Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is to be taken literally?
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 61 of 81 (158481)
11-11-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
11-10-2004 7:29 PM


Re: God's body and belief
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 11-10-2004 7:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 1:09 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 62 of 81 (158486)
11-11-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Angel
11-10-2004 9:12 PM


Re: God's body and belief
No, what I see as obnoxious is your continuation of the same exact question, after it has been answered over and over again. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make you right. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me right... You asked for an explanation of why I FELT it was literal, and I answered how I FELT it was literal.
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...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Angel, posted 11-10-2004 9:12 PM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 7:52 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 81 (158503)
11-11-2004 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by pink sasquatch
11-11-2004 6:44 PM


Re: God's body and belief
quote:
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.
In message 21 I said this:
quote:
To look upon His back would be a blessing, to look upon His face would be death.
then you asked:
quote:
Why? Why death? Why death from the front and a blessing from behind?
and I replied:
quote:
Because God said that to look upon His face meant death. For me to be able to see His back, would be the greatest gift ever, a blessing, which is an oppinion, IOW you do not have to feel the same, and thats ok.
Now I ask you, how doesn't that answer your question? What exactly are you wanting to know?
You also asked:
quote:
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?)
This is the list of explanations given to you:
quote:
I do not know the color of His hair, nor have I seen His face, if I had, I wouldn't be here typing this now. I gather though that this was meant to be a rhetorical question.
Father=male....no, I am a female. Now for another obvious answer....When you look in the mirror, do you see me? No, you don't, does that mean that we do not have the same features aka..eyes, ears, nose, mouth? Another rhetorical question, I assume.
I have knowledge of His appearance, as I have knowledge of yours, I have never seen you, but would naturally assume that you have eyes, ears, etc. Am I correct in assuming this?
Well, lets see women were made for man, so yes, I guess we would fall under that catagory. I do not have a problem admitting that my husband has authority in my house. Not that I have no input, but he does and always will have final say. I say this because I get the impression that you feel men and women are equal, and in many ways they are, but in many ways they aren't. Another post at another time though I guess.
Have you not read the Old Testament? If you have, do you not recall when God gave Moses a favor? Moses seen His back, but couldn't see His face?
Maybe I should give you some background on myself, I have a Minor in Religion, and I have a PhD in Psychology. I am aware of every mental disorder. Now with that said, I don't recall ever saying that I identify anyone, or any Being, by their body itself. I have answered the question, of what I felt God looked like. Never have I identified anyone as being a simple body.
I am a human being, I have flesh, yes. But personality (a sense of ones self) comes from the brain in the form of an identity. My body is just a body, my soul, is what is important.
And again I will answer literal, it doesn't matter how many times you ask me, you are still going to recieve the same response.
I am afraid that I am not missing the point of your question, but rather, you do not want to except my answer. Which is fine with me. Again it is LITERAL because of the scriptures in the OT. LITERAL.
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses).
The Bible leads to no other conclusion but that it is to be taken literally. You could also argue, I presume, that Jesus was not to be takin literally. The question has been answered, maybe it's not the one that you want, but it has been answered.
Yes, I know this. However, when something has been answered over and over again, it gets to the point where you just have to agree to disagree. I have said that it is ok that you don't believe as I do, you on the other hand, want to keep the same question, though already answered, repeating. I will say it again, in case you missed it. IT IS OK FOR YOU NOT TO BELIEVE AS I DO.
Maybe you are not as 'open-minded' as you think. Especially if something like this gets you so wound up. I have no reason to think that He doesn't. I have no proof that He doesn't. Let's turn this around, what proof do you have that He doesn't? And why do you feel that way? Proof, not belief, because obviously you do not accept belief as a ligitamate answer, so show me proof, evidence.
Well, yes I have, but for arguments sake, I will explain why again. If God can cover Moses eyes with His hand, and if Moses can physically see His back, and if someone, though they wouldn't live to tell it, can see His face. That has to lead to one conclusion, that He has hands, a back, and a face. How is it that that is so hard to understand? You don't have to agree, but you have to accept that I feel this way, and believe this way.
Really? I am glad that you feel that way, and I am looking forward to your response with some facts, not belief, facts to my above question.
Again, I answered your question, it just doesn't seem to be the one that suits you. It is meant to be literal, because it is written literally. If you can physically see something, that would make it physical, am I correct, or has there been a new scientific advance that I am not aware of? Since I take it that He has a physical body, because it is written that He does, that makes it literal. Can you honestly not find my answer? It isn't written in a parable, which may be confusing, it is written to be taken literally.
Then this is your question again:
quote:
I was interested in the "why", not just the conclusion.
Messages 32, 40, and 44 should have answered why:
quote:
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses).
This is why, why is it so hard for you to accept my answer, do you have proof otherwise, because as I said before, I would love to see it!
quote:
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.
Though I agree this isn't much of a discussion, seeing as how I am doing all of the discussing. It's funny that you keep saying that I haven't answered your question, which I have, but when you are asked a question, you ignore it. Why is that?
quote:
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...)
And on this point it may be valid, IF you are then I apologize, however, in the future you should probably refrain from questions such as this if you are....
quote:
Do you think God has a penis?
So, if that isn't a rhetorical question, it sure was posted to sound like one.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-11-2004 6:44 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ramoss, posted 11-11-2004 10:36 PM Angel has replied
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 1:14 AM Angel has not replied
 Message 73 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-12-2004 6:20 PM Angel has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 64 of 81 (158568)
11-11-2004 10:22 PM


Just struck me. First, humans saw God face to face. Gen 18:1,2--Gen 32:24--Gen 32:30 (Thanks, Arach)Then, He tells them not to look, keep away. You don`t think He picked up one of those contagious diseases He created, do you?

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 65 of 81 (158572)
11-11-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Angel
11-11-2004 7:52 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Angel,
By any chance you are a Mormon??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 7:52 PM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 10:40 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 67 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 10:40 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 81 (158574)
11-11-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ramoss
11-11-2004 10:36 PM


Re: God's body and belief
quote:
By any chance you are a Mormon??
No, I am not a Mormon. I do not believe in organized religion period. Jesus was/is not a Mormon, JW, Baptist, Catholic, etc. So why should anyone else? Just a thought.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ramoss, posted 11-11-2004 10:36 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 81 (158575)
11-11-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ramoss
11-11-2004 10:36 PM


Re: God's body and belief
quote:
By any chance you are a Mormon??
No, I am not a Mormon. I do not believe in organized religion period. Jesus was/is not a Mormon, JW, Baptist, Catholic, etc. So why should anyone else? Just a thought.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ramoss, posted 11-11-2004 10:36 PM ramoss has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 81 (158608)
11-12-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by pink sasquatch
11-11-2004 6:25 PM


Re: God's body and belief
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).
oh no, i didn't mean to say that it was the ONLY conclusion to be drawn. there is no part of teh bible (or any document) that can only be read one way. i was just suggesting that upon re-reading genesis i got the impression that the authors did think of god a physical being. i can't really say "this proves it" as it's more of an impression from reading the whole book.
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.
no, it certainly doesn't. the passage is set up in a very literal way, and describes a fight. but there is a metaphorical way of reading it. and it does have another purpose as well -- it tells the origin of a certain custom that was already in practice at the time of writting. (a "just so" story. i forget the technical term)
like i think i said before, the jews have a system that says there are four ways to read each passage: simple/literal, applying to modern life, symbolic, and mystic.
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...
well, the best date for the authorship of genesis i can come up with is circa 600 bc (when camels were domesticated, ur belonged to chaldeans, and they were babylonian captivity). i don't think people then were exactly stupid. in fact, i think they probably had a more educated way of understanding the text than we do today.
i just think that intended for god to be a physical figure in the book, at least when read in the simplistic literal way.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-12-2004 01:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-11-2004 6:25 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 81 (158609)
11-12-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Angel
11-11-2004 7:52 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Because God said that to look upon His face meant death. For me to be able to see His back, would be the greatest gift ever, a blessing, which is an oppinion, IOW you do not have to feel the same, and thats ok.
eh, no.
quote:
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
something has changed about god, or the way the hebrews think of god, between this verse and the one you reference. i'm not positive if exodus was written after genesis, but reading in the order the bible is set in, the intent of the authors appears to be that god is becoming more and more abstract and less and less physical. in exodus, even coming near the mountain god is on with moses becomes deadly, yet joseph wrestled with him in the desert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 7:52 PM Angel has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 70 of 81 (158610)
11-12-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Nighttrain
11-11-2004 6:10 PM


