The Nature of God the Father - One on One Debate

I would like to debate the nature of God (the Christian God, specifically God the Father), one-on-one. I am thinking in terms of the Christian God specifically. My position is that the verses in Genesis which state that we are created in the image and after the likeness of God should be taken literally. In other words, I believe in an anthropomorphic God, a God who has a human form, a God with body parts and passions. Anyone interested?

Interesting... Three hours and no one wants to stand up for the "truth." There isn't a Christian in ten million who believes I'm right. So what's the hold up? Don't any of you believe there is sufficient evidence in the Bible to prove your point of view?

Oh, well... It's my bedtime. I'll have to check back tomorrow and see if anyone thinks they can out-debate a Mormon about the nature of God.

I'd love for you to start a thread about this... I really don't want to debate because I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Scott1 said:

I'd love for you to start a thread about this... I really don't want to debate because I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Click to expand...

You don't understand my premise or you don't understand what this one-on-one debate thing is all about? If you don't understand my premise, I'm confused. I thought I stated it quite clearly.

If you don't understand what I mean by a one-on-one debate, read sticky threads on "Rules" and "Debate Techniques." Apparently this hasn't been one of the more successful forums on this website, but it sounds kind of fun to me. However, there's always the chance that I'm not correctly understanding it myself. If so, maybe one of the administrators will be willing to help out. The way I understand it, this would be a debate between just two individuals (i.e. you and me), or possibly between more individuals if this is what we were to agree on. The debaters would be chosen in advance.

Pah said:

We could treat this thread as an invitation to debate.

As it is three in the morning for me, it's not going to get much notice. But a reply will increase the visibility. When "picked up" by another willing to debate, we could start a "clean thread".

Click to expand...

Sounds great to me. I'm starting to think that everybody thinks the Mormon position is too strong to go up against. :biglaugh:

Katzpur said:

Sounds great to me. I'm starting to think that everybody thinks the Mormon position is too strong to go up against. :biglaugh:

Click to expand...

I agree - that was laughable.

Katzpur
afraid you already know my view on this, from another thread. You may also have noticed I never argue using bible references. I have never known such a battle reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Strangely It does not seem to be important to me what God looks like.
Just as it is not important to me what sex or colour or religion a person is.

Terry
________________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Katzpur
afraid you already know my view on this, from another thread. You may also have noticed I never argue using bible references. I have never known such a battle reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Click to expand...

Actually, Terry, I really hadn't noticed that you never argue using Bible references. You're right, though. It's often possible to argue opposite positions using the Bible, and no one is generally willing to concede his position. I think that sometimes, however, one side is more strongly supported than the other, and I think that's the case in this instance.

Strangely It does not seem to be important to me what God looks like.
Just as it is not important to me what sex or colour or religion a person is.

Click to expand...

Well, when you put it that way, I agree. However, I think it's maybe more important than you might think. (Not specifically what God looks like, but what kind of a being He is.) In the minds of many people, this one issue, in and of itself, is reason enough to exclude Mormons from the Christian community. The nature of God was evidently important enough for the 4th and 5th century Christians to have hotly debated the issue and come up with a creed describing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a single "substance." (Whatever this "substance" is, though, no one has ever been able to tell me.) Most of us agree that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven in bodily form. So, if He still has that body (I presume He does), I don't see how He can be part of an incorporeal substance.

I realize that this topic is more or less related to the doctrine of the Trinity and there's always a thread somewhere on this site debating the pros and cons of the Trinity. All the Trinitarians are always ready to contribute their two cents worth to the thread, and there will generally be a half dozen of them to every one person who believes as I do. But challenge them to a one-on-one debate, where they'll have to hold their own and find more than one verse ("God is spirit") to support their position, and look what happens. Or doesn't happen, as the case appears to be.

Okay... Nobody's interested. I'm satisfied as to why.

Katzpur said:

Actually, Terry, I really hadn't noticed that you never argue using Bible references. You're right, though. It's often possible to argue opposite positions using the Bible, and no one is generally willing to concede his position. I think that sometimes, however, one side is more strongly supported than the other, and I think that's the case in this instance.


Well, when you put it that way, I agree. However, I think it's maybe more important than you might think. (Not specifically what God looks like, but what kind of a being He is.) In the minds of many people, this one issue, in and of itself, is reason enough to exclude Mormons from the Christian community. The nature of God was evidently important enough for the 4th and 5th century Christians to have hotly debated the issue and come up with a creed describing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a single "substance." (Whatever this "substance" is, though, no one has ever been able to tell me.) Most of us agree that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven in bodily form. So, if He still has that body (I presume He does), I don't see how He can be part of an incorporeal substance.


Okay... Nobody's interested. I'm satisfied as to why.

Click to expand...

The Trinity Has always been and will remain a stumbling block for many people.
I prefer to see the Trinity as aspects of the one God.Which would make Jesus the Aspect with the form of a man.

I really appreciate the nice way we have been able to agree and disagree.

Terry
_____________________________
Blessed are those who suffer in the cause of right, the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

I think this would be a very interesting debate and I hope someone takes Katzpur up on it.

I would love to see a biblical debate on the subject...especially since I don't belive that the trinity is biblical (the word isn't even mentioned in the bible).

Okay... Nobody's interested. I'm satisfied as to why.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17365&highlight=christ+body

I wasn't looking for a debate, I just was interested in the beliefs and couldn't get a response.

Terrywoodenpic said:

I really appreciate the nice way we have been able to agree and disagree.

Click to expand...

