Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Dude let me believe what I believe and I’ll leave you believe what you believe and the ridiculousness that comes with it. Deal?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
First True Picture of God, EVER !!!
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Dude let me believe what I believe and I’ll leave you believe what you believe and the ridiculousness that comes with it. Deal?
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
For the record and I'm mainly targeting some of the forums idiots here who have an inability to read, if I were Muslim I'd have no issue proclaiming my belief. I like both alcohol and pre-marital sex, things that are against the Islamic faith. And @Samantha Rinne you've already been exposed as to how ridiculous your beliefs are and the many inaccurate translations concerning your idea of certain Hebrew words mean. Yes, I believe in a creator deity known and unknown and yes I believe that all life forms both corporeal, as well as things unseen, proceed from him. But I respect everyone's beliefs and it does not surprise me the level of acceptance I see from some Christians here. You're one of the reasons why I left Christianity in the first place.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. But if you believe that the Qur'an is infallible, why do you say you are not a Muslim? Furthermore, why are my beliefs "ridiculous?" With all due respect, if you don't want to take the time to justify your beliefs, then what are you doing on a religious debate forum?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
OK, at least we've got one thing in common.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
If I had time, I would find statistics to refute that......but I'm too busy watching reruns of "Cheers".
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Where do you get me quoting a verse as me saying an entire book is infallible? I never used the word, you did! Again, because of my study of Islam and Judaism, I have some spiritual foundation that I believe based off these elements. I tend to identify more with strict monotheism as propagated by Islam and Judaism than I do with Christianity. It's a spiritual belief that I have. I find certain scriptural elements within the Qur'an relevant for certain discussions, and because I've studied Islam more intensely than I have the other two faiths I quote certain texts. Whether I consider the Qur'an fallible or not is not a relevant topic in this discussion.
CLee421
Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
Uhm. No ... what logic is this?
First of all.. God the Father has no actual gender however the term "Father" and the pronouns "Him" and "He" are used for language purposes.
Jesus had a gender - because He had to come as one or the other - yet what He looks like is not exactly what He talked about wanting folks to focus on. My my...
... what logic is this? First of all.. God the Father has no actual gender however the term "Father" and the pronouns "Him" and "He" are used for language purposes.
Jesus had a gender - because He had to come as one or the other - yet what He looks like is not exactly what He talked about wanting folks to focus on. My my...
We create gods in our own image.
Tom
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Of course. How religions perceive and portray god says a whole lot more about the cultures from which they originated than it does about any actual god.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
I scrolled past the image fast enough that I didn't see it, so I have one thing to say.
If it doesn't look exactly like me I will be very disappointed. For we all know that I am the man behind the curtain, the man pulling the strings, the man pulling the wool over everyone's collective eyes.
Edit: Well, it doesn't. All my hopes and dreams, shattered in the blink of an eye! Oh, the humanity!
If it doesn't look exactly like me I will be very disappointed. For we all know that I am the man behind the curtain, the man pulling the strings, the man pulling the wool over everyone's collective eyes.
Edit: Well, it doesn't. All my hopes and dreams, shattered in the blink of an eye! Oh, the humanity!
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Yes, EpicBeardMan, I've been "exposed". Actually, nobody has paid any attention to me beyond the occasional "that's crazy" which I don't mind. While two people, me and Fry's great nephew, expose you as being clearly insincere about your beliefs.
Jesus did have a gender, yes. But "he" was born from a parthenogenesis reaction. As any scientist will tell you, and immaculate conception happens in some fish or reptiles or critters like that, but is rare to nonexistent in humans, since our biology usually isn't set up to work that way. Secondly, those produced by such are essentially produced from the mother's genes alone, meaning they were typically female. More about this here (No Men Beyond This Point is the movie).
No Men Beyond This Point
(You'll have to goto Youtube and pay, it keeps wanting to make a video, stop it)
And yet Jesus appeared male, why? Well, there are some mutations that mask feminine features, such as Estrogen Insensitivity Syndrome. Or better, a Chimera. Supposing in life, Jesus was widely recognized by his disciples as male. However, it says of him after death, "the disciples did not recognize Jesus" several times. Perhaps without the burden of physical genes, Jesus was able to be the man (and woman) he really was. So, the historical Jesus circa 6 BC to 30 AD or so would have at least appeared male, but God and Jesus are perfectly capable of any form.
I am asserting that the original biblical translation of Genesis means that Adam is in the image of God, sexually between genders (as God is, whenever "He" takes on human form) during the first part of creation. During the second part, God performs surgery, splitting Adam into two genders and two people. This is precisely why people seek each other out, it's like that epoxy stuff that's in two separate containers or the Jiān (鶼) bird from Chinese mythology that supposedly shares wings. Originally humans were a single sex, then they became sexually dimorphic is what that passage is saying. The perfect man is also a woman.
Then we get this comparison.
First Adam--Last Adam - creation.com
Jesus is compared to Adam.
Uhm. No
First of all.. God the Father has no actual gender however the term "Father" and the pronouns "Him" and "He" are used for language purposes.
