Thank you Geoffrey51 for that Nicean insights. I cannot find anything in the 325 assembly in Nicean literatures discussing whether it is necessary convert non material being material being for the purpose of “saving” the “sinners”. They exclude Arius because his view is different from other bishops’ belief that “god became flesh”; there is no question raised by either Athanasius or Arius as whether there exist a necessity.

@Montaigne2018 the basic context is that God became flesh to atone for the sins of Adam. I have never got my head around the theology of why that should be, but if Arius' doctrine were accepted it meant that Jesus and God were seperate entities and therefore Jesus could not take on an incarnation of God. It's really more complicated than it need be which is why Constantine called the Council.

In the Old Testament God’s reasoning was also rude and tribal; in the New Testament God kept silent (maybe realising the intellectual revolution) but then the men of God kept the ball rolling. I come to doubt reason itself; reasons that cannot be known or knowable only through collections of myths are now what they called “theologies”; reasons are also capable of creating or recreating God or gods.

Thanks for your thoughts. Assuming this myth is true, is its conversion into flesh necessary to implement salvation schemes?

@Montaigne2018 I’ve never understood why such a thing makes sense. The entire message of Christianity is bogus IMO if looked at critically. There are a lot of people who live a Christian lifestyle in lieu of being a criminal or staying drunk. Maybe the doctrines don’t have to be true or meaningful.

So far as whether God exists, I lean toward Universal Awareness, which is sort of like God I guess. We are all basically ignorant though IMO.