So do I, Terry. Thanks for your input.

god the one (who you call the father) is the only god had never had a son, jesus is his prophet, a mankind of his creation and holy ghost is not more that his greatest angel or servant( of god), the trinity you christians believe in is fiction, if you want the proof got to this url http://jamaat.net/crux/Crux1-5.html may god bless us all

solidus said:

god the one (who you call the father) is the only god had never had a son, jesus is his prophet, a mankind of his creation and holy ghost is not more that his greatest angel or servant( of god), the trinity you christians believe in is fiction, if you want the proof got to this url http://jamaat.net/crux/Crux1-5.html may god bless us all

Click to expand...

The fact that I am a Christian, solidus, does not mean that I believe in the Trinity. You are out of line in putting words into my mouth.

Hi Katzpur;

I'm confused a little bit now. Don't you believe in the Trinity? I mean in the LDS sense?

Omer said:

Hi Katzpur;

I'm confused a little bit now. Don't you believe in the Trinity? I mean in the LDS sense?

Click to expand...

No, I believe in the Godhead, and I use the word as it is described in the Bible. There was no such doctrine as the Trinity until 325 A.D.

Curious.

If one is not willing to provide evidence (Biblical references) for the veracity of their claims, what is the purpose in making a claim at all. If there is other more credible evidence for their arguement, please decribe the nature of that evidence.

Concerning the nature of this debate, I'm afraid I could not argue in opposition to the claim. Every evidence from the Bible would suggest that the Father and Son are beings similar to humans (hair, hands, to name a few.) They are not human as we know it though. The father does not require a female to reproduce. His spirit although similar to ours can be sent, projected if you will. Humans when seperated from their spirit cease to exist. If any of these points are of interest to you, I would be happy to debate.

dharveymi said:

Curious.

If one is not willing to provide evidence (Biblical references) for the veracity of their claims, what is the purpose in making a claim at all. If there is other more credible evidence for their arguement, please decribe the nature of that evidence.

Click to expand...

I almost always use only the Bible when I debate topics of a religious nature. When debating this subject, I would possibly bring in some of the early non-biblical Christian writings as evidence of what the first-century Christians believed about God. It would be my intention to show how far the beliefs of today's Christians have evolved from those of Christ's contemporaries.

Concerning the nature of this debate, I'm afraid I could not argue in opposition to the claim.

Click to expand...

Well then, we couldn't have much fun, could we?

Every evidence from the Bible would suggest that the Father and Son are beings similar to humans (hair, hands, to name a few.) They are not human as we know it though. The father does not require a female to reproduce. His spirit although similar to ours can be sent, projected if you will. Humans when seperated from their spirit cease to exist.

Click to expand...

I would agree. I believe they have a human appearance, but are glorified, immortal beings. They are not subject to death, disease or any of the imperfections we associate with mere mortals. As far as what the Father requires in order to reproduce, I disagree. Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son. He was conceived by a woman and born to a woman. He didn't just appear on His own. As to how His conception took place, that's anybody's guess, and I wouldn't want to go there in a debate here or anywhere else.

If any of these points are of interest to you, I would be happy to debate.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but it sounds as if our beliefs are just too similar for things to be interesting. Actually, I did repost this thread under same faith debates. Nobody seemed willing to debate one-on-one, but I have a strong hunch they'll be willing to debate me ten-on-one! Maybe you would be so kind as to contribute on that thread.

Katzpur said:

I would like to debate the nature of God (the Christian God, specifically God the Father), one-on-one. I am thinking in terms of the Christian God specifically. My position is that the verses in Genesis which state that we are created in the image and after the likeness of God should be taken literally. In other words, I believe in an anthropomorphic God, a God who has a human form, a God with body parts and passions. Anyone interested?

Click to expand...

What other than personal bias and the patently dodgy Bible do you have for that assertion. Now, it makes more sense to see that God is made in the image of man. Your postion has nothing to suggest it even remotely resembles whatever the truth is. Why are your beliefs anymore valid than those of other cultures? the Ancient Egyptians theology is more relevant than yours. Besides, the nature of God is unknowable, don't take my word, take the word of the book of Job.

God is the Second law of Themodynamics. At least god is working here.

Cheers

K

Kowalski said:

What other than personal bias and the patently dodgy Bible do you have for that assertion.

Click to expand...

You're an Anglican, Kowalski. At least that's what you claim to be. I would imagine that you have certain beliefs about the nature of God. Where do you get them? Do you base them on scripture or on something else? I am willing to argue my position on the basis of what the Bible says. Perhaps it's "patently dodgy" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but its the one source we Christians have in common.

Your postion has nothing to suggest it even remotely resembles whatever the truth is.

Click to expand...

:biglaugh: That's a good one, Kowalski! "Whatever the truth is," my position doesn't resemble it? Well, when you figure out what truth is, be sure to fill me in, okay?

Why are your beliefs anymore valid than those of other cultures? the Ancient Egyptians theology is more relevant than yours.

Click to expand...

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is on the nature of the Christian God. What the Ancient Eygptians believed God to be is beside the point, at least in the context of this particular thread.

Besides, the nature of God is unknowable, don't take my word.

Click to expand...

You have nothing to worry about, Kowalski. I won't.

You may believe God is unknowable. I happen to disagree. I'm willing to debate my point of view. If you're willing to debate yours, you have the floor.

Strangely, seven different individuals have responded to my initial post, and yet no one is apparently confident enough in his own beliefs to actually be willing to debate the issue.

Kathryn