Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Nope. God doesn't walk anywhere or eat anything because God is not a human.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions for God
- Thread starter blü 2
- Start date
You touch on an excellent point here.
I use the pronoun [him] for God, not him. That's because it's clear, as you say, that God is not a human, and I can't recall any serious statement in Judaeo-Christian scripture or commentary on how gods reproduce. But what instead God is imagined to be is far from clear. I recall we had some fun with this idea in an earlier thread when we tried to place God in [his] correct position within Linnean taxonomy.
The part to underline is, God is not one of us, but an alien entity. An image of laboratory mice realizing that their carer is not a supermouse comes to mind.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is far from clear because we cannot even imagine what God is like.
... but we know exactly what his thoughts are on how humans should use their genitals!
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, we do know that and I thank God for that.
And you don't see contradiction.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I don't see it because there is no contradiction.
What God is like is God’s intrinsic nature.
That has nothing to do with God’s thoughts on how humans should use their genitals.
We know there are proofs and proofs that things can't be proved.
Just add paradoxes as a third thing and you're good to go.
Like God uses [his] in Matthew and Luke?
Like good ol' King Solomon?
Like rumor attributes to Mary Magdalene?
Indeed, but of course the problem here remains unsolved, since unless answered it invalidates any claim of omniscience.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, not like that. God has revealed new laws that govern sexual behavior.
I must be old-fashioned ─ as far as I can tell, mine are from the same shop as the rest of evolution's. Civilized, of course, but the one template ─ the one that says, reproduce or forget it.
We just count paradoxes as separate things
Paradoxes are not without their charms, indeed. Of course you may have to judge that sentence on the basis that I always tell lies.
Assuming Baha'u'llah wasn't making things up, which is most likely. And assuming your judgment that Baha'u'llah is correct, which is highly unlikley.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Why would Baha'u'llah make things up and call them God's laws?
The only pertinent question that needs to be answered is whether or not Baha'u'llah is who He claimed to be, Messenger of God.
How do you think anyone can prove that is either true or false?
Mental illness, perhaps. What we can discern is that what he claims has no basis in fact, so we have no reason to believe him.
There’s no reason to think he was. He made fantastic claims and lacked any evidence. So we dismiss it.
No one has to. Only those who think he’s credible need to show he isn’t a crackpot. Thus far there’s nothing that allows a reasoned conclusion that his claims are valid.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
How does man know he is not just a dream inside the head of an angel?
Who can say? Humans are generally not claimed to be omniscient.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe then that God in Jesus must be correct when He said He will draw all men unto Him.