Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[JayUtah]

Yes, I believe so. There is a family resemblance.

But your God has no sex organs, then, right?

 

[Darat]

But your God has no sex organs, then, right?

When we get our new bodies (when Jesus comes back) perhaps he'll have fixed some of the design flaws?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Do you still read them literally? Or do you acknowledge that they are mistakes and that you should probably not take them as truth?

That's a good question.
Disregard them, or is that the way prophecy works?
A prophet can call up any reference the comes to mind and use as God directs. ???

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Do they have genitals?

The Trinity has three members.

 

[JayUtah]

Disregard them, or is that the way prophecy works?

If you can just disregard the parts that don't make sense to you, at what point is it okay to just disregard the whole thing?

A prophet can call up any reference the comes to mind and use as God directs. ???

That's exactly and literally what the sitting Mormon prophet claims to be able to do. Why aren't you Mormon, then, if you accept that proper Bible interpretation requires a prophetic gift?

 

[JayUtah]

When we get our new bodies (when Jesus comes back) perhaps he'll have fixed some of the design flaws?

Speaking of Jesus, he certainly had a wiener or else the circumcision story in the New Testament is leaving out some important details. Did Jesus retain his wiener after he was resurrected? And since the Word (meaning Jesus) was in the beginning with God, did he have his wiener there in the beginning? If so, why do some gods have wieners and others don't? If not, when do wieners enter the picture in the whole "in his image" scenario?

(If you've ever been to Egypt you know the answer to whether wieners exist in the afterlife.)

 

[Carrot Flower King]

We seem to have encountered a difficulty: our interlocutor can't square their beliefs with the bible...

Any attempts at anything to do with evolution or any other part of reality should be put on hold until they've got the fairy tales and mythology sorted out.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2026/05/god-the-science-the-evidence-the-dawn-of-a-revolution-and-underwhelming-apologetics/

Someone else does this stuff badly and is taken apart by a reviewer.

 

[theprestige]

Well... He sits on a throne,

Figuratively.

He talks to us and listens.

But not like a human does, at all. If god had a human form, he'd talk and listen the way a human does, via the forces and particles that govern human perception and communication.

He doesn't use photons to send us light signals. He doesn't use electromagnetic waves to send us radio signals. He doesn't use micro-changes in air density to vibrate our ear drums. He doesn't use any of the physics by which we understand and manipulate the entire rest of the world we live in.

As far as we know, He communicates only by subjective perceptions, which we know can be very easily manufactured entirely within the human brain, and are also incredibly easy to simply lie about.

He sees. His arm is not too short to save.

A human arm would very often be too short to save someone. Besides, no human is using their arms to save someone from the existential threat of eternal supernatural suffering due to unrepented spiritual misdeeds.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Besides, no human is using their arms to save someone from the existential threat of eternal supernatural suffering due to unrepented spiritual misdeeds.

I thought that was what I was doing.

 

[theprestige]

I thought that was what I was doing.

Yeah, but not with your literal, physical arms. This is about whether God has a literal physical human form, and that's what's meant when the Bible says that God created Adam in His own image. Earlier, your position seemed to be that humans look the way we do physically because God literally has this physical form.

But more recently you seem to be talking about God's form in more figurative language. Do you still believe Adam was created in the literal physical image of God?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I thought that was what I was doing.

Yes, you probably did......

 

[Rusty Tyler]

But more recently you seem to be talking about God's form in more figurative language. Do you still believe Adam was created in the literal physical image of God?

Yes.
In the Genesis account, God would walk with Adam in the cool of the evening.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes.
In the Genesis account, God would walk with Adam in the cool of the evening.

And this can't possibly be just more of the same figurative language we've already explored?

I'm serious about the question of whether your God has sex organs. It actually matters quite a bit.

 

[theprestige]

Yes.
In the Genesis account, God would walk with Adam in the cool of the evening.

Yes, and large parts of the Genesis account seem to be figurative, not literal. What makes you think this is one of the literal parts?

 

[arthwollipot]

No.
That would not frighten me.
More likely to cause anger on some level.

Anger at whom? Those who had been deceiving you for so long, or those who revealed the truth?

Biblical evidence.

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is, at best, hearsay.

God the Father uses a male descriptor.
God the Son uses a male descriptor.
The Holy Spirit uses a male descriptor.

Why?

Relax. I'm trying to meet him halfway, not tear down his entire position.

Like I said, evolution doesn't make sense if you only accept half of it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, you probably did......

Except for the "thought" part.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Besides, no human is using their arms to save someone from the existential threat of eternal supernatural suffering due to unrepented spiritual misdeeds.

I thought that was what I was doing.

You've been waving your arms and flapping your tongue, but you haven't saved anyone from anything.

 

[Joe Random]

You've been waving your arms and flapping your tongue, but you haven't saved anyone from anything.

I eluded to this in my final serious reply to the OP way back when, but what struck me was the <Picard> Sheer ... ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ... hubris </Picard> of his approach, if he was actually being honest in his approach. Like he thought was going to bring something new to the argument that would make his opponents see his truth at last, as if we hadn't had this same set of discussions over the past few decades across countless fora.

Then I realized he wasn't here for a genuine argument, but rather just for attention, and it suddenly made sense to me. Like I said in a different message, it's a theological version of FInDom,

 

[catsmate]

How have you got on with the theology I linked to, has that not provided a Christian way of accepting evolution and reconciling that with a Christian faith?

Reminds me this: