This video ignores that The Holy Bible tells us exactly how God wants to appear to us. The story of Moses tells us that God, creator of the vast universe, decided that the very BEST way to appear to appear to mankind would be by disguising himself as a bush and lighting Himself on fire. Yes, makes perfect sense. He wants to be thought of as a small shrubbery that torches itself. That is the true image of God. Perfectly sensible god he is at that.
well thats irony for you, a man who has worked with the likes of Bohm, Feynman, Hawkings and Penrose is now suggesting that we are 3d holographic images projected from a 2d god( 10^123BITS(max.info) existing on our future/cosmological horizon. Sarfatti also claims that our future horizon has a singularity attached to it just like our past particle horizon(big bang), tongue in cheek he refers to them as the alpha and the omega. It seems retrocausality is on its way back, from the future.
@AntiCitizenX so fun. they get so pissed but just let-in you know there so much confusion about the simple-list things its re-dunk-u-less. pa-ees out. god with human eyes, thats dumb alright!
@AntiCitizenX god as a male is not litter-al it represents his headship. Men take charge so we knickname or respectfully call him father him he instead of it. Get it. Or yaweh... His name that freaks are scared to say 4 some reee-son.
@AntiCitizenX first 20 sec of this wrong. And the ones who believe that... Wrong. Anyway. Revised? Where at bro? I wanna see this. I looked but could not find.
I always had issues with the idea of God having a gender. It just seems like such an obvious case of ingrained sexism, especially since it makes much more logical sense to have a female deity if we are that deity's children.
we all know the real god is either haruhi suzimiya, the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn. simply because they are more awesome and have more kickassery.
It's quite funny to me that there are people both stupid and arrogant enough to think their god is another monkey.
But god really tends to be a projection of the believer onto the universe.
It's kind of like how primitive people gave fire a personality and called it a god. So god is giving the universe a human personality. Which of course it doesn't have.
Man being created in Gods image was not actually intended for it to be a physical reference, but rather a spiritual one.. It was a spiritual refference because Adam and Eve were intended to be eternal, perfect and uncorrupted by sin ( as God is ). There are various Biblical quotes that support God's Likness unto man ( before the curse) being a spiritual aspect.
That's not what the Mormons say. Many Christian sects sincerely believe that God's image is a direct reference to the idea that God has a physical, man-like body.
@AntiCitizenX Im sorry , but there is no such thing as a Christian sect. Mormonism, Catholosism are Corrupted versions of Christianity. Im sure you arent interested..but if you delve deep enough youde find just how polar opposite these '' sects'' are from Christianity. - In other news...does the spiritual aspect make sense to you ? I would be more than glad to provide other biblical refferences to clear matters up.
@AntiCitizenX Those are considered DENOMINATIONS..some of which couldnt validly fall under Christiantiy. All I ask is if the explanation makes sense. I dont have time to squabble over something I know you are not fully ( spiritually speaking ) aware of. Does it make sense..yes or no ?
Sect and denomination are virtual synonyms in this context. If you can't be bothered to read a damn dictionary, I'm not interested in hearing your philosophical insights.
@AntiCitizenX If you cant be bothered to answer wheather or not what i said to begin with makes sense, then I will assume your entire video was debunked due to the fact you are beating around the bush . Stop being Naive and just answer the damn question. Other wise you failed at proving God a fluke.
@ceriah311 and sorry about that joke but i am just tired and i hit the enter post when i was gone hit the thing next to it, and have you tought he might not answer you cos it is so filled with fail that it could not be answered or something like that or that he is busy or something like that
@bjam89 The thing is. I honestly dont need his opinion whether it was right or wrong..because it is right. The Bible NEVER compares Gods features in comparison to that of mans. The fact that this is true , and the verse in Genisis was not speaking physically, totally disrupts the soul purpose of this video. Man isnt the physical replica of God. These assumptions occur when worldly minded people assume things of the bible......And oh LOL and im guessing you where never in a spelling bee ! j/k
@ceriah311 god made the earth before the universe, light before anything that can make light (where did the light come from?) earth was formless, if it is in our world it has a form no matter what it looks like even if it change shape, i can go on but that proves the point in flase info and if it is false, as for overpowered, look at what people say he has and you should understand the flaws in he can do what ever he likes
@ceriah311 also Noah's ark, the whole god made everything in the form it is now, the sky is solid, the rainbow is proof god wont kill us anymore, there is more but i wont bother listing them all, read your bible and you should find the stuff that turn people away from god
@ceriah311 In the Hindu interpretation of God, God is pure consciousness, and a Hindu experiences this through meditation by the cessation of thought which I believe is the natural release of DMT. This is how the Hindus have gained their insight, shamans have known altered states has always been the pathway to God for thousands of years, but this sort of theosophical approach to religion has been lost today, and is only practiced by some. So, God doesn't have a form in this interpretation.
BRILLIANT argument. If there was no other argument against the existence of a man-like god, then this would still be enough to de-convert me. My favourite is "why does god have genitalia"? Seriously, if god was there first then why the hell does he have reproductive organs?
Why would God need eyes to see? He already knows the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at every given time, so he doesn't need eyes to take in information about the outside world. Same with ears for hearing, and every sense organ. He doesn't need legs to walk, since he could just magical transport himself to anywhere he wanted to go (or already is everywhere to begin with) He doesn't arms to move things, since he could make something move just by thinking about it
Love the video. Although I do think most theists probably don't REALLY see their deity as being essentially human-like. (Although some fundies might, but those are pretty silly anyway.)
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed... Leaving the factor that there was, is and always will be an entity known as God... the father...the Creator. Your thinking in this video is far too Worldly and scientifically literal , too explain what is infinitely spiritual. You cannot use regulations that apply to finite beings. God made man in HIS image after HIS likeness, hence Jesus was also a man like us..
Let's ignore the fluttery religious prose for a moment and think. How do you claim that human beings are made in God's image without simultaneously making the same claim about virtually all other primates? I defy you to come up with significant aspects of a typical human being's morphology that fail to apply equally well to a chimpanzee. The list is countable on one hand. Then come up with a good reason for why a chimp should not also be thought of as "made in God's image."
I mean really, guy. Did you even watch the video? Or did you simply miss the part where calling God a "HE" or "THE FATHER" is a dead giveaway that you're just imposing a worldly bias onto your deity? The very concept of gender is meaningless when viewed outside of evolution. Gender exists solely as a mechanism for mixing and matching genes within the offspring of a population. Or have you never wondered why there are only two genders as opposed to three or four?
He got this screwed up too. Gen 1:27? What about 1:26? "And God said, Let us make man in our image,....". If you dont know what "us" and "our" is referring to you will never understand. The only thing you were right about was around 5:00 in your video. God does not have a physical body. You are like many others that are closed minded and try to explain and debunk the Bible from a physical science point of view. You need to learn and understand more about what you are reading in the Bible.
There are MANY sects of Christianity that hold to the substantive interpretation. Your personal version of Christianity is not the only one out there, buddy.