Jesus had a gender - because He had to come as one or the other - yet what He looks like is not exactly what He talked about wanting folks to focus on. My my...
Jesus did have a gender, yes. But "he" was born from a parthenogenesis reaction. As any scientist will tell you, and immaculate conception happens in some fish or reptiles or critters like that, but is rare to nonexistent in humans, since our biology usually isn't set up to work that way. Secondly, those produced by such are essentially produced from the mother's genes alone, meaning they were typically female. More about this here (No Men Beyond This Point is the movie).
No Men Beyond This Point
(You'll have to goto Youtube and pay, it keeps wanting to make a video, stop it)
And yet Jesus appeared male, why? Well, there are some mutations that mask feminine features, such as Estrogen Insensitivity Syndrome. Or better, a Chimera. Supposing in life, Jesus was widely recognized by his disciples as male. However, it says of him after death, "the disciples did not recognize Jesus" several times. Perhaps without the burden of physical genes, Jesus was able to be the man (and woman) he really was. So, the historical Jesus circa 6 BC to 30 AD or so would have at least appeared male, but God and Jesus are perfectly capable of any form.
I am asserting that the original biblical translation of Genesis means that Adam is in the image of God, sexually between genders (as God is, whenever "He" takes on human form) during the first part of creation. During the second part, God performs surgery, splitting Adam into two genders and two people. This is precisely why people seek each other out, it's like that epoxy stuff that's in two separate containers or the Jiān (鶼) bird from Chinese mythology that supposedly shares wings. Originally humans were a single sex, then they became sexually dimorphic is what that passage is saying. The perfect man is also a woman.
Then we get this comparison.
First Adam--Last Adam - creation.com
Jesus is compared to Adam.
Last edited:
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
You quoted the Qur'an as "proof" of what the nature of god is like. At least that's what it seemed like to me, but I may be wrong about what you meant.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
The nature of God as how I presented is no different than what rabbis and Imams have said.
1) God is one
2) There is nothing in this universe or elsewhere like God.
3) God has no equal and is the sole author of all existence. All creation has a spiritual essence that proceeds from divine providence but we are not a part of God like an arm is attached to a body.
outlawState
Deism is dead
Jesus was male, in part because he fulfilled the duties of a high priest
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
The high priest was male.
Lev 16:32
The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments
Lev 21:10 ¶And he that is the high priest among his brethren (= 'ach), upon whose head the anointing oil was poured
'achowth = sister
'ach = brother
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
God Has a Youthful Face With Feminine Features.
Is this what God looks like? Scientists produce an e-fit of a 'youthful and feminine' deity based on responses from hundreds of Christians
- Study was done by a team of psychologists at the University of North Carolina
- They asked 511 American Christians to look at images of hundreds of face-pairs
- They selected which face from each pair appeared more like their image of God
- By combining the faces, the scientists could assemble a composite 'face of God'
At least that's according to a bizarre study by scientists in North Carolina who have created an 'e-fit' of God based on what American Christians think he looks like.
Far from being an old man with a beard, they found people's perceptions of God tend towards a deity that is young and less Caucasian that popular culture suggests.
A team of psychologists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill created the sketch with the help of 511 American Christians........GOD
The top image shows a composite of 50 faces that represents the collective demographics
of the US population. Below are three of the 300 stimuli created by adding visual noise
to the base image which participants could use to customise their image of God
Participants in the study saw hundreds of randomly varying face-pairs and selected which face from each pair appeared more like how they imagined God to appear.
By combining all the selected faces, the researchers could assemble a composite 'face of God' that reflected how each person imagined God to appear.
Their results were both surprising and revealing.
From Michelangelo to Monty Python, Illustrations of God have nearly always shown him as an old and august white-bearded Caucasian man.
But the researchers found that many Christians saw God as younger, more feminine, and less Caucasian that popular culture suggests.
source
.
Needs a little lipstick, and maybe some blush???
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
And while living, he fulfilled them. But after death and resurrection, his message was not to the Jews (to whom, he had already fulfilled the law) but to the disciples. Mark 2:22 makes it clear that even though the traditions of the past are important, once they have fulfilled, it is time for new ones. Jesus's disciples were no longer Jews, so being High Priest was no longer relevant. Instead, Jesus had to show them that likewise, while he hadn't abolished the law and the prophets, they had moved beyond such things into direct communion with God. How to show that? Show what God truly looks like (but God has no fixed form so...).
Unless I see the marks in... his hands and... his side....
Hmmmm....
outlawState
Deism is dead
On the contrary. He fulfills the office of high priest for ever.
Heb 6:19/20
[Our hope] enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
The law is not abolished but fulfilled by Jesus.
Mat 5:18
“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Well, I would only suggest that this shows that you are something of a suffragist in respect of religion & God. I can't think what you really have in mind. I mean the answer is No.
Unless I see the marks in... his hands and... his side....
Hmmmm....
1 Cor 11:1-16.
16: If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [as you Corinthian feminists/suffagists/political aggitators have invented] nor do the churches of God.
