Doubting the nature of God

[Sargon]

I assume that most here believe in an incorporeal, immaterial God. I have many doubts about the possibility of this, and I have many questions to ask. I dont seek to debate the nature of God in this thread, but to understand how incorporealists handle these difficult questions. I have no trick up my sleeve, no hidden motive, I only dont understand how these questions are answered.

Why, if God does not have a body, did he give us bodies? And why are we to ressurrect with them, if they are not useful to us?

Much more after this.

Sargon

[Canuckster1127]

I assume that most here believe in an incorporeal, immaterial God. I have many doubts about the possibility of this, and I have many questions to ask. I dont seek to debate the nature of God in this thread, but to understand how incorporealists handle these difficult questions. I have no trick up my sleeve, no hidden motive, I only dont understand how these questions are answered.

Why, if God does not have a body, did he give us bodies? And why are we to ressurrect with them, if they are not useful to us?

Much more after this.

Sargon

Sargon,

I recall that you told us you were Mormon, and of course this is an area where there is clear disagreement between Mormons and mainstream Christians.

Are you prepared to accept the Bible as the authority to answer this question?

If not, appealing to logic or reason alone is not going to be a fruitful source of discussion in this realm.

Bart

[Sargon]

Absolutely, and I would remind you of the quotes you have in your signature. Reason(science) must not be forsaken. Im not asking for a biblical debate, only a few explanations of what I cannot understand.

Sargon

[Turgonian]

Why, if God does not have a body, did he give us bodies?

Who knows? I do know that God created angels without material bodies, whereas he created animals without a spirit. We have both spirit and a material body.

And why are we to ressurrect with them, if they are not useful to us?

Who says they aren't useful? It's my body that does the typing right now...
Just because certain beings (angels, God) don't have a body, it doesn't mean it isn't useful. We were made as the children of God, not His messengers, servants and choir members. Apparently, having a body fits in with that purpose somewhere.

Counter question: If God does have a material body, why did He make the angels without any, if a body is so very important?

[bizzt]

I assume that most here believe in an incorporeal, immaterial God. I have many doubts about the possibility of this, and I have many questions to ask. I dont seek to debate the nature of God in this thread, but to understand how incorporealists handle these difficult questions. I have no trick up my sleeve, no hidden motive, I only dont understand how these questions are answered.

Why, if God does not have a body, did he give us bodies? And why are we to ressurrect with them, if they are not useful to us?

Much more after this.

Sargon

First we have to understand why we believe God does not have a Body. Well the Scripture tells us so. I am going to try and use the Old Testament as much as possible here so It has more relevance as the BOM was only Created (as per Joseph Smith) about 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
First we must realize that in the Bible it talks about God and his Spirit about 110 times. It however does not talk about God having a Physical Body.

God Created us in his own Image.

I Like how Barnes puts it the best

Gen_1:26
Man. - Man is a new species, essentially different from all other kinds on earth. “In our image, after our likeness.” He is to be allied to heaven as no other creature on earth is. He is to be related to the Eternal Being himself. This relation, however, is to be not in matter, but in form; not in essence, but in semblance. This precludes all pantheistic notions of the origin of man. “Image” is a word taken from sensible things, and denotes likeness in outward form, while the material may be different. “Likeness” is a more general term, indicating resemblance in any quality, external or internal. It is here explanatory of image, and seems to show that this term is to be taken in a figurative sense, to denote not a material but a spiritual conformity to God. The Eternal Being is essentially self-manifesting. The appearance he presents to an eye suited to contemplate him is his image. The union of attributes which constitute his spiritual nature is his character or likeness.
We gather from the present chapter that God is a spirit Gen_1:2, that he thinks, speaks, wills, and acts (Gen_1:3-4, etc.). Here, then, are the great points of conformity to God in man, namely, reason, speech, will, and power. By reason we apprehend concrete things in perception and consciousness, and cognize abstract truth, both metaphysical and moral. By speech we make certain easy and sensible acts of our own the signs of the various objects of our contemplative faculties to ourselves and others. By will we choose, determine, and resolve upon what is to be done. By power we act, either in giving expression to our concepts in words, or effect to our determinations in deeds. In the reason is evolved the distinction of good and evil Gen_1:4, Gen_1:31, which is in itself the approval of the former and the disapproval of the latter. In the will is unfolded that freedom of action which chooses the good and refuses the evil. In the spiritual being that exercises reason and will resides the power to act, which presupposes both these faculties - the reason as informing the will, and the will as directing the power. This is that form of God in which he has created man, and condescends to communicate with him.

I have to go so I will continue on this later ...

[Sargon]

Let us pretend that I am an evangelical Christian. I have no intention of a biblical debate about the nature of God. Let us pretend that I believe that God is a spirit. Let us pretend that I believe that if God had a body he would be limited in some way by it, and could not be considered God. Is that not the commonly held view? In such a position I would still have many questions about how all this makes sense.

