Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Exodus 33:11- "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Then Moses would return to his camp, but his young aide Joshua, son of a Nun, would not leave the tent."

1 Timothy 6:16- "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

So... which is right? Does God have an actual body or not?

A guy back in earlier Christianity, Origen, was branded a heretic for such musings and claiming God could have a physical face and form if he so wished,saying basically "this is God, if he wants a body, he'll damn well have a body, that, and the fact he argued that logically it would be possible for Satan to repent and be saved. Interesting chap really.

Oh, an answer? We could chuck Jesus into this boiling pot as well, the whole debate whether he is or isn't God, but if people say he is, then obviously God can have a body. But who knows, it even depends on whether one believes...

I am God, and so are you, so yes. But that is not a bible answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am God, and so are you, so yes. But that is not a bible answer.

Really?!? SUH-WEET! Can I, like, suddenly create a ham sandwich out of pure will?! *thinks real hard* hehe, just screwin' with ya.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Really?!? SUH-WEET! Can I, like, suddenly create a ham sandwich out of pure will?! *thinks real hard* hehe, just screwin' with ya.

You can make a ham sandwich, you take some ham and bread and a little mustard; see how great it is to be God.

Seriously: we are the incarnation of God in the flesh, that is what I get when I read the words of Jesus, but admittedly I am a Buddhist, not a Christian.

Everything is part of what could be called god, so yes we have a form, but according to scripture and depending on which verses god doesn't have an actual body that we can see, though in Revelation he/god is said to have white hair and riding a horse. Of course this is only symbolic as the book of Revelation is.

And in Genesis didn't he pop down to visit Adam and Eve, to chew the fat as it were? Have a bit of an amble around the garden. Watch the sunset and all that jazz?

Yes that is true, though at that time Adam had not fallen into sin and could stand the light or power of god. Wonder what they would talk about anyway.....Hmm Adam, lonely yet???? Quit stop that!!........

Both and neither, and no, I'm not tryin' to be cute or enigmatic...well, maybe a little enigmatic (no hope for cute), since Mystery - more than anything else - perhaps best describes "God."

Bigger than a said book for sure.

Didn't I read once in the bible that some guy was allowed to see the back of god or something on a mountain?
They said that God's true being will kill you if you look at it (oh, how original they were in the past) but I guess he is just incomprehensible and that a mere mortal could never fully grasp his being as he is everything..

He sure does have a form!

Sorry, boris. That's not allowed..
You'll have to edit it.

Do not post such graphics anymore Boris!

Was just a cartoon...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes that is true, though at that time Adam had not fallen into sin and could stand the light or power of god. Wonder what they would talk about anyway.....Hmm Adam, lonely yet???? Quit stop that!!........

Hahaha. That's quite true... It would be awful. I mean, Adam did absolutely nothing. No work. No kids. No hobbies. No dreams or fears or anything. And without the knowledge granted by the tree... well God might as well have created a brick wall and talked to it.

And God wouldn't be much better. I mean, he knows everything. It would be awkward, you'd know he is just making small talk and doesn't need to hear what you'll say. He already knows.



Yeah. It would have been filled with awkward silences.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Exodus 33:11- "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Then Moses would return to his camp, but his young aide Joshua, son of a Nun, would not leave the tent."

1 Timothy 6:16- "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

So... which is right? Does God have an actual body or not?

Thats interesting - I always thought Jews believed that god cannot be seen. But then again, Moses did speak to him in their holy books, so I guess he does have a shape - because if you remember the old testament, God made Adam in his reflection (or something to that effect)

Im not sure if the man with the white beard is a notion thought by Christians or Jews. I know Muslims do not believe God has a shape.

Isn t there like an Infinite quantum state of every particle .... we just cannot perceive it , or like a 5 dimension .... surely God would have a form similar to these concepts, i.e. incomprehensible

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Thats interesting - I always thought Jews believed that god cannot be seen. But then again, Moses did speak to him in their holy books, so I guess he does have a shape - because if you remember the old testament, God made Adam in his reflection (or something to that effect)

Im not sure if the man with the white beard is a notion thought by Christians or Jews. I know Muslims do not believe God has a shape.

Jews do conceive of God as spirit without form: second commandment, among other things, is a reaction to the idol worship prior, that humans tend to confuse "the map with the territory." It's why there are no God icons in synagogues. Heck, religious Jews don't even like to write "God," preferring "G-d" instead.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written/interpreted/translated by many people with many different agendas over a long, long period of time. It is the last place one should look, IMO, for historical accuracy. It is best seen as metaphor, and metaphors change when different points are trying to be made.

Probably no other word has as many different interpretations as "God." When discussing "God," it is best to operationally define exactly what you mean; and such a definition often answers, in itself, any following question.

True the Jews see god more as a spirit that would descend upon them like in the Holy of holies on the Ark of the Covenant and also when leading the Children of Israel through the desert was a pillar of fire at night and a cloud during the day....Though there was that verse about Moses seeing god face to face I don't think it was really a face, because later it was said to look upon god would kill you.

Whatever He wishes or desires to take the form of.

Originally posted by Mindship


The other thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written/interpreted/translated by many people with many different agendas over a long, long period of time. It is the last place one should look, IMO, for historical accuracy. It is best seen as metaphor, and metaphors change when different points are trying to be made.



It very confusing and dangerous to suggest the bible as a 'metaphor' ....One must question its validity, if its an interpretation, one asks the question what is True and what is False ? .... What parts are strict commandment, and what parts are no more than a rough 'guide line' ?

Originally posted by debbiejo
True the Jews see god more as a spirit that would descend upon them like in the Holy of holies on the Ark of the Covenant and also when leading the Children of Israel through the desert was a pillar of fire at night and a cloud during the day....Though there was that verse about Moses seeing god face to face I don't think it was really a face, because later it was said to look upon god would kill you.

That's why I suggest metaphor as perhaps best interpretation, though Yahman makes a point too

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
It very confusing and dangerous to suggest the bible as a 'metaphor' ....One must question its validity, if its an interpretation, one asks the question what is True and what is False ? .... What parts are strict commandment, and what parts are no more than a rough 'guide line' ?

Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.

Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective.

Originally posted by Mindship
Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.

Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective. I've heard many stories put in a metaphorical stance..It's just amazing how much knowledge you can gain from it when looked at as not literal. More fascinating from the Big Picture perspective for sure.

Originally posted by Mindship
Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.

Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective.

The bible should be read with the knowledge of the people and times that it was written. In my opinion, people go wrong in interpreting the bible if they think it is a history book. The bible is book of faith, not a book of fact.

The texts are simply reflections of the culture in which they were written.

Many stories can be taken as metaphorical:

Jonah and the whale
Sara and Abraham
Garden of Eden
Noah
Moses

I just read one last night about Jesus and why he chose his parables the way he did. All metaphors.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Many stories can be taken as metaphorical:
Jonah and the whale
Sara and Abraham
Garden of Eden
Noah
Moses
I just read one last night about Jesus and why he chose his parables the way he did. All metaphors.

As another example: though I couldn't begin to quote where (perhaps someone more versed in the NT can help out), there is some text where Jesus says something to the effect of "watch, do not sleep." Taken literally, it means one thing. Taken metaphorically/mystically...it can refer to the fact that we humans tend to "sleepwalk" our way through life, and as such are that much further from the Spirit within, around and beyond us. To "watch" is to be mindful or metaconscious, the first step toward narrowing that gap, which is itself maya.

But we're getting off-topic. I sometimes wonder if God did "show up," how would "He" prove it (alright, so this still aint exactly on topic)? George Burns convinced John Denver by making it rain in the car. Big deal. Bring back to life a dead relative? But even this ultimately wouldnt do it. How would I know I wasnt being visited by something like Trek's Q? Or Someone with advanced technology (Clarke's Law)?

The irony: those who are desparate to believe will do so with the merest parlor trick. Those who are skeptics wouldnt know God if He (or She--yum--or It--eww) bit them on the arse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible should be read with the knowledge of the people and times that it was written. In my opinion, people go wrong in interpreting the bible if they think it is a history book. The bible is book of faith, not a book of fact.

The problem is which bits are metaphors and which bits are facts ??????????

Originally posted by debbiejo
Many stories can be taken as metaphorical:

Jonah and the whale
Sara and Abraham
Garden of Eden
Noah
Moses


The ten comandments , the passion of the Christ , the ressurection. All of these acould be metaphors .... shifty

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
The problem is which bits are metaphors and which bits are facts ??????????



Facts do not matter, what matters is how this book make you a better person. If it does that, then it is a good book.

Originally posted by Mindship
As another example: though I couldn't begin to quote where (perhaps someone more versed in the NT can help out), there is some text where Jesus says something to the effect of "watch, do not sleep." Taken literally, it means one thing. Taken metaphorically/mystically...it can refer to the fact that we humans tend to "sleepwalk" our way through life, and as such are that much further from the Spirit within, around and beyond us. To "watch" is to be mindful or metaconscious, the first step toward narrowing that gap, which is itself maya.

