Why Do Christians Believe God Became Flesh?

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.25.2021 05:03PM

I have heard a few reasons as to why god is said to have become flesh and not once have I been able to understand why this "incarnation" had to happen and even why it should be believed.

The common shout from Christians is that god, became flesh to understand "human suffering" . But this simply cannot be in any way true ...unless we ignore the awkward fact that God as god, understood human suffering perfectly well? And we know this because THE BIBLE says so.

So let us first blow the "human suffering" argument out of the water by highlighting what god himself has to say on the matter while he is still god;

Exodus 3:7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering".

So we see right away, that god didn't need to go to all the trouble of sending anyone in any shape or form and that he could clearly see (and we have to assume understand) that god was well up to speed on the matter.

Another of the reasons given for this "incarnation" is that god as Jesus was sent to forgive our sins. Why? And again this shite can also be blown out of the water by THE BIBLE!

Isaiah 45:21-22. God as god says; “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other".

Jonah 3:5-10. " When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened".

So we can clearly read, god as god on both these occasions was forgiving sins before he is believed to have "incarnated" as Jesus on earth. And as a point of fact, Jesus as Jesus was also forgiving sins before he was crucified so that blows the "crucified for our sins" clean out of the water too.

So can a single one of the Christian fold here give a valid and factual reason why god had to "incarnate" as a human being here on earth.

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

07.25.2021 07:25PM

It's a deceptively simple concept. The whole idea of "God is spirit," which starts the ball rolling toward this kind of question, is, itself, misunderstood. It is said there are 20-some biblical verses proclaiming who God is, but, among them, there is only one verse specifically declaring God as a spirit: John 4: 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Well, the first three words tell us that God is a spirit, and everyone stops there, cherrypicking. They ignore the follow-up: "...those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Does this mean in order to worship God properly, we must, ourselves, de-couple from our physical bodies to be only a spirit? Absurd.

So, Christ became flesh? Of course he did. We all did, too. Why? There's the second misunderstanding you cite: In order for Christ to understand human suffering. Nonsense. All-knowing God already understands it. We know from Genesis why all who have lived and died, or will live and die on Earth became mortal [i.e., obtain a physical bod]. Because that is the order of our progression: from spirit to physically embodied, to death and temporary separation of spirit and body, to resurrection of a perfect, physical body with the original spirit intact with it. To be as Christ is now, along with God the Father. They are both physical beings.

Hebrews 1: 3. "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." An exact representation? that would be the Son, even as a resurrected being, a representation of the Father. And so shall we be, after resurrection.

So, why? I mentioned Genesis. Chapters 2 & 3 tell the reason why: We must learn to recognize good and evil, and, hopefully, choose to be good, But, sin will tempt us all, and we will need a redeemer, Christ, to pay the price of sin such that we have the opportunity to repent of our sins and our choice to turn out hearts away from sin will be rewarded by Christ's forgiveness, the only means by which we will again enter the presence of God and Christ, in physical bodies as they have now. In fact, the entirety of Hebrews, all four chapters, detail the plan God has for us. So does Romans. Reading this stuff is enlightening. No cherrypicking allowed.

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,251

zedvictor4

07.26.2021 08:31AM

-->

@Stephen

Because some clever dick suggested it and a lot of dimwits lacked the ability to question it.

And so as not to offend todays somewhat brighter religious folk......I'm talking back in the day here.

Nonetheless, continuing to transfer such archaic ideology, isn't particularly bright. Because what should by now have been rendered solely to history books is still taken quite seriously by some.

But hey....It fills the shelves with Easter eggs just after the Christmas puddings have been removed to the bargain basement.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.26.2021 09:16AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Because some clever dick suggested it and a lot of dimwits lacked the ability to question it.

Correct. 1 point. *

And so as not to offend todays somewhat brighter religious folk......I'm talking back in the day here.

We have to look at these ancient text from the stand points of, well, the ancients and the mind set of the time. I believe it is referred as zeitgeist.

Correct. 2 points. **

Nonetheless, continuing to transfer such archaic ideology, isn't particularly bright.

