It doesn't matter whether God is spirit or physical? And so I shouldn't be defending one or the other? Ironically, in that same post, you defended YOUR position on the issue by adducing this article:
Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org
Although I'm not really sure why the church still tolerates theological gibberish, I'll identify some of the gibberish in the article.
The article states dogmatically that God is infinite. That's gibberish. Why so? Although an infinite number of points-in-space is
theoretically postulated in integral calculus, it's only used to project a pattern and thus draw a conclusion. An
actually existing infinity is an unintelligible theory. A reality that exists but exists without any specific, discrete magnitude? So it is always growing? If it is growing, then, at any given moment, it is currently a specific, discrete,
finite quantity. And the math simply doesn't work. Suppose I have an infinite amount of money and lend you 3 billion dollars. How much do I have left? An infinite amount, right? The same amount that I started with! Total gibberish.
Again, God doesn't need to be infinite to function as an impeccably capable ruler and judge. He doesn't need to live up to Platonic ideals. He's got a job to do, and He does it very well, thank you very much.
Infinitude also contradicts the facts of Scripture. For example, authentic love doesn't merely proclaim affection, it intervenes and thus, in God's case,
atones. Infinite love would mean infinite atonement - even the sin of rejecting Christ would be atoned for. No one would go to hell, not even the devil and his angels.
Foreknowledge is also a logical problem, as it contradicts divine freedom. Free will is a moment of indecision that transitions, over a period of deliberation, to a resolute state. It doesn't make sense to say, "I already foreknow my decision even though I have not decided yet, or made up my mind." Total gibberish.
Infinite power implies impassibility. After all, what is suffering? Suffering is measured by the degree to which it cripples/disables you. Suppose for instance I pickup a weighted barbell. Pumping that iron might be easy at first, but as the suffering intensifies, my motions gradually decelerate until I simply can't move it anymore. Infinite strength would preclude such a crippling, and thus contradicts the concept of suffering. How did an infinite God suffer on the cross? The very theologians who insist on the hypostatic union admit it to be humanly incomprehensible, for example: Charles Lee Feinberg stated, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412). This seems to be a frank admission of gibberish.
Impassibility is a serious logical problem because God is supposed to have merit even APART from the cross. And there is no merit without suffering, as I discussed
at post 219.
Another gibberish statement in the article is that God has no form. Let's approach that question from a different angle. Picture yourself standing at the pearly gates. God says to you,
"Before I pull your body into the city, please make a choice between two options:
(A) You can enter with all the five senses.
(B) You can enter blind, deaf, mute, etc.
You realize, don't you, that option B is death? It is the cessation of consciousness! Presumably, then, you'd opt for choice-A. Fine. You enter the city - and you see God. What exactly do you see, if not form/shape of some kind? Obviously it won't be a static figure, at minimum you'll see rivers of divine Fire flowing through His figure (Dan 7), but nonetheless it will be a figure of some kind. In fact, as noted earlier, it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY that God flood our senses with revelations of Himself because, otherwise, our mind - which always cogitates in mental pictures - would continue to fabricate inaccurate idolatrous images of Him. Consider:
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up
10and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky" (Ex 24).
The writer thinks that such theophanies are essentially false representations of God. Again, what then is the point? Just to foster conceptual idolatry? Note that, as cited above, Moses had already seen God face to face but, subsequently he asks:
"Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”(Ex 33).
Moses had already seen God face to face - but not in the fullness of His glory. And what does it matter, if all these theophanies are false representations of God, as the article suggests? Clearly Moses was petitioning to see the real thing. He was asking to both (A) see the real God (not some fake representation) and (B) see Him clothed in the fullness of His glory. And what was God's response? Was it:
(A) "No way Moses. Not going to happen this life. All you get for now is a bunch of fake sightings."
(B) Or was it, "You CAN see my
back in the fullness of its glory, but not my
face."
And what's the nature of that glory? For one thing, it's a fullness of divine Light evident in Moses' radiant face subsequently.
In other words, in those other theophanies where God spoke to Moses face to face, Moses was actually observing only a
shaded view of God's face. Looking ahead to Revelation, "His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev 1). In fact, even here too, Moses would see:
(A) shaded view of God's face
(B) an
unshaded view of God's back
(I mention these specifics because they are evidentiary for biblical materialism). Here's the passage:
"And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
20But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
21Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.
22When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
23Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Notice what's documented here. God partially accomplishes shading by shoving Moses into the cleft of a rock. But that's still not quite enough. Yahweh actually hand-shades His own face while passing by Moses. And then He removes the hand-shade to grant Moses an unshaded view of His back. If that isn't physical dynamics, then nothing is.
I'll respond to the article a bit further in my next post. I've still got 1 or 2 points to make.