Most intelligent God
Is it really a “godly” necessity to convert itself into flesh in order to “save” mankind”? Or is it just another “godly” theatric to fool the gullible? I have no idea
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I always found it a little strange that an omniscient deity would deliberately create a vastly inferior life form and then find it necessary to forgive / redeem / rescue the misbehaving population. It sounds like the deity is admitting that it made a mistake and wants to atone for it, but in a way that says "You're the ones who need to beg forgiveness, not me." Based on that, the modality becomes a secondary consideration, and is relegated to the grand theater of the cheerfully moot. 
Karen916
Level 6
July 16, 2018
0
It is necessary to go back to 325 and the Council Nicaea, convened by Constantine to address that one. There were many 'christianities', among other problems that Constantine needed solving. Among them was the nature of God and Jesus. One view that Jesus and God were one was in opposition to a form of christianity called Arianism that said Jesus and God were separate. Arianism lost and Arius was anathematized. Lots to it and plenty of references for those who want to dig deeper
Geoffrey51
Level 8
July 15, 2018
0
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.
It’s a made-up myth IMO. Logically though, that myth does not invalidate all concepts of God.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
July 14, 2018
0
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.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.