What color is God?

Quote by: prejudged_Fire Are you serious? God has no color, he is invisible. Adam was made in God's image in the sense that God can love, and so can we. God is perfect, and we were too originally. God has qualities that we have, not physical appearance. Also, God is not impartial, so He doesn't favor one race over the other.

While I appreciate your interpretation of Genesis, that's not, in fact, what the Bible says. It says in Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Image, likeness--it's a stretch to interpret this as "in the sense that God can love." God did not say "Let us make man love as I do and let them ... etc."

Of course, my initial query is only relevant to Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Those who view the Bible as metaphorical--as you appear to--are free to apply whatever interpretations suits them.

Regards
S.

[Jack]

So we're "created in his image" yet we're told we can't understand god. The contradictions are so obvious, explaining the lack of logical consistency in that religion.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Created in his image in that we can love and have free will. An image is just a part of what a person is, so we are just part of what God is like, the rest we can't comprehend, because we have no way of percieving it. A blind person is just like another person in many ways, but he cannot comprehend sight. That would be my interpretation, anyway.

[prejudged_Fire]

if you take the entire bible literally, you will make no sense out of it whatsoever.
Of course we cant understand Him. He is so far above us. Just because we share the same qualities as Him doesn't mean that we can understand everything about Him.

[Jack]

Incomprehensible isn't far from fantastic and nonsensical.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: prejudged_Fire if you take his speeches literally, you will make no sense out of it whatsoever. Of course we cant understand Him. He is so far above us. Just because we share the same qualities as Him doesn't mean that we can understand everything about Him.

And presto! you're suddenly a North Korean apologist rationalizing the blunderings of Great Leader as he leads us all to nuclear Armageddon. I'm not condemning religion, but be careful what you vest your trust in. The distance between belief and tragedy is a very thin line. You must always remember to see things as they are, not as you want to see them.

[predius]

He is invisible and pink.

Quote by: prejudged_Fire Of course we cant understand Him. He is so far above us. Just because we share the same qualities as Him doesn't mean that we can understand everything about Him.

You say "We can't understand Him." And, you say "we share the same qualities as Him." If we can't understand him, how do you know you share the same qualities as Him?

For example, God let tens of thousands of innocent children in Rwanda be brutally murdered? Would you?

Regards
S.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: sdbest Apparently, Man (i.e. Adam) was made in the image of God. I'm paraphrasing Genesis. Adam, being human, must have had some identifiable racial features--features he only could have derived from God. What were those features? Was Adam Black, Caucasian, Oriental, Middle Eastern, Indian? If the fossil record is an indication, the first humans came out of Africa. If that's the case, Adam, and therefore God, must be black. If not, what color is God? I suspect He (and He is a "he" because Adam was made in God's image and Adam was male) does not have the racial features attributed to him by Michaelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Of the human races, Caucasians are late comer to the human family. So, what color is God? Regards S.

I suppose my retort would be...

"Why would, or must, God have a 'color?"

When you use the phrase...

"...made in his image..."

Raised in societies that tend to be shallow when it comes to image... shallow in the sense that we look at the exterior almost exclusively, we have interpreted this to mean arms, legs, head, color....

What if a deity would think of these as temporary and not very important at all? What if these things are a test for us to see if can go beyond the shallow and find what's really important... our humanity; our spirit.

BTW, I think even the male gender was probably used because...

A. In mostly male driven societies, power-wise, that's what would be respected, unfortunately.

B. Choose A, or B... flip the coin

C. "Made in our image" would be confusing to some, and less firm of a statement.

To further clarify, as if it isn't already obvious, I would fall in the metaphorical camp.

[loser]

Of course, my initial query is only relevant to Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Those who view the Bible as metaphorical--as you appear to--are free to apply whatever interpretations suits them.

Oswald killed Kennedy (literal) dog dead (metaphor).

You're funny (literal)...you kill me. (metaphor)

Part of logic and reason is the ability to differentiate between metaphor and literal. I challenge you to find ONE book (just ONE) that does not have a MIXTURE of metaphor and literal, often in the same sentence.

Comprehension is not such a big thing to ask for, is it?

So we're "created in his image" yet we're told we can't understand god. The contradictions are so obvious, explaining the lack of logical consistency in that religion.

The contradictions and lack of logical consistency does not lie with the religion, it lies with humans...people just such as yourself. Of course, you will probably tell me that you have NEVER been logically inconsistent. I would tell you that neither have I but I really don't want to lie about it.

Incomprehensible isn't far from fantastic and nonsensical.

I'm always fantastic and usually nonsensical but only rarely incomprehensible.

They are indeed far from being the same. I found calculus almost incomprehensible but I didn't find it all that fantastic.

I'm not condemning religion, but be careful what you vest your trust in.

Most people's mistake is putting trust in themselves.

For example, God let tens of thousands of innocent children in Rwanda be brutally murdered? Would you?

You did, didn't you?

What if a deity would think of these as temporary and not very important at all? What if these things are a test for us to see if can go beyond the shallow and find what's really important... our humanity; our spirit.

Notice how every once in a blue moon (metaphor) somebody will say something intelligent (literal)?

[prejudged_Fire]

God did not cause all of those children to die. Satan did. He must let Satan rule for a short period of time. In Genesis, Satan challenged God's right to rule. He thought he could do it better. Think of this: A teacher is teaching a math problem in school to a class of children. One kid stands up and assumes that he has a better solution. If the teacher said "Shut up and sit down" many other kids might think he is afraid of being proved wrong and they might join in with that rebellious kid. However, if the teacher allows the child to prove to him that he can do it better and he fails to do so, then no one else can ever say that they can do it better, and if they do, it has already been proven before that the teacher knows the best way and it doesn't need to be proven again. Satan thought he could do it better. God is allowing him to prove it. When he fails to do so (which its obvious he is failing because of all the badness in the world) it will prove that God can rule the world better than Satan.

