Conchobar

Most Xns believe that god became a man about 2000 years ago and then was nailed to a 2x4. God thereby gained experiential knowledge as to what it means to be human (so the story goes). If god can turn himself into a human, I don't see why he can't turn himself into a rock or can't become you in order to gain experiential knowledge.

God was a human being long before Jesus's myth. JHWY of the God of Abraham/Moses is an anthropomorphic being. He was created by man in man's own image and likeness. This created God, JHWY, has all of man's personality features. He is cruel, violent, unmerciful, narcissistic, capricious, vengeful, and given to rage attacks of genocidal proportions. He is exactly like the hard desert chieftans who created him. How could he become human if he was already human. Unless it was to become a flesh and blood human instead of the invisible phantasm he ususally is.

As for your speculation that god would not be able to convert back to god if he became a rock, well, that just assumes that god is limited by normal space-time.

So God becomes a rock but still has the power to become an invisible phantasm. Then he never was a rock. If he were a real rock, then he would not have the consciousness or cognition to even know he was a rock or a former invisible phantasm.

I spose God could easily create a bend or loop in time or reverse the arrow of time so that he would revert back to being god at the "end" of his experiment in being a rock. I'm sure god could come up with other cool ways to test drive being someone/something else without permanently relinquishing his powers.

I suppose God could have a timer that has a piece of God inside it. He could then turn into a rock, but when the timer went off, the god in the timer said, "Let rock be god again." This dicussion is getting barmier all of the time.

In any event the notion that god is omnipotent/omniscient is merely a fanciful reading of certain poetic glorifying phrases in the Bible. There are lots of points in the Bible where god is portrayed as having limited powers. Pointing out absurdities in the omnimax god is fun, but really doesn't address the god of the Bible.

True. The Bible God is easily disprovable because of his imperfectiions, evil traits, and contradictions. Only a more general undefined God cannot be disproven. That is why I call myself a generic Agnostic, but Christian Atheist. I don't know if there is no god of any kind or definition. But I know that the Christian God is so silly as to be a fake. He is a combination of Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, Comedians Marty Feldman and Benny Hill, and Charlie Manson.

Conchobar

Fred

I am only now noticing that there was an edit. I thought the question was light hearted. Sorry for my mistake.
As for it being a "higher" forum ? I've seen the kiddie porn thread and you are not fooling me. Men trying to justify selfish actions does not a philosophical argument make.
As for my reasons not to believe the theists ? My experience in life. I cannot speak for others.

Spencer is this question directed at the Christian God only ?

If not, there are many stories of Gods turning into mist and other shapes not human. Of course they are just stories, are we to believe that Diana changed shape because Virgil said so ?

beastmaster

Well, I agree this is a "barmy" discussion. I didn't invent the question, I just tried to answer it. Whenever you assume god you end up in loonyland.

My point is that, if you take the concept of omnipotence *seriously* (how can you take absurdity seriously?), then there really *is* nothing that god cannot do. God can do things that may seem paradoxical to us. He could create an alternate universe where he is a rock and observe himself from afar; he can bend or loop time; he could probably do other things that we can't even begin to imagine. He is the master of time and space. I don't see why anything is outside his powers -- even things that seem logically contradictory to us.

diana

Hi, Fred.

No worries. The idea of "higher forum," unfortunately, does not exclude those who would attempt to use philosophy to justify selfish actions. Indeed, I'm sure there are those who insist you are doing just that in arguing for atheism or agnosticism. At least, I get that a lot ("You just don't believe in God because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions!" ).

Behavior is more carefully moderated in the higher forums, though, in an effort to keep the discussion on track and as civil as possible. As you can see in the "kiddie porn" thread you mentioned, the discussions can be potentially volatile.

Ad hominem attacks are strictly moderated. Baiting is also counterproductive, so it is also quelled as much as possible, as it makes the baiter look bad (and please, all you original and witty people: no master baiter comments) and it places any potential opponent in the awkward position of first defending his good name before he deals with your argument. In short, show everyone the respect you yourself wish to be shown. (And if you need a quick lesson on how not to treat people, pop over to TheologyWeb and have a quickie discussion with jpholding or that cadet dude.)

There are "lower forums" here where the goal is more centered on comaraderie where these reins are looser. The goals of each forum dictate the expected behavior.

For the record, I don't mind light-heartedness. I think we need more of it here. But if your version of "light-heartedness" involves insulting or baiting others or (essentially) calling them liars (which is the implication of "their motives can't be honest"), then please...don't bother trying to "lighten" the conversation.

Please direct any further comments or questions concerning moderation decision to the moderators via PM or start a thread in the Bugs, Problems and Complaints forum.

Let's keep this thread on track: Spenser asked an interesting question. Let's rap about God and rocks...

d

Tercel

Okay, I'll play along. I'm a Christian, btw.

God cannot become a rock. He can never become you either. He can only ever be God. He's what's called "immutable" ie he doesn't change into other things.

If you want to think you've disproved omnipotence, you're can. But I think most people by "omnipotence" just mean "God's a really powerful guy who can do lots of cool stuff and there's no one more powerfuller than him!".

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Which came first, 'God' or the egg?

I assume that the question means to ask, which existed first.

Well, eggs already exist...

...so, eggs!

K

beastmaster

Er ... um ... I've got this Book, y'see, that says that god became flesh through the personage of Jesus Christ. Sounds pretty mutable to me. What book are you reading?

Are you claiming that Jesus is not merely the image of god, but a being separate from God? Does Jesus have powers, such as mutability, that God lacks? Is Jesus greater than God?

By what authority do you claim that god cannot change into other things?

I'm genuinely curious.

Tercel

~Sigh~, okay, yes I was only talking about God the Father, which I suppose I should have made clear although when Christian's say "God" without clarification that's generally who they mean. Since the Father is very simple in nature and nothing other than unconstrained existence, He can't magically transform himself into something else.
The Son is more mutable in that he can change form etc, but he still can't lose his defining characteristic which is reason. Thus although he can take on the form of a rational human, he can't become a rock 'cos rocks don't think. But even when he had the form of a human, he was still a human and the Son of God at the same time. His godliness didn't go anywhere or change.

Jesus is a person of the Godhead: The Son and Word of God and 2nd person of the trinity.

Jesus is defined to be part of God by standard teaching. Jesus is just different to the Father, not greater. Neither Jesus nor the Father are completely mutable insofar as neither can change their essential natures. Both are partly mutable insofar as our perception of both can change.

Logic, standard church teaching etc. God can't just stop being God anymore than 1+1 can stop equalling 2.

beastmaster

Thanks for your answer Tercel. I am struggling with some of your theology (is it "standard church teaching" to say that "the Father is very simple in nature"?), but I want to focus on one point you make.

But Jesus didn't became merely a "rational human" -- he became a *dead* human! Only after the third day was he resurrected (according to your book).

A dead human cannot think anymore than a rock can!

If you do not believe that Jesus *truly* died than it makes a mockery of the significance of his resurrection and his conquer of death.

Forgive me if I am arguing forcefully -- I am still trying my darnedest to make sense of this thing called Xnty.

Tercel

Most theologians have generally agreed on this, yes, however it's not something that is generally dwelt on in your average church service.

At no point did he stop existing, his body just died. (see 1 Peter 3:16 for example)

I believe Jesus' body *truly* died, but I don't believe Jesus stopped existing when he died any more than I believe I'll stop existing when I die.