@logicalemu - ” It’s rewriting the Bible, which is
specifically forbidden.  I don’t follow the Bible, but to do something
like that is just plain old contradictory.”

The Bible has been rewritten plenty of times…why do you think so many different versions exist? Unless a person is opposed to the different books being translated from their original language, I do really understand how people could view this as something that is explicitly forbidden by the Bible. Maybe a little much in the view of some, but unbiblical? cmon.

Theologically it makes more sense to imagine God w/o a gender label attached. But practically and for the purpose of making the concept of God easier for people to comprehend and identify with, assigning a gender role simplifies things.

@logicalemu - 

You said:
“Granted, I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew,
so I don’t know if the original texts were gender specific or not.  If
God does not “identify” (I can’t think of a better word) as a man, why
wasn’t Jesus a transexual or hermaphrodite…or a woman?”

Most Hebrew names of God are of masculine gender to my knowledge, while analogies are used to represent God is both a masculine and feminine way. And Jesus was clearly identified in the NT as a man, not a woman or hermaphrodite. But how Jesus was both God and man is a different theological conversation completely.

The issue really is does a person really believe the Christian God to have a physical form and that form to have male parts (i.e. God must have a penis). To me, that thought is pretty ridiculous. And I have not read a Christian theologian who thought that way. I mean, even the Catholic Church recognizes God as genderless:

“239
By
calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main
things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority;
and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children.
God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of
motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between
Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience
of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this
experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the
face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God
transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor
woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although
he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.” (from the Catchism of the Catholic Church)

And to offer another theory as to why God is repeatedly referred to as Father, especially by Jesus, an understanding of the current society’s knowledge on genetics is somewhat important. Ancient knowledge of science did not realize that a female contributed DNA to her child, rather it viewed pregnancy as the women bringing the man’s seed to maturation. So basically, the child was his father’s son. To provide an analogy, the mother was the oven in which he was baked, but ultimately the father was the baker, and could have made the same loaf of bread in any other oven. Of course we know this is incorrect now, but that would offer some insight to why Jesus would refer to God as “father.” For Jesus to refer to God as mother would make little sense, sense one’s being was seen as being as that of one’s father.

You said
“I consider there to be a difference between
re-translating and re-writing the Bible.  To translate something into a
different language is different than changing the actual meaning or
wording.”

Translating texts from one language to another is ultimately rewriting. You don’t think the King James, along with plenty of other versions, has changed the meanings of plenty of different passages? Translations are bound to change exact meanings and exact wording.

@eclectic_eccentric -

Why must God have to have a penis? What purpose would He have for it? Are there orgies going on in heaven that the Bible does not touch on?

More importantly, why would God have a physical body resembling that of a human being, and more specifically, a male? If God has such a physical form where does it currently reside? If God has no physical form, but rather inhabits the “spiritual world,” how are we to know what He looks like? Do things in the spiritual world actually have actual shape or form? (because if they did, wouldn’t that make them part of the physical world?). Most depictions of God and analogies are used to help humans help conceptualize God and identify with such a concept.

Just some questions to try and help you understand the other viewpoint.

@eclectic_eccentric - 

“So all your arguments sound unconvincing,
since they stem from a different central belief. My statements are just
fine, as long as you agree with me to begin with.”

Belief systems need not to be rooted in unwavering faith that provided outside perspectives should not be able to affect it. Especially since this is not a topic that determines a person’s salvation. Whether a person believes God has an actual physical form or not should not determine where a person will be spending eternity. All I ask is for you consider different viewpoints (especially since the viewpoint you currently believe in is in the vast minority. I think some mormons might agree with you (since their added scriptures contain some verses on God having a physical body), but most I don’t imagine too many christians who have really thought hard on the topic to have a similar viewpoint. Just don’t let the fact I might have conveyed this in somewhat of an asshole way convince you not to consider ideas I’m proposing.

” Since I don’t believe that God is all spirit, maybe you should try convincing me He is before you attack my other statements.”

That was the intent of the questions I was asking, to ask questions that might make you consider how the other side of the arguement makes sense.

“So, without noticing my point, you just proved it. My point was that it is all a question of belief.”

But I did notice your point, that is why I was trying to convince you of what I viewed as more logical. And belief shouldn’t be just a belief based on nothing. Belief should be founded in logic, reason, experience, etc.

@eclectic_eccentric - 

Hrmmm, we both seem to no be understanding each other too well. I’ll try to make this argument as completely conforming to Christian belief as possible, since that is the perspective I’m arguing from. In no way I’m I questioning the belief of Jesus being both God and man. God can be spirit (and not be in a physical form), and still have sent Himself to inhabit the world and to exist in a physical form for a time (well, He wasn’t limited by time, or a certain time, but from what the Bible tells us Jesus on earth only happened once and for only a few decades).

“The belief that God came to earth as a Human Man is the central, founding belief of the Christian faith,”

Nothing I said is disputing that. Reread the last sentence of my previous paragraph.