Oswald killed Kennedy (literal) dog dead (metaphor). You're funny (literal)...you kill me. (metaphor) Part of logic and reason is the ability to differentiate between metaphor and literal. I challenge you to find ONE book (just ONE) that does not have a MIXTURE of metaphor and literal, often in the same sentence.

Exactly!

iclaudius, why did you change my quote?!

[prejudged_Fire]

A son can have the same qualities as his father however he may look more like his mother or not like his parents at all. I have a lot of qualities that my father has but I still don't fully comprehend everything he does or says.

Quote by: loser I challenge you to find ONE book (just ONE) that does not have a MIXTURE of metaphor and literal, often in the same sentence.

Alice in Wonderland? There's not one sentence that is the literal truth--all pure fantasy.

So, is the Bible the literal truth, or is it metaphorical, meaning is it intended to represent something other than its literal meaning? Or as you seem to suggest, is it a mixture of the two? And, if a mixture, how do we tell which parts are literally true and which parts are supposed to be metaphorical. Is the Devil a real being or a metaphor for Sin? Was Jonah swallowed by great fish? Was their a flood? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Was Jesus the product of virgin birth?

In most literary works, it's relatively easy to separate fact from figurative speech. There seems to be some debate when it comes to the Bible. Is Genesis a metaphor for creation, or a literal, factual description of creation? I Adam a metaphor for mankind, or was he a real individual?

The definition you're using for metaphor in your criticism is too narrow. You can use the notion of metaphor in a broader sense. It's not necessary to constrain yourself in using the term "metaphor" to a sentence-bound figure of speech.

Regards
S.

Quote by: prejudged_Fire God did not cause all of those children to die. Satan did. He must let Satan rule for a short period of time.

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, and perfect. Why does he need to allow Satan to slaughter innocent babies as a learning exercise? Why doesn't he just decree that he understands his lesson?

There's a literal, real Satan in the Universe? Why did God create Satan? Or, if God didn't create Satan, who did?

Regards
S.

[Jack]

The contradictions and lack of logical consistency does not lie with the religion, it lies with humans...people just such as yourself.

Humans created religion and wrote the Bible. The inconsistencies in both reflect their origin, as you correctly point out.

Of course, you will probably tell me that you have NEVER been logically inconsistent.

Hardly. I'm not applying for the god position.

Most people's mistake is putting trust in themselves.

If you don't first trust yourself (to make informed decisions, to be honest about your intentions, etc.) how can you trust that any decision you make, such as having faith, is genuine?

You did, didn't you?

I don't believe sdbest has ever claimed the same superpowers that god has. To reconcile the concept of a loving god with the attributes ascribed to god in the Bible is one of Christianity's biggest challenges, and the one they've been least successful at.

[prejudged_Fire]

Alice in Wonderland? There's not one sentence that is the literal truth--all pure fantasy.

"Alice went down the hole." She literally went down the hole.
You can tell what is meant literally and metaphorically by seeing which one makes sense. Does it make sense that God would have a race? No.

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, and perfect. Why does he need to allow Satan to slaughter innocent babies as a learning exercise? Why doesn't he just decree that he understands his lesson?

For the same reason the teacher doesn't just say shut up and sit down. If he simply destroyed Satan on the spot, people would be continually questioning his authority eternally until he proved that he knew best. After that, no one can question him.

There's a literal, real Satan in the Universe? Why did God create Satan? Or, if God didn't create Satan, who did?

Ok this is basic Bible knowledge. Satan was originally an angel. He became jealous of God and thought he could do things better than him so he became Satan.

[prejudged_Fire]

so he became Satan.

Excuse me, you might take that literally and twist my words around. What I meant was, he became known as Satan. Thats what God started to call him because "Satan" means "The father of the lie". He was the first one to lie in the garden of eden. Therefore he is known as the father of the lie, or Satan.

[prejudged_Fire]

Humans created religion and wrote the Bible

Humans wrote down what God told them to. They didn't write the bible, God did. If a guy tells his secretary to write a letter saying "blah blah blah" and she writes a letter saying "blah blah blah", that is the words of the guy not his secretary.

[Jack]

If a guy tells his secretary to write a letter saying "blah blah blah" and she writes a letter saying "blah blah blah", that is the words of the guy not his secretary.

A poor analogy.
I can call and talk directly to the guy who wrote the letter if the letter doesn't make sense. Perhaps his secretary misheard him, maybe she wrote down something in error. The actual letter is her work, not his. The mistakes may be hers or his. I can find out by consulting both the author and the one who "inspired" the letter. That's not possible with a god of any color.

Every holy book is supposedly inspired by the god it supports. There's no way to prove this. All we can know for sure is that men wrote each and every one of them. The books themselves reflect the times of the authors and their prejudices and social morays. They do not give any cause to suppose that they're anything but the product of humans.

[prejudged_Fire]

Don't you think the guy would review the letter before he let her send it off? Especially one of that great importance. If there were an error, he would have her fix it. Don't you think God would too?

And yes it can be proven. After a lot of studying, it is obvious which one has really been inspired of God. If one says the world is going to end in 20 years and it doesn't, obviously it has been proven that it wasn't inspired of God. Everything in the bible has happened exactly as they were prophesied. Is this the product of humans? The prophecies that haven't been fulfilled yet will be.