Is man created on God's image?
-
Peace,
What do you want to say? That the torah says so, and since the quraan doesn't refute it, we have to accept it; as in (silence is acceptance)?
Not necessarily... But the Torah does say this, and in this case, human development seems to support this view. So, in instances where scripture agrees with science, why shouldn't we accept it?
-
Peace,
The Torah also tells you to kill your kids, stone adulterers, kill gays, marry rape victims to their assailants and other wonderful things.
Is this really what the Torah is saying, or are you just speaking from a biased perspective? Do you believe that G-d sent down the Torah or not? And does He condone wickedness? Do the modern Jews kill their kids, stone all adulterers, kill gays, and marry rape victims to their assailants?
People make the same types of accusations in relation to Islaam, claiming that the Qur'aan authorizes muslims to kill every idolator and polytheist in sight! Sometimes you have to look at the entire context of the scripture to understand the command... Besides, you're talking about Torah commands, not concepts. This doesn't really have anything to do with what the Jews were commanded to do; rather it's about what they were instructed to believe. And the "in G-d's image" concept is a universally accepted idea that is accepted by Jews everywhere...
-
Peace,
Not necessarily... But the Torah does say this, and in this case, human development seems to support this view. So, in instances where scripture agrees with science, why shouldn't we accept it?
How does human development supports the view that man is created on God's image? Someone there scientifically researched God's image and found it?
Then for sure the scientific research found out that a woman called Hawwa was sliced from the rib of a man called Adam, just as the Torah says. -
Peace,
How does human development supports the view that man is created on God's image? Someone there scientifically researched God's image and found it?
In order to understand that concept, you have to understand what the Torah means when it says that man was created in the "image" of G-d... Here's a commentary on Torah that I found pretty interesting in this respect
In the Image of God
The Bible states that humanity was created in the image of God, but what does it mean to be created in the image of God?
Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of God, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that God is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Maimonides points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1,27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for "image" in Genesis 1,27 is "tzelem", which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalms 73,20, "you will despise their image (tzel'mam)". You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Maimonides explains, is "to'ar", as in Genesis 39,6, "and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon". Similarly, the word used for "likeness" is "demut", which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, "He is like (dimyono) a lion" in Psalms 17,12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.
What is it in our nature that is God-like? Rashi explains that we are like God in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Maimonides elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like God, who perceives without having physical senses.
That's taken from the Mishne Torah commentary, and even though I disagree with some of their concepts (mostly based on the Talmud's Gemarra), this one seems to be on point... G-d doesn't have a physical body or senses like we do, yet He can discern all things. We are in His image because we can also discern things without using our physical senses, a major factor that separates us from animals.
-
Then for sure the scientific research found out that a woman called Hawwa was sliced from the rib of a man called Adam, just as the Torah says.
I forgot about this part... We don't know for sure what happened with Eve ("Hawwa" based on the Qur'aan. The text only specifically talks about the formation of Adam, and it never really stated how his wife came into the picture. So, even though there's no concrete evidence that she was formed from his rib, it's not impossible either, since the Qur'aan never specifies...
-
I forgot about this part... We don't know for sure what happened with Eve ("Hawwa" based on the Qur'aan. The text only specifically talks about the formation of Adam, and it never really stated how his wife came into the picture. So, even though there's no concrete evidence that she was formed from his rib, it's not impossible either, since the Qur'aan never specifies...
You surely don't know the qur'aan, nor scientific research!
41
O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.
7189
He it is Who did create you from a single soul, and therefrom did make her mate that he might take rest in her. And when he covered her she bore a light burden, and she passed with it, but when it became heavy they cried unto Allah, their Lord, saying If thou givest unto us aright we shall be of the thankful.
I can't see a rib, nor someone created from another.
-
You surely don't know the qur'aan, nor scientific research!
41
O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.