Only you can decide whether you want to stay within the orthodox Christian church or join the gnostics. By the look of it, you've already chosen the latter.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Lemme clarify a couple issues. Stuff in blue.
On the contrary. He fulfills the office of high priest for ever.
Heb 6:19/20
[Our hope] enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
This is prophetic perfect tense. It has already happened, and it is happening in the future, it happens in eternal time. Jesus is always the high priest. Because he was always, as a result of his fulfillment of prophecy. This cannot and will not be changed. However, as I will later discuss, the traditions themselves change.
The law is not abolished but fulfilled by Jesus.
Mat 5:18
“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
I'm not joining anyone. I'm going to explain my thinking here, and you can decide yourself where I belong.
Read what I said again.
Jesus clearly says that he does not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. He fulfills them. So fulfilled. Now, in about three of the four gospels, they mention that the curtain of the temple is torn when Jesus dies. This is significant. The curtain keeps it so only the high priest can enter into the presence of God, as mentioned here.
What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died?
What do you think happens when there is no such veil? It means that those Jews who wish can enter directly into the presence of God. Now the temple falls after about 50 years, so it is safe to say that the Jews did not get the memo. But the disciples would surely have understood the significance. To say that it was possible to see Jesus exactly as he was is an understatement.
It was a tradition that the High Priest was male. But in Egypt there were Pharaohs (despite technically being possible to be a female Pharaoh) who were female yet acted as male. Hatshepsut being example #1, but Twosret also did the whole fake beard thing on carved depictions. So, let's get into Acts now, and talk about how will these traditions held up. Peter sees a dream about eating unclean meats, and being horrified at the process, but God tells him to eat anyway. We thereafter have Gentiles being converted, even those who did not become circumcised, one of the holiest commandments to be clean with God. Jesus during his ministry frequently breaks the Sabbath, considering healing as part of pikuach nefesh, forgives sins himself, and tells people that he and the father are one (blasphemy! Except, you know, he quotes scripture that shows all are sons of God (John 10:31-34 )).
Watch Videos Online | Cooking master boy 05 SUB | Veoh.com
The tradition is to break tradition.
Several times after the resurrection, it is impressed up us that Jesus is in a different form, that the disciples (or Mary) did not recognize Jesus. In fact, so different is he, that Mary assumes he's the gardener.
And at another point, Jesus says "whenever you (helped/did not help) the least of these, you did so for me."
There is nothing, besides tradition, preventing Jesus after the resurrection from appearing however.
In this day and age, even among Jews, among the rabbis (for there are no high priests after the temple) there are women. If this is so among the Jews, how much more so can the High Priest be a male, female, trans-lady, angel, or space alien. Our High Priest is the beggar on the street, the least of these, but also the greatest, the ruler of a country (Romans 13:1).
That toothless woman who is in front of us begging for water and food, is our High Priest. Which reminds me, I'm gonna check on a small black cat of ours. She's hungry.
outlawState
Deism is dead
Not when he was a baby. He became a high priest on his crucifixion, when the temple veil was rent in twain. Then he made the sacrifice of himself, when he had been made perfect.
Heb 5:9 - And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
His sacrifice was made perfect by his sufferings.
Exo 12:5 - Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats
It was the "law" that the High Priest was male. The law is not a "tradition." There is custom and there is law. They are not the same thing.
Moreover Jesus is the antitype of the passover lamb, which the law again decreed was to be male.
The Jews have a peculiar aversion to anyone being termed a son of God other than a regular human being, even though the angelic interpretation of the term is found in the OT.
Jesus only broke with the traditions of the Pharisees, not the law of God, which allows good to be done on the Sabbath.
It's not about breaking tradition for its own sake. It's about superseding the rudiments of the law with the higher principles of the law. You can only break the law if you can show a higher principle that allows you to. Thus justification by works was superseded by justification by faith.
I accept it. Yet he retained his body, as the nail marks in his hands showed.
He only appeared before he was raised to the right hand of God.
Jn 20:17 "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father."
After he returned to his Father he was never seen again.
Our high priest is Jesus. The apostate Jews don't count as any authority in Christianity. In the church of satan, the high priest can be anyone. Christians only have one high priest, who is frequently refered to as the passover lamb, that was male. There is, as Paul says, no gender-bending in the church of God. The distinction between the sexes is not a "tradition" that has been superseded in respect of inter-personal relations. This does not mean that there can't be prophetesses etc as that was always allowed, as the spirit is given to M+F.
So the OT law has a special status and can only be superseded by higher divine law, not displaced entirely. Incidentally, the clean/unclean distinctions (cf. Peter's dream) were superseded to allow the gospel to be given to the Gentiles, so that all men could be saved. That also is OT law cf. the promise to Abraham. "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" Gen 22:18.
I suppose you could say in respect Rev saying that "all" believers are priests, that it applies to M + F and I would agree, but that is separate from the high priest. A priest is a servant of God. So I'll grant priest-status to F + M (not inferring anything as to eligility for the role of presbyter which is another issue), but not high priest status.
Last edited: