Do pets go to heaven?

[Chuck_G]

My family has a pit bull named Chester. Chester is one of those dogs' that have what some call a "human like" personality. I am away from home for many months at a time and when I come home he just goes crazy. Runs through the house like, well like a "maddog", then sits at my feet. If I get angry with him he knows it and stays away but yet if I get angry at something I am working on for instance, he will come and lick me as if he wants me to calm down.

Chester is getting old and I suspect he only has a few more years left in him. I have no doubt that he loves my family and we certainly love him.

So, will God spare his "soul" and allow him through the pearly gates?

Or will he just be dead and return to nature?

Does he even have a "soul"?

[Justin108]

While not inferior, it would be entirely redundant. It would not make sense for an entity who has no limits in what it can do to have these components.

Why? I mean, seriously. Why?

I have been answering this question over and over. Another example: toes are for balance. Does God need toes to balance? No. So why does he have toes? I can go on and on. God has all of these things he has no use for. It makes no sense for him to have them.

Every part of any living entity has a specific function that aides in their survival, down to the teeth we have to accommodate our diets. For it to be purely aesthetic in God's case would be far too convenient an excuse. God having legs when he could literally be everywhere and anywhere in a flash makes as much sense as a teleportation device having wheels, wings and a safety belt.

Well, you and I can fly, and go 100 mph in a car if we want to, or strap wings to our backs and look down upon eagles. Does that make OUR legs redundant?

Are you being serious? Despite planes and cars, it's obvious we greatly depend on our legs in our daily lives. This is not true for God. God does not depend on anything. Supposing we could cut God's legs off, it would not hinder him in the least. Our legs are not redundant. God's legs are.

Now, I'm not claiming that God MUST have a physical form in order to be God. However, I honestly do not see how anybody can dictate to God that He must not have one. (edit to add, because I can do that...) Most Christians, including us, believe that Jesus Christ is also God. We also believe that He has a physical body; He was resurrected into one, actually. There's nothing in the bible that tells us that He lost it again.

So, whether one is a modalist, a trinatarian or...whatever it is we are...then God has a body, according to our beliefs. I figure it's just a case of Him telling us stuff rather than us telling Him.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was written with God as a physical entity with a human body in mind. I just expected man to have at least evolved in their belief to a lesser rediculous notion of a non-humanoid-primate god. Even when I was a Christian, the idea of a literal bearded man in the sky was too rediculous for me.

I take it you don't believe in evolution so I won't get into why that completely discredits your belief in a bipedal humanoid mammal god, but the idea just seems rediculous. It's a primitive, outdated concept. Even when I was a Christian, even as a child, I believed God to be some sort of force entity. A biological bipedal humanoid mammal as a God is just absurd.

I would be careful about making assumptions like this. While there are a few Mormons who are believers in a literal 24 hour day week long creation that happened about 6,000 years ago, I personally don't know any. Me? I believe rather strongly in evolution.

So let me get this straight... God designed a process where biological organisms would develop over time to become closer and closer to what God looks like? He designed it so that eventually, single cell organisms would develop to slowly have organs like God, eyes like God, ears like God, limbs like God... The only difference being we actually have a use for these organs. If you knew anything about evolution, you would know we have the organs and extremities we have as a result of environmental pressure to adapt to our surroundings. So the organs and limbs we needed to adapt to our environment just happens to look exactly like God's who did not need to adapt to any environment?

God: "hey, look at how nifty that opposable thumb is to these primates. I never needed to use it. I just shape matter with my mind. I'm glad these guys finally found a use for it though"

Diana if I haven't demonstrated why this notion is rediculous by now then I never will

So the fruit of knowledge of good and evil do not give knowledge of good and evil...?

The idea, I think, is that this is the metaphorical description of the first act that established the knowledge of good and evil. BTW, we have a rather different view of Adam and Eve than most Christians. We rather admire both of 'em.

I never understood how Christians choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. When I gave you the metaphorical interpretation of our resembling God, you dismissed it by saying "no. It says image", yet here you're adamant that the fruit is meant to be a metaphor? How do you decide which is metaphor and which isn't?

Why didn't Jesus just cast the demons out into nothingness? Why did he have to afflict pigs at all? He could have cast the demons directly to hell. The fact that he didn't care to and instead cast them into pigs means pigs don't matter to him at all.

