatural entity is beyond the literal mind. Notwithstanding abstract concepts and such, there is no mechanism within “literal” whereby an unseen, unknowable, incomprehensible and unapproachable entity can be perceived by “literal” means.


“literal” would require that an entity described as above, does not exist.
“Literally” apply those above referenced attributes to any other device you describe and see if it passes the test of “literal’ness”.

The description of a so-called ‘garden of eden” is either literal or not. The same applies to the woman out of a rib, scenario. If not “literal” events, then what is the intent and who decides on the correct intent?

 

[ding]

creation is not out of nothing

Rambam disagrees with you.

Rabbis always disagree with each other, but what would Rambam possibly know about a process way to advanced for his time to fathom?

Moses ben Maimon,[note 1] commonly known as Maimonides (/maɪˈmɒnɪdiːz/ my-MON-i-deez)[note 2] and also referred to by the acronym Rambam (Hebrew: רמב״ם‎),[note 3] was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. In his time, he was also a preeminent astronomer and physician.[8][9][10][11] Born in Córdoba, Almoravid Empire (present-day Spain) on Passover eve, 1138 (or 1135),[12][13][14][15][16] he worked as a rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Morocco and Egypt. He died in Egypt on December 12, 1204, whence his body was taken to the lower Galilee and buried in Tiberias.[17][18]

During his lifetime, most Jews greeted Maimonides' writings on Jewish law and ethics with acclaim and gratitude, even as far away as Iraq and Yemen. Yet, while Maimonides rose to become the revered head of the Jewish community in Egypt, his writings also had vociferous critics, particularly in Spain. Nonetheless, he was posthumously acknowledged as among the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history, and his copious work comprises a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship. His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries significant canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. He is sometimes known as "ha'Nesher ha'Gadol" (the great eagle)[19] in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.

Aside from being revered by Jewish historians, Maimonides also figures very prominently in the history of Islamic and Arab sciences and is mentioned extensively in studies. Influenced by Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and his contemporary Averroes, he became a prominent philosopher and polymath in both the Jewish and Islamic worlds.

Maimonides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

creation is not out of nothing

Rambam disagrees with you.

Rabbis always disagree with each other, but what would Rambam possibly know about a process way to advanced for his time to fathom?

Moses ben Maimon [known to English speaking audiences as Maimonides and Hebrew speaking as Rambam] (1138–1204) is the greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval period and is still widely read today. The Mishneh Torah, his 14-volume compendium of Jewish law, established him as the leading rabbinic authority of his time and quite possibly of all time. His philosophic masterpiece, the Guide of the Perplexed, is a sustained treatment of Jewish thought and practice that seeks to resolve the conflict between religious knowledge and secular. Although heavily influenced by the Neo-Platonized Aristotelianism that had taken root in Islamic circles, it departs from prevailing modes of Aristotelian thought by emphasizing the limits of human knowledge and the questionable foundations of significant parts of astronomy and metaphysics. Maimonides also achieved fame as a physician and wrote medical treatises on a number of diseases and their cures. Succeeding generations of philosophers wrote extensive commentaries on his works, which influenced thinkers as diverse as Aquinas, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Newton.

Maimonides (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Mac1958]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

That's a very specific argument. There is a theory that the universe is indeed "created from nothing" () but the time I've spent with it has not yet convinced me.

Again: I don't know how we got here. And my fascination on this topic is not with the question itself, since I doubt I'll ever know the answer. My fascination is with the ideology around it and its associated behaviors.

 

[ding]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

That's a very specific argument. There is a theory that the universe is indeed "created from nothing" () but the time I've spent with it has not yet convinced me.

Again: I don't know how we got here. And my fascination on this topic is not with the question itself, since I doubt I'll ever know the answer. My fascination is with the ideology around it and its associated behaviors.

But you couldn't in good conscience argue against it because you don't know. For all you know it could be right.

And you didn't even address the statement that man is a product of that creation. Do you know that? Or are you ignorant on that too?

 

[Hollie]

The Genesis fable of creation is outside of the natural world.

How so? It is a picture of how the planet, as we know it, evolved into being. It can only be interpreted as "supernatural" when readers of modern English forget the Hebrew word for "period of time that had a beginning and an end" was often used to describe day. In other places it was used to describe years, decades, even centuries. Genesis describes the phases of creation. What is supernatural about that?

Let’s remember the of terms and definitions of literal and intent. Genesis is not a picture but an account of alleged creation by a supernatural entity such account written by men in a pre-scientific era when fear and superstition were prevalent. I think terms and definitions are important.

I disagree about Genesis being “a picture of how the planet, as we know it, evolved into being.” The planet has evolved into being with the coalescing of debris and matter aided by gravity, not by a snapping of a God’s supernatural fingers.

The Genesis tale of creation relies on supernatural intervention, so yes, one or more supernatural gods creating things requires supernaturalism.

 

[Mac1958]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

That's a very specific argument. There is a theory that the universe is indeed "created from nothing" () but the time I've spent with it has not yet convinced me.

Again: I don't know how we got here. And my fascination on this topic is not with the question itself, since I doubt I'll ever know the answer. My fascination is with the ideology around it and its associated behaviors.

But you couldn't in good conscience argue against it because you don't know. For all you know it could be right.

And you didn't even address the statement that man is a product of that creation. Do you know that? Or are you ignorant on that too?

Is there a point to this game of 20 questions?

Clearly man somehow showed up in some form at some point. How? I couldn't tell you.

For the third or fourth time: I don't claim to know how the hell we got here. And I think that anyone who says they DO know for sure is either terribly narcissistic or sadly delusional.

 

[Meriweather]

Who decides “intent”?