7189
He it is Who did create you from a single soul, and therefrom did make her mate that he might take rest in her. And when he covered her she bore a light burden, and she passed with it, but when it became heavy they cried unto Allah, their Lord, saying If thou givest unto us aright we shall be of the thankful.
I can't see a rib, nor someone created from another.
So, based on that, you figure I don't know the Qur'aan or scientific research? ) Okay... Is there any passage that says that G-d did NOT create Eve ("Hawwa" from Adam's rib? Is there any scientific evidence that refutes the "Genesis" creation episode of Adam and Eve? Is there any Qur'aanic proof that the "single soul" (or self) mentioned in 41 is NOT talking about Adam? It's not talking about a collective body, it's talking about one person. And the only person mentioned as being directly shaped by G-d in the Qur'aan is Adam (the first man). Therefore, everyone else descends from him, INCLUDING HIS WIFE... So, what's the objection?
By the way, the passage doesn't have to specifically refer to a rib. Again, the Qur'aan is a "reminder". It's reminding the people of the previous scripture, the Torah... If Torah mentions someone being stabbed with a sword, and the Qur'aan simply says the person was stabbed, does that mean the person could've possibly been stabbed with something other than a sword (i.e. a fork or kitchen knife), simply because the Qur'aan doesn't specify?!
-
So, based on that, you figure I don't know the Qur'aan or scientific research? Okay... Is there any passage that says that G-d did NOT create Eve ("Hawwa" from Adam's rib?
What a weird kind of logic! If it says how they are created, why should it say how they are not created? And is "not created" is equivalent to "not created from a rib"? Well, the qur'aan did not tell us that Noah, after the flood, grew a vineyard and got drunk and lied naked, and was then involved in a sexual incident. His son rediculed him, and that the curse of God fell on this son and God turned him black, and that his descendents will be black too and be slaves to the descendants of the other two sons of Noawho in effect receive a blessing because they were kind to their father. But the Torah says so, so we should believe it, because the qur'aan did not say it didn't happen.
Is there any Qur'aanic proof that the "single soul" (or self) mentioned in 41 is NOT talking about Adam?
You haven't read the other verse. Or, if you have, you have read it with a preconception, the same preconception that made you put the name of Adam to the soul mentioned in verse 41.
-
Noah, after the flood, grew a vineyard and got drunk and lied naked, and was then involved in a sexual incident. His son rediculed him, and that the curse of God fell on this son and God turned him black, and that his descendents will be black too and be slaves to the descendants of the other two sons of Noawho in effect receive a blessing because they were kind to their father. But the Torah says so,
The Torah could be made into a soap! Quite the story I must say. -
Peace,
What a weird kind of logic! If it says how they are created, why should it say how they are not created? And is "not created" is equivalent to "not created from a rib"? Well, the qur'aan did not tell us that Noah, after the flood, grew a vineyard and got drunk and lied naked, and was then involved in a sexual incident. His son rediculed him, and that the curse of God fell on this son and God turned him black, and that his descendents will be black too and be slaves to the descendants of the other two sons of Noawho in effect receive a blessing because they were kind to their father. But the Torah says so, so we should believe it, because the qur'aan did not say it didn't happen.
The passage does NOT say how Eve ("Huwwa" was created, and the Qur'aan never mentions G-d shaping her at all... And the whole story you relayed about Noah and his offspring is a European Christianized myth, and that's not the story given in the Torah at all. Noah was already black-skinned, and so were all his descendants, as were their descendants. The Torah says this pretty clearly and specifically. I think you've been reading too many European Christian scripts regarding this incident...
You haven't read the other verse. Or, if you have, you have read it with a preconception, the same preconception that made you put the name of Adam to the soul mentioned in verse 41.
The other verse (7189) gives the same story. It's referring to Adam, and all creation being descended from him, INCLUDING HIS WIFE. He reproduced with her, and his offspring is all of humanity... I didn't put Adam's name in the passage, Adam is implied because of the other passage in 41.
