[RickJ]

I think rather that they have seen what He wished them to see at the moment: Burning bush, whatever form he appeared to Adam and Eve, a cloud in the desert, etc...

In any Biblical example of someone "seeing" God in the form of _______, can we not then turn right around and also say that say that God is not a _______?

[SSchultz0956]

Actually, in exodus moses spoke with God face to face like man would to his brother,

[The Independent Gardener]

Those who take the Bible literally frequently find themselves resorting to leaps of faith in a rational discussion. Leaps of faith are even necessary when reading the Bible.

In describing God perhaps we should explore some traits. He is often described as loving. Can anyone who is familiar with the Bible point out some words or actions attributed to God in the Old Testament that support the idea that he is a loving God?

[SSchultz0956]

Oh, so you mean mary wasn't a virgin because that would be taking it literally. I wonder why they would hype that up in the bible? Maybe killig being bad is only figurativly speaking, maybe they were only referring to bugs?

[Irulan]

Surely you jest!!

[ScottGem]

I hesitate to jump in here because this is a no win debate. There is no proof on either side that is conclusive.

The whole concept of religion is one of faith not fact. Religions are purely the attempts of mankind to explain the unexplainable. Early religions arose to explain what the forces of nature where. They personfied the Sun and Moon and elements like Wind and Water. Judiasm invested all of this into one deity and created a set of ethics that is the based for all the major religions. Islam and Christianity built on the precepts of Judiaism but branched away. Christianity to a belief in Jesus as the son of god. Islam, to different concepts of heaven.

But it all boils down to man's attempts to explain the unexplainable and to establish a concept of good and evil.

My view on this is deism. Deism is the belief that some intelligent force setup the universe according to a complex set of rules (physics, biology, etc.). And then let the chips fall where they may. My basis for this belief is that the complexity of set of rules is so great that I have to believe they were created by some consciousness. But I cannot believe that the same consciousness or intelligence that could create this universe could sit by and allow all the misery and evil that has occurred since the universe was created.

Scott<>

[RickJ]

At the risk of getting even further off the original question (which I did reply to :D ); I am confused by your explanation.

If one believes that the intellegent force/consciousness ("He" for brevity) "let the chips fall where they may" then how could that person wonder why He would "allow [fill in the blank]"?

To disallow, prohibit or otherwise affect an outcome, then He can't be letting the chips fall as they may, can He?

I don't feel like I'm explaining well. Am I making any sense?

[ScottGem]

At the risk of getting even further off of the original question (which I did reply to :D ); I am confused by your explanation.

If one believes that the intellegent force/consciousness ("He" for brevity) "let the chips fall where they may" then how could that person wonder why He would "allow [fill in the blank]"?

To disallow, prohibit or otherwise affect an outcome, then He can't be letting the chips fall as they may, can He?

I don't feel like I'm explaining well. Am I making any sense?

Now I'm confused. The expression 'Let the chips fall where they may' implies that there is no control other than the set of physical laws that were established. For example, there is a physical law of gravity. But that has not precluded mankind from using other physical laws (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction-Newton's Law that is the basis of rocket science) to get around the law of gravity and travel into space.

There are rules of chemistry that allow for the formulation gunpowder. But there is no control on how gunpowder is used. Essentially man was given free will and free reign to use and manipulate the physical laws created by this intelligent force. By allowing that free will it was letting the chips fall where they may.

[RickJ]

Ok, I understand how you separate it... but I feel like believing that He would let the "scientific" chips fall where they may would make it easy to accept that He lets all matters go their course.

So, then, by "misery and evil" are you only speaking of misery caused by man?

What about other miseries like Hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.

As for misery caused by man's behavior, the alternative to "allow[ing] all the misery and evil" is not allowing it. That is, taking away our free will. Would that be better? I think of the seemingly human people of the future in The Time Machine...

It just seems to me that if he would prohibit human behavior that causes misery or suffering, then it would be completely logical for Him to make sure that the scientific "chips" never fall in a way that results in misery or suffering.

[ScottGem]

That's my point, Rick. I'm not saying that I would prefer a controlling force. I'm just saying that I don't believe that a deity as described in various religions would allow the level of misery and evil that exists. So I'm saying that once this intelligent force set down the rules, it no longer interfered, controlled or influenced what has occurred as a result of those rules.

And I am referring to natural as well as man made misery.

Frankly, I believe we are an experiment. I fully expect there are other such experiments somewhere in the universe. Some may precede us others come after (and maybe improve on) the design.

Scott<>

[RickJ]

I was not responding about "a deity as described in various religions", I was responding to your view of the "intellegent force".

You said you do believe that He Created, and that the scientific chips fall as they may - but that you "...cannot believe that the same consciousness or intelligence that could create this universe could sit by and allow all the misery and evil..."

It seems illogical to me...