My version is Biblical. When our flesh body dies, we return to God, meaning out soul does. We are either in a physical body or a spiritual body. There is no other option. Flesh is weak and flawed, Spiritual body is not. God created our spiritual body before the foundation of the earth. We have been here before creation of the physical universe. Our souls enter a physical body whe born of a woman and return to God when the flesh body dies. Back to where we came from.
So am I correct in assuming that you are one of the rare Christians who does NOT believe God has a physical body complete with flesh, bone, gender, bilateral symmetry, and binocular orbits? Because if you are, then this entire video does not apply to you.
I think God has a spiritual body, not flesh. What his body as well as all other souls are made of, I cannot even guess. I think spiritual bodies are far superior to what we have in flesh. They are sexless, feel no pain, can walk and communicate, and see in some form. The intellect is far superior than flesh bodies. Spiritual bodies is not taught in churches much. Many think the flesh stays in the ground until rapture where the flesh goes into the sky. And dont EVEN get me started on rapture!
" I think spiritual bodies are far superior to what we have in flesh. They are sexless, feel no pain, can walk and communicate, and see in some form."
What reason can you think of for this "god" to not give us humans the same spiritual bodies? This would have reduced alot of unecessary suffering (starvation,dissease, ect.)
If you think spiritual bodies are real how do you answer the problem of unnecessary evil with a benevolent god?
We have a spirit within us already. That is our soul. We lived in the spiritual world until we were born thru woman and took a flesh body. God created man for his pleasure but later after disobedient and sin set, he was sorry that he created man in the flesh. In the beginning, I feel that man would have lived forever in a flesh body. But with have a free will that caused disobedient to God, God reduced the years man would live to 120 years. What do you mean by unnecessary evil?
unnecessary evil- children born with terminal disieses, children that die in natural disasters, babies that throught history have died from drought induced famines.
You believe a loving god made us have these fail bodies knowing that this suffering would be a product of it yet did it anyways. You also believe that he could have made us spiritual beings with none of these frailties yet capable of freewill.
Your spiritual reincarnation idea is interesting but you are making up your own religion.
Did god not know that humans would behave the way he programed them to behave? Why was he sorry he created them?
Dont you realize that the idea that man is evil and not worthy of "god's" love is a mechanism that is used to manipulate people? An all knowing "god" made us "evil" and we are to blame. Is he incompetent ?
He either enjoys our "evil" or wasnt smart enough to foresee it.
Or maybe its just a myth like the countless other myths people have believed?
Well I guess he just messed up. No, seriously, The reason we are is because we are flesh. And I dont mean the skin that covers us, it is the things that the flesh or man desires and tends to need. Some good, some not so good. God didnt make us evil. We have that choice whether to go that route or not.
" If you dont know what "us" and "our" is referring to you will never understand."
Please elaborate on this, my understanding is that the word used in Hebrew is Elohim, this word is a plural form of the word god.
Ive read that this is because the early Hebrew roots where polytheistic where the creator god was the head (with a wife even) but he had other lesser gods with him.
You seem to be eluding to some other obvious meaning that i am not picking up on.
We existed with God before we were born into flesh. Us and all others/souls/angels... whatever you want to call them. You and I were both in spiritual body with God when Adam was created. Adam was created in OUR image. We look like God as well as each other in our spritual body.
What religion are you basing that from? i thought you where a christian but obviously i was wrong. Im not familiar with any sect that teaches that. Bahá'í Faith? im not all that familiar with the particulars of your sect if so.
Also i see a hole in that logic. Why cant we remember that? This is off course assuming your position makes any sense at all ( i dispute that).
Christianity. And I not a member of a sect or denomination. I study the Bible with some friends. Deeper study that any church will dare to get into.
A spiritual body has an intellect. The human brain is limited. We only use a small portion. While in the flesh body, the brain blocks out what we knew in our spiritual body. I think that sometimes we do have thinks that of sort of slip by in the form of deja vu.
btw, deja vu is the just a feeling of familiarity on earth, which almost always stems from something we forgot about that happened before. deja vu would have nothing to do with remembering the spirit realm if something on earth makes you feel it, which happens 100 percent of the fucking time.
i consider swear words to be a seasoning onto a sentence, i understand it is the language of the ignorant and so i try not to use it unless i am very angry or appalled at something
like if you are very fucking angry? LOL Hey I am a Christian. I know that that word is considered a swear word. That depends on the context. I use it occasionally myself, like when a hammer jumps on my thumb. Ever heard the audio about the F word and the versatility? Sounds like an old grade school film from health. Its hilarious!
you watch too much science fiction. But if humanoid is the best word you have then ok. the supposed eye witnesses of actually seeing aliens describe them as looking similar to us. is that fail too? What kind of body would you like for God to have? also, look at all the different definitions of the word "image".
the word humanoid is not a science fiction term from star trek or something, its an actual word used to describe something with humanlike characteristics. i know all the definitions of the word image, it can mental or physical. in that sense one would be implying that god is not similar to a human at all, and he made our design up in his mind.
a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christs spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind.
bible thumpers would like you to believe that US refers to the trinity, although it is hardly mentioned ever again in the old testament and god is referred to as singular.
the phrase "holy spirit" occurs 3 times in the old testament. The reason that "the son" isnt there is because Jesus had not been born. That is in the new testament.
Right. Then what is the difference between God and the perception of God? How could we distinguish between these two things? If there is no way to make the distinction, they can effectively be considered the same thing.
An apple is separated from the perception of an apple by establishing a set of criteria that can be used by all observers of an apple to test the apple for qualities which would suggest that an apple exists independent of perception. It's this decentralized verification of the apple that suggests that apples have an existence outside of any single observer.
I must then ask, what test can be used by all observers to verify the existence of any God outside of any single observer?
LOL. It's amazing that your sense of smell is so veracious that you can determine what I smell like without knowing the circumstances regarding my own personnel existence.
5:20 Most importantly, if God is an unimaginable "orb of energy", without any recognizable physical manifestation for us to speak of, it removes "God" from any reasonable discussion between earthlings with consciousness and imagination. If God isn't an evolved creature (if it was it wouldn't be God, it would just be another being) then we cannot even remark on it. And the odds of it being the personal caretaker of the Bible would be ridiculously minute
Why would God need nipples? For that matter, why do I (a male) have nipples???? Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder what the grand designer of the universe had in mind when he created man.
Well obviously he likes nipples. If you consider that Eve was made after Adam, it becomes quite clear that god decided to make even larger nipples and put them on top of two large bags of fat to make them really stick out.
The God I know is much much more complex than can be explained by human minds. And us being "made in God's image" can be interpreted in many ways, as can much of the Bible. All I can do is tell you that I believe, I have faith because of the proof he's given ME personally. No one should force their beliefs on others, not me, not you, not anyone. Well put together video though...
Go back and listen to the intro again. The video talks about the people who take the literal interpretation. What proof do you have? That's no the proof I have. God gave me proof that he doesn't exist. He told this to ME personally and directly. No need to have only faith; I have real proof.
