The Bible (2 Viewers)

[Forbidden.]

Don't hit me with the bible.

 

[aussiechica7]

Spiritual 'form'? Sounds like a self-contradiction already! If 'spirit' is like conscience what 'form' can it have? If God looks like a human, how can he also be an abstraction? It seems to me that you are trying to cover all the bases with this spiritual-form duality.

What is spirit? I would define it as some sort of "other" something that doesn't conform to the boundaries that we come to associate with the tangible universe. So perhaps He does have a "form" just not in the way we would consider it? Or maybe that was just a slip of my tongue because I'm used to talking about the physical world? Anyway, what I said was that I think God has always been spirit form but that though Jesus God was made flesh. This is a massive concept that Christians and non-Christians alike have grappled with throughout the centuries. If it does cover all bases, great. It's just my interpretation.
What would your best interpretation be?

 

[terriphyd]

Aussiechica7 said: What is spirit? I would define it as some sort of "other" something that doesn't conform to the boundaries that we come to associate with the tangible universe. So perhaps He does have a "form" just not in the way we would consider it? Or maybe that was just a slip of my tongue because I'm used to talking about the physical world? Anyway, what I said was that I think God has always been spirit form but that though Jesus God was made flesh. This is a massive concept that Christians and non-Christians alike have grappled with throughout the centuries. If it does cover all bases, great. It's just my interpretation.
What would your best interpretation be?[/quote]



In order to communicate thoughts to someone else, you must define your terminology. You can define the word spirit any way you like, but if you want the other person to understand you, you must be consistent in the usage of your words. If you define the word spirit as 'with form' and also as 'without form', neither of us will understand your point.

If God has form (human being, pillar) and is also formless (spirit, love, compassion, grace), then we are in for a long discussion. It seems to me that the important definitions must be settled at the beginning of a discussion. Covering all the bases means that you haven't done your homework. You don't have a clear picture of what God is, and you just leave it at that because it doesn't bother you. You see nothing wrong with God being a human in one scene, a pillar in another, and as a spirit or as Love in yet others. Yet these are the types of issues that trouble a rational thinker when he or she reads the Bible. These are the issues people who claim to believe in God will always see popping up again and gain in their discussions with skeptics.

The issue before us is not an issue of belief. It is an issue of communication. You have not explained to yourself how the concept love or spirit suddenly turned into a wooden chair, much less can you communicate this metamorphosis to someone else. You are not yet prepared to answer questions such as: If you die and go to heaven, what will you see sitting on the throne? What are you staring at? Love? A ghost? A man? What meaning can it have to say that you believe in God if you have yet to define the subject of your dissertation?

 

[aussiechica7]

Hey Terri,

I have a body. I also have a mind. I also have a spirit. These three things are interconnected but they are separate.

OK so let me put one way of looking at it to you:

This is how I see God. I see Him as something without form however in the Incarnation He (or at least, a part of Him) became a being with form. So it means there is a part of Him that is spirit, a part of Him that is flesh, etc. Does that make sense?

Also, I think throughout history He has revealed Himself as a being with form to people (e.g. the burning bush, etc.) because that was the easiest for His followers to understand.

When Gen says we were created in God's image does that mean that God looks like a human? I don't think that's necessarily true. I think we were created with God's nature (but the Bible says, we fell morally and submitted ourselves to the sinful nature instead).

As an aside, I personally have some questions as to what form Jesus was before He was born on Earth, and what form He is now after He was resurrected. I assume that now He is in a physical form (a "glorified" form according to the Bible) but no one really knows how He was before the incarnation. According to the Bible, He (as part of God) has always existed but how did He exist? I don't know.

BTW I disagree with this: Covering all the bases means that you haven't done your homework." Actually, I think we just have different opinions. You might not accept the idea of God who can simultaneously be with form and without form, or rather, be spirit and flesh. But I can accept that (and the analogy of me being both spirit and body is one way I would try and explain that). I respect that you might disagree with me; I don't respect that this disagreement means I have not thought of the issue.