Indeed, I have said many times now that adopting and trying to contextualise a god we today couldn't possibly understand, from a time that we couldn't understand and from a culture we don't understand was the most retarded thing Christians could ever have done. It has simply left the the modern-day Christian holding the baby and the burden of having to explain away - among other thing - the actions and dictates of this vile and jealous god or war and carnage.

3 points. ***

Because what should by now have been rendered solely to history books is still taken quite seriously by some.

See above. 4 points. ****

But hey....It fills the shelves with Easter eggs just after the Christmas puddings have been removed to the bargain basement.

Well yes it does. Not to mention the coffers. These religious gimmicks have simply replaced having to purchase the compulsory sacrificial dove or lamb or goat from the temple Priests and Pastors before being allowed to pray at the temple of certain days and purchase them at extortionate exchange rate from the priestly money changers. Is it any wonder Jesus threw an hissy fit? This money should have been going to him and his cause. He did believe after all, that he was rightful king and heir to the throne of David and holding the title- Son of God.

So you have just scraped a full house there Vic, lad. FIVE POINTS!! *****

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.26.2021 09:35AM

-->

@fauxlaw

It's a deceptively simple concept.

Why? And the words "deceptively" and "simple" do not ring true at all in the case of the bible and when used in the same sentence . There is nothing `simple ` about these ancient texts written for an ancient audience and culture and society of the time. You are simply being disingenuous and would have done better staying with the word "deceptive" alone. The authors of the New Testament all appear to have their own agendas and ideas about "god" and interpretation of the law of those ancient times. And I find it amazing that you of all the people on this forum are quoting from a BIBLE and using a BIBLE written in English !!!

The whole idea of "God is spirit," which starts the ball rolling toward this kind of question, is, itself, misunderstood.

why?

It is said there are 20-some biblical verses proclaiming who God is, but, among them, there is only one verse specifically declaring God as a spirit: John 4: 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Well, the first three words tell us that God is a spirit,......................and everyone stops there, cherrypicking

Which is what you are now doing at this very moment. I have said many times, that for every verse that you choose to defend what is written in scripture, that I can almost guarantee you that there will be another verse from THE BIBLE that will and does often , contradict it and you.

They ignore the follow-up: "...those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Does this mean in order to worship God properly, we must, ourselves, de-couple from our physical bodies to be only a spirit? Absurd.

Explain to us why none of the other scriptures or even Paul , a self confessed liar even hint that Jesus is god?

So, Christ became flesh? Of course he did.

Like I said , from THE BIBLE:

1 Corinthians 15:50 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

There's the second misunderstanding you cite: In order for Christ to understand human suffering.

Like I have said and have already covered and shown in my OP, god already understood human suffering, he seen it for himself without having to transform into a human thereby contaminating himself with human traits and lets not forget, inherited sin from his mother Mary.

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,247

07.26.2021 12:37PM

-->

@Stephen

The common shout from Christians is that god, became flesh to understand "human suffering"

Sex { orgasm } is the no brainer answer. No sex, no proliferation of any species and much less fun on Earth or in heaver ;--D

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

07.26.2021 02:20PM

@ Stephen

written for an ancient audience and culture and society of the time.

Show me from the Bible, from all its separate books [66, I think] that it is written singly for an ancient audience? And you follow such a claim with "You are simply being disingenuous." Who is? English, my friend, happens to be my native tongue, and I measure the probable numbers of people on this site literate in Hebrew and Greek, and figure it would be a waste of time and space. Really? That's your argument?

for every verse that you choose to defend what is written in scripture, that I can almost guarantee you that there will be another verse from THE BIBLE that will and does often , contradict it and you.

You ask why I say "God is spirit" is not a correct interpretation? Read the rest of the post which fully explains it. Look, I did not invent all the various problems with translation that is the root of most of the problem of finding contradiction. It's there, I admit it, but, I've also said there is a means to resolve the problem by applying the faith necessary to study and pray about it; a simple solution you reject out of hand because you think it is just mumbo jumbo. That's on you and you alone. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. You have never, ever, and never will have a reasonable come-back against that reasoning. I can't prove it to you, but God can and will.