God constantly "knocks on the doors" of non-believers' souls. You have to let him in before he can prove to you he exists. I don't know your background, but it seems as though you never let him in... unfortunately it's not as simple as him showing his face, I wish it was, but there's a reason for that much deeper and broader than our human understanding of life.
Do you ever stop to ponder the reason why God never "proves" himself to some people? Just maybe, it is due to the fact that he simply isn't there. Arbitrarily declaring that people like me just never "let him in" is absolutely condescending. It shows that you will not even consider the alternative explanation. It means no matter how many people fail to find God, you can always just brush it under the rug with an excuse like "he didn't have enough faith." Please try to be more compelling.
Well I dont mean to be condescending it's just what I've been taught. And yes I have considered that he might not be there, i'm not just a retarded lump that sits and reads the Bible all day oblivious to to all other religions and ideas. I just find the world and life without God has no meaning. And even still if that God didn't exist... there's still that "3 o'clock in the morning and a bit drunk" question of what does it all mean? haha
That was entirely not the response I was expecting. Most folks just get pissy and start throwing around bizarre conspiracy theories and convoluted metaphysics. You actually replied with comprehensive dialogue and a decent bit of humor.
I'm sorry, but YouTube has no place for people like you. The TOS now requires that I ban you from the forum before this gets out of hand...
j/k. If you wish to discuss any particular points, I'd be happy to share a conversation. :)
Well i'm glad we can have a respectful disagreement which as you say is uncommon in these areas. I wish you all success and keep searching for the answers coz it seems that's what we're here to do... with or without God. Later
its not an excuse. he didnt have the faith. what else can we say? our job is to spread his word and pray that the people receiving the word will take it to heart. if they coose not to, then that is Gods will
Well, most Christians do... I mean, Jesus was a physical thing, at some point in time, and Jesus is Yahweh, so Yahweh was a physical being at some point in time...
I think he meant "compare" in a different sense of the word. He seems to agree with the premise of the video. Some Christian denominations do hold God to be a sort of ethereal spirit, like the glowing Stargate orb.
On a side note, if I were to believe in the existence of an all-powerful, god-like entity, I would believe that they were a formless shape of shining energy. Mainly for the reasons outlined in this video.
i like how jesus is always white in pix with nice straight hair...thats not at all how people in that area looked during that time lolz...i love me some white jesus with his silky hair
word but that would fuck with the racist right wing nuts jobs fake faith which is based on their ego and need to be absolutely right rather than the all to obvious truths of world being important for future progress<this post was way to long just to agree with you srry i am bored
Another great piece! The Bible refutes itself in its first book when it has God say "Let us make man in our image." Furthermore, unless you assume the "us" and "our" as expressions of the "royal 'we,'" the suggestion is that God is talking to someone outside himself. Angels, perhaps?
Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ` εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ` ὁμοίωσιν·... ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ Ι·26. The word εἰκόνα, meaning picture, is used, not μόρφη, meaning face or form. Modern views of God are twisted intrying to determine anything about him, because the infinite is immeasurable and beyond any limits.
We use Him so as no to imply an inanimate object. I've recently been looking into evolution. Assuming every living organism has one common ancestor, what if, by "in our image," it is meant that all life is a reflection of his image? That the entire Cosmos is in his image?
I guess that is fair enough. If we're going to assign God a pronoun, then I guess "he" is as good as any. Still, there are many sects (especially Mormons) who think the idea of "image" actually means a human-male figure with two-arms, two-legs, etc. What would you say to such folks?
No living man has ever seen God. Also, as I have pointed out, we can draw the wrong idea from the Bible. It was written so that the people of its time could understand it. Everything we "know" of God is all based on conceptions, ideas, and tradition. All humans need to realized how ignorant every one of us really are.
Your should google Shiur Kommah (or variant transliterations)--this is a species of Rabbinic literature which describes god's body in detail, giving the absolute size of each part. His penis, as I recall, is 55 million miles long.
There's a lot of detail in your straw man, but it's still a straw man argument. John 4:24 says God is spirit. So any Bible believing Christian doesn't believe what you assert many churches do. It's also not a very good argument to take what another position "implies" and make it out as their main point. But other than that I pretty much agree, God doesn't need all that stuff.
You make a valid criticism, but many faiths (especially Mormons) do attribute a physical body/gender to God. It is these people I'm debunking. If you really do think God is some ethereal spirit, then this video does not apply to you (which is a point I do try to make towards the end with the Star Gate scenes at 5:20).
i remember reading in genesis that god said Let us Create man in OUR image. a spirit doesnt have a physical image. or do you not believe what the bible says do you just take what u want out of it? yes i think so. the only straw man here is u. if u only had a brain
Another quick point: If God made man in his image 6000 years ago, and populations split off after the "flood," wouldn't the same types of rapid evolution that resulted in the tiny variations within ethnicities have been at work throughout recorded history? Someone from Korea and someone from Kenya and someone from indigenous sections of Ecuador have different physical traits. Why haven't blended populations (such as within the U.S.) developed their own distinctive traits over a few centuries?
This is a ludicrous comedic series. I thought it was going to be about REAL & GENUINE research. Your prime premise is skewed: God is NOT in the "image of man, but man is in the "Image" of God. It has to do with the Holographic (Image) Principle integrated in Supersymmetry & Superstring M-Theory dealing with the "Heterotic E8 x E8" model where superstrings possess heterogeneous attributes emulating a former state between God & us, & He is the "Super Eidolon" (Super Image), we are a hologram.
When the author dies the reader is born. In this particular case, 95% of people will not understand anything you wrote and will just go on to other comments. Obviously. If you were really "about god " why leave out so much of the audience? If this was what you were about, why not explain it for all the 'esoterically nescient' readers? Or do you actually want a handful of specialists to think you some anagogic genius? I think an important quality of communication is forethought.
I think he just grabbed a bunch of random techno-sounding words and strung them together. It is so nonsensical in fact that I can't even be sure it's not just some random dude trying to be funny. It would be really sad if the comment were legitimately serious.
I disagree, your saying applies to all speaking (techincal, spoken or what have you). Such a saying would not equal (=) what I said. Everyone "thinks before and during speaking." The saying is a poor one. How could a person |not think| and |just speak|? Speaking is a cognitive process which requires exactly that. Forethought. Give yourself a few months to address the expression in your mind (here and there), and you will most likely conclude it nearly fully wortheless, too.
I did not say that your saying is not a "known"... nor anything like it. I, instead, looked at it for what it was worth and exposed it accordingly. Cant hack people taking you seriously? Then why are you even making the effort? My point stands just the same. Your 'summing up' of what I said was not what I said. Sorry.
Sorry, I was addressing Semasiolomajigger. I knew perfectly well what you meant, yet the guy went on a philosophical orgy of over-analyzing the literal meaning of an expression that was obviously just a figure of speech. Makes you wonder if he does this at parties, and if people ever just get fed up and punch him in the scrotum.