It is not that difficult. Take the word Hebrew often, but not always, uses for day. Find the places (i.e., study and research) where it is used when it cannot be referencing a single day.

Are you aware that 'subjective' often implies thinking? Thinking things over is often better than jumping to that quick, literal conclusion.

 

[ding]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

That's a very specific argument. There is a theory that the universe is indeed "created from nothing" () but the time I've spent with it has not yet convinced me.

Again: I don't know how we got here. And my fascination on this topic is not with the question itself, since I doubt I'll ever know the answer. My fascination is with the ideology around it and its associated behaviors.

But you couldn't in good conscience argue against it because you don't know. For all you know it could be right.

And you didn't even address the statement that man is a product of that creation. Do you know that? Or are you ignorant on that too?

Is there a point to this game of 20 questions?

Clearly man somehow showed up in some form at some point. How? I couldn't tell you.

For the third or fourth time: I don't claim to know how the hell we got here. And I think that anyone who says they DO know for sure is either terribly narcissistic or sadly delusional.

It is the point of the OP to discuss how man and creation were created, right?

For someone who claimed to be fascinated by the origin questions, you don't seem to have much of an interest in it.

FYI, ancient men believed the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation. That belief eventually made its way into Genesis.

 

[Mac1958]

When did God start making deformed and retarded babies?

"It's God's will". That's the general fallback.

By the way, which of the 3,000+ gods we've followed in human history are we talking about here?

Seems like a foolish argument to me.

Why? People believed in those other gods with as much passion and sincerity as you do yours.

Why? Because arguing that there are different perceptions of God means there is no God is illogical.

But I'm not making that argument. I don't claim to know.

So what difference does it make to you how many different religions there are?

Because I find ideology absolutely fascinating. Is that okay?

I do too. And unlike atheists, I don't have to disagree with everything single thing other religions believe. So to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to you how many different religions there are?

Do you find the origin questions fascinating too?

Correct, I don't care how many religions there are or have been, and the questions of our origin are always fascinating.

Great. So how did we get here?

First and foremost, I don't claim to know.

I suspect it's more a function of chemistry & biology than divinity, but the "Big Bang" theory doesn't satisfy.

Very doubtful that I'll know in my lifetime, and I can deal with that.

So you have no position on the universe being created from nothing? Or man arising from that creation?

As I said, I don't know. I lean the way I mentioned, but that's about it.

So it's fair to say you are ignorant on this subject?

ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

This all exists along a continuum, so no, I would not say ignorant. I just don't have enough information to make a final decision on such a profound question.

So you couldn't argue against me saying that the universe was created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation, right?

That's a very specific argument. There is a theory that the universe is indeed "created from nothing" () but the time I've spent with it has not yet convinced me.

Again: I don't know how we got here. And my fascination on this topic is not with the question itself, since I doubt I'll ever know the answer. My fascination is with the ideology around it and its associated behaviors.

But you couldn't in good conscience argue against it because you don't know. For all you know it could be right.

And you didn't even address the statement that man is a product of that creation. Do you know that? Or are you ignorant on that too?

Is there a point to this game of 20 questions?

Clearly man somehow showed up in some form at some point. How? I couldn't tell you.

For the third or fourth time: I don't claim to know how the hell we got here. And I think that anyone who says they DO know for sure is either terribly narcissistic or sadly delusional.

It is the point of the OP to discuss how man and creation were created, right?

For someone who claimed to be fascinated by the origin questions, you don't seem to have much of an interest in it.

FYI, ancient men believed the universe was created from nothing and that man was a product of that creation. That belief eventually made its way into Genesis.

Super.

 

[Hollie]

Who decides “intent”?

It is not that difficult. Take the word Hebrew often, but not always, uses for day. Find the places (i.e., study and research) where it is used when it cannot be referencing a single day.

Are you aware that 'subjective' often implies thinking? Thinking things over is often better than jumping to that quick, literal conclusion.

To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. If the Bible is the “word of God”, what part of God’s word is literal and what parts did the Gods presume we would derive by intent?

The Gods must have known that people’s perceptions, fears, biases would lead people to differing perceptions and intent. Thinking things over can produce different conclusions for different people.

What a risk the Gods put their “children” at when one’s conclusion, reached through carefully thinking through, is the wrong conclusion.

 

[Meriweather]

The description of a so-called ‘garden of eden” is either literal or not. The same applies to the woman out of a rib, scenario. If not “literal” events, then what is the intent and who decides on the correct intent?

Can a woman be made by putting a man into a deep sleep and removing a rib? Remember what I said about Hebrew words are not subjective, they are pictures. They do not use a subjective word like 'anger' they use 'flaring nostrils'.

We see one organism, with a second, similar organism, being a part of the first and coming from within the first. Kind of interesting. One became two, but in marriage we speak of two becoming one again. In the very beginning of the creation/evolution of humans, were we asexual like sea stars?

Some people seem to hold ancient man in contempt, thinking the humans of that era were Bronze Age superstitious idiots. I tend towards a belief that they were much more intelligent than we credit. Perhaps it is we who lack understanding, beginning with understanding how they communicated. Recall we also had pictures and pictographs before the written word...and even later came the subjective written word.

 

[badger2]

Religion itself is the science of non-existent entities.

 

[Meriweather]

I disagree about Genesis being “a picture of how the planet, as we know it, evolved into being.” The planet has evolved into being with the coalescing of debris and matter aided by gravity, not by a snapping of a God’s supernatural fingers.

Ah, but Genesis comes in a step later. (Remember the givens of water, wind, land, intelligence.) It speaks of a time when water and wind covered everything that was to become our planet. Or do you believe water simply suddenly appeared in designated areas?