Until you get past that obstacle, there's no sense in answering any other questions, because they all are answered by the same means. You can take a horse to water, but he'll drink of his own volition. Or, be a horse's arse and blow it out.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.26.2021 02:33PM

-->

@ebuc

The common shout from Christians is that god, became flesh to understand "human suffering"
Sex { orgasm } is the no brainer answer. No sex, no proliferation of any species and much less fun on Earth or in heaver ;--D

I kid you not. There is more to your comment than you may realise.. When we compare THE BIBLE version and the story of Enoch and the so called "fall of Man", in that both these accounts are about sex and union and the sons of god raping or deceiving and " beguiling" earthly women.

The book of Enoch has a similar story to that of the Genesis 6:1-7 But the bible version attempts to shift the blame for the actions of gods own sons or at least hold both "serpent" and womankind responsible , woman kind more so.

Where as the book of Enoch tell it like this:

My paraphrase;

The sons of god, some 200 of them led by an angel named Shemyaza had “lusted after the women of the earth and began to go into them and defile themselves”, this of course, was a total taboo. God had the offenders bound chains and it was they that had asked Enoch to plea on their behalf, and if I remember correctly, the result was, that as a condition those that had defiled themselves with earthly women had to marry the earthly women and never return to their stations in heaven. But the bible relates that god punished not his sons but mankind!?

Genesis plays down the part of played in the fall by the deeds of his own sons, saying:

" The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose". Genesis 6:20

Genesis6:20 on first reading may look like a straight forward boy meets girl fall in love get married. These marriages were not some social happy family gathering events , they were punishments of gods own sons that had defiled themselves by humping the arse off beautiful earthly women. It makes one wonder about the origins of the face veil and headscarf?

Is it any wonder that the book of Enoch wasn't included in the bible?

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.26.2021 03:26PM

-->

@fauxlaw

written for an ancient audience and culture and society of the time.
Show me from the Bible, from all its separate books [66, I think] that it is written singly for an ancient audience?

Stop being so silly, man! For a start the Old Testament was written in original Hebrew with a splash of Aramaic used only today for prayer or study there for it could not have been intended for civilisation of the 21st century. The New Testament was written in common dialect Greek or koine (something that you alleged to be a student of#28 but when given the chance to demonstrate these fine qualities, you fell at the first fence).

Both these languages are ancient languages and are clearly for an audience of their time and not yours, and were also not intended for the likes of you to tamper with and rewrite, simply to suit your own ends. And neither were these intended for Oxford or Eaton student a 21st century student to abide by its laws either.

So, Christ became flesh? Of course he did.

Like I said , from THE BIBLE:

1 Corinthians 15:50 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

So did Jesus ascend to heaven or not?

there's no sense in answering any other questions, because they all are answered by the same means

Of course they are in your own mind, and that answer would be faith and superstition for the larger part, wouldn't it.

I've also said there is a means to resolve the problem by applying the faith necessary to study and pray about it;

Yes , faith, I did this will be one of the two get out of jail free cards that I mentioned above.

Tell me, after Jesus' resurrection was he man or spirit?

Look, I did not invent all the various problems with translation that is the root of most of the problem of finding contradiction. It's there, I admit it, but, I've also said there is a means to resolve the problem by applying the faith necessary to study and pray about it; a simple solution you reject out of hand because you think it is just mumbo jumbo. That's on you and you alone. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. You have never, ever, and never will have a reasonable come-back against that reasoning. I can't prove it to you, but God can and will.

Didn't take too long for you to throw your toys out of the pram did, High Priest.#36

I don't believe the bible is totally mumbo jumbo either. To me, I believe it to hold much historicity, minus the miracles. Your own problem is trying to explain away what you have called " all the various translations " with utter superstition and faith. We are in the 21st century, it doesn't work anymore , High Priest.

Put simply I just don't agree with - in this case - your own explanations simply because you have based them on faith for lack of plausible explanations.

there's no sense in answering any other questions

You don't have to stay and you don't have to answer any questions. But I will take a none answer as a - ` I don't know `.