-
Peace,
And the whole story you relayed about Noah and his offspring is a European Christianized myth, and that's not the story given in the Torah at all. Noah was already black-skinned, and so were all his descendants, as were their descendants. The Torah says this pretty clearly and specifically. I think you've been reading too many European Christian scripts regarding this incident...
Which part of the story is not in the torah? Does the torah say that Noah was black?!
The other verse (7189) gives the same story. It's referring to Adam
Then I will rephrase my comment
You haven't read the other verse. Or, if you have, you have read it with a preconception, the same preconception that made you put the name of Adam to the soul mentioned in verse 41.
It seems that you do not read what you do not want to see in a direct verse from the qur'aan. I wonder if the same "quality" reflects in your reading of the torah you read what you like and you ignore what you do not like (as in the story of Noah). -
Peace,
Is this really what the Torah is saying, or are you just speaking from a biased perspective?
Do you want verses? Crystal clear verses?
Do you believe that G-d sent down the Torah or not? And does He condone wickedness?
I believe that the god revealed the Torah, but that the Old Testament doesn't contain the Torah. The god described in the KJB is vastly different from the pure and beautiful god who sent us the great reading.
Do the modern Jews kill their kids, stone all adulterers, kill gays, and marry rape victims to their assailants?
That's immaterial to what we're discussing.
People make the same types of accusations in relation to Islaam, claiming that the Qur'aan authorizes muslims to kill every idolator and polytheist in sight!
And they're wrong because the great reading contains no such commandments. Now you'll say that some people insist that the great reading does so how do we decide which interpretation of the great reading is right and which isn't? The great reading claims that a society that truly follows it will be a prosperous and peaceful one so only a peaceful and prosperous society will be living according to the great reading's laws and a peaceful and prosperous society is one in which polytheists and idolators have the right to live.
Sometimes you have to look at the entire context of the scripture to understand the command...
So are you saying such commandments are in the Old Testament? And I have looked at the entire context. It still seems to me that the god of the Old Testament is nothing more than the creation of stupid angry people who had no decency.
Besides, you're talking about Torah commands, not concepts.
Commands come from concepts.
This doesn't really have anything to do with what the Jews were commanded to do; rather it's about what they were instructed to believe.
Nonsense, and even if you were right, the god of the Old Testament would still be pretty bad.
And the "in G-d's image" concept is a universally accepted idea that is accepted by Jews everywhere...
And that makes it right? Do you know what an argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers) logical fallacy is?
-
Peace,
I believe that the god revealed the Torah, but that the Old Testament doesn't contain the Torah. The god described in the KJB is vastly different from the pure and beautiful god who sent us the great reading.
That's a debatable argument. The Torah is found within the "old testament", but the KJB is a mistranslation of another mistranslation. The god of the Jews and the god of the Muslims is the same, and there is only one god. He's just described under different circumstances and to different audiences... The Torah is found within the Hebrew Tanakh and in the oral Law...
That's immaterial to what we're discussing.
Actually it isn't. Modern Orthodox Jews claim to follow all of the laws of the Torah, yet they don't stone anyone or condone the rape of anyone. Many of them view these guidelines are specific to a certain audience, and in today's society, they're often seen as allegorical... Muslims, on the other hand, DO stone adulterers, kill gays, and force marriage upon the unwilling. Some of them have even been known to imprison and kill their children for minor offenses, such as writing the name of Muhammad in a bathroom... Who seems to be more wicked to you, the Muslims or the Jews?
And they're wrong because the great reading contains no such commandments. Now you'll say that some people insist that the great reading does so how do we decide which interpretation of the great reading is right and which isn't? The great reading claims that a society that truly follows it will be a prosperous and peaceful one so only a peaceful and prosperous society will be living according to the great reading's laws and a peaceful and prosperous society is one in which polytheists and idolators have the right to live.