Please remember that swine were, to the Jewish culture of the time (as they are now) unclean animals; not to be eaten, not to be used. The idea of casting those demons into swine IS casting them into hell, symbolically. Please don't forget that Jesus was a Jew; He not only was raised in and lived with that culture, He was TEACHING the folks of that culture.

So Jesus caused the suffering of innocent animals for the sake of a metaphor..? Isn't he just such an artist

[dianaiad]

While not inferior, it would be entirely redundant. It would not make sense for an entity who has no limits in what it can do to have these components.

Why? I mean, seriously. Why?

I have been answering this question over and over. Another example: toes are for balance. Does God need toes to balance? No. So why does he have toes? I can go on and on. God has all of these things he has no use for. It makes no sense for him to have them.

We don't need our appendixes, either, but we have them. Mind you, that may well not be an exact analogy, but...

If God wants to walk upon the ground, wouldn't He require those things that allow Him to walk upon the ground?

I don't understand the idea that He MUST not have a body. Makes no sense to me. Indeed, your argument is contradictory:

God can do anything He wants to...EXCEPT have a body?

Every part of any living entity has a specific function that aides in their survival, down to the teeth we have to accommodate our diets. For it to be purely aesthetic in God's case would be far too convenient an excuse. God having legs when he could literally be everywhere and anywhere in a flash makes as much sense as a teleportation device having wheels, wings and a safety belt.

Well, you and I can fly, and go 100 mph in a car if we want to, or strap wings to our backs and look down upon eagles. Does that make OUR legs redundant?

Are you being serious?

Absolutely.

Despite planes and cars, it's obvious we greatly depend on our legs in our daily lives. This is not true for God. God does not depend on anything. Supposing we could cut God's legs off, it would not hinder him in the least. Our legs are not redundant. God's legs are.

So are ours, if we compensate. One of my son's friends is a paraplegic. He's also one of the best local hang glider pilots we have around here. He's constantly giving my son strong competition for the trophies.

He'd be able to take off better if he could run, but he's figured out a different way. The POINT here is that it's not our position to dictate to God how He does things. It IS our job to figure out how, I firmly believe. Our bodies are not handicaps in that arena, nor would, I figure, one be a handicap to God Himself. The problem here is...yes, legs allow us to do things. Why do you insist that God must do those things in a different way in order to be God?

Now, I'm not claiming that God MUST have a physical form in order to be God. However, I honestly do not see how anybody can dictate to God that He must not have one. (edit to add, because I can do that...) Most Christians, including us, believe that Jesus Christ is also God. We also believe that He has a physical body; He was resurrected into one, actually. There's nothing in the bible that tells us that He lost it again.

So, whether one is a modalist, a trinatarian or...whatever it is we are...then God has a body, according to our beliefs. I figure it's just a case of Him telling us stuff rather than us telling Him.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was written with God as a physical entity with a human body in mind. I just expected man to have at least evolved in their belief to a lesser rediculous notion of a non-humanoid-primate god. Even when I was a Christian, the idea of a literal bearded man in the sky was too rediculous for me.

Why? What have you got against the human body, that you figure that no deity would condescend to inhabit one? What's WRONG with us?

Our bodies allow us to do all sorts of things that our minds want to do, and if we can't use our arms and legs, we figure out some other way.

In other words, our bodies, guided by our minds, work just fine. Most religions believe that God created us as we are; why do you think that He created an inferior product?

I don't think He did. But again, I don't believe that we were arbitrarily created. I believe that we are literally God's children. Not metaphorically, literally. God was not 'created in our image,' but we in His, as children are in the image of their parents. We are 'gods in embryo" in a very literal sense, I believe.

I take it you don't believe in evolution so I won't get into why that completely discredits your belief in a bipedal humanoid mammal god, but the idea just seems rediculous. It's a primitive, outdated concept. Even when I was a Christian, even as a child, I believed God to be some sort of force entity. A biological bipedal humanoid mammal as a God is just absurd.

I would be careful about making assumptions like this. While there are a few Mormons who are believers in a literal 24 hour day week long creation that happened about 6,000 years ago, I personally don't know any. Me? I believe rather strongly in evolution.

So let me get this straight... God designed a process where biological organisms would develop over time to become closer and closer to what God looks like? He designed it so that eventually, single cell organisms would develop to slowly have organs like God, eyes like God, ears like God, limbs like God... The only difference being we actually have a use for these organs. If you knew anything about evolution, you would know we have the organs and extremities we have as a result of environmental pressure to adapt to our surroundings. So the organs and limbs we needed to adapt to our environment just happens to look exactly like God's who did not need to adapt to any environment?