 

[terriphyd]

Hey Terri,

I have a body. I also have a mind. I also have a spirit. These three things are interconnected but they are separate.

OK so let me put one way of looking at it to you:

This is how I see God. I see Him as something without form however in the Incarnation He (or at least, a part of Him) became a being with form. So it means there is a part of Him that is spirit, a part of Him that is flesh, etc. Does that make sense?

Also, I think throughout history He has revealed Himself as a being with form to people (e.g. the burning bush, etc.) because that was the easiest for His followers to understand.

When Gen says we were created in God's image does that mean that God looks like a human? I don't think that's necessarily true. I think we were created with God's nature (but the Bible says, we fell morally and submitted ourselves to the sinful nature instead).

As an aside, I personally have some questions as to what form Jesus was before He was born on Earth, and what form He is now after He was resurrected. I assume that now He is in a physical form (a "glorified" form according to the Bible) but no one really knows how He was before the incarnation. According to the Bible, He (as part of God) has always existed but how did He exist? I don't know.

BTW I disagree with this: Covering all the bases means that you haven't done your homework." Actually, I think we just have different opinions. You might not accept the idea of God who can simultaneously be with form and without form, or rather, be spirit and flesh. But I can accept that (and the analogy of me being both spirit and body is one way I would try and explain that). I respect that you might disagree with me; I don't respect that this disagreement means I have not thought of the issue.

Aussie,

We don't have a disagreement, at least not yet. We still have a communication problem. We can always agree to disagree later on.

• You say that you ‘have’ a spirit. Do you mean like you ‘have’ a coin in your pocket?

You are not a body and a spirit. You ‘are’ a body. Spirit is what your mind does. Spirit is not something you have. Spirit is what you do. Spirit is not a noun. Spirit is a verb. Spirit is a synonym of conscience, mind, activity in the brain, etc. Do you also say that you ‘have’ a jump or a throw? Is your spirit green, big, 3D?

Spirit is a very convenient word that religion invented to get the best of both worlds. It allows you in one context to confess that the word spirit is nothing but an abstraction, your soul, your feelings, etc. In another context, this abstraction separates from the flesh and travels to heaven and lives forever. It’s called inconsistent use of a definition.

• You say that ‘made in his image’ alludes to God's soul and not to his body.

The word ‘image’ has to do with form. Your attempt to reinterpret this to suit your argument puts you at odds with all of Christendom and almost with the entire Bible:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
a. Does Beauty walk in a garden? (Gen 3:8)
b. Does Love appear and talk to Abraham? (Gen 17)
c. Does Justice smell odors? (Gen 8:21)
d. Does Grace have ears (2 Sam. 22:7) or feet (2 Sam <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:time Hour="22" Minute="10">22:10</st1:time>)?<o></o>
<o> </o>
By saying that God both has form and doesn’t have form, you are shielding your belief from a rational challenge. This is okay if you simply believe without justification and keep it at that. It is when you attempt to rationalize God to someone else that you run into trouble. You may believe that you make sense to yourself, but this is not necessarily true with respect to your interlocutor. If you want to communicate your inner feelings and beliefs to someone else, you must absolutely be consistent in the usage of your terms. Are you saying that God is both something and nothing? Are you saying that he simultaneously exists and doesn’t exist? Are you saying that he is both black and white, tall and small, near and far? The only reason you avoid telling me unambiguously whether God has form is that you are protecting your God against all rationale. But we shouldn't listen to interpreters. When in doubt, the Bible is the only source. The Bible says that God has form and that he is invisible. The Bible says that God is a man and the abstract concept love. The Bible simply contradicts itself. It does so because it was authored by people with different ideas and not by an All Knowing 'being'.
<o> </o>
3. How does God do it? How does he convert from nothing to something? How does Love or Justice suddenly acquire length, width, and height and become a man or a pillar and vice versa? I don’t want God’s genuine magic-of-the-heavens version. I want your version. How do you imagine nothing turning into something and back again?