#10

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

07.26.2021 04:13PM

@ Stephen

Thanks, I don’t need a lesson on biblical languages. As for modern relevance, society still seems to value Hammurabi and Mosaic law. We would still benefit by living according to the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount. You think it’s silly. That’s on you.

#11

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

07.26.2021 04:17PM

@ Stephen

Flesh and blood?

It is mortality that is corrupt able, but mortality ends at death and we inherit immortality, a condition that, after resurrection, is both as spirit and perfect, physical body, just as Christ was. He allowed his disciples to handle him and see his physical state. He even ate fish with them. Luke 24 records his body of flesh and bone. 500 people witnessed his restored physical body.

Topic's author

#12

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.26.2021 04:37PM

-->

@fauxlaw

Tell me, after Jesus' resurrection was he man or spirit?

Flesh and blood?

That is a question. Can you simply not answer.

#13

BrotherDThomas

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

BrotherDThomas

07.26.2021 06:07PM

-->

@Stephen

FAUXLAW, in being guilty of the following: the runaway from biblical axioms from me alone 87 times and counting therefore being the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times, and goes against Jesus in taking care of the poor, says that the Bible is a FRAUD and calls the Christian faith as DISHONEST, and says Jesus is not the total cause of everything of which He is, and that Christians have "free will" which they do not, said that God does not order murder, where in fact He does,

FAUXLAW, YOUR UNGODLY HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE #10, AGAIN: "We would still benefit by living according to the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount."

HUH? Since when do YOU follow Jesus' doctrine of His Sermon on the Mount, you hypocritical Bible fool?! Just one example of Jesus' Sermon is to take care of the poor (Matthew 6; 1-4), BUT, you made the following statement that trashes Obamacare, aka, Affordable Care Act, in taking care of the poor:

FAUXLAW QUOTE TO SECULARHUMAN: "No wonder you probably support medicare for all, aka Oba'acare, aka the ACA. Since everyone else is responsible for YOUR healthcare, everyone should pay for it." https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5901-recreating-objectives?page=2&post_number=31

You have no idea in how hypocritical your quote above truly is, but I will only address one aspect of it to save you further embarrassment! Obviously you do NOT support the ACA which goes directly against Jesus' teachings of taking care of the poor as shown herewith:

JESUS SAID: “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.” (Proverbs 19:7)

JESUS SAID: “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.” (Deuteronomy 15:11)

JESUS SAID: “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” (Psalm 82:3)

JESUS SAID: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless.” ( Proverbs 31:8)

Any other pseudo-christian want to defend FAUXLAW upon the topic above, because he can't do it himself other than to RUN AWAY, watch! LOL

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,247

07.27.2021 12:57AM

-->

@Stephen

Is it any wonder that the book of Enoch wasn't included in the bible?

Bible = Patriarchy

Earth Environment { atmosphere } = Womb of Matriarchy

* Y * = Male { testes externalized }, two eyes { consciousness }, two hemi-spheres { more complex consciousness },

\ * * / = Female { ovaries internalized }, 2D opening { portal/vagin-a-tion }, /\ triangle { minimal 2D opening }, imagin-a-tion { more bilateral inter-action of hemi-spheres }

Bucky Fuller...' men are pushers, women are attracters '.........or is it spelled attractors?

-{1}Male electric photonic { EMR } sine-wave pattern that is at 90 degrees { perpendicular } to to female

--{2} Female magnetic photonic { EMR } sine-wave pattern, is at 90 degrees to male

Female is designed for carrying capacity of woman and fetus/babies { one-or-more-in-the-oven } ergo, the above {2} bars-- goes with --female/woman--.

Male gets one bar-. Good to have around, tho lacking in more bilateral action of hemi-spheres, and less complex genetics, than that of more complex female.

Prior to sex----> Real love is when both parties share common love { party/enjoy } i.e. it takes two, in the tango spirit, or spirit of tango.

Prior to sex----> Less the 100% real love is when only one part wants to continue/extend the spirit-of-tango.

After sex---------> so many scenarios to consider, and one of those many can of a commitment for meaningfully significant agreements to be available to each other in safe union-of-two-parties, or not.