I do not understand your question. It is as if I was wrong to respond in the way that I did. If you are not open to people expressing themselves, then what is the point of speaking? Obviously this is the internet and obviously then people are going to read given information differently. It is not because he was figurative that I could not address his grandiose tool literally. Where did you find that rule? Nice attitude...
You did not do anything wrong. You just did something very bizarre. It reminded me a lot of an experience I once had after calling a young lady and having her dad answer the phone:
"Is so-and-so home?"
"Yes she is."
[awkward silence]
"er... could you give her the phone then?"
and so on. The expression "is she home?" has greater implied meaning than just the literal interpretation of the question. The expression "Think before you speak" is the same. Yet you over-analyzed it anyway.
1. What did I "overanalyze"? And, what was it that I did that was "very" "bizarre"? I contextualized a common saying. My question "what did I do wrong" was hardly literal, yet you seem content to humour yourself in answering it with redundant adverbs like 'over' and 'very'. Again, I did not merely circumlocute "think before you speak" but used the saying as a complement to rules like Orwell's.
2. If you are unable to distinguish between 'think before you speak' and what I said then maybe you ought to pay a bit more atttention to what you read. Regardless, your standards are [at best] interpretational, and not at all objective. Hence, you are the one who still needs to excuse himself as you were the one (alongside the other gifted gentlemen) who spit in my face. I'll just stick with what I said: Nice attitude. Not surprised.
Also, "AnitCitizenX", he did not just....USE figurative language. This is incorrect. He criticized me by saying that all I basically said amounted to his saying. That was wrong and thus his criticism passes as meaningless. It does not matter if he was being literal or figurative, the use of his language was criticism. Of course I am going to return to show him his error. So, yes I am "this" argumentative.
haha, jesus. He didn't skew the principle point. he entertained that if we are replicas of god, then he must have the same characteristics as us otherwise we would look like pretty poor products of replication.
my theory: god created man in his image. now, perhaps the focus is not on HIS but on IMAGE. possibly god has some image, painting or whatever hanging on a wall and he decided to use it as a blueprint for humans.
This video ignores that The Holy Bible tells us exactly how God wants to appear to us. The story of Moses tells us that God, creator of the vast universe, decided that the very BEST way to appear to appear to mankind would be by disguising himself as a bush and lighting Himself on fire. Yes, makes perfect sense. He wants to be thought of as a small shrubbery that torches itself. That is the true image of God. Perfectly sensible god he is at that.
GodVlogger 2 months ago
well thats irony for you, a man who has worked with the likes of Bohm, Feynman, Hawkings and Penrose is now suggesting that we are 3d holographic images projected from a 2d god( 10^123BITS(max.info) existing on our future/cosmological horizon. Sarfatti also claims that our future horizon has a singularity attached to it just like our past particle horizon(big bang), tongue in cheek he refers to them as the alpha and the omega. It seems retrocausality is on its way back, from the future.
Awhiffofsuspicion 7 months ago
Where's part I?
COEXISTential 7 months ago
@COEXISTential
It was an old "Noah's Ark" video. See the new one instead.
AntiCitizenX 7 months ago
4:53 that photo was used by many aryan propagandas and that's bullshit.
joey143anna 8 months ago
is God's nose small or big?
joey143anna 8 months ago
@AntiCitizenX so fun. they get so pissed but just let-in you know there so much confusion about the simple-list things its re-dunk-u-less. pa-ees out. god with human eyes, thats dumb alright!
DownHavenFilms 8 months ago
@AntiCitizenX god as a male is not litter-al it represents his headship. Men take charge so we knickname or respectfully call him father him he instead of it. Get it. Or yaweh... His name that freaks are scared to say 4 some reee-son.
DownHavenFilms 8 months ago
@DownHavenFilms
If you don't like it, then go to lds.org and take it up with the Mormons yourself.
AntiCitizenX 8 months ago
@AntiCitizenX first 20 sec of this wrong. And the ones who believe that... Wrong. Anyway. Revised? Where at bro? I wanna see this. I looked but could not find.
DownHavenFilms 8 months ago
@DownHavenFilms
12 million Mormons around the world will disagree with you and claim an actual physical body for God.
The revised Noah video is linked in the annotation of the old video. It is also currently my latest upload.
AntiCitizenX 8 months ago
if "god" is real, he would have to be a "force" encompassing all existence.
LordHines420 9 months ago
I always had issues with the idea of God having a gender. It just seems like such an obvious case of ingrained sexism, especially since it makes much more logical sense to have a female deity if we are that deity's children.
LifeUntilLove 9 months ago
God has a detachable penis
TheHomelessCripple 10 months ago
I always felt that, imposing a human image on the creator of the universe was enormously arrogant.
kazen2 11 months ago
we all know the real god is either haruhi suzimiya, the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn. simply because they are more awesome and have more kickassery.
( sarcasm)
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 year ago
It's quite funny to me that there are people both stupid and arrogant enough to think their god is another monkey.
But god really tends to be a projection of the believer onto the universe.
It's kind of like how primitive people gave fire a personality and called it a god. So god is giving the universe a human personality. Which of course it doesn't have.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Man being created in Gods image was not actually intended for it to be a physical reference, but rather a spiritual one.. It was a spiritual refference because Adam and Eve were intended to be eternal, perfect and uncorrupted by sin ( as God is ). There are various Biblical quotes that support God's Likness unto man ( before the curse) being a spiritual aspect.
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311
That's not what the Mormons say. Many Christian sects sincerely believe that God's image is a direct reference to the idea that God has a physical, man-like body.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Im sorry , but there is no such thing as a Christian sect. Mormonism, Catholosism are Corrupted versions of Christianity. Im sure you arent interested..but if you delve deep enough youde find just how polar opposite these '' sects'' are from Christianity. - In other news...does the spiritual aspect make sense to you ? I would be more than glad to provide other biblical refferences to clear matters up.
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311
"Im sorry , but there is no such thing as a Christian sect."
Here's just the ones I can list off the top of my head:
Pentecostals, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, Latter Day Saints, Southern Baptists, Christian Scientists, Lutherans, and Methodists.
This list goes on and on, buddy. No Christian sects? Wake up.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Those are considered DENOMINATIONS..some of which couldnt validly fall under Christiantiy. All I ask is if the explanation makes sense. I dont have time to squabble over something I know you are not fully ( spiritually speaking ) aware of. Does it make sense..yes or no ?
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311
Sect and denomination are virtual synonyms in this context. If you can't be bothered to read a damn dictionary, I'm not interested in hearing your philosophical insights.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX If you cant be bothered to answer wheather or not what i said to begin with makes sense, then I will assume your entire video was debunked due to the fact you are beating around the bush . Stop being Naive and just answer the damn question. Other wise you failed at proving God a fluke.