Turgonian wrote?

I do know that God created angels without material bodies, whereas he created animals without a spirit. We have both spirit and a material body.

Though it is a bit off topic, I would like to ask how you know these things. You can provide biblical evidence if you want. I wont question them in this discussion.

Maybe I can re-phrase my question. In fact I will change it a bit. I will ask this question keeping in mind the following commonly held beliefs:
1) God is a spirit without a body
2) If God had a body he couldnt be God-he would be limited
3) Jesus Christ ressurrected with a body of flesh and bones
4) Jesus Christ is God

How could Jesus be considered a God in between the ressurrection and ascension(his physical state afterwards is a different question) if he had a body of flesh and bones, which is thought to limit godhood?

Sargon

[Canuckster1127]

Let us pretend that I am an evangelical Christian. I have no intention of a biblical debate about the nature of God. Let us pretend that I believe that God is a spirit. Let us pretend that I believe that if God had a body he would be limited in some way by it, and could not be considered God. Is that not the commonly held view? In such a position I would still have many questions about how all this makes sense.

Turgonian wrote?

I do know that God created angels without material bodies, whereas he created animals without a spirit. We have both spirit and a material body.

Though it is a bit off topic, I would like to ask how you know these things. You can provide biblical evidence if you want. I wont question them in this discussion.

Maybe I can re-phrase my question. In fact I will change it a bit. I will ask this question keeping in mind the following commonly held beliefs:
1) God is a spirit without a body
2) If God had a body he couldnt be God-he would be limited
3) Jesus Christ ressurrected with a body of flesh and bones
4) Jesus Christ is God

How could Jesus be considered a God in between the ressurrection and ascension(his physical state afterwards is a different question) if he had a body of flesh and bones, which is thought to limit godhood?

Sargon

Sargon,

Those are good questions.

I'd note the following.

1. The question of authority is precisely why I asked you earlier if you were prepared to accept the authority of the Bible in this regard. You indicated you were. Whether that was just for the purposes of this discussion or not, I dont know. But there's no point in having this conversation, or little chance of benefit if there is not an agreed upon starting point in terms of the authority upon which to base conclusions.

2. Why would you have no intention to debate or explore the character of God in this context? Isn't it you who have asked to discuss whether God's nature as Spirit is compatable with His having a physical body? Aren't there obvious correlations between the two?

3. Here's what I think will help you to understand from the viewpoint of orthodox Christianity the view of God as a Spirit and Christ as God with a physical body.

Obviously, the concept of the trinity plays strongly into these and as that is by definition a mystery, it's not going to be completely cut and dry.

1. As noted already, there are strong passages that indicate God is a Spirit.

2. You may want to check out our main website and the Discovery Course there designed for new believers or seekers to understand the basics of the orthodox Christian Faith.

Chapter 6 in particular deals with some of these issues.

http://www.godandscience.org/discovery/chapter6.html

I'd suggest you pay particular attention to the area dealing with omnipresence and consider how you would reconcile God in Physical body with that characteristic.

3. Jesus as God, took on human flesh and voluntarily emptied himself of many of the elements that were due him as God yet did not cease to be God. The primary passage that gives insight into this is Phillipians 2:5-11.

You can look at it more as well in the discovery course in Chapter 3 located here.

http://www.godandscience.org/discovery/ ... 3.html[url]

That's probably a good place to start anyway.

I'll be interested in your response and where you place the authority for it.

Bart[/url]

[Byblos]

I assume that most here believe in an incorporeal, immaterial God. I have many doubts about the possibility of this, and I have many questions to ask. I dont seek to debate the nature of God in this thread, but to understand how incorporealists handle these difficult questions. I have no trick up my sleeve, no hidden motive, I only dont understand how these questions are answered.

Why, if God does not have a body, did he give us bodies? And why are we to ressurrect with them, if they are not useful to us?

Much more after this.

Sargon

Hi Sargon,

First, I hope you meant non-material, as we all know God is hardly immaterial, right?

In any case, I really had a hard time voting for only one as I think God can and in fact did have more than one of these forms.

I can certainly agree that God is incorporeal, non-material spirit with no shape or dimensions, but I can also see God as a spirit combined with a physical body as in Jesus Christ. The second one, spirit with shape and dimensions is probably the toughest one but I wouldn't discount that either. I recently read somewhere (not sure where) that the world we live in, the universe, has up to 10 or 12 dimensions of which only 4 we, humans, can discern. It would not surprise me in the least to later discover that God exists in those unseen dimensions. It certainly would explain how he is a hands-on God and what my mother always told me about him being everywhere, doesn't it?

[Sargon]

Sargon,

Those are good questions.

I'd note the following.