------->To stay union-ated going forward, or not.-----> United we stand, one humanity, under the Earthian Womb, or more divided, into less/smaller tribal { loving? } parts.

Wow! ........(>*Y*<) i (>\* */<).......To proceate, or not to procreate, that is the question, for some. Wow!

#15

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,342

07.27.2021 02:27AM

-->

@Stephen

I have heard a few reasons as to why god is said to have become flesh and not once have I been able to understand why this "incarnation" had to happen and even why it should be believed.

Ok.

The common shout from Christians is that god, became flesh to understand "human suffering" . But this simply cannot be in any way true ...unless we ignore the awkward fact that God as god, understood human suffering perfectly well? And we know this because THE BIBLE says so.

Strawman.

So let us first blow the "human suffering" argument out of the water by highlighting what god himself has to say on the matter while he is still god;

Exodus 3:7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering".

So we see right away, that god didn't need to go to all the trouble of sending anyone in any shape or form and that he could clearly see (and we have to assume understand) that god was well up to speed on the matter.

Well done Stephen, invent a strawman and then blow it out of the water. So duh - original.

Another of the reasons given for this "incarnation" is that god as Jesus was sent to forgive our sins. Why? And again this shite can also be blown out of the water by THE BIBLE!

Another strawman.

Isaiah 45:21-22. God as god says; “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other".

Jonah 3:5-10. " When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened".

So we can clearly read, god as god on both these occasions was forgiving sins before he is believed to have "incarnated" as Jesus on earth. And as a point of fact, Jesus as Jesus was also forgiving sins before he was crucified so that blows the "crucified for our sins" clean out of the water too.

Well there you have it brothers, Stephen the great has once demonstrated his powers of destroying a strawman. Stephen can you please provide your links to these strawman arguments that Christians use? Thanks.

So can a single one of the Christian fold here give a valid and factual reason why god had to "incarnate" as a human being here on earth.

Hmmm - yes I suspect any of the Christian fold could give such a reason. But why would they want to give it here? You have not explained why they should give it - after all, it is you who wants to know the answer. And last time I checked, Matthew 7:6 still was a command.

Also curious as to what you consider either a valid reason and also a factual reason. You blew the above two strawman out of the water by quoting scripture, are you validating the usage of Scripture as both valid and factual for all - or just whenever you wish to use it?

Did I answer your question? Of course not. Do I have an answer? Yes. Unless you can prove to me with a valid and factual reason why I need to answer your question - then your opening post is just a humdinger. Why should I provide an answer given Jesus' command is still valid - Matthew 7:6?

Topic's author

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.27.2021 05:48AM

-->

@Tradesecret

So can a single one of the Christian fold here give a valid and factual reason why god had to "incarnate" as a human being here on earth.
Hmmm - yes I suspect any of the Christian fold could give such a reason.

So then do so, if your up to it, Reverend. But try and do so without invoking the supernatural. If you can.

But why would they want to give it here?

Because this is a religion forum where matters of religion are discussed and argued about.

You have not explained why they should give it - after all, it is you who wants to know the answer.

It is me that wants to know the answer Reverend. My, you are so sharp. And the reason being is that I can see no reason why a god needed to take on human form, and send himself to be crucified in a blood sacrifice at all when (1) God could see already mans suffering from where he was and (2) he was already forgiving sin before Jesus anyway. I explained all this in the OP. So when you are ready I would like your explanation.

If you don't have one, just simply say so. I would rather you did this instead of you listing all of your qualifications as some sort of authority on the scriptures when I know you are anything but.

Indeed you have, and by your own admission, told us that is all you do is pass on what you have been told to pass on #20.. A kind bookies runner so to speak, to

` go tell it on the mountains over the his and far away `.

And last time I checked, Matthew 7:6 still was a command.

Yes but this has nothing to do with tis thread right now, Reverend "Tradey". If you would like to start a thread about Jesus' intolerance towards anyone not Jew, please do.

Also curious as to what you consider either a valid reason and also a factual reason.

Well this doesn't surprise me coming from one that claims to be a Pastor and a Chaplin to his countries defence forces. This of course comes about for not knowing the scriptures that you have been preaching since you were "called".#20

Did I answer your question? Of course not.