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311 and sorry about that joke but i am just tired and i hit the enter post when i was gone hit the thing next to it, and have you tought he might not answer you cos it is so filled with fail that it could not be answered or something like that or that he is busy or something like that
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 The thing is. I honestly dont need his opinion whether it was right or wrong..because it is right. The Bible NEVER compares Gods features in comparison to that of mans. The fact that this is true , and the verse in Genisis was not speaking physically, totally disrupts the soul purpose of this video. Man isnt the physical replica of God. These assumptions occur when worldly minded people assume things of the bible......And oh LOL and im guessing you where never in a spelling bee ! j/k
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311 all i know is don't take the bible as proof, it is filled with false info and god is too overpowered to even be a working
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 I would like for you to explain where the Bible contains false info. And if it is false, what should it be ? How is God too overpowered ?
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311 god made the earth before the universe, light before anything that can make light (where did the light come from?) earth was formless, if it is in our world it has a form no matter what it looks like even if it change shape, i can go on but that proves the point in flase info and if it is false, as for overpowered, look at what people say he has and you should understand the flaws in he can do what ever he likes
bjam89 1 year ago
@ceriah311 also Noah's ark, the whole god made everything in the form it is now, the sky is solid, the rainbow is proof god wont kill us anymore, there is more but i wont bother listing them all, read your bible and you should find the stuff that turn people away from god
bjam89 1 year ago
@ceriah311 In the Hindu interpretation of God, God is pure consciousness, and a Hindu experiences this through meditation by the cessation of thought which I believe is the natural release of DMT. This is how the Hindus have gained their insight, shamans have known altered states has always been the pathway to God for thousands of years, but this sort of theosophical approach to religion has been lost today, and is only practiced by some. So, God doesn't have a form in this interpretation.
Hanahleia 11 months ago
@hijacker19133 Depends on which god you're talking about.
Also, "man your slow" implies that there is a being called man and he owns a slow. I think the only one that owns a slow here is you, m'kay?
aSkepticalTruth 1 year ago
Hehe, This is awesome.
MonsterEnergyMan 1 year ago
Here's a simple argument: The appendix. Why would God put it in us if it does NOTHING except for randomly kill ya.
procritic09 1 year ago
BRILLIANT argument. If there was no other argument against the existence of a man-like god, then this would still be enough to de-convert me. My favourite is "why does god have genitalia"? Seriously, if god was there first then why the hell does he have reproductive organs?
procritic09 1 year ago
What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us?
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
Why would God need eyes to see? He already knows the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at every given time, so he doesn't need eyes to take in information about the outside world. Same with ears for hearing, and every sense organ. He doesn't need legs to walk, since he could just magical transport himself to anywhere he wanted to go (or already is everywhere to begin with) He doesn't arms to move things, since he could make something move just by thinking about it
Aphex217Twin 1 year ago
Love the video. Although I do think most theists probably don't REALLY see their deity as being essentially human-like. (Although some fundies might, but those are pretty silly anyway.)
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed... Leaving the factor that there was, is and always will be an entity known as God... the father...the Creator. Your thinking in this video is far too Worldly and scientifically literal , too explain what is infinitely spiritual. You cannot use regulations that apply to finite beings. God made man in HIS image after HIS likeness, hence Jesus was also a man like us..
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311
Let's ignore the fluttery religious prose for a moment and think. How do you claim that human beings are made in God's image without simultaneously making the same claim about virtually all other primates? I defy you to come up with significant aspects of a typical human being's morphology that fail to apply equally well to a chimpanzee. The list is countable on one hand. Then come up with a good reason for why a chimp should not also be thought of as "made in God's image."
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@ceriah311
I mean really, guy. Did you even watch the video? Or did you simply miss the part where calling God a "HE" or "THE FATHER" is a dead giveaway that you're just imposing a worldly bias onto your deity? The very concept of gender is meaningless when viewed outside of evolution. Gender exists solely as a mechanism for mixing and matching genes within the offspring of a population. Or have you never wondered why there are only two genders as opposed to three or four?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago 4
@AntiCitizenX "Or have you never wondered why there are only two genders as opposed to three or four?"
... I think you just blew my mind there.
Paur 3 months ago
@ceriah311 matter can be made and destroid you are thinking of energy
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 True indeed. My mistake for that. I hope you understand where I am coming from.
ceriah311 1 year ago
@ceriah311 a failed physics class?
bjam89 1 year ago
hahahahaha! i hope u creationists are paying attention
TheHomelessCripple 2 years ago
He got this screwed up too. Gen 1:27? What about 1:26? "And God said, Let us make man in our image,....". If you dont know what "us" and "our" is referring to you will never understand. The only thing you were right about was around 5:00 in your video. God does not have a physical body. You are like many others that are closed minded and try to explain and debunk the Bible from a physical science point of view. You need to learn and understand more about what you are reading in the Bible.
jimu57 2 years ago
@jimu57
[God does not have a physical body]
There are MANY sects of Christianity that hold to the substantive interpretation. Your personal version of Christianity is not the only one out there, buddy.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
My version is Biblical. When our flesh body dies, we return to God, meaning out soul does. We are either in a physical body or a spiritual body. There is no other option. Flesh is weak and flawed, Spiritual body is not. God created our spiritual body before the foundation of the earth. We have been here before creation of the physical universe. Our souls enter a physical body whe born of a woman and return to God when the flesh body dies. Back to where we came from.
jimu57 2 years ago
@jimu57
So am I correct in assuming that you are one of the rare Christians who does NOT believe God has a physical body complete with flesh, bone, gender, bilateral symmetry, and binocular orbits? Because if you are, then this entire video does not apply to you.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I think God has a spiritual body, not flesh. What his body as well as all other souls are made of, I cannot even guess. I think spiritual bodies are far superior to what we have in flesh. They are sexless, feel no pain, can walk and communicate, and see in some form. The intellect is far superior than flesh bodies. Spiritual bodies is not taught in churches much. Many think the flesh stays in the ground until rapture where the flesh goes into the sky. And dont EVEN get me started on rapture!
jimu57 2 years ago
@jimu57
" I think spiritual bodies are far superior to what we have in flesh. They are sexless, feel no pain, can walk and communicate, and see in some form."
What reason can you think of for this "god" to not give us humans the same spiritual bodies? This would have reduced alot of unecessary suffering (starvation,dissease, ect.)
If you think spiritual bodies are real how do you answer the problem of unnecessary evil with a benevolent god?
qarohc 2 years ago
We have a spirit within us already. That is our soul. We lived in the spiritual world until we were born thru woman and took a flesh body. God created man for his pleasure but later after disobedient and sin set, he was sorry that he created man in the flesh. In the beginning, I feel that man would have lived forever in a flesh body. But with have a free will that caused disobedient to God, God reduced the years man would live to 120 years. What do you mean by unnecessary evil?
jimu57 2 years ago
unnecessary evil- children born with terminal disieses, children that die in natural disasters, babies that throught history have died from drought induced famines.
You believe a loving god made us have these fail bodies knowing that this suffering would be a product of it yet did it anyways. You also believe that he could have made us spiritual beings with none of these frailties yet capable of freewill.
Your spiritual reincarnation idea is interesting but you are making up your own religion.
qarohc 2 years ago
No, this is biblical. I am not making up anything. It comes from studying and not believing false teachings and tradtions of men.
jimu57 2 years ago
Did god not know that humans would behave the way he programed them to behave? Why was he sorry he created them?
