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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's the "just as literally" in your first quote above that I'm querying. A literal father is someone whose sperm, loaded with one full set of human chromosomes, has fertilised a woman's ovum; but you have understandably denied that god did any such thing. So "just as literally" becomes a fudge - in the sense of profound-sounding verbiage that glosses over a void or absurdity in an argument.
I'm denying that the sex act was involved, that's all. Unlike most Christians, I believe that God is a glorified immortal being with a body that resembles man's, and I believe that He was Jesus' literal Father. Science had made it possible for a woman to become pregnant through in vitro fertilization, but her child will be fully human (with respect to his DNA) just as she had been made pregnant through the "normal means." Of course, if a person doesn't believe in God in the first place, it's a moot point. Even for those who believe that God is some formless mass, it wouldn't make sense. But for those of us who believe that God is a celestial man, it makes sense enough, even if we aren't able to understand the particulars.
That's very interesting. Given that human anatomy has been shaped by conditions on earth (for example by the earth's gravitational field), do you see god's body as having been shaped in the same way? Does he for example have knee-caps to transmit the contractile force of his quadriceps muscles to his shinbones? Does he have muscles at all? If not, does his body have the surface contours which in a human body are caused by those underlying muscles?
Yes, but the biological father will still have provided a sperm with a set of human chromosomes. God can only have been "Jesus' literal Father" (my emphasis) if he did the same.
Just help me out here, okay? Are you arguing against the existence of God, period? Or are you just arguing against an anthropomorphic God? I'd just like to know what your position is before I waste my time responding to these questions.
In my opinion, sperm is the means by which a human male transmits his DNA to the human female through sexual intercourse. I'm not convinced that God's DNA would have to have been transmitted in the same way. I do believe, however, that man and God are of the same species.
Happy to help. I'm an atheist, but none of what I've said in my half of our exchange has constituted an argument against the existence of god. I've been interested chiefly in how believers like yourself reconcile the contradictions inherent in their stated beliefs - at present, how you reconcile your belief that god has a body "like man's" whilst not (I assume) imagining that god is subject to any of the physical constraints (like gravity) which the human body is adapted to cope with. Feel free, of course, to ignore these queries if you consider them a waste of your time.
Remarkable. Is that the view of the LDS in general, or are you out on a limb here?
When I say that we Mormons believe that God has a body "like man's," we aren't saying that God is a human being. We believe that His body is perfect in form and immortal. We don't believe He is subject to the physical constraints (gravity being one such constraint) that we mortal beings are. Furthermore, we believe that someday we can become as He is now. The Bible says that man is created "in God's image, after His likeness." Just a couple of chapters later, it says that Adam begat a son, and that this son was "in his image, after His likeness." Most Christians will tell you that in comparing man to God, the word "image" means something entirely different than what it means when it is used to compare Adam and his son. We believe the word means the same thing in both instances. We physically resemble God just as Seth physically resembled Adam.
That we are essentially the same species as God is a mainstream LDS doctrine, although I haven't heard it expressed in exactly those words. One LDS leader, however, referred to us as "gods in embryo." So you can see that if I'm out of a limb, so was he. Yes, we're pretty unconventional in that regard, which is why the "real Christians" hate us so.
The compulsive disputant in me wants to raise a million and one points in response to all this, but I suspect our respective worldviews overlap too little for further probing to be productive for either of us. Thank you, though, for taking the time, and for the candour and courtesy of your replies.When I say that we Mormons believe that God has a body "like man's," we aren't saying that God is a human being. We believe that His body is perfect in form and immortal. We don't believe He is subject to the physical constraints (gravity being one such constraint) that we mortal beings are. Furthermore, we believe that someday we can become as He is now. The Bible says that man is created "in God's image, after His likeness." Just a couple of chapters later, it says that Adam begat a son, and that this son was "in his image, after His likeness." Most Christians will tell you that in comparing man to God, the word "image" means something entirely different than what it means when it is used to compare Adam and his son. We believe the word means the same thing in both instances. We physically resemble God just as Seth physically resembled Adam.
As to God's knee-caps and His quadriceps, I'm pretty such we have no official statement on the subject. Possibly, though, this little snippet might shed a little bit of light on our perspective. In the Clementine Homilies, which is a Jewish-Christian document based on a second-century source, someone questions the Apostle Peter and asks, "I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." Peter responds by saying, "I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case... It is the shape of the just God.... For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see when them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His bod than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splended than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. Bt He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart, may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to Him."
At any rate, if you ask me about God's appendix, I won't be able to give you an answer. I can only tell you that most Mormons, as deluded as most atheists consider us, are not in any way anti-science. Most well-educated Mormons believe in evolution. I know I do. So I suppose it is possible that God's "knee-capss may at one time have transmitted the contractile force of his quadriceps muscles to his shinbones." I really can't say for sure.
That we are essentially the same species as God is a mainstream LDS doctrine, although I haven't heard it expressed in exactly those words. One LDS leader, however, referred to us as "gods in embryo." So you can see that if I'm out of a limb, so was he. Yes, we're pretty unconventional in that regard, which is why the "real Christians" hate us so.
LOL. And thank you for your restraint.
Further discussion would probably just be fruitless and frustrating for us both.