Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
NuttyKaks

What does God look like?

1,050 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Marcion Meets E. Sibyl

The problem with Gnosticism regarding Christianity is that most do not believe in the Divinity or the miracles of Jesus, and that the Bible is allagorical and the real knowledge of the Bible is encoded into the various scriptures. So that the Bible and Christianity is not about a relationship with Jesus, it is about the discovery of knowledge hidden and secret, which provides power/authority over others.

The one is not compatible with the other. It is like claiming Astrology and Alchemy are equal with modern science.

It doesn't have to be compatible. I think of Gnosticism as another path to God through Christ, the Holy Spirit... The Bible is one narrative, and Gnosticism is another. No one has a monopoly on God, or the way to God. I saw a Being who has the power to resurrect and remove a soul from the Void (or "Outer Darkness"). That's the real deal to me...and the rest is, as far as a holy book is concerned, just another theory, or even a political spin, with resonant things to me, however, because again, due to my direct experience of my "Lord." I saw, and now I'm piecing my puzzle, while removing the stuff that don't make sense or too off base from the real "thing." Edited by No-thingBornPassion
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmisal

What does God look like? I've always wondered this question. Anyone have any good theories? :unsure2:

(Atheists, I already know what you'll say... I've already heard it billions of times that God doesn't exist. Just don't post it please. Thanks...)

Jesus is express image of God, he also told his disciples 'if you've seen me you've seen the father (God)'. We may not know how Jesus looked physically but the bible tells us a whole lot about how he looks in terms of personality and character

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

Jesus is express image of God, he also told his disciples 'if you've seen me you've seen the father (God)'. We may not know how Jesus looked physically but the bible tells us a whole lot about how he looks in terms of personality and character

And what is your evidence that "Jesus is express image of God" [sic]? There are those who say that Krishna is the incarnation of deity, or that everything in the universe is an expression of God: or, there are those like me who say that God looks like nothing, because he isn't real :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken

God can take on many forms. He has been known to take on the forms of

George Burns (Oh God) and Morgan Freedman (Almighty Bruce). :w00t:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Gomes

There is different views about god, but I think if we leave imagination and see the reality so god may look like our parents and our teachers who made us able to understand and to explain everything in this world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmisal

And what is your evidence that "Jesus is express image of God" [sic]? There are those who say that Krishna is the incarnation of deity, or that everything in the universe is an expression of God: or, there are those like me who say that God looks like nothing, because he isn't real :innocent:

Well, I don't know if you are a Christian but my bible tells me in Hebrews 1:3 "...He (Jesus)is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature...". Other religions have their own explanation of God, but I'm a Christian and I gave an opinion based on the bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmisal

And what is your evidence that "Jesus is express image of God" [sic]? There are those who say that Krishna is the incarnation of deity, or that everything in the universe is an expression of God: or, there are those like me who say that God looks like nothing, because he isn't real :innocent:

Well, I don't know if you are a Christian but my bible in Hebrews 1:3 says "... He (Jesus) is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature...". Other religion have their explanation of God but I'm a Christian and I gave an opinion based on what the Bible teaches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

Well, I don't know if you are a Christian but my bible tells me in Hebrews 1:3 "...He (Jesus)is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature...". Other religions have their own explanation of God, but I'm a Christian and I gave an opinion based on the bible.

I am not a Christian ^_^ I used to be, but I'm an atheist now.

If I may: why would you use the Bible as a source? Why would you base opinions off of it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin

Jeanne dArc,

When one is talking about God why not use his word? After all anything else just seems to be opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

Jeanne dArc,

When one is talking about God why not use his word? After all anything else just seems to be opinion.

Because it is entirely opinion that a god exists, or that the Bible is "his word". Worst of all it is infinitely interpretable: nobody can seem to agree on what it "actually" says :innocent:

As an atheist scientist, I have no reason to believe that a god exists, and I have even less reason to believe that the Bible is an authoritative text.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

I have to ask, which god? Because I know The Invisible Pink Unicorn really looks green slimey mold, she just made herself invisible and changed her name. And Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like a red saucy dripping glob of mangled meat and spicy tomato sauce over hundreds, maybe thousands, of noodly appendages. Kind of like Cthulhu, only no mouth. He came to me in a dream and said "save the aguave" or save the agua ar some crap.

So now I'm on a mission from god. Like Jake and Elwood.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I am not a Christian ^_^ I used to be, but I'm an atheist now.

If I may: why would you use the Bible as a source? Why would you base opinions off of it?

We know that the Books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd century, by the style, and by examples, and by the writings of others who commented on them. Thus we know that it is likely that when those who wrote these parts of the Bible wrote about such things as how the Romans punished criminals, and how the Jews would have acted about the Sabbath, things that would have been Everyday occurrences to many of them, we don't need to doubt them the same that we would say... turning water into wine.....

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

We know that the Books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd century, by the style, and by examples, and by the writings of others who commented on them. Thus we know that it is likely that when those who wrote these parts of the Bible wrote about such things as how the Romans punished criminals, and how the Jews would have acted about the Sabbath, things that would have been Everyday occurrences to many of them, we don't need to doubt them the same that we would say... turning water into wine.....