Dont you realize that the idea that man is evil and not worthy of "god's" love is a mechanism that is used to manipulate people? An all knowing "god" made us "evil" and we are to blame. Is he incompetent ?
He either enjoys our "evil" or wasnt smart enough to foresee it.
Or maybe its just a myth like the countless other myths people have believed?
qarohc 2 years ago
Well I guess he just messed up. No, seriously, The reason we are is because we are flesh. And I dont mean the skin that covers us, it is the things that the flesh or man desires and tends to need. Some good, some not so good. God didnt make us evil. We have that choice whether to go that route or not.
jimu57 2 years ago
"No, seriously, The reason we are is because we are flesh."
you dint address the objection at all.
You claim that we where made by an incompetent into flesh.
No seriously thats what you are saying.
qarohc 2 years ago
" If you dont know what "us" and "our" is referring to you will never understand."
Please elaborate on this, my understanding is that the word used in Hebrew is Elohim, this word is a plural form of the word god.
Ive read that this is because the early Hebrew roots where polytheistic where the creator god was the head (with a wife even) but he had other lesser gods with him.
You seem to be eluding to some other obvious meaning that i am not picking up on.
qarohc 2 years ago
We existed with God before we were born into flesh. Us and all others/souls/angels... whatever you want to call them. You and I were both in spiritual body with God when Adam was created. Adam was created in OUR image. We look like God as well as each other in our spritual body.
jimu57 2 years ago
What religion are you basing that from? i thought you where a christian but obviously i was wrong. Im not familiar with any sect that teaches that. Bahá'í Faith? im not all that familiar with the particulars of your sect if so.
Also i see a hole in that logic. Why cant we remember that? This is off course assuming your position makes any sense at all ( i dispute that).
qarohc 2 years ago
Christianity. And I not a member of a sect or denomination. I study the Bible with some friends. Deeper study that any church will dare to get into.
A spiritual body has an intellect. The human brain is limited. We only use a small portion. While in the flesh body, the brain blocks out what we knew in our spiritual body. I think that sometimes we do have thinks that of sort of slip by in the form of deja vu.
jimu57 2 years ago
btw, deja vu is the just a feeling of familiarity on earth, which almost always stems from something we forgot about that happened before. deja vu would have nothing to do with remembering the spirit realm if something on earth makes you feel it, which happens 100 percent of the fucking time.
generosos87 2 years ago
you do have a way with words. using "fuck" really makes you powerful and convincing.
jimu57 2 years ago
i consider swear words to be a seasoning onto a sentence, i understand it is the language of the ignorant and so i try not to use it unless i am very angry or appalled at something
generosos87 2 years ago
like if you are very fucking angry? LOL Hey I am a Christian. I know that that word is considered a swear word. That depends on the context. I use it occasionally myself, like when a hammer jumps on my thumb. Ever heard the audio about the F word and the versatility? Sounds like an old grade school film from health. Its hilarious!
jimu57 2 years ago
When we die, the flesh is left behind and we will have complete recall of everything in our spiritual body.
You think any churches are going to teach that? Or even know it?
jimu57 2 years ago
god says, "let us make man in our image" you are still indicating that god has a humanoid body, which is debunked to its fullest in this video, fail
generosos87 2 years ago
you watch too much science fiction. But if humanoid is the best word you have then ok. the supposed eye witnesses of actually seeing aliens describe them as looking similar to us. is that fail too? What kind of body would you like for God to have? also, look at all the different definitions of the word "image".
jimu57 2 years ago
the word humanoid is not a science fiction term from star trek or something, its an actual word used to describe something with humanlike characteristics. i know all the definitions of the word image, it can mental or physical. in that sense one would be implying that god is not similar to a human at all, and he made our design up in his mind.
generosos87 2 years ago
I put it this way. We are similar to God in appearance. Doesnt mean that everything is exact. We are a flesh representation of the spiritual body.
jimu57 2 years ago
@jimu57 What does "Spiritual" mean?
JonathanClement140 1 year ago
@JonathanClement140 === spiritual from "spirit" in Greek
G4151
πνεῦμα
pneuma
pnyoo'-mah
a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christs spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind.
jimu57 1 year ago
lol
bible thumpers would like you to believe that US refers to the trinity, although it is hardly mentioned ever again in the old testament and god is referred to as singular.
generosos87 2 years ago
the phrase "holy spirit" occurs 3 times in the old testament. The reason that "the son" isnt there is because Jesus had not been born. That is in the new testament.
jimu57 2 years ago
i apologize, i forgot about that, thanks, no insults or debunking, just saying hey i made a mistake and thanks for correcting me
generosos87 2 years ago
i read that it refers to the pantheon of gods that was believed in at the time.
Ive read that it refers to the trinity.
Ive read that it refers to one single creature but the wording uses the plural sense to denote grandeur.
Ive read that this is purely a semantic argument and us and me had the same meaning in this text.
I lean towards the pantheon view, mostly because it would have been a popular view at the time. At the time "god" had a wife and children.
None of this is obvious.
qarohc 2 years ago
Damn son! God just got served! :P
LagMasterSam 2 years ago
@LagMasterSam No, man's perception of God just got served.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley
Right. Then what is the difference between God and the perception of God? How could we distinguish between these two things? If there is no way to make the distinction, they can effectively be considered the same thing.
LagMasterSam 1 year ago
@LagMasterSam What is the difference between an apple and my perception of an apple?
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley
An apple is separated from the perception of an apple by establishing a set of criteria that can be used by all observers of an apple to test the apple for qualities which would suggest that an apple exists independent of perception. It's this decentralized verification of the apple that suggests that apples have an existence outside of any single observer.
I must then ask, what test can be used by all observers to verify the existence of any God outside of any single observer?
LagMasterSam 1 year ago
@LagMasterSam
That was a surprisingly insightful response. I may just write that down. :)
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@LagMasterSam Oh, yeah, well you smell like a turd on a hot summer day, so there.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley
LOL. It's amazing that your sense of smell is so veracious that you can determine what I smell like without knowing the circumstances regarding my own personnel existence.
LagMasterSam 1 year ago
@LagMasterSam Hey, keep the human resources department out of this.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley
I don't follow. Could you please elaborate?
LagMasterSam 1 year ago
@LagMasterSam You'll never be Frank Garrett.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley
What is the purpose of making such obscure references? The only Frank Garrett I'm aware of involves the "Duncan Construction" prank phone calls.
LagMasterSam 1 year ago
5:20 Most importantly, if God is an unimaginable "orb of energy", without any recognizable physical manifestation for us to speak of, it removes "God" from any reasonable discussion between earthlings with consciousness and imagination. If God isn't an evolved creature (if it was it wouldn't be God, it would just be another being) then we cannot even remark on it. And the odds of it being the personal caretaker of the Bible would be ridiculously minute
Craigipedia 2 years ago
We are not made in the image of god. Not unless god is a deranged, paranoid, superstitious primate. Which he very well may be.