Re: RE: to message 55
Hi,Prob, you realise the figtree was the emblem of the Zealots?
kind of screams symbolism and political motivation, don't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 11-11-2004 6:10 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 11-12-2004 1:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 71 of 81 (158612)
11-12-2004 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
11-12-2004 1:15 AM


Re: RE: to message 55
Hi, Arach, why would an all-knowing God inspire a book with such obscure interpretations for the use of far-flung societies across the world, unfamiliar with Jewish metaphors, symbollism, etc(etc borrowed from Whatever )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 1:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 1:50 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 81 (158613)
11-12-2004 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Nighttrain
11-12-2004 1:45 AM


Re: RE: to message 55
hey, don't look at me. i don't think god had anything to do with the writing of the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 11-12-2004 1:45 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 73 of 81 (158879)
11-12-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Angel
11-11-2004 7:52 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses).
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?
This is why, why is it so hard for you to accept my answer, do you have proof otherwise, because as I said before, I would love to see it!
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.
So, if that isn't a rhetorical question, it sure was posted to sound like one.
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...
Exodus 3:2-4 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight-why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am."
Why isn't God physically made of "flames of fire"? A literal reading of this passage would suggest such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Angel, posted 11-11-2004 7:52 PM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 6:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 75 by Angel, posted 11-12-2004 11:08 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 74 of 81 (158888)
11-12-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by pink sasquatch
11-12-2004 6:20 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses).
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?)
i actually think that MOST of the time god is portrayed speaking to moses, he's NOT in a physical form. he's portrayed as having a physical location (the mountain, the top of the ark, the pillar of fire/smoke, the burning bush) but not a body. it's only when moses asks that god shows his physical form.
granted, there are other ways of reading it. but to say that the ONLY way to read it is that god has a literal body is absurd. i think the text does indicate that he does, but it can also be read metaphorically as well and literally.
the passage about seeing god's back but not his face is actually very important symbolically. what it's saying is that you can't just see god directly, you have to look at indirect evidence. it's message about the backwards nature faith.
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'.
i think god is both male and female. what does that imply? seriously, i don't know if god really has or had a physical body. i don't really know for certain that god exists. and i'm not sure what i believe about his genitalia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-12-2004 6:20 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 81 (158957)
11-12-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by pink sasquatch
11-12-2004 6:20 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Pink Sasquatch,
I remember talking about God's 'physical' appearance, but I can't find the original post where I wrote it. To answer your question, really I am trying as best I can, When I read that scripture, it leaves me with no other conclusion, but that God does indeed have a 'body' that is shaped/formed like a human being. It isn't just that particular scripture either, but we seem to be stuck on this one, so I will stick with it. The only reason I can honestly give you, is that, that is what I understand when I read it. Again, I could be wrong, it will not be the first time, and I hope it isn't the last. Even still, if I am wrong about that particular scripture, there are others still that say that we were made in His own image.
quote:
We obviously have different mindsets.
......Fair enough.
.
quote:
Why isn't God physically made of "flames of fire"? A literal reading of this passage would suggest such.
To my understanding of that particular scripture, is that the flame, was the Holy Ghost, and the voice was of God.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-12-2004 6:20 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 11:19 PM Angel has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024