The Qur'aan doesn't say anything about killing idolators and polytheists?! The whole "peaceful society" concept doesn't necessarily mean the people are living according to G-d's commandments, and it can also refer to multiple societies. For example, regarding the Jews, they've been living peacefully in many countries for decades, while the Islaamic societies have been in constant turmoil and conflict. So, who's really being guided by G-d, the Muslims or the Jews?
So are you saying such commandments are in the Old Testament? And I have looked at the entire context. It still seems to me that the god of the Old Testament is nothing more than the creation of stupid angry people who had no decency.
This is absolutely false, and this is obvious foolishness. What you're misunderstanding is the concept of what Islaam teaches... Even though I agree with the idea of taking religious guidance from the Qur'aan alone, this is not the basis of Islaam at all. In reality, Islaam existed long before Muhammad was born and long before the revelation of the Qur'aan; that means you don't need the Qur'aan to be a muslim. The Jews were the original nation of "muslimoon"/submitters, and they lived their life according to the Torah, the same Torah contained within the Hebrew Tanakh and oral Law. So, how can you allege that this is a forgery written by "stupid angry people"? Do the laws of the Torah condone or suggest hatred of others and wickedness?
Nonsense, and even if you were right, the god of the Old Testament would still be pretty bad.
How would it be pretty bad? Can you give some examples of this badness? The god described in the Tanakh is the same god described in the Qur'aan... Do you think the Torah was lost somewhere between the time of Muhammad and today? When the Qur'aan describes the Torah, it mentions it as if it is still widely known and accepted by the Jews of the day, and during that time they were using the same Torah and Tanakh that is in Jewish circulation today...
And that makes it right? Do you know what an argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers) logical fallacy is?
Absolutely, but this is not what I'm talking about at all. Like I said, the concept of "in G-d's image" is not governed by specific actions, it is an idea. When a divinely inspired writing says specifically to believe in an idea, it's not a question of action as much as it is a question of doctrine. There's no question... For example, the Qur'aan clearly and specifically tells us to believe in one god (called "Allah". So, in Islaamic doctrine, this is not a debatable issue, and all muslims believe it. Believing in more than one god is equivalent to disbelieving in Islaam. The same is the case in Judaism... When everybody believes in the same doctrine based on scripture, it could very well be true, and this is the case concerning any religious system...
-
Peace,
Which part of the story is not in the torah? Does the torah say that Noah was black?!
The Torah says that Noah's sons were black... Now, can a white man produce black children? The answer is no, he can't. According to chemical genetics, it's physiologically impossible. Therefore, the Torah implies that Noah was black, just like his descendants... There is nothing in the Torah that even implies the concept of Noah's son being "cursed" with black skin, and this is a total European Christian fabrication.
Then I will rephrase my comment
You haven't read the other verse. Or, if you have, you have read it with a preconception, the same preconception that made you put the name of Adam to the soul mentioned in verse 41.
It seems that you do not read what you do not want to see in a direct verse from the qur'aan. I wonder if the same "quality" reflects in your reading of the torah you read what you like and you ignore what you do not like (as in the story of Noah).It seems like you have a preconceived notion regarding this NOT referring to Adam, even though everything else clearly implies that it does. This is your error, not mine... Also, I didn't ignore anything from the story of Noah; rather, you added in parts of the story that are totally unfounded and unreasonable, not based on the Torah at all. Is this also what you do regarding the Qur'aan, adding your own ideas into the mix, even if they don't appear in the scripture and aren't implied, promoting your own "quality" of reading the scripture?
-
Peace,
The Torah says that Noah's sons were black...
In what context was the colour of his sons mentioned? Does the Torah usually tells about the color of people whose stories are narrated?
Why do you stick to this part and ignore the part about growing a vineyard, getting drunk,lying naked, and gettin? involved in a sexual incident?It seems like you have a preconceived notion regarding this NOT referring to Adam, even though everything else clearly implies that it does.
Verse 7189 balances this understanding and refutes the creation of a specific gender from the other . Make an effort to read it with some comprehension.