“The idea that God is all spirit is Gnosticism”

Gnosticism, from I gathered from just looking it up briefly, mainly revolves around an imperfect God, which would be the major difference between it and Christianity.

“it was recognized as Hersey by the Apostle Paul.”

What was specifically recognized as heresy by Paul, is this going back to Jesus or actually the nature of God?

“The reason it is important that Christians
recognize Jesus as a physical human is that if he was not truly man, he
could not truly die, and we cannot truly be saved.”

I have never stated Jesus was never a physical human being, every point I stated agree completely with the conclusions reached by the First Council of Nicaea.

“The “other side of the argument” doesn’t
make sense to me, because my belief in God’s broken body is the core of
my salvation, and the motivating factor behind everything I do here on
earth.”

How is believing that God does not have a natural physical body, which would act to limit Him and be essentially trying to keep God in a box so we can imagine what He looks like, conflict with the idea that Jesus was both God and man. It doesn’t, and I don’t understand how you are trying to make that your argument. God as spirit, and Jesus as both God and man do not conflict. If they do, you should probably start a new denomination, because to my knowledge those two tenets are what are currently believed by most large denominations.

Some Bible verses for you since you seem to think I am making an argument that does not have a basis in scripture- John 4:24 (“…God is spirit”), Luke 24:39; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17. When God chose to show Himself to man in the OT he stated “No man can see me and live” (Exodus 33:20).To quote from the source I provided earlier, but I have a feeling you might have not read:

“That which is physical cannot be infinite – for you cannot add finite
parts together until they reach infinity. Therefore God is spirit as
opposed to physical/material in His Being. This does not mean He cannot
localize a physical appearance. God is not composed of matter nor any
other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial,
and has no true location (presence is a different concept).”

If God has a physical body, He must have a location as well….thus my question I was asking previously. And if He has an actual location, it stands to reason man can actually find the residing place of God, which is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion.

Does this make more sense then my last posts? I think it did a good job conveying what I’m trying to get across, but I thought the same of the last few.

@eclectic_eccentric - 

Sorry, I can’t buy the argument that heaven is an actual physical location. I think it’s a nice thought and somewhat comforting to think, but the implications in believing in a physical take Christianity to a level of unbelievability based on fact and reason that would make it near impossible for me to believe. The thought that there is a physical realm and a spiritual realm who can, at times, lap over one another, allows the believability factor to be at more likely levels, in my opinion. If God, heaven, etc, is in the spiritual realm, of course we cannot prove or disprove God. But if God actually physically exists in physical realm in a heaven located somewhere where man could eventually see or observe it….well that just trends into ridiculous then. God could essentially be an alien life form then, and heaven could be that alien’s homeworld.

“Unless you think that Jesus’ body evaporated
during the Ascension, He is in heaven, at the literal Right Hand of the
Most High, in His Resurrected body.”

If the Ascension actually happened in the way described, yes I think it would be more probably his body essentially evaporated. Because either he went back to the spiritual realm or his body actually did get evaporated when He tried to pass through the earth’s atmosphere on His way to heaven, wherever that may be. An argument can be made that Jesus was actually in spiritual form after the resurrection, but that gets off topic and does go against most church beliefs, which is something i’ve been avoiding thus far.

“However, it does not “stand to
reason” that if God is somewhere, we can find where He is. Just because
things exist doesn’t mean mankind can find, or understand, or explain
them.”

Well we’ll make limit the number of places where He could be. In the past Christians were certain that God resided in heaven, which had its location in the clouds. Now we know that to not be true. Does that mean greater understanding of our planet and our solar system was a blow to Christianity? No, but a lot of people at the time sure thought that way. When people try to limit God, they can get offended when their limitations are disproved, as was the case a couple of hundred years ago.

“But the laws of physics rule the form of the whole created universe. How much more so for Heaven!”

But that’s just not so, because if Heaven has to abide by the rules of the universe, so would God it would seem. And since God is timeless, and the Bible states He exists outside of time, how can that be? How can even Heaven follow the rules of the universe when God resides there and does not follow the rules Himself?

“Heb. 1:3 tells us that Jesus is “the exact representation of His being”.”

The argument can be easily made that the verse was refering to Jesus’ spirit or soul, thus it was able to be God in human form. If you follow the logic that this verse must imply that since Jesus is a man, God must be a man in a physical body somewhere. And not only a man, but a Jew as well. I sincerely doubt a bearded jew with a penis is somewhere out there relaxing on a different planet watching earth.

“And John tells us in 1Jn. 3:2 that someday, we shall be like him! “

Couldn’t that easily mean we will exist in the spirit form, like God does?

Is the thought of an ascending Jesus, disappearing and leaving his physical form to return to have such a bad thing? Why can’t God choose when and where he will switch from one realm to another? He’s God, so why should He be so limited? And that is why Jesus is such an important theme for Christianity, because God choose to take the form of man for awhile (and will return in the future) to provide the ultimate sacrifice. If God had a physical form, why did he just not take a spaceship here from his place in heaven? Wouldn’t that be complying more with the rules of the universe?