1. The question of authority is precisely why I asked you earlier if you were prepared to accept the authority of the Bible in this regard. You indicated you were. Whether that was just for the purposes of this discussion or not, I dont know. But there's no point in having this conversation, or little chance of benefit if there is not an agreed upon starting point in terms of the authority upon which to base conclusions.

As a member of the LDS church, I believe that the bible is the word of God. Of course I also accept other scripture as holy too. But for the purposes of this discussion, I am pretending not too. Let us imagine that I am a curious evangelical who accepts your interpretations of the bible, and only wants to make sure they all make sense when they are put together.

2. Why would you have no intention to debate or explore the character of God in this context? Isn't it you who have asked to discuss whether God's nature as Spirit is compatable with His having a physical body? Aren't there obvious correlations between the two?

I mean that I dont intend to challenge your interpretations in this thread, though that probably will be done elsewhere. I only want to ask about things that I see might be inconsistent.

I'd suggest you pay particular attention to the area dealing with omnipresence and consider how you would reconcile God in Physical body with that characteristic.

There are some things in this chapter that I cant agree with, but I will pretend to for now. Like I said, I just have questions about how this doctrine makes sense, assuming it is true.

So, like the analogy of H2O, God could simultaneously possess a body of flesh and bones and also be an unrestricted spirit that is everywhere at once at the same time? And the way that we quiet the little voice that screams to us "that doesnt make any sense" is by telling ourselves that we are not able to comprehend it?

I dont understand why we are given bodies of flesh and bones, and why we are to ressurrect with them and keep them forever, and why Christ also ressurrected with a body of flesh and bones. Do we not believe that bodies limit our spirits? Isnt that why God could never have a body? Is God purposefully ressurrecting us so that we can be damned by the limitations of a physical body once more?

First, I hope you meant non-material, as we all know God is hardly immaterial, right?

Actually I dont know the difference. Enlighten me.

In any case, I really had a hard time voting for only one as I think God can and in fact did have more than one of these forms.

God simultaneously has more than one physical state? I guess if we believe he is all-powerful than we could accept that. Can he also simultaneously have more than one mental state? Can he be infinitely happy and infinitely sad at the same time? It would make sense following the logic we used.

Sargon

[FFC]

God simultaneously has more than one physical state? I guess if we believe he is all-powerful than we could accept that. Can he also simultaneously have more than one mental state? Can he be infinitely happy and infinitely sad at the same time? It would make sense following the logic we used.

It is only a conundrum to those that don't believe that God manifests himself in three persons.

[Byblos]

First, I hope you meant non-material, as we all know God is hardly immaterial, right?

Actually I don't know the difference. Enlighten me.

Immaterial is irrelevant, Sargon. like the fact that I was the one who said that to you, not Canuckster, is immaterial . But I digress.

In any case, I really had a hard time voting for only one as I think God can and in fact did have more than one of these forms.

God simultaneously has more than one physical state? I guess if we believe he is all-powerful than we could accept that. Can he also simultaneously have more than one mental state? Can he be infinitely happy and infinitely sad at the same time? It would make sense following the logic we used.

God is true to his nature and his nature cannot be one of nonsense.

Byblos.

[Gman]

I think God can be anything he wants to be... He came to us in human flesh (through Christ) but is also a spirit.. He is not limited by anything.. I don't see why this is so important to understand or debate.. I think a more important topic to talk about would be his attributes..

Also Jesus is not a single God, but was God in the flesh... He could have come down in the form of a tree and people still would have chopped him down..

G -

[Turgonian]

I dont understand why we are given bodies of flesh and bones, and why we are to ressurrect with them and keep them forever, and why Christ also ressurrected with a body of flesh and bones. Do we not believe that bodies limit our spirits? Isnt that why God could never have a body? Is God purposefully ressurrecting us so that we can be damned by the limitations of a physical body once more?

So you say that because we have a body, God must have a body? Because if God doesn't have it, then it is superfluous and/or downright annoying for every being in the whole universe?
Suppose bodies limit our spirits. That's no problem, because our spirits are limited by nature. We're neither omniscient nor omnipresent. For us, limitations are not a bad thing. They would be for God.

[Sargon]

Turgonian,
You have touched on a very interesting topic.

So you say that because we have a body, God must have a body? Because if God doesn't have it, then it is superfluous and/or downright annoying for every being in the whole universe?

Yes, I think I am. Am I wrong in my understanding that if God had a body of flesh and bones he would somehow not be able to be God? He would be limited in his power because of it? Is it not believe that a physical body would be a disadvantage to God?

Suppose bodies limit our spirits. That's no problem, because our spirits are limited by nature.

How so? And how is this known?

Gotta run.

Sargon

[Turgonian]

Suppose bodies limit our spirits. That's no problem, because our spirits are limited by nature.

How so? And how is this known?

By affirming that human spirits are neither omniscient nor omnipresent. Or would you deny that?