[blondiechika05]

This is in response to the comment that God only answers the prayers of a Christian. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER of that claim. Yes, one can choose whether to believe in the mere existence of a supreme being and of course there are religions (i.e. Hinduism) that even believe in more than one deity. Simply being of a monotheistic faith does not give ANYONE the right to say that those who do follow polytheistic teachings are wrong. The Bible states in several places that anyone who follows God's teachings will be saved and that their prayers will be answered. Keep in mind, as was mentioned earlier that Christianity is BASED ON JUDAISM. This means that Christians do not discount Jewish teachings but that the teachings of Christ are IN ADDITION to the teachings in the Old Testament. If God does exist, as so many (including myself) believe, He listens to, if not answers, all prayers. Jews and Christians alike can look to God for guidance but in the end, it is our own choice what path to follow, hence the concept of free will. But to say that God will ONLY answer the prayers of a Christian is extremely narrow-minded and actually un-Christian, as Jesus stated that God will listen to anyone who follows His (God's) teachings.

As for the original question of what God looks like, no living person can answer that question. There is no answer to that given in the Bible. We can only find the answer to that on Judgment Day, whenever that comes.

[RickJ]

I agree with you blondiechika05.

That God only answers the prayers of Christians is not a doctrine of the historic Christian faith.

[STONY]

Let Me Think On That For A Moment. "god Os Love." So That Scenario Excludes Any Bitterness. "the Earth Is His Footstool",
Now That Is One Gigantic Hunk Of Love... actually Astronomical!
What Does God Look Like? Maybe He Looks Just Like The Person Who Reached Down To Give You A Helping Hand Up When You Were At Your Rope's End. Think About It...

[Hope12]

Hi Hank,

God gives us an idea of the effect of his presence in the book of Revelation. The apostle John had a vision that approximated seeing God, in the sense that it revealed the effect of beholding him on his throne. God was not like a man in appearance, for he has not revealed any figure of his to man, as John himself said later: “No man has seen God at any time.” (Joh 1:18) Rather, God was shown to be like highly polished gems, precious, glowing, beautiful, that attract the eye and win delighted admiration. He was “in appearance, like a jasper stone and a precious red-colored stone, and round about the throne there [was] a rainbow like an emerald in appearance.” (Re 4:3) Thus, he is lovely in appearance and pleasant to look at, causing one to lose oneself in wonderment. About his throne there is further glory and an atmosphere of calmness, serenity; the appearance of a perfect rainbow of emerald indicates that, reminding one of the enjoyable quieting calm that follows a storm.—Compare Ge 9:12-16.

How different the true God is, therefore, from the gods of the nations, who are often depicted as being grotesque, angry, fierce, implacable, merciless, whimsical as to their favors and disfavors, horrifying and fiendish, and ready to torture earthly creatures in some kind of inferno.

Take care,
Hope12

[Irulan]

‘ God has granted authority only to those following Jesus Christ ‘

You said this in an earlier post in September -

“ How different the true God is, therefore, from the gods of the nations, who are often depicted as being grotesque, angry, fierce, implacable, merciless, whimsical as to their favors and disfavors, horrifying and fiendish, and ready to torture earthly creatures in some kind of inferno”

Here is another comment from you that strikes me as extreme elitism in religion, that is YOUR religion which is of course saying that NO other religion has any validity, strength, authority, legitimacy or even a reason for being.

Something else puzzles me, you are evidently, by your words, a Jehovah Witness yet you use a Jewish logo to symbolize yourself, that seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and quite dishonest since according to you ONLY those who follow Jesus are “authorized” and surely you know that the Hebrew religion does not follow Jesus.

Your words are unpleasant to those whose religious choices are different than yours. Most distasteful is your last comment where you portray THE TRUE GOD [yours] as perfect – have you “REALLY” read your bible? If you have you will have to admit that the god portrayed in the bible is just as you describe - “depicted as being grotesque, angry, fierce, implacable, merciless, whimsical as to their favors and disfavors, horrifying and fiendish, and ready to torture earthly creatures in some kind of inferno” to those whose religious inclinations and choices are different such as Jews, Muslims, Janists, Buddhists, Taoists, etc etc.

I am all for expressing one’s views on most topics, however when it comes to religious topics one should be aware that what is said during religious fervor can and often is objectionable to others, so common sense and some sensitivity should be displayed.

Irulan

[ScottGem]

‘ God has granted authority only to those following Jesus Christ ‘

You said this in an earlier post in September -

Hi Irulan,

Not that I disagree with anything you said, but it might help if you identified who you were responding to. There is nothing in your response to indicate that.

Scott<>

[Irulan]

Hi Irulan,

Not that I disagree with anything you said, but it might help if you identified who you were responding to. There is nothing in your response to indicate that.

Scott<>

Hello Scott,

Yes, agree with you it would help! I was directing my comment to Hope 12.

Irulan

[STONY]

There are many "gods", but there is only one living god of the universe, creator of all.

[STONY]

Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


TRANSLATION, IF YOU WORSHIP YOUR MONEY AND RICHES, THEY ARE YOUR "god." AND THIS CAN APPLY TO ANYTHING.