What kind of God do you believe in?

[Radagast]

Who said He did? Nor did you rebut my reply. Strawman.

Your beliefs are radically in opposition to orthodoxy. I have no desire for further conversation with you.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Saint Steven]

I have a problem with speculation that Mary didn't give birth in the normal, messy, painful way; because it would undermine Jesus' humanity).

Well, then why couldn't Jesus have been conceived in the "normal, messy way"? Wouldn't anything less "undermine Jesus' humanity"?

 

[JAL]

God is not a material, biological being.

Sure, long as we bear in mind that material and biological are not exact synonyms. I believe that God is material only in the sense of being 100% tangible, not in the sense of being dependent on a biological system to sustain His life. I personally don't think He has genitalia, for example, or even that His substance is arranged as protons, neutrons, and electrons. On the other hand, if He really WANTED to assume such shapes/forms, He certainly could.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, then why couldn't Jesus have been conceived in the "normal, messy way"? Wouldn't anything less "undermine Jesus' humanity"?

Look, I've tried not to say it like this lest it be seen as crude, but it seems dancing around it isn't getting through.

Neither God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit, have a penis. Therefore it is impossible that Jesus' conception involved the use of one.

 

[Saint Steven]

We don't know exactly how that began. We don't know whether God created from nothing a fully-formed single cell which grew into Jesus. We don't know whether God use one of Mary's ova, or refashioned a somatic cell, or... whatever. That is beyond our ability to reconstruct based on what's in the text.

Seems to me that the text is pretty clear. Maybe the problem is with our low view of sex. We talk as if sex was created by Satan. - lol

Luke 1:30-35
But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

 

[JAL]

Your beliefs are radically in opposition to orthodoxy. I have no desire for further conversation with you.

So you're a staunch opponent of the Reformation?

Frankly the Reformists didn't much care what "orthodoxy" had taught for 1500 years. They were much more concerned with uncovering the truth.

But I see you're opposed to the spirit of the Reformation. Better to swallow what "orthodoxy" says - hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Saint Steven]

Look, I've tried not to say it like this lest it be seen as crude, but it seems dancing around it isn't getting through.

Neither God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit, have a penis. Therefore it is impossible that Jesus' conception involved the use of one.

Thank you for your frank and heroic post. - lol
I'm surprised that one got by the censoring software.
But, why do we assume the God doesn't have a penis?
Was not humankind created in his image? Are we not his children?
Do you think God looks like a Ken doll? (Barbie's boyfriend)

 

[Paidiske]

Thank you for your frank and heroic post. - lol
I'm surprised that one got by the censoring software.
But, why do we assume the God doesn't have a penis?

Because God doesn't have a body! God doesn't have hair, or fingernails, or lymph nodes or bone marrow or any of that stuff. That's what we have - we creatures formed from dust - who are material and limited and time-bound.

But God is - as one theologian famously put it - not part of the furniture of the universe in that way. God is not a created breathing amalgam of dust and water; some clever proteins and lipids and such.

We need to remember the enormous gulf between creature and creature, and not imagine that God is thinking dust writ large.

Was not humankind created in his image? Are we not his children?
Do you think God looks like a Ken doll? (Barbie's boyfriend)

To be in the image of God isn't about how our dust is fashioned. It's about sharing God's character and nature (our capacity for love, joy, peace, and so on); it's about sharing God's creativity; it's about being called to share in God's work in the world.

So no, I don't think God looks like a Ken doll. I think that any imagined version of God which involves materiality is grotesquely missing the nature of God.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think that any imagined version of God which involves materiality is grotesquely missing the nature of God.

Does God sit on a throne?
If so, what is required to make that happen?
Without human form, what would he need a throne for?

 

[Paidiske]

Does God sit on a throne?
If so, what is required to make that happen?
Without human form, what would he need a throne for?

Not a literal throne! That's a metaphor, a way of showing us that God is at the centre of power, authority, and so on. At the heart of existence itself, God rules over all.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not a literal throne! That's a metaphor, a way of showing us that God is at the centre of power, authority, and so on. At the heart of existence itself, God rules over all.

Revelation 4:2-3
At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne.

 

[Paidiske]

Revelation 4:2-3
At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne.

