Evidence for God from Science

You guys do know that God is not a man right?
That He doesn't have a beard and actually sit on a throne and fly in the clouds, right?

Nessa wrote:

He makes a valid point that it is not for everyone.
He obviously has a set mindset on how he thinks God must be, must look and anything outside that makes him very uncomfortable.
I can respect that.
As for the doctrine of the trinity, there is nothing in the book that counters the doctrine per say.
The doctrine does NOT say what Father, Son and HS look like or what forms they can assume.
It does say that are all ONE Being but separate persons ( as the book also states).
The book does say that the doctrine is an attempt of man to understand God's nature and that is a task that is too far above man to fully do well ( and we all have had enough debates about the Trinity that we should realize by know there is truth in that statement).

PaulSacramento wrote:You guys do know that God is not a man right?
That He doesn't have a beard and actually sit on a throne and fly in the clouds, right?

Of course. We're no dummies!

God is a fat black woman!

Come on Paul! Sometimes I can't figure you out.

I am being serious Rick.
There seems to be a harboring on God being a black woman because God isn't a black woman, well God isn't a Man either ( the reasons He choose to appear as a man in a patriarchal society are obvious and not relevant to here) and Jesus isn't blue eyed and blonde but it seems we have no issues with that...
Just trying to figure out why the issue of God choosing to show Himself as a black woman?
We aren't' suggesting God can't do that, are we?
We aren't suggesting that God wouldn't do that, are we?
I mean, that is us dictating what can not only CAN do but SHOULD do...

PaulSacramento wrote:Just trying to figure out why the issue of God choosing to show Himself as a black woman?

The Bible says that God is a spirit. It also says that no one can look on him and live. When Moses asked to see God's glory God said to him, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”

PaulSacramento wrote:I am being serious Rick.
There seems to be a harboring on God being a black woman because God isn't a black woman, well God isn't a Man either ( the reasons He choose to appear as a man in a patriarchal society are obvious and not relevant to here) and Jesus isn't blue eyed and blonde but it seems we have no issues with that...
Just trying to figure out why the issue of God choosing to show Himself as a black woman?
We aren't' suggesting God can't do that, are we?
We aren't suggesting that God wouldn't do that, are we?
I mean, that is us dictating what can not only CAN do but SHOULD do...

Ok, you want serious.

God the Father isn't a black woman, nor an old white man, nor any other human.

If the subject of the thread was a book about God being an old bearded white man, I'd have the same issues.
The fact is that God the Father is not human. God didn't reveal himself as a human, except when God the Son took on human form. I'm not dictating what God can or can't do. Nor what He should do. Only what He did do. It can be dangerous seeing God as we want to see Him. We cannot go around accepting God as we want, for pretty obvious reasons.

Paul: Just trying to figure out why the issue of God choosing to show Himself as a black woman?
We aren't' suggesting God can't do that, are we?
We aren't suggesting that God wouldn't do that, are we?
I mean, that is us dictating what can not only CAN do but SHOULD do...

Of course, God IS, now, also a man, He became one. But amongst the many coats of humanity He might have chosen, He chose the physical characteristics of an ancient Jew. But what concerns me about such approaches is that it re-enforces superficial racial sensibilities that are common, distracting, and typically destructive. So, people get hung up upon what Jesus looked like - as in, "If he doesn't look much like me, then I won't consider what He has to say." To me, that shows that a person is far less concerned with God, and more as He might reveal Himself, physically, as opposed to what exactly it is He has to say, and why it matters. At some point, any mature Christian will have let go of racial thinking. But when I see black churches across America fully acknowledging that Jesus didn't look like a black man, didn't look like a white man, oriental, etc., but that He looked like the humanity He took on: an ancient Jew - well, I don't see the need for this approach - worse, I think it will lead to problems.

And, no, God is not a physical Being - He's never changed what He is, but He has changed what He has inhabited. He became Jesus the man. He lives inside of us. In fact, He may have taken on other human forms (suggested in the OT), if but briefly. But God is and always has been purely spirit.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am being serious Rick.
There seems to be a harboring on God being a black woman because God isn't a black woman, well God isn't a Man either ( the reasons He choose to appear as a man in a patriarchal society are obvious and not relevant to here) and Jesus isn't blue eyed and blonde but it seems we have no issues with that...
Just trying to figure out why the issue of God choosing to show Himself as a black woman?
We aren't' suggesting God can't do that, are we?
We aren't suggesting that God wouldn't do that, are we?
I mean, that is us dictating what can not only CAN do but SHOULD do...

Ok, you want serious.

God the Father isn't a black woman, nor an old white man, nor any other human.

If the subject of the thread was a book about God being an old bearded white man, I'd have the same issues.
The fact is that God the Father is not human. God didn't reveal himself as a human, except when God the Son took on human form. I'm not dictating what God can or can't do. Nor what He should do. Only what He did do. It can be dangerous seeing God as we want to see Him. We cannot go around accepting God as we want, for pretty obvious reasons.

Oh, yes, I agree, 100%
The Shack is a work of fiction that tries to address WHY an all loving and all good God allows horrible things to happen and also tries to address that God wants us reconciled to Him and that He will, at times, go to great lengths for this to happen and that every person that believes in Him as worthy of His time.

Can anyone here argue with that?

As for the imagery:

The lead character created, in his mind, an image of God that was NOT what God is, an image that allowed him to have many issues with God ( sound familiar?) and so God introduced Himself in a way that made sure that all his preconceived notions that he had that were keeping him from God, simply did not work.

EX: He had issues with his father and made God out to be the embodiment of all those paternal, patriarchal issues so God appeared to him in the most opposite and inoffensive image possible, contrary to the image that he had created and projected God to be.

In the end, when his issues were resolved, God presented Himself to Mack as The Father that He was, that He needed to be for Mack so do the most painful and insurmountable task that MACK HAD to do and God was with him during it all as The Father.

Looks like I better see the movie, so I can see for myself.


As bad as it sounds, even with you painting a great picture of it, it's probably not fair to criticize it anymore without seeing it.

I haven't seen the movie, I am speaking of the book.
I don't think it is everyone's cup of tea, for sure.
Personally, it's view on what God allows evil and suffering, is the one I agree with the most.
To be honest, the biggest wall I had in reconciling with Christ was the emotional problem of evil and suffering BUT I thought it was an intellectual problem. This book helped me to realize that there is no intellectual problem of evil and suffering and that it is an emotional one.

PaulSacramento wrote:I haven't seen the movie, I am speaking of the book.
I don't think it is everyone's cup of tea, for sure.
Personally, it's view on what God allows evil and suffering, is the one I agree with the most.
To be honest, the biggest wall I had in reconciling with Christ was the emotional problem of evil and suffering BUT I thought it was an intellectual problem. This book helped me to realize that there is no intellectual problem of evil and suffering and that it is an emotional one.

Well, I hope the movie is close to the book story, because I ain't reading the book.

Pansy boy

RickD wrote:

what meme is this

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

what meme is this

It's not a meme. It's "Shack God".