But we're getting off-topic. I sometimes wonder if God did "show up," how would "He" prove it (alright, so this still aint exactly on topic)? George Burns convinced John Denver by making it rain in the car. Big deal. Bring back to life a dead relative? But even this ultimately wouldnt do it. How would I know I wasnt being visited by something like Trek's Q? Or Someone with advanced technology (Clarke's Law)?

The irony: those who are desparate to believe will do so with the merest parlor trick. Those who are skeptics wouldnt know God if He (or She--yum--or It--eww) bit them on the arse.

I think you would just know !!!!!!! ....For example, I think Bishop interviewed Jean Grey over the death of Emma Fros,t once .... It was just b4 Endsong and all that G.S. jazz. He interviews her, and she just looks at him .... next page Bishop says that he knows that she didn't do it all, although he doesn't know how he knows ....


being in the presence of god would have huge effects on your soul, IMO

'technology (Clarke's Law)?'

Whats technology.... Clarke's Law ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Facts do not matter, what matters is how this book make you a better person. If it does that, then it is a good book.

Many would disagree .... the point of the New testament is to bring you the knowledge that Christ died on the Cross for ones salvation !!!!!!!!! It makes it quite clear that if you do not believe this you will not go to heaven !!!!!!!!

But how do we interpret this, if the rest is metaphorical ?

The inspiration of the Bible rests upon the fact that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Many would disagree .... the point of the New testament is to bring you the knowledge that Christ died on the Cross for ones salvation !!!!!!!!! It makes it quite clear that if you do not believe this you will not go to heaven !!!!!!!!

But how do we interpret this, if the rest is metaphorical ?

Well, I don't believe in this heaven and sin thing. I am a Buddhist and not a Christian and the book I use is the Lotus sutra. The Lotus sutra is all metaphoric, so I don't have the problem you do. I suggest that you learn as much as passable about religion. Yes that means reading other books other than the bible. I would suggest "The Power of Myth" as a good starting point.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
I think you would just know !!!!!!! ....

I would tend to agree. In the "melding" of science and mysticism, proof is defined as the direct experiencing of the phenomenon (be it sensory, mental or spiritual; spiritual being as different from mental as mental is from sensory). However, it may be difficult to tease out confounding variables (eg, wish fulfillment), just as it is in "regular" scientific experiments. This, IMO, would be especially difficult given we live in a society which treats God, as best I sometimes think, as a comforting intellectualization.
Yes, the soul would know something, but perhaps not know how it's knowing or correctly interpret what it's knowing. In our culture, we train the eye of flesh and the eye of reason, but not the eye of contemplation.


Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
'technology (Clarke's Law)?'
Whats technology.... Clarke's Law ?

Clarke's Law (named after Arthur C. Clarke, scifi author extraordinaire):
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

People don't need a bible to tell them what is right and what is not...You just know what is......We all do. To place a belief in anything doesn't make you more knowledgeable then another...There are many people who are christian who do awful things.....

We have that voice, that little voice that talks to us. That is what is real.

Originally posted by Storm
The inspiration of the Bible rests upon the fact that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages.

No .... it survived for so long , because people where persecuted and burnt to the stake, if they didn't believe in it ....

Originally posted by Mindship
I




Clarke's Law (named after Arthur C. Clarke, scifi author extraordinaire):
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

Such as ?

Originally posted by debbiejo
People don't need a bible to tell them what is right and what is not...You just know what is......We all do. To place a belief in anything doesn't make you more knowledgeable then another...There are many people who are christian who do awful things.....

We have that voice, that little voice that talks to us. That is what is real.

Emotivists such as A.J. ayer would disagree .... to him our sense of morality is nothing more than expression of feelings .... Deontoology is nothing more than shouting 'ouch' when one bangs their foot !

People also call that little voice god and others self or satan. But I feel it's the voice of what is true to our own self.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can make a ham sandwich, you take some ham and bread and a little mustard; see how great it is to be God.

Mmmm...I love ham sandwiches...*puppy dog eyes* Make me one?

God has a very definite form: 1040 by April 15th.

I know that god......OH...wait, that's the Antichrist.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I know that god......OH...wait, that's the Antichrist.

By george (pun intended), I think you're on to something...

dev

Originally posted by Mindship
God has a very definite form: 1040 by April 15th.

I think your confused, 1040 is Satan's number.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think your confused, 1040 is Satan's number.

By george (still), the divine/infernal gestalt is falling into place