Yes, John had a vision, in which God showed him cosmic truths in images which John could understand.

That doesn't mean God has literal flesh over literal hip bones sitting in a literal chair. That's ludicrous!

 

[JAL]

Not a literal throne! That's a metaphor, a way of showing us that God is at the centre of power, authority, and so on. At the heart of existence itself, God rules over all.

And there you have it. 100% of the biblical data points to physical substances such as thrones, but it's all dismissed out of hand because a heathen philosopher named Plato didn't much care for material things. It's not that Tertullian anthropomorphized God, it's rather that the church Platonized Him. I take it you don't believe this passage either:

"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. 11But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank (Ex 24).

His feet rested on real, solid pavement. Same idea as sitting on a throne. What now of angels? Can they sit down? Can they rest their feet?

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow" (Mat 28).

I'd like to know - as did Tertullian - how an intangible angel has hands tangible enough to push a rock, and a body tangible enough to sit on it? But okay, I'd imagine you don't believe that passage either?

It would be nice if leadership were simply a bit more honest. When they stand up in the pulpit with a Bible sitting in front of them - and fail to stack at last one of Plato's books on top of it - they are misleading us to believe that all their doctrines came from Scripture, when in fact several of them can be traced only to Plato.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, John had a vision, in which God showed him cosmic truths in images which John could understand.

That doesn't mean God has literal flesh over literal hip bones sitting in a literal chair. That's ludicrous!

I think God is more like us than the religious institutions of the world claim he is.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'd like to know - as did Tertullian - how an intangible angel has hands tangible enough to push a rock, and a body tangible enough to sit on it?

That's a good point.

 

[Saint Steven]

His feet rested on real, solid pavement. Same idea as sitting on a throne. What now of angels? Can they sit down? Can they rest their feet?

Another good point.

There is a day coming when every knee will bow and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ as Lord. On earth, in heaven and under the earth.

It will require knees and tongues to do that.

 

[Paidiske]

And there you have it. 100% of the biblical data points to physical substances such as thrones, but it's all dismissed out of hand because a heathen philosopher named Plato didn't much care for material things. It's not that Tertullian anthropomorphized God, it's rather that the church Platonized Him. I take it you don't believe this passage either:

"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. 11But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank (Ex 24).

His feet rested on real, solid pavement. Same idea as sitting on a throne. What now of angels? Can they sit down? Can they rest their feet?

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow" (Mat 28).

I'd like to know - as did Tertullian - how an intangible angel has hands tangible enough to push a rock, and a body tangible enough to sit on it? But okay, I'd imagine you don't believe that passage either?

It would be nice if leadership were simply a bit more honest. When they stand up in the pulpit with a Bible sitting in front of them - and fail to stack at last one of Plato's books on top of it - they are misleading us to believe that all their doctrines came from Scripture, when in fact several of them can be traced only to Plato.

I don't think it's about integrating Scripture with Platonism (although I don't deny that that has happened in some traditions).

I think it's about taking the doctrine of creation seriously. If God is the creator of everything that exists, such that before God first spoke there was nothing except God, and from God's creative act came all time and space, matter and energy, everything that our senses and intelligence can perceive and grasp about the cosmos - then God by definition cannot be just a brighter, more impressive version of us.

No, God isn't a literal body with a literal throne. That's conceptually dragging God down to our level, using concepts from the created world in order to let our limited little brains construct some meaning to which we can relate.

And that's fine, as far as it goes, as long as we're aware that we're doing that, and don't mistake those concepts and those meaning-constructs for the actual truth about God.

 

[Radagast]

I think God is more like us than the religious institutions of the world claim he is.

I think that your god is much, much too small.

If you think that God is only a trillion times greater than you are, then your view of God is far, far below what it ought to be.

Somebody commented on what the Reformers thought. What they thought, of course, is this: We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good (Belgic Confession #1).

 

[Radagast]

I think it's about taking the doctrine of creation seriously. If God is the creator of everything that exists, such that before God first spoke there was nothing except God, and from God's creative act came all time and space, matter and energy, everything that our senses and intelligence can perceive and grasp about the cosmos - then God by definition cannot be just a brighter, more impressive version of us.

Exactly!