Not really sure what you're getting at, haha :lol: And yeah, I would agree that the gospels (not necessarily all the books of the New Testament) were written in the late 1st Century through the late 2nd Century. So what? They weren't eyewitnesses, and even if they had been written at the same time as their alleged events, that wouldn't necessarily make them credible. There are no contemporary sources which corroborate their claims. And you'd think that dead rising from their graves, or things like that, would be worthy of historical note, right?

And it isn't assured that things like the Sabbath would have been commonplace to the authors of the gospels: they were written mostly in Greek, indicating the possibility that they weren't even native to Palestine (they may or may not have been). A Grecian Roman needn't necessarily have been familiar with Palestinian culture at that time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcion Meets E. Sibyl

We know that the Books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd century, by the style, and by examples, and by the writings of others who commented on them. Thus we know that it is likely that when those who wrote these parts of the Bible wrote about such things as how the Romans punished criminals, and how the Jews would have acted about the Sabbath, things that would have been Everyday occurrences to many of them, we don't need to doubt them the same that we would say... turning water into wine.....

The biggest problem with basing one's beliefs on certain "holy" books is the lack of "otherworldly" awareness to judge their integrity and worthiness. Edited by No-thingBornPassion
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The biggest problem with basing one's beliefs on certain "holy" books is the lack of "otherworldly" awareness to judge their integrity and worthiness.

I think the term used is "judge the teachings off the fruit".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Not really sure what you're getting at, haha :lol: And yeah, I would agree that the gospels (not necessarily all the books of the New Testament) were written in the late 1st Century through the late 2nd Century. So what? They weren't eyewitnesses, and even if they had been written at the same time as their alleged events, that wouldn't necessarily make them credible. There are no contemporary sources which corroborate their claims. And you'd think that dead rising from their graves, or things like that, would be worthy of historical note, right?

And it isn't assured that things like the Sabbath would have been commonplace to the authors of the gospels: they were written mostly in Greek, indicating the possibility that they weren't even native to Palestine (they may or may not have been). A Grecian Roman needn't necessarily have been familiar with Palestinian culture at that time.

There are contemporary writtings by the Romans, and the Greeks and the Egyptians, and the various middle eastern peoples, who corroborate the various day-to-day events in the Bible. Will people really say, "Everything in the Bible is made up, so we can't know that they had bread and wine back then"? See my point? There is no point to lying about how the Jews along with the Romans crucified people. The people who wrote the various Books of the Bible would have no reason to make up a fact that the Jews took down Crucifixion victims before a holy day.

There is doubt due to religious disbelief and then there is just stubborn refusal to believe anything that comes out of the Bible. Taking people down off a cross before a Sabboth holiday is not a supernatural event and does not need to be treated with the skepticism of such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

There are contemporary writtings by the Romans, and the Greeks and the Egyptians, and the various middle eastern peoples, who corroborate the various day-to-day events in the Bible. Will people really say, "Everything in the Bible is made up, so we can't know that they had bread and wine back then"? See my point? There is no point to lying about how the Jews along with the Romans crucified people. The people who wrote the various Books of the Bible would have no reason to make up a fact that the Jews took down Crucifixion victims before a holy day.

There is doubt due to religious disbelief and then there is just stubborn refusal to believe anything that comes out of the Bible. Taking people down off a cross before a Sabboth holiday is not a supernatural event and does not need to be treated with the skepticism of such.

Strange that you focus so much on that particular thing about removing crucifixion victims before a holy day; I never even mentioned that :lol: Yes, we have contemporary writings describing what life was like in those places; not everybody would have had access to said writings, is my point. A literate Grecian Roman, again, would not necessarily have been familiar with the lives of Jews in Jerusalem. My main point though was that we don't have any contemporary writings describing the life of Jesus, or the alleged miraculous events of the gospels. You'd think that somebody would have written something down :innocent: Otherwise it seems as though Jesus (if he existed at all) was incredibly minor figure, such that his life made no impact whatsoever on historians or record-keepers of his time. Which isn't exactly what we'd expect to find if he'd had a following of the sort described in the gospels: it's almost as if it were exaggerated.... or fictional..... :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcion Meets E. Sibyl

I think the term used is "judge the teachings off the fruit".

I'm not going to disagree with you on that, but I'm also not going to agree with you because I don't have the whole picture, even though my in-your-face experience of my "Lord" gives me a great deal of insight. The biggest truth that's in ALL the holy books is l.o.v.e. In the end, love should be the most important aspect of Christianity, collectively speaking, and that includes Gnosticism, for the "Lord" is about love, "unconditional love" power, not the "...thou shalt nots, thou shalt this, dotting the eyes, and crossing the teeth." The "Lord" is NOT a petty God. Forgiveness is part of love, and I'm not talking about forgiveness of "sins" but our day to day trespasses (to other human beings).
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmisal

I am not a Christian ^_^ I used to be, but I'm an atheist now.

If I may: why would you use the Bible as a source? Why would you base opinions off of it?

The same reason you use science as your source and basis for your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

The same reason you use science as your source and basis for your opinion.

I highly doubt it ^_^ I use science as a source and basis for opinion, for one, because I'm a scientist, and second, because science is based on evidence and reason. So ultimately, reason and evidence are my sources and bases for opinion. Science is just the methodology by which we use reason and evidence to ascertain information about reality.

So you still haven't really answered my question: why do you think that the Bible should be regarded as authoritative and worthy of use as a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handguns

<-------

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

What does God look like? I've always wondered this question. Anyone have any good theories? :unsure2:

(Atheists, I already know what you'll say... I've already heard it billions of times that God doesn't exist. Just don't post it please. Thanks...)

1 Corinthians 2:16 - Don't you know that you're God's temple and that God's spirit dwells in you midst?

The Bible also says that heaven is a state of mind not a place you go to after death.

My answer is you're God but don't realise it.

If you want your life to go well then you need to control your ways of thinking and ways of behaving. When you do reality plays out differently because you're creating your reality (you're God). The correct ways of thinking and behaving are laid out in full in the Bible, Quran, or whatever faith a person belongs too.

You could call it Karma.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I'm not going to disagree with you on that, but I'm also not going to agree with you because I don't have the whole picture, even though my in-your-face experience of my "Lord" gives me a great deal of insight. The biggest truth that's in ALL the holy books is l.o.v.e. In the end, love should be the most important aspect of Christianity, collectively speaking, and that includes Gnosticism, for the "Lord" is about love, "unconditional love" power, not the "...thou shalt nots, thou shalt this, dotting the eyes, and crossing the teeth." The "Lord" is NOT a petty God. Forgiveness is part of love, and I'm not talking about forgiveness of "sins" but our day to day trespasses (to other human beings).

If I ever meet a Gnostic Christian who is focused on Love, I'll surely speak to him and consider him a Brother. But, from what I've gathered online most people who call themselves Gnostics are not interested in loving people, or teaching, but interested in expounding on how much they know and how smart they are. This is just my personal experience however.

Still I do not consider Mormons to be Christians, though many others do. And it is not like I hate Mormons, I just think that their belief system does not mesh into mine. Same with Gnostic Christians, they might use the same scriptures, but they don't mesh into my belief system any better then a Muslim, or Hindu does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Strange that you focus so much on that particular thing about removing crucifixion victims before a holy day; I never even mentioned that :lol: Yes, we have contemporary writings describing what life was like in those places; not everybody would have had access to said writings, is my point. A literate Grecian Roman, again, would not necessarily have been familiar with the lives of Jews in Jerusalem. My main point though was that we don't have any contemporary writings describing the life of Jesus, or the alleged miraculous events of the gospels. You'd think that somebody would have written something down :innocent: Otherwise it seems as though Jesus (if he existed at all) was incredibly minor figure, such that his life made no impact whatsoever on historians or record-keepers of his time. Which isn't exactly what we'd expect to find if he'd had a following of the sort described in the gospels: it's almost as if it were exaggerated.... or fictional..... :devil:

I agree with your Main Point. There is no real evidence that comes from outside the Church that he actually walked the Earth.

My own point was originally about the crosses and that they could have been reused. And to counter that they didn't reuse them, because people were left to rot, I posted that Jesus was taken down because the Sabboth was coming on. That was not a supernatural event. It was a cultural event. And the people who wrote the Books of the Bible would have still been living in that same Jewish/Roman culture, and so my reasoning was that they wrote what actually happened regarding crucifixions. The people crucified in those centuries were taken down before the Sabboth. Which would mean they were not left to rot, and thus the crosses could have been reused many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcion Meets E. Sibyl

If I ever meet a Gnostic Christian who is focused on Love, I'll surely speak to him and consider him a Brother. But, from what I've gathered online most people who call themselves Gnostics are not interested in loving people, or teaching, but interested in expounding on how much they know and how smart they are. This is just my personal experience however.

Still I do not consider Mormons to be Christians, though many others do. And it is not like I hate Mormons, I just think that their belief system does not mesh into mine. Same with Gnostic Christians, they might use the same scriptures, but they don't mesh into my belief system any better then a Muslim, or Hindu does.

That's sad. It only shows their ignorance, especially since we all have that indwelling spark, and with that in mind, we are all in this together, to help each other out -- to find the truth, to raise the general well being of humanity. Gnosticism has its merits (to benefit a person), and as I have said, "The biggest problem with basing one's beliefs on certain 'holy' books is the lack of 'otherworldly' awareness to judge their integrity and worthiness." Nevertheless, I take in the necessary and eject the worthless info, just like you. I always believe in concrete results; otherwise, they're just mind stuff. That's the biggest lesson I've learned during my "channeling" years as a meditation teacher in the Swami Rudrananda (Bhagavan Nityananda) lineage. Edited by No-thingBornPassion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.