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

How do we know that He never had to adapt to any environment?

God: "hey, look at how nifty that opposable thumb is to these primates. I never needed to use it. I just shape matter with my mind. I'm glad these guys finally found a use for it though"

You are begging the question. How do you know that God never needed, and does not now use, an opposable thumb?

Diana if I haven't demonstrated why this notion is rediculous by now then I never will

Well, if we accept your premise that God never had a body and doesn't need one, then of course you have established that God never had a body and doesn't need one, and that we have imagined Him in our image.

If that's not begging the question I don't know what is.

So the fruit of knowledge of good and evil do not give knowledge of good and evil...?

The idea, I think, is that this is the metaphorical description of the first act that established the knowledge of good and evil. BTW, we have a rather different view of Adam and Eve than most Christians. We rather admire both of 'em.

I never understood how Christians choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. When I gave you the metaphorical interpretation of our resembling God, you dismissed it by saying "no. It says image", yet here you're adamant that the fruit is meant to be a metaphor? How do you decide which is metaphor and which isn't?

Careful reading.

.............and personal preference. I would call it prayer and revelation. You would, I'm sure, call it personal preference.

Why didn't Jesus just cast the demons out into nothingness? Why did he have to afflict pigs at all? He could have cast the demons directly to hell. The fact that he didn't care to and instead cast them into pigs means pigs don't matter to him at all.

Please remember that swine were, to the Jewish culture of the time (as they are now) unclean animals; not to be eaten, not to be used. The idea of casting those demons into swine IS casting them into hell, symbolically. Please don't forget that Jesus was a Jew; He not only was raised in and lived with that culture, He was TEACHING the folks of that culture.

So Jesus caused the suffering of innocent animals for the sake of a metaphor..? Isn't he just such an artist

If you like. I don't suppose that the folks who slaughtered, butchered and ate those pigs cared, or that their fate, as swine, was any different. Indeed, I rather doubt that a whole lot of suffering was involved.

Except for the demons, of course.

Unless, again 'of course,' the whole thing was an explanation of Jesus helping a mentally ill man in a way that was more understandable to the folks around Him.

I'll have to ask Him about that. Someday.

[Justin108]

I have been answering this question over and over. Another example: toes are for balance. Does God need toes to balance? No. So why does he have toes? I can go on and on. God has all of these things he has no use for. It makes no sense for him to have them.

We don't need our appendixes, either, but we have them. Mind you, that may well not be an exact analogy, but...

Evolution explains why we have appendixes. They are leftovers from earlier stages of evolutionary development. Are you suggesting God has leftovers from his own evolution? Was God once an ape before evolving into a god?

If God wants to walk upon the ground, wouldn't He require those things that allow Him to walk upon the ground?

Why would God ever walk? He can travel from one location of the universe to the next in an instant. Why would he need to place one foot infront of the other in order to go somewhere? Why is his default legs? Isn't he supposed to be omnipresent? If God is in fact omnipresent and has a physical boy, then shouldn't we see him at all times? The only way God can be omnipresent while excusing the fact that we can not see him is if he is either some sort of spiritual force, or else if God is the same as pantheists describe him.

I don't understand the idea that He MUST not have a body. Makes no sense to me. Indeed, your argument is contradictory:

God can do anything He wants to...EXCEPT have a body?

I never once said God CANNOT have a body. I just said it wouldn't make any sense. A teleportation device CAN have wheels, wings and a seatbelt, but it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would have no purpose other than.

The problem isn't so much that God has a body, the problem is he has a bipedal primate mammal body. Primates exist in the state that they are in because of environmental pressure and adaptation. For an entity to have the exact same structure without the evolutionary history or environment in which it applies simply makes no sense.

Despite planes and cars, it's obvious we greatly depend on our legs in our daily lives. This is not true for God. God does not depend on anything. Supposing we could cut God's legs off, it would not hinder him in the least. Our legs are not redundant. God's legs are.

So are ours, if we compensate. One of my son's friends is a paraplegic. He's also one of the best local hang glider pilots we have around here. He's constantly giving my son strong competition for the trophies.

He'd be able to take off better if he could run, but he's figured out a different way.

I am running out of ways to phrase this... I would expect it unnecessary to specify these points, but the fact that paraplegics need to compensate is exactly what makes legs unredundant. Legs serve an obvious purpose to us as mortal finite human beings. This need does not exist to God.

Simply put:
we need legs to do X.
God does not need legs to do X
Therefore, legs are redundant to God but not to us.

The POINT here is that it's not our position to dictate to God how He does things.

"Who are we to question God?" is a cliche cop-out for theists who have run out of arguments.

It IS our job to figure out how, I firmly believe. Our bodies are not handicaps in that arena, nor would, I figure, one be a handicap to God Himself. The problem here is...yes, legs allow us to do things. Why do you insist that God must do those things in a different way in order to be God?

And birds need wings to fly, so whenever God flies anywhere, does he turn into a bird first? If he goes underwater, does he transform into a fish? Is God a shapeshifter all of a sudden?

Legs might not illustrate my point that well since, I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe heaven is a physical space where God walks around?

So a different example; ears are 'designed' (for lack of a better term) to detect vibrations in the air. That is how we hear. But that would not be how God hears as he's in heaven somewhere. The vibrations from our voice would never reach God's ears. God clearly hears in a very different way, so why have ears?

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was written with God as a physical entity with a human body in mind. I just expected man to have at least evolved in their belief to a lesser rediculous notion of a non-humanoid-primate god. Even when I was a Christian, the idea of a literal bearded man in the sky was too rediculous for me.

Why? What have you got against the human body, that you figure that no deity would condescend to inhabit one? What's WRONG with us?

Our bodies allow us to do all sorts of things that our minds want to do, and if we can't use our arms and legs, we figure out some other way.

In other words, our bodies, guided by our minds, work just fine. Most religions believe that God created us as we are; why do you think that He created an inferior product?

I don't think He did. But again, I don't believe that we were arbitrarily created. I believe that we are literally God's children. Not metaphorically, literally. God was not 'created in our image,' but we in His, as children are in the image of their parents. We are 'gods in embryo" in a very literal sense, I believe.

Pay attention because I am repeating myself over and over again. Our bodies are not inferior. I never said it is. But our bodies are the result of evolution to fit into our environment. Every component has a specific earthly purpose. For God to have these components yet to not have the daily uses for them as we do is senseless. It is utterly random.

So let me get this straight... God designed a process where biological organisms would develop over time to become closer and closer to what God looks like? He designed it so that eventually, single cell organisms would develop to slowly have organs like God, eyes like God, ears like God, limbs like God... The only difference being we actually have a use for these organs. If you knew anything about evolution, you would know we have the organs and extremities we have as a result of environmental pressure to adapt to our surroundings. So the organs and limbs we needed to adapt to our environment just happens to look exactly like God's who did not need to adapt to any environment?

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

How do we know that He never had to adapt to any environment?

So God is also the product of evolution...? If God was the product of evolution, and evolution is the product of God...then did God have a super God that designed his evolution in order for him to be our God? Is this a Mormon thing?

God: "hey, look at how nifty that opposable thumb is to these primates. I never needed to use it. I just shape matter with my mind. I'm glad these guys finally found a use for it though"

You are begging the question. How do you know that God never needed, and does not now use, an opposable thumb?

For God to evolve into something exactly like us, he would need the exact same kind of environment (or at least very very very similar). What are the odds? Was God human once? Again, is this a Mormon thing?

Diana if I haven't demonstrated why this notion is rediculous by now then I never will

Well, if we accept your premise that God never had a body and doesn't need one, then of course you have established that God never had a body and doesn't need one, and that we have imagined Him in our image.

If that's not begging the question I don't know what is.

I admit, I'm working with a few assumptions here, mainly that God is infinite both in existence and in ability. Infinity cannot come from something finite. These are nearly universally accepted attributes of God. But again, I'm not exactly sure what Mormons believe.

I never understood how Christians choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. When I gave you the metaphorical interpretation of our resembling God, you dismissed it by saying "no. It says image", yet here you're adamant that the fruit is meant to be a metaphor? How do you decide which is metaphor and which isn't?

Careful reading.

.............and personal preference. I would call it prayer and revelation. You would, I'm sure, call it personal preference.

This again assumes every other Christian is wrong. Are you so confident you have the proper understanding? Did God just not choose to reveal himself to non-Mormons? Does God only answer the prayers and questions of Mormons? I'm sure a Christian would tell you that prayer and revelation has led them to the conclusion that God has a non-physical spiritual body

[dianaiad]

I have been answering this question over and over. Another example: toes are for balance. Does God need toes to balance? No. So why does he have toes? I can go on and on. God has all of these things he has no use for. It makes no sense for him to have them.

We don't need our appendixes, either, but we have them. Mind you, that may well not be an exact analogy, but...

Evolution explains why we have appendixes. They are leftovers from earlier stages of evolutionary development. Are you suggesting God has leftovers from his own evolution? Was God once an ape before evolving into a god?

I have absolutely no idea HOW God came to be the way He did. I also have no problem with Him using the 'laws of nature,' or natural processes, to make us...or anything else. That's one of the things, I believe, that we are here to learn about.

If God wants to walk upon the ground, wouldn't He require those things that allow Him to walk upon the ground?

Why would God ever walk?

Because He might want to do so?

Jesus walked, a lot. He evidently wanted to do so. According to the bible (and my beliefs) He was resurrected into a physical body, and He walked around in that one, as well. He also used it to sit, and eat, and drink, and He allowed others to touch Him. There is, again, no indication anywhere I am aware of that He left it behind somewhere. If Jesus is God, as most Christians (including me) believe, then God has a body.

You may not understand why He would want one, or what He would do with one, but hey....we don't know everything. He simply has one, according to everything I understand.

He can travel from one location of the universe to the next in an instant. Why would he need to place one foot infront of the other in order to go somewhere? Why is his default legs? Isn't he supposed to be omnipresent?

Is He?

.... If God is in fact omnipresent and has a physical boy, then shouldn't we see him at all times?

Begging another question. This time the question is: is He omnipresent and what does that mean?

The only way God can be omnipresent while excusing the fact that we can not see him is if he is either some sort of spiritual force, or else if God is the same as pantheists describe him.

Or...He could be omnipresent the way some people describe the traffic cops as being so: watching everything. Or not. (shrug) I can certainly envision ways that He could be instantly available at need, wherever He might be so needed.

I don't understand the idea that He MUST not have a body. Makes no sense to me. Indeed, your argument is contradictory:

God can do anything He wants to...EXCEPT have a body?

I never once said God CANNOT have a body. I just said it wouldn't make any sense. A teleportation device CAN have wheels, wings and a seatbelt, but it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would have no purpose other than.

The problem isn't so much that God has a body, the problem is he has a bipedal primate mammal body. Primates exist in the state that they are in because of environmental pressure and adaptation. For an entity to have the exact same structure without the evolutionary history or environment in which it applies simply makes no sense.

Why?

You asked a question earlier in this post; how did God get to be the way He is?

This is far out in the realm of incredible speculation, but....when you consider the various comparisons between the thinking abilities of creatures on THIS planet, you will see that there are quite a few animals who think at least as well as a human child...but because they cannot communicate, or can't manipulate tools, or are not as supremely adaptable (let's face it; one of the reasons humans are all over the planet is because we are quite possibly THE most adaptable species ever to come up...with the possible exception of cockroaches and ants) as are we.

....and that adaptability is BECAUSE of legs, which can walk, crawl, run and swim, arms which can carry and climb, hands which can manipulate more things better than any other critter I know about, ears and eyes which, while not as good individually as some other animals, certainly work well; we are generalists and can adapt supremely well. This has been very good for us, even as it is sometimes bad news for the other live forms on the planet.

Scientists who speculate about lifeforms that might be found elsewhere in the universe end up, generally, coming up with something similar to us for sentient, communicative species. Generally bipedal, upright, adaptable, with appendages that can use tools and depend upon puzzle solving rather than pre-programmed instinctual responses. We are, it is often advanced, now at least somewhat in charge of our own evolution.

So are we earth humans going to be exactly like inhabitants of other planets, if we ever find and talk to them? Probably not; but we will be more similar than not, I'll bet you...because 'form follows function."

Despite planes and cars, it's obvious we greatly depend on our legs in our daily lives. This is not true for God. God does not depend on anything. Supposing we could cut God's legs off, it would not hinder him in the least. Our legs are not redundant. God's legs are.

So are ours, if we compensate. One of my son's friends is a paraplegic. He's also one of the best local hang glider pilots we have around here. He's constantly giving my son strong competition for the trophies.

He'd be able to take off better if he could run, but he's figured out a different way.

I am running out of ways to phrase this... I would expect it unnecessary to specify these points, but the fact that paraplegics need to compensate is exactly what makes legs unredundant. Legs serve an obvious purpose to us as mortal finite human beings. This need does not exist to God.