Is this also what you do regarding the Qur'aan, adding your own ideas into the mix, even if they don't appear in the scripture and aren't implied, promoting your own "quality" of reading the scripture?
My understanding is not part of the qur'aan, and if I , or anyone else, added to or substracted from the qur'aan, anyone would easily find out, because thre's no European or English copy with more or less material than the original. This is how it's preserved accross time and languages; not like the torah that changes drastically with every translation and within every land.
-
Peace,
Saying that the hebrew Torah is mistranslated is a bit of an exaggeration. True but almost always minimal.
The Torah condones Capital punishment for any preach on the major commandments eg. Idolatry, Adultery, Sabbath etc.
The LAWS of the Torah should be upheld and they are NOT allegorical.
Muslims follow the Torah more than the Jews without even knowing.
Christians blame the Muslims for following some teachings of the Torah. I call it 'the abrahamic anomaly'. It proves that the Muslims are drunk and the Christians mock the Torah subconciously.
The Torah is an instruction for the Israelite nation for all their generations.
There is no afterlife promised to the righteous. Only fertility,lands and crops.
The wicked is punished in this world directly or through his seed.
The Goyim should avoid the capital crimes to remain safe from God's punishments as outlined in the Noahide Laws.
True Torah Judaism in a nutshell.
Peace,
Rami
-
In what context was the colour of his sons mentioned? Does the Torah usually tells about the color of people whose stories are narrated?
Why do you stick to this part and ignore the part about growing a vineyard, getting drunk,lying naked, and gettin? involved in a sexual incident?The Qur'aan doesn't say anything about Noah growing a vineyard, getting drunk, lying naked, or getting involved in a sexual incident. But this does NOT mean this is not what happened; it just means they weren't necessary to mention in the Qur'aan. The Torah mentions them because it is a total sketch of the Israelite history. And because they were black people, this is a feature directly implied in the scripture. Again, it's not about their teaching, it's about their history...
Verse 7189 balances this understanding and refutes the creation of a specific gender from the other . Make an effort to read it with some comprehension.
This is a flawed interpretation. Just because the Qur'aan uses the term "it" does not mean it's not speaking about a male or female. In fact, the Torah often refers to the soul as "her" (in the feminine), even if it's talking about a man. The Qur'aan does the same thing, and it even does the opposite. For example, G-d is called "He" and "Him" throughout the scripture; but this doesn't mean that "He" is a male, since He is beyond being defined by gender.
My understanding is not part of the qur'aan, and if I , or anyone else, added to or substracted from the qur'aan, anyone would easily find out, because thre's no European or English copy with more or less material than the original. This is how it's preserved accross time and languages; not like the torah that changes drastically with every translation and within every land.
What's really up with all these anti-Torah speculations?! The Torah has not changed over the years, and the Jewish translations have been properly translated in many languages. The law does NOT change across lands, and the Torah studied today is the same Torah studied thousands of years ago. Why is G-d capable of preserving the Qur'aan, but not capable of preserving the Torah? Is this reasonable to you? Since one confirms the other, then BOTH are most likely preserved, not just the Qur'aan...
-
Peace,
It seems some people thought I was joking when I said that God is a superman sitting on a throne that sits on waters.
I was not!
Some people speculate that God has no gender nor does the angels!
The truth thay are all males in orientation. No need for sexual organs. The Earth is female in orientation so is the Fire.
If gender is not important, why is God mad when people call the angels feminine names?
And why God refutes Jesus sonship by denying that he has no a female companion!?
The Torah is very clear that God is corporeal. Again the mystic absolutists will say that God is a trancedant one blah blah. God is a superman!
Read the scriptures!
Peace,
Rami
-
Peace,
The Torah is very clear that God is corporeal. Again the mystic absolutists will say that God is a trancedant one blah blah. God is a superman!
How does the Torah imply that G-d is corporeal?