What is to be taken literally?

Hello Angel, Why? Why death? Why death from the front and a blessing from behind?In another message you said we are created in God's image, and that God has a face with eyes, ears, etc. (What color is His hair?)Wouldn't looking into the face of God be like looking in the mirror?

Not really. When someone states that they have knowledge about God's appearance it seems a completely reasonable question. So then we weren't all created in His image, or at least women are made less in His image than men are.I guess I am following these seemingly nitpicky lines to get this point: What leads you to believe that "created in His own image" literally refers to God's physical appearance, rather than spiritual make-up?

You are correct for me, but not for every one I know...(Your characteristic list would also describe, say, an ostrich; so I'm not sure how amazing of an assumption you are making there...) Do you think God has a penis? I do think men and women are equal but different; so are men and men, and women and women. There are whole threads about this subject - a week or two ago they were looking for a female with your perspective... I'll ask again - why do you take this to literally mean a physical back?I feel like you are missing my intent in this thread - why is it that you take any mention of seeing God or God's image in a literal, physical vein?

That exactly the same as saying we don't have mouths because we have teeth. Birds have mouths. Though, not the point, as you say... I'm not trying to play games. I'm rather amazed by your bodily view of God. I can come up with no conceivable reason how or why God would have a penis. Does He urinate? Does He use it for reproductive purposes?It follows: Does God need eyes to see, ears to hear, a mouth to eat and speak? I'll ask again - why do you take this to literally mean a physical back?I understand that you take it "LITERAL", but why, specifically?

How is the literalism taught in the scriptures? That is what I mean by "specifically". It seems you think people who disagree with you about God's "body" don't believe in God - that is extremely close-minded, not to mention downright rude.I could easily throw it back in your face, and state that you obviously don't have a true relationship with God, otherwise you wouldn't have such simplistic notions about His "body". But I'm not saying that - because different people approach God in different ways.By the way, I haven't asked any rhetorical questions. That is why when some of them weren't answered, I asked them again. Perhaps what is obvious to you is not so obvious to others. (It seemed you were having similar issues with lfen - I assure you, we are both honest with our questions.) Being an open-minded person, I try to understand other people's point of view. You are the first person I've ever heard state that God has physical genitalia. I'm interested in understanding that point of view. You've said this a few times, but haven't explained why no other conclusions can be made. If you make an assertion, be prepared to have someone ask what the foundation for that assertion is. Simply frustratingly restating the assertion several times is not the same as explaining it or backing it up.

You've proven your close-minded nature by claiming that I "obviously" don't believe in God because I don't take the same parts of the Bible literally as you do. You then claim that your harsh statement about someone you don't know is simply "reality".Do you see how obnoxious that is?Is your brand of Christianity the only correct one?

Thanks for the input, Arachnophilia...I still don't see that the only conclusion that can be made from such passages is that God exists in a physical, human-like body (as others have suggested). Personally I can interpret the passages you reference as allegory or metaphor - to "wrestle" with God, or see God "face-to-face" does not necessarily have to mean in a simple physical sense.If someone today stated, "I've come face-to-face with God," it would be taken in a spiritual, not physical sense.It may simply be a reflection upon the narrative style of the authors of those books, or the level of abstraction that the audience was capable of dealing with...

I asked the question repeatedly because I never got an answer, NOT because I thought I was right and you were wrong. (I also never claimed that you said you were right and I was wrong, and I never said the opposite - so I'm not sure why you repeat such things). When I asked you why "no other conclusion" then yours could be made, you simply answered that it was the conclusion you had made. That alone doesn't tell me why you made that conclusion.I was interested in the "why", not just the conclusion.If you are interested, this reply to my question was more of the kind of discussion I was interested in having (since I was apparently unable to communicate such without an example).I guess I'm not sure why you are taking part in a discussion if you don't want to go into any more detail than "I think this, you think that, and it's okay that we think differently." To me it's not much of a discussion if the participants don't discuss the foundation of their thoughts.In any case, I reiterate that it is poor form to call someone an unbeliever over such a disagreement. (You claim you can tell by the wording of my rhetorical questions; but I honestly didn't ask any rhetorical questions, so I have no way of knowing what you are referring to...)

You indeed wrote a lot, but still didn't get to the 'why' or 'how' I was interested in. The above quote is the closest you got - I could have been more clear by asking - How is "it" taught in the scriptures? (And who is doing the teaching?)If you've read the exchange between Arach and myself in this thread, do you have any thoughts on an allegorical reading of those passages? I never claimed to have proof negating God's physical, human-like body. You used the phrase "no other conclusion" to describe the existence of His body; since you made such a strong statement, I was wondering about its foundation. I'm not sure why it sounded like one. Was it simply the fact that it dealt with the 'penis'?We obviously have different mindsets. If someone tells me God has a physical body, I wonder if He wears pants, along with all of the implications that brings along with it. That may seem absurd to you, but it is the first question I think of.Is God male because He has male genitalia, or because He has a masculine character? To me it is an obvious follow-up question to the statement 'God is male'.To me the idea of God having a physical body brings to mind cartoonish images of a grey-haired berobed guy sitting in a gilded throne floating on a cloud... Why isn't God physically made of "flames of fire"? A literal reading of this passage would suggest such.