Raptor302 2 years ago 13
OMFG! JaguarJones and AronRa had a son together!
intelligentfalling 2 years ago 6
@intelligentfalling omg thank you, i was trying to figure out who he was the son of
bjam89 1 year ago
Why would God need nipples? For that matter, why do I (a male) have nipples???? Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder what the grand designer of the universe had in mind when he created man.
averagebear1 2 years ago
Well obviously he likes nipples. If you consider that Eve was made after Adam, it becomes quite clear that god decided to make even larger nipples and put them on top of two large bags of fat to make them really stick out.
Itslvle 2 years ago
@averagebear1
he has a thing for traps?
people, if you dont understand that, just, dont look into it.
AustralianPyro 2 years ago
Brilliant video as always! Keep it up!
NisseHult101 2 years ago
how many women would bang jesus if given the chance?
sum1unxpected 2 years ago
well the jesus i know...im pretty sure none
DosK5495 2 years ago
Jesus would have been gay if we are to believe that he was an unmarried jew in his 30's living at that time.
So your question is invalid : )
qarohc 2 years ago
The God I know is much much more complex than can be explained by human minds. And us being "made in God's image" can be interpreted in many ways, as can much of the Bible. All I can do is tell you that I believe, I have faith because of the proof he's given ME personally. No one should force their beliefs on others, not me, not you, not anyone. Well put together video though...
Nacnueed 2 years ago
Go back and listen to the intro again. The video talks about the people who take the literal interpretation. What proof do you have? That's no the proof I have. God gave me proof that he doesn't exist. He told this to ME personally and directly. No need to have only faith; I have real proof.
charkopolis 2 years ago
God constantly "knocks on the doors" of non-believers' souls. You have to let him in before he can prove to you he exists. I don't know your background, but it seems as though you never let him in... unfortunately it's not as simple as him showing his face, I wish it was, but there's a reason for that much deeper and broader than our human understanding of life.
Nacnueed 2 years ago
Do you ever stop to ponder the reason why God never "proves" himself to some people? Just maybe, it is due to the fact that he simply isn't there. Arbitrarily declaring that people like me just never "let him in" is absolutely condescending. It shows that you will not even consider the alternative explanation. It means no matter how many people fail to find God, you can always just brush it under the rug with an excuse like "he didn't have enough faith." Please try to be more compelling.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Well I dont mean to be condescending it's just what I've been taught. And yes I have considered that he might not be there, i'm not just a retarded lump that sits and reads the Bible all day oblivious to to all other religions and ideas. I just find the world and life without God has no meaning. And even still if that God didn't exist... there's still that "3 o'clock in the morning and a bit drunk" question of what does it all mean? haha
Nacnueed 2 years ago
That was entirely not the response I was expecting. Most folks just get pissy and start throwing around bizarre conspiracy theories and convoluted metaphysics. You actually replied with comprehensive dialogue and a decent bit of humor.
I'm sorry, but YouTube has no place for people like you. The TOS now requires that I ban you from the forum before this gets out of hand...
j/k. If you wish to discuss any particular points, I'd be happy to share a conversation. :)
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Well i'm glad we can have a respectful disagreement which as you say is uncommon in these areas. I wish you all success and keep searching for the answers coz it seems that's what we're here to do... with or without God. Later
Nacnueed 2 years ago
It's simple Nacnueed: we get to chose our own purposes and find our own meanings in life. The simplest one is to be of service to other people.
farvision 2 years ago
its not an excuse. he didnt have the faith. what else can we say? our job is to spread his word and pray that the people receiving the word will take it to heart. if they coose not to, then that is Gods will
DosK5495 2 years ago
this is stupid! we cant compare ourselves to God in this way, we cant compare to him
DosK5495 2 years ago
That doesn't stop the Mormons from doing it anyway.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Well, most Christians do... I mean, Jesus was a physical thing, at some point in time, and Jesus is Yahweh, so Yahweh was a physical being at some point in time...
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Hey, you and I are not god. Isn't that a comparison?
charkopolis 2 years ago
in a sense i suppose. but were not really comparing any our human characteristics with his so not really. your simply stating that i am not God
DosK5495 2 years ago
So, you agree. Great! Why did you bother with all that other fluff?
charkopolis 2 years ago
huh?
DosK5495 2 years ago
I think he meant "compare" in a different sense of the word. He seems to agree with the premise of the video. Some Christian denominations do hold God to be a sort of ethereal spirit, like the glowing Stargate orb.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
omg i hate the krebs cycle got that whole thing wrong on my bio exam
imaqtlolz 2 years ago
This video is full of win. 5 Stars.
On a side note, if I were to believe in the existence of an all-powerful, god-like entity, I would believe that they were a formless shape of shining energy. Mainly for the reasons outlined in this video.
ColonelCosmic 2 years ago
i like how jesus is always white in pix with nice straight hair...thats not at all how people in that area looked during that time lolz...i love me some white jesus with his silky hair
orkasteez 2 years ago 2
In reality, Jesus most likely looked like Yassar Arifat.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
word but that would fuck with the racist right wing nuts jobs fake faith which is based on their ego and need to be absolutely right rather than the all to obvious truths of world being important for future progress<this post was way to long just to agree with you srry i am bored
orkasteez 2 years ago
Another great piece! The Bible refutes itself in its first book when it has God say "Let us make man in our image." Furthermore, unless you assume the "us" and "our" as expressions of the "royal 'we,'" the suggestion is that God is talking to someone outside himself. Angels, perhaps?
Largo64 2 years ago
God speaks as the Trinity. He speaks amongst the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ` εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ` ὁμοίωσιν·... ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ Ι·26. The word εἰκόνα, meaning picture, is used, not μόρφη, meaning face or form. Modern views of God are twisted intrying to determine anything about him, because the infinite is immeasurable and beyond any limits.
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
Don't forget that even calling God a "him" is a dead giveaway that we are just imposing ourselves into something we don't understand.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
We use Him so as no to imply an inanimate object. I've recently been looking into evolution. Assuming every living organism has one common ancestor, what if, by "in our image," it is meant that all life is a reflection of his image? That the entire Cosmos is in his image?
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
I guess that is fair enough. If we're going to assign God a pronoun, then I guess "he" is as good as any. Still, there are many sects (especially Mormons) who think the idea of "image" actually means a human-male figure with two-arms, two-legs, etc. What would you say to such folks?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
No living man has ever seen God. Also, as I have pointed out, we can draw the wrong idea from the Bible. It was written so that the people of its time could understand it. Everything we "know" of God is all based on conceptions, ideas, and tradition. All humans need to realized how ignorant every one of us really are.
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
"No living man has ever seen God."
Mormons will disagree entirely on this one, claiming that Joseph Smith himself personally saw God face to face.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
lol
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
ROFL
:P
jitendar124 2 years ago
Your should google Shiur Kommah (or variant transliterations)--this is a species of Rabbinic literature which describes god's body in detail, giving the absolute size of each part. His penis, as I recall, is 55 million miles long.