Correct. You didn't.

#17

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,342

07.27.2021 06:23AM

-->

@Stephen

I see your reading skills have not improved.

So then do so, if your up to it, Reverend. But try and do so without invoking the supernatural. If you can.

Hmm let's see - why would God (supernatural being) become flesh (supernatural act)? And explain this validly without invoking the supernatural. LOL! Yep, again let me ask you - why would anyone want to answer this question ?

But why would they want to give it here?

Because this is a religion forum where matters of religion are discussed and argued about.

Funny thing - religious forums typically talk about the supernatural - or have you missed that bit of the memo?

You have not explained why they should give it - after all, it is you who wants to know the answer.

It is me that wants to know the answer Reverend. My, you are so sharp. And the reason being is that I can see no reason why a god needed to take on human form, and send himself to be crucified in a blood sacrifice at all when (1) God could see already mans suffering from where he was and (2) he was already forgiving sin before Jesus anyway. I explained all this in the OP. So when you are ready I would like your explanation.

Yes, I know you can't see the reason. And you explained this in your OP. But rather than seeking answers - you put forward TWO strawmen arguments - blew them so delightfully out of the water. Oh you are a clever man - so clever - to be able to be destroy strawman arguments. Did they teach you that at college? Or when you wrote your paper? No wonder you are so famous - you don't even make the atheist's notable list. But then again I suppose you are not an atheist - not a real one anyway. And then again - you are not a theist - either - not a real one. Imagine being a theist - and then not wanting to invoke the supernatural? It must be hard keeping up with your lies.

If you don't have one, just simply say so. I would rather you did this instead of you listing all of your qualifications as some sort of authority on the scriptures when I know you are anything but.

Well actually I do have an answer - but as I said above- Matthew 7 forbids me from throwing any pearls to you. That verse by the way is not about non-Jews. It is about people such as yourself. People who trample on the word of God.

And last time I checked, Matthew 7:6 still was a command.

Yes but this has nothing to do with tis thread right now, Reverend "Tradey". If you would like to start a thread about Jesus' intolerance towards anyone not Jew, please do.

Well actually it has everything to do with it. It's the reason why despite having an answer to this question - I will not unless you can explain why I should break Jesus command.

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

07.27.2021 06:36AM

-->

@Tradesecret

So then do so, if your up to it, Reverend. But try and do so without invoking the supernatural. If you can.

Hmm let's see - why would God (supernatural being) become flesh (supernatural act)?

I see. So at then of the day, is all you have as any type of reply (or answer) is the supernatural .

Yes, I know you can't see the reason. And you explained this in your OP. But rather than seeking answers - you put forward TWO strawmen arguments -

Well, that is your opinion Reverend "Tradey". But if you would like to put me right and - first, explain why you see my OP as a strawman argument and - second explain how, by me posting two reasons Christians put forward reasons that god chose to transform into human when those reasons are simply debunked by THE BIBLE AND GOD, is to you a strawman argument?

#19

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,247

07.27.2021 12:52PM

-->

@Stephen

put forward reasons that god chose to transform into human

I think some confuse super-natural with Meta-natural.

Super-foods, super-nova, Super-market are just larger versions and more varied retail items to offer.

Meta-natural would be beyond finite, occupied space Universe { nature/cosmos/cosmic etc } and by extension, beyond the macro-infinite non-occupied space, with this latter not be possible within context of 3D or more space.

So then we to go to Meta-Space { Metaphysical-1/spirit-1 } mind//intellect/concepts, and this is the origin of concept of God stems from.

A word the most macro-set of what exists, and that which beyond what we know to exist ergo imagination of the beyond, is based purely on what we do know, from our experience.

If we experience triangle { integral set enclosure with three angle }, then next linear step is to imagine a square [ ]. Wll, it leads to an infinite set, that, we believe to exist in two ways:

1} the macro-infinite non-occupied space, that is rational, logical common sense conclusion, and,

2} a concept of infinite this or that. Conceptual God that is infinite this or that or another etc.

Imagination is a wonderful expereince.

Topic's author

#20

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321