 

[aussiechica7]

Hi Terri,

"By saying that God both has form and doesn’t have form, you are shielding your belief from a rational challenge."

We disagree on whether or not a being can simultaneously have a form and not have a form. I say a being can. You disagree with me on that. Semantics aside, that's the basic jist of this conversation isn't it? So this is not just about miscommunication, it is actually a disagreement about something.

You have a very secular definition of the spirit. In fact you would define spirit in the same way I would define a soul (mind, will, emotions) which is different to a spirit. A spirit inhabits a body and the body gives it earthly form (so it is not just the sum of chemical signals in the brain, for example). Apart from the body it inhabits, the spirit has no physical form. But a spirit-inhabited body is both formed and formless. Does that make sense?

"It allows you in one context to confess that the word spirit is nothing but an abstraction, your soul, your feelings, etc. In another context, this abstraction separates from the flesh and travels to heaven and lives forever." The former is the soul, the second is the spirit (which according to the Bible, will eventually be given new flesh to inhabit). Are you OK with those definitions?

At the end of your post you said "I want your version. How do you imagine nothing turning into something and back again?" and that is what I gave you. I didn't claim that my interpretation was right, but it put it forth as a viable point of view. I have heard people argue that God's "image" can be physical, spiritual or both. I think God's image just being spiritual is the easiest to understand but I don't claim to know that for sure.

I said to you that God often revealed Himself in humanly form because it would be the easiest for people to understand.

a. Does Beauty walk in a garden? (Gen 3:8)
b. Does Love appear and talk to Abraham? (Gen 17)
c. Does Justice smell odors? (Gen 8:21)
d. Does Grace have ears (2 Sam. 22:7) or feet (2 Sam <st1:time hour="22" minute="10">22:10</st1:time>)?

Exactly. I believe the omnipresent God took on some physical form during these revelations for people to understand Him better.

"The Bible says that God has form and that he is invisible. The Bible says that God is a man and the abstract concept love."
"How does God do it? How does he convert from nothing to something? How does Love or Justice suddenly acquire length, width, and height and become a man or a pillar and vice versa?"
You might enjoy this passage from Hebrews 2 in The Message (contemporary translation of the Bible):
" 14-15Since the children are made of flesh and blood, it's logical that the Savior took on flesh and blood in order to rescue them by his death. By embracing death, taking it into himself, he destroyed the Devil's hold on death and freed all who cower through life, scared to death of death.
16-18It's obvious, of course, that he didn't go to all this trouble for angels. It was for people like us, children of Abraham. That's why he had to enter into every detail of human life. Then, when he came before God as high priest to get rid of the people's sins, he would have already experienced it all himself—all the pain, all the testing—and would be able to help where help was needed."
(If you're interested in a more literal translation, the KJV of that passage is here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb 2: 14-18;&version=9; )

I respect that you don't agree with the Bible's reconciliation of the apparent contraction between the formless God and the formed Man. But looking into it, I don't see it as irrational.

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious about your background. Did you go to church/Christian school or something? You seem to know a little more about the Bible than the average Aussie (even if you don't accept it).

 

[n.gallagher]

I believe the New Testament interprets the Old Testament for Christians. I.e. the principles of the OT still stand but you should read them through NT.

E.g. In the Torah (OT) it talks a lot about animal sacrifice.

Torah, what’s that? Are you a catholic or something, and the Torah is one of you additional books? What’s with your additional books to the Bible anyways? Why do you have a different Bible and beliefs to other Christians?

 

[S1M0]

Torah, what’s that? Are you a catholic or something, and the Torah is one of you additional books? What’s with your additional books to the Bible anyways? Why do you have a different Bible and beliefs to other Christians?

...the Torah is included in the old testament???

Fail.
​

 

[aussiechica7]

The Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible. I'm not Catholic. You're thinking of the Apocrypha (the extra books in the Catholic Bible).