HConstantine 2 years ago
55 million miles? Damn!
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
There's a lot of detail in your straw man, but it's still a straw man argument. John 4:24 says God is spirit. So any Bible believing Christian doesn't believe what you assert many churches do. It's also not a very good argument to take what another position "implies" and make it out as their main point. But other than that I pretty much agree, God doesn't need all that stuff.
moklh 2 years ago
You make a valid criticism, but many faiths (especially Mormons) do attribute a physical body/gender to God. It is these people I'm debunking. If you really do think God is some ethereal spirit, then this video does not apply to you (which is a point I do try to make towards the end with the Star Gate scenes at 5:20).
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
i remember reading in genesis that god said Let us Create man in OUR image. a spirit doesnt have a physical image. or do you not believe what the bible says do you just take what u want out of it? yes i think so. the only straw man here is u. if u only had a brain
TheSMIT3R 2 years ago
Another quick point: If God made man in his image 6000 years ago, and populations split off after the "flood," wouldn't the same types of rapid evolution that resulted in the tiny variations within ethnicities have been at work throughout recorded history? Someone from Korea and someone from Kenya and someone from indigenous sections of Ecuador have different physical traits. Why haven't blended populations (such as within the U.S.) developed their own distinctive traits over a few centuries?
Taughtology 2 years ago 2
did you pray to god to tell him you have this thing called an inbox of your e-mail adress where he can defend his existence? :P
Veratoch 2 years ago
This is a ludicrous comedic series. I thought it was going to be about REAL & GENUINE research. Your prime premise is skewed: God is NOT in the "image of man, but man is in the "Image" of God. It has to do with the Holographic (Image) Principle integrated in Supersymmetry & Superstring M-Theory dealing with the "Heterotic E8 x E8" model where superstrings possess heterogeneous attributes emulating a former state between God & us, & He is the "Super Eidolon" (Super Image), we are a hologram.
Eschatus2 3 years ago
Is this a satire? It's hard to tell sometimes.
AntiCitizenX 3 years ago
Comment removed
semasiologistics 2 years ago
When the author dies the reader is born. In this particular case, 95% of people will not understand anything you wrote and will just go on to other comments. Obviously. If you were really "about god " why leave out so much of the audience? If this was what you were about, why not explain it for all the 'esoterically nescient' readers? Or do you actually want a handful of specialists to think you some anagogic genius? I think an important quality of communication is forethought.
semasiologistics 2 years ago 2
I think he just grabbed a bunch of random techno-sounding words and strung them together. It is so nonsensical in fact that I can't even be sure it's not just some random dude trying to be funny. It would be really sad if the comment were legitimately serious.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Shit man you could have just said Think before speaking.
DobermansRock 2 years ago
I disagree, your saying applies to all speaking (techincal, spoken or what have you). Such a saying would not equal (=) what I said. Everyone "thinks before and during speaking." The saying is a poor one. How could a person |not think| and |just speak|? Speaking is a cognitive process which requires exactly that. Forethought. Give yourself a few months to address the expression in your mind (here and there), and you will most likely conclude it nearly fully wortheless, too.
semasiologistics 2 years ago
You are a fuckin NUT JOB. Think before you speak is a known. There are no variables.
DobermansRock 2 years ago
I did not say that your saying is not a "known"... nor anything like it. I, instead, looked at it for what it was worth and exposed it accordingly. Cant hack people taking you seriously? Then why are you even making the effort? My point stands just the same. Your 'summing up' of what I said was not what I said. Sorry.
semasiologistics 2 years ago
Do you always get this argumentative when people use figurative language?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
For the most part. I work on ACFT so we are a sarcastic breed.
DobermansRock 2 years ago
Yep
DobermansRock 2 years ago
Sorry, I was addressing Semasiolomajigger. I knew perfectly well what you meant, yet the guy went on a philosophical orgy of over-analyzing the literal meaning of an expression that was obviously just a figure of speech. Makes you wonder if he does this at parties, and if people ever just get fed up and punch him in the scrotum.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
My bad. Keep up the good work
DobermansRock 2 years ago
I do not understand your question. It is as if I was wrong to respond in the way that I did. If you are not open to people expressing themselves, then what is the point of speaking? Obviously this is the internet and obviously then people are going to read given information differently. It is not because he was figurative that I could not address his grandiose tool literally. Where did you find that rule? Nice attitude...
semasiologistics 2 years ago
You did not do anything wrong. You just did something very bizarre. It reminded me a lot of an experience I once had after calling a young lady and having her dad answer the phone:
"Is so-and-so home?"
"Yes she is."
[awkward silence]
"er... could you give her the phone then?"
and so on. The expression "is she home?" has greater implied meaning than just the literal interpretation of the question. The expression "Think before you speak" is the same. Yet you over-analyzed it anyway.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
1. What did I "overanalyze"? And, what was it that I did that was "very" "bizarre"? I contextualized a common saying. My question "what did I do wrong" was hardly literal, yet you seem content to humour yourself in answering it with redundant adverbs like 'over' and 'very'. Again, I did not merely circumlocute "think before you speak" but used the saying as a complement to rules like Orwell's.
semasiologistics 2 years ago
2. If you are unable to distinguish between 'think before you speak' and what I said then maybe you ought to pay a bit more atttention to what you read. Regardless, your standards are [at best] interpretational, and not at all objective. Hence, you are the one who still needs to excuse himself as you were the one (alongside the other gifted gentlemen) who spit in my face. I'll just stick with what I said: Nice attitude. Not surprised.
semasiologistics 2 years ago
Also, "AnitCitizenX", he did not just....USE figurative language. This is incorrect. He criticized me by saying that all I basically said amounted to his saying. That was wrong and thus his criticism passes as meaningless. It does not matter if he was being literal or figurative, the use of his language was criticism. Of course I am going to return to show him his error. So, yes I am "this" argumentative.
semasiologistics 2 years ago
haha, jesus. He didn't skew the principle point. he entertained that if we are replicas of god, then he must have the same characteristics as us otherwise we would look like pretty poor products of replication.
OmnipotentGodOfAll 2 years ago
oh and apologies for the 'he', 'twas in response to Eschatus2
OmnipotentGodOfAll 2 years ago
I have four tits.
chalkers 3 years ago
My girlfriend has four cunts!!!
nedbeaty72 2 years ago
How awesome!!!
chalkers 2 years ago
i think god may look like a man-seal-tiger-shark bred with a chicken-car-whale-velocoraptor-cobra
chickenmolester69 3 years ago 4
Isn't that how they depicted him on "South Park?"
AntiCitizenX 3 years ago
maybe Adam and Eve whined about how ridiculous their bodies looked and god told them he had the same body, to make them shut up: P nice vid 5/5.
ItsADoomsdayDevice 3 years ago 5
my theory: god created man in his image. now, perhaps the focus is not on HIS but on IMAGE. possibly god has some image, painting or whatever hanging on a wall and he decided to use it as a blueprint for humans.
igottaexplain 3 years ago