I am running out of ways to phrase this: you are begging the question. How do you know that this need does not exist to God? Who are we to dictate to HIM what sort of body He has, or whether or not He needs one?

Simply put:
we need legs to do X.
God does not need legs to do X
Therefore, legs are redundant to God but not to us.

You are begging the question.

WHO SAYS that God does not need legs to do X? JESUS certainly did not teleport from one place to another during His mortal life, nor...though there is certainly some indication that He did so after His resurrection...did He eschew legs and walking.

Yes, I can get in my car and drive. That doesn't mean I don't ever walk, or that for some things, walking is preferable.

The POINT here is that it's not our position to dictate to God how He does things.

"Who are we to question God?" is a cliche cop-out for theists who have run out of arguments.

Telling God what He must be and what He must look like in order to BE God is a cliche cop-out for non-believers who really do insist upon making Him into their image of Him.

/viewtopic.php?p=757558#757558]dianaiad[/url]"]
It IS our job to figure out how, I firmly believe. Our bodies are not handicaps in that arena, nor would, I figure, one be a handicap to God Himself. The problem here is...yes, legs allow us to do things. Why do you insist that God must do those things in a different way in order to be God?

And birds need wings to fly, so whenever God flies anywhere, does he turn into a bird first? If he goes underwater, does he transform into a fish? Is God a shapeshifter all of a sudden?[/quote]

And humans fly...do we become birds? If we go underwater, do we sprout fins? Are WE shapeshifters?

No?

Yet we manage to fly, and swim, and spend lots of time underwater, and in space, and in below freezing environments, and, and, and.....

I don't notice that we have to shift shapes in order to do these things. Why would God have to?

Reducto ad absurdum is a logical fallacy. Please don't engage in it.

Legs might not illustrate my point that well since, I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe heaven is a physical space where God walks around?

As a matter of fact....

So a different example; ears are 'designed' (for lack of a better term) to detect vibrations in the air. That is how we hear. But that would not be how God hears as he's in heaven somewhere.

Why not?

The vibrations from our voice would never reach God's ears. God clearly hears in a very different way, so why have ears?

So that He can hear us with them. He may hear us in a different way AS WELL, but the bible has accounts of conversations with Him.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was written with God as a physical entity with a human body in mind. I just expected man to have at least evolved in their belief to a lesser rediculous notion of a non-humanoid-primate god. Even when I was a Christian, the idea of a literal bearded man in the sky was too rediculous for me.

Why? What have you got against the human body, that you figure that no deity would condescend to inhabit one? What's WRONG with us?

Our bodies allow us to do all sorts of things that our minds want to do, and if we can't use our arms and legs, we figure out some other way.

In other words, our bodies, guided by our minds, work just fine. Most religions believe that God created us as we are; why do you think that He created an inferior product?

I don't think He did. But again, I don't believe that we were arbitrarily created. I believe that we are literally God's children. Not metaphorically, literally. God was not 'created in our image,' but we in His, as children are in the image of their parents. We are 'gods in embryo" in a very literal sense, I believe.

Pay attention because I am repeating myself over and over again. Our bodies are not inferior. I never said it is. But our bodies are the result of evolution to fit into our environment. Every component has a specific earthly purpose. For God to have these components yet to not have the daily uses for them as we do is senseless. It is utterly random.

Again you are begging the question. WHY do you insist that He would NOT have a need to walk, talk and listen...especially when the scriptures that I use to form my idea of Him, talk about Him doing all these things?

So let me get this straight... God designed a process where biological organisms would develop over time to become closer and closer to what God looks like? He designed it so that eventually, single cell organisms would develop to slowly have organs like God, eyes like God, ears like God, limbs like God... The only difference being we actually have a use for these organs. If you knew anything about evolution, you would know we have the organs and extremities we have as a result of environmental pressure to adapt to our surroundings. So the organs and limbs we needed to adapt to our environment just happens to look exactly like God's who did not need to adapt to any environment?

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

How do we know that He never had to adapt to any environment?

So God is also the product of evolution...? If God was the product of evolution, and evolution is the product of God...then did God have a super God that designed his evolution in order for him to be our God? Is this a Mormon thing?

(grin)

I suggest that you listen to a song that is a favorite of mine...and of Mormons in general. "If you could Hie to Kolob"

Here, at the beginning of this 40 minute episode that explains about this hymn, you can hear it (you don't need to go more than about a minute into it, though the episode itself is interesting). I think it explains us and our views in this matter rather well.