 

[xeuyrawp]

...the Torah is included in the old testament???

Fail.
​

Dude, wtf are you going on about? Like the above poster said, the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Even the Jewish Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'Im, Ketuvim) is exactly the same as the Old Testament - there is just a difference in order etc.

Seems that, once again, you've failed at the whole understanding religion thing.

The Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible. I'm not Catholic. You're thinking of the Apocrypha (the extra books in the Catholic Bible).

There's apocrypha in the Catholic Bible?

Do you mean the Deuterocanonical Books?

Apocrypha's not a good word to describe anything sect-related, I think. More to do with any book that's outside the canon prescribed at the First Council of Nicaea.

 

[aussiechica7]

hey
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha apocrypha hasn't always been a negative term. but yeah your definition works as well. basically books not in the protestant Bible, which was decided at First Council of Nicaea.

 

[xeuyrawp]

hey
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha apocrypha hasn't always been a negative term. but yeah your definition works as well. basically books not in the protestant Bible, which was decided at First Council of Nicaea.

Hahah, the followers of gnosticism would have disagreed with the fact that apocrypha is a negative term; to them, anything in the mainstream is too accessible.

But yeah, I don't think it's a negative term, when you get past the fact that just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's not valuable.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

yeh .. We DO need a purpose to live, or else there is only one direction - suicide.

im a Christian, and i believe in God because God gave me faith to believe. im so glad.. and i hope evryone else is able to receive that present too.

I admit, I think you are a troll, but I have some comments anyway.

I'm a Christian too. Three months ago I walked into a church being held at my local cinema, of all places, and found God. If you'd known me, you'd know that for most of my life I have been a passionate and outspoken atheist. I believed then, and I believe now, that I had a purpose in life then. I was happy. Life meant something. The fact that I have Jesus in my life now doesn't give me amnesia about my life as a non Christian, and it doesn't mean that I now belive that the life I was living was worthless.
You are a Christian, and god has a plan for you, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect other people's lives. God watches out for everyone, remember.

And though I shouldn't say it, I shall: Perhaps the internet is not the best forum for evangelical work. Whilst I could understand if it came from a genuine concern for others, at the moment you are projecting the kind of smugness that turns people in need away, an aura of :
I am praying for you to find God because I am better than you.
If that is not your intention, I apolgise, but you should be careful how you express yourself online because judging tone of voice is impossible.

For people who believe in science~ why do you only believe stuff that you can see; and say that God doesn't exist. Can you see the wind? no, but you can feel it. Can you see love and other feelings? nup, but you can feel it too.
If you only believe in what you see.. you're not seeing the whole picture.

Christians learn from history, which is written in the first part of the bible (BC). i think EVERYONE needz to learn from our contemporary(?) history.

I've never understood the arguments that science and christianity are incompatible. I believe in science. I think the theory of evolution is the theory that best explains our developement in scientific terms. I don't think God created the world in 7 twenty-four hours periods-
(Note these are my opinions, I don''t expect every theist or every atheist to think the same as I).

As for your last comment, on history, I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The study of history is important, of course.
But the Old Testament is not "contemporary history" as contemporary is defined as (according to Google):

Living or occurring at the same time; a comparison of time between two things (people or events) indicating that they exist or did exist simultaneously.

 

[lengy]

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

what's wrong?

 

[shayla]

Does the bible/God have anything against listening to Evensance, Evensence and Pink?
I also listen to Christian music, read the Bible etc but i have never understood if Christiananity goes against the things of the world eg the music, boyfriends and girlfriends, reading books etc.

hannah

 

[ellen.louise]

Does the bible/God have anything against listening to Evensance, Evensence and Pink?
I also listen to Christian music, read the Bible etc but i have never understood if Christiananity goes against the things of the world eg the music, boyfriends and girlfriends, reading books etc.

hannah

No, Christianity does not dictate the music you listen to, the books you read, etc.

The only thing there would be if it's not helpful to your morality. I seriously doubt either of the above would be unhelpful to you. I guess that's also why a lot of Christian girls have a preference for christian guys and vice versa. It's not that an atheist won't understand you or won't respect your faith. It's just a whole lot easier that way.

PM me if any questions: happy to help.

 

[shayla]

thanks, yeah that does make sense lols.

Hannah

 

[aussiechica7]

IMO...
I think it's a heart issue. I know some people who are totally chill with listening to secular music, and they're strong Christians. I know others who choose not to, because sometimes the themes in the lyrics (extra-marital sex, rebellion, etc.) go against Christian principles. The mind really is a powerful thing and it's important to be careful what we allow ourselves to put into it. That being said, I personally don't believe in isolating myself into a little Christian bubble (and although some Christian music is good, some of it is REALLY crap lol ). Re: the boyfriends thing, again it's up to you, does this negatively affect your relationship with God? Does it raise unnecessary temptations, etc? The Bible talks about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers (i.e. marrying a non-believer) which I've personally seen to cause a lot of unnecessary drama in some of my friends'/family's lives (because if you're putting God first, and your spouse isn't, friction can be created between your relationship with your spouse and/or your relationship with God... neither of which are good). So I think you should have your own convictions about the bf thing, but in terms of marrying a non-believer, I'd say the Bible advises against it.

 

[terriphyd]

Hi Terri,

"By saying that God both has form and doesn’t have form, you are shielding your belief from a rational challenge."

We disagree on whether or not a being can simultaneously have a form and not have a form. I say a being can. You disagree with me on that. Semantics aside, that's the basic jist of this conversation isn't it? So this is not just about miscommunication, it is actually a disagreement about something.



It is about miscommunicating because you are not using your terms consistently. You cannot rationalize for me how something can simultaneously have form and not have form. This is the crux of the matter.




You have a very secular definition of the spirit. In fact you would define spirit in the same way I would define a soul (mind, will, emotions) which is different to a spirit. A spirit inhabits a body and the body gives it earthly form (so it is not just the sum of chemical signals in the brain, for example). Apart from the body it inhabits, the spirit has no physical form. But a spirit-inhabited body is both formed and formless. Does that make sense?

No it doesn't. In order for a spirit to 'inhabit' a body, by the plain and incongruous usage of your words you are admitting that a spirit is a distinct entity. You are saying that there is an entity that we can point to that you call spirit and which has form all on its own. You are saying that 'spirit' is a stand-alone object. Therefore, this spirit does not need to inhabit any body to make its presence felt because you already ascribed architecture to it. You are saying that a spirit already has form. Again, we have a communication problem.








"It allows you in one context to confess that the word spirit is nothing but an abstraction, your soul, your feelings, etc. In another context, this abstraction separates from the flesh and travels to heaven and lives forever." The former is the soul, the second is the spirit (which according to the Bible, will eventually be given new flesh to inhabit). Are you OK with those definitions?


There is absolutely no difference between the words soul, spirit, conscience, mind or whatever you want to call these synonyms. Religion invented all these words when they refer to the same concept: the process of thinking of a human.

spirit:
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul
2. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit

soul

1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part
2. the spiritual part of humans ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul






At the end of your post you said "I want your version. How do you imagine nothing turning into something and back again?" and that is what I gave you. I didn't claim that my interpretation was right, but it put it forth as a viable point of view. I have heard people argue that God's "image" can be physical, spiritual or both. I think God's image just being spiritual is the easiest to understand but I don't claim to know that for sure.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I want you to describe in detail how something (e.g., a chair) loses length, width, and height and converts to nothing or in the alternative how a concept (e.g., spirit, soul, love, justice, etc.) acquires length, width, and height and converts into a body. You see, when God created the Universe, he didn't realize that the first bit of matter he created had to be made in zero time. We are not talking about the movie of how God created the first object. We are talking about a photograph. There is absolutely nothing, and suddenly we have length, width, and height in the photograph. Explain the process. I'm curious.