Think about how “solid” is defined. Something is solid when another “solid” object cannot penetrate it without pushing something out of the way, This doesn’t say anything about why, and does not imply that atoms or subatomic particles are crammed right next to one another. Solidness is not an illusion - the idea that a solid thing has no space is just a misunderstanding from being unable to see the real situation.
If I (or another human) asked God to let me see Him I would expect to see Him as I would another human, not in my imagination,or mind but some physical presence that I could see. I think you are stating that you are the only one who has the correct intreptation. I do not claim to ‘know’ what was said or intended 5,000 years ago, and I have the right the same as you to intrepet it, as I see it. There are 2 sides to every coin (or pancake) and the value is somewhere in-between. What you assume is your assumption, not what I am claiming, as I do not believe Moses spoke to any God nor did any God speak to a Moses.
You are accepting the belief that Man’s writings were the writings of God Or His word, or Inspired by a God, but it was Humans that decided this, no Supreme being, as I stated before, the Bible is no more the word of God than the Koran or even the fairy tales. Believe it if you wish, and if that helps you fine. That is your right just as not accepting the word of humans as the word of God is mine.
First prove with out using the Bible( that Moses existed), but by historical evidence, then talk about it.
Yes, that is what I said.
Oh, no you don’t, monavis. You’re the one who said that the Bible teaches that God is material in nature, and that this was supposedly demonstrated by his appearance to Moses. In other words, we are not debating God’s existence; rather, we are talking about whether your interpretation of Exodus 33:23 is accurate, regardless of whether God exists or not.
One cannot back out of this by saying, “But you haven’t proven that God exists!” That’s not the topic under discussion.
I don’t care what you expect or not. Expectation is not the same as reality.
If you’re going to argue that Exodus 33:23 demonstrates God’s material existence because you’d (ahem) expect him to manifest himself physically, then you’ll need a stronger argument than that. Especially since the verse in question can be easily interpreted as a figure of speech.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Exodus 33:23 was meant in a 100% literal way. Let’s suppose that God did literally face Moses, and then turned around such that Moses would then view his back. How does this prove that God was material? As I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t. One could assume that God had a literal face and a literal back, and yet this still doesn’t prove that his face and back were composed of the same substance that you and I consist of. In other words, as I’ve pointed out numerous times now, you are assuming the very claim that you are purporting to defend.
As a matter of fact, I do believe that my interpretation is more parsimonious and more harmonious with the totality of Genesis. As I’ve repeatedly reminded you though, that is beside the point. The point is that your argument hinges on your interpretation being the only possible one. My argument does not. In fact – again, as I have repeatedly reminded you – I pointed out that even if Exodus 33:23 was meant literally, it still does not prove that God is inherently material in nature.
Y’know, I try to be patient with people. It seems to me, however, that you’re not trying very hard to grasp these arguments. I hope I’m wrong, but I strongly suspect that you’re going to arguing in this manner. I would find that to be very disappointing indeed.
I have said my intreptation is as valid as yours. As I read the story of Moses I intrepret it, that Moses expected to see a material being, or he would not see it if it were invisible. So God would have to materialize to be seen! You interpet it your way and I and others mine, we could both be wrong. You are the one who insists your way is the only way, not me. It seems to bother you that I see it one way and you another. Neither of us were there to witness the event so we could both be wrong. You are makeing yourself the only correct intrepreter…not me.
How do you prove you are the only one that can intrepet the writings? By what authority do you use?
As far as I am concerned you can believe what you wish, it seems to help you to think that, and I agree to disagree!
As post script to my other post; According to the psalmist all men are gods,so that would mean god is also material in that sense. Jesus used this psalm when accused of calling god his father, He was quoted as saying,“Why do you say I blaspheme when I call god my Father when your fathers did”, he also is quoted as saying, “my father and yours” many times and quoted as telling his followers to pray"Our Father".
No, it would not. Even if we take that remark to be literal, your interpretation amounts to saying, “All men are gods. Men are material. Therefore, God is material.” It’s like saying, “All cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs are cats.”
As for Psalm 82, to which you are obviously referring, the context shows that Asaph was speaking ironically when he wrote those words.
And I strongly disagree, but that’s beside the point. As I have reminded you numerous times now, your entire argument is predicated on your “material” interpretation being the ONLY possible one.
The problem is that you painted yourself into a corner. When I pointed out the possibility of a figurative interpretation (which I daresay is more harmonious with the rest of the Biblical writings), you had to start emphasizing that other interpretations are possible. That’s well and good, but if you adopt that viewpoint, then you can no longer insist that the Bible specifically declares that God is material. Not with any measure of consistency, that is.
And again, as I have repeatedly pointed out, even a literal interpretation of Exodus still does not prove your case.
Y’know, I try to be patient with people. However, I think that you are going to continue to protest, “But my interpretation is still possible! I think it’s just as good as yours!” and so forth, and so on, even though this ultimately disproves your case. Sigh.
I’m convinced-God is unreal and immaterial.
The children are playing in the flower beds again.
The adults can tell the flowers from the weeds.
The dog barks at midnight.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The mission is a go. Meet the others at the safehouse.
The singularity is near…ABORT…ABORT!!!
It is psalm 181 in one version 182 in another. Your analogy is not how I see it,I am saying, that in my intrepretation Jesus is making his claim as having god as his father, because all men according to the psalmist, are gods and sons of god.
There are many religions and many ways of interpretating the Bible hence so many religions. I should know my intent better than you know my intent, and have no quarrel with you differing with me. Heck,I do not care even if you claim to have been there and witnessed the whole event!
You make a good point…even without trying!
That was fun.
At least he got half of it right. God is immaterial. Mainly because matter is only a perception of certain frequencies of energy.
You keep saying that over and over, as though it somehow proves your point.
Earlier on, I predicted that you would continue to say, “But there are other possible interpretations! My interpretation is just as good as yours!” as though this somehow supports your claim – namely, that the Bible specifically teaches that God is *necessarily *material. I am disappointed that you persist in using this approach.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that in order for your claim to hold true, it’s not enough to merely declare that there are multiple possible interpretations? Common sense dictates that this undermines your specific claim rather than supporting it.