And yes, it's a Mormon thing.

For me, it combines the joy of scientific exploration, since there is no way that science will ever find anything that would destroy my religious beliefs...and nothing in my religious beliefs that would interfere with pretty much anything that we can find through the scientific method. Indeed, we are, we believe, commanded to go LOOK for all these processes and ideas, so that we can begin to understand God and how He has done all the things that have been done.

God: "hey, look at how nifty that opposable thumb is to these primates. I never needed to use it. I just shape matter with my mind. I'm glad these guys finally found a use for it though"

You are begging the question. How do you know that God never needed, and does not now use, an opposable thumb?

For God to evolve into something exactly like us, he would need the exact same kind of environment (or at least very very very similar). What are the odds? Was God human once? Again, is this a Mormon thing?

As a matter of fact....pretty much.

Not that we are all THAT 'humanocentric.' It won't be a problem for us to find peoples on other planets that do not look precisely like us, or breath oxygen, or whatever. In fact, we rather expect that there ARE other planets with other peoples upon them. We've believed that since the foundation of our faith. Science is, perhaps, catching up.

Diana if I haven't demonstrated why this notion is rediculous by now then I never will

Well, if we accept your premise that God never had a body and doesn't need one, then of course you have established that God never had a body and doesn't need one, and that we have imagined Him in our image.

If that's not begging the question I don't know what is.

I admit, I'm working with a few assumptions here, mainly that God is infinite both in existence and in ability. Infinity cannot come from something finite. These are nearly universally accepted attributes of God. But again, I'm not exactly sure what Mormons believe.

Hmmn.

Perhaps you are learning something new?

I never understood how Christians choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. When I gave you the metaphorical interpretation of our resembling God, you dismissed it by saying "no. It says image", yet here you're adamant that the fruit is meant to be a metaphor? How do you decide which is metaphor and which isn't?

Careful reading.

.............and personal preference. I would call it prayer and revelation. You would, I'm sure, call it personal preference.

This again assumes every other Christian is wrong.

Yep. Mostly.

Are you so confident you have the proper understanding?

Not completely, no. How can I? I'm just beginning...as are you and every other human being. I could be wrong about a lot of this. Probably am...or at least not understanding completely, about some of this. I'm willing to learn stuff.

Did God just not choose to reveal himself to non-Mormons? Does God only answer the prayers and questions of Mormons? I'm sure a Christian would tell you that prayer and revelation has led them to the conclusion that God has a non-physical spiritual body

Some might, though in all honesty, I don't remember anybody who has actually said that. This learning about God isn't easy. Learning about ourselves isn't. We are often wrong, often confused, and often charging in the wrong direction.

When and if I feel that this is happening to me, I'll charge off in a different one.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 34 by dianaiad]
So apparently the Mormon God is not omnipotent and evolved as a once lesser being. Who knew? Seems even more like mythology than normal Christianity. Anyway, I guess that for a finite god that happened to have evolved from a once mortal man-thing, I guess it would make sense for it to look human. I always thought it was a given that God is infinite, you know with the "in the beginning" and "Alpha and Omega" stuff and all.

Well since I don't plan on learning the Mormon faith from scratch in order to continue this debate, I'll leave it here. For the majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims who believes God is infinite, my points stand. For a lesser Mormon god though I guess your views will do

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 34 by dianaiad]
So apparently the Mormon God is not omnipotent

Well, that's new. I never said that He was not omnipotent. Where did that one come up?

and evolved as a once lesser being. Who knew? Seems even more like mythology than normal Christianity. Anyway, I guess that for a finite god that happened to have evolved from a once mortal man-thing, I guess it would make sense for it to look human. I always thought it was a given that God is infinite, you know with the "in the beginning" and "Alpha and Omega" stuff and all.

Actually, we believe that we are all infinite.

We also believe that God the Father, through His son, created the entire universe and everything in it.

Well since I don't plan on learning the Mormon faith from scratch in order to continue this debate, I'll leave it here. For the majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims who believes God is infinite, my points stand. For a lesser Mormon god though I guess your views will do

We do not think Him one bit 'lesser,' but thanks for playing.

[Justin108]

Actually, we believe that we are all infinite.

I'm refering to a retroactive infinity. That is, God has always been there. Have we also always been here?

We also believe that God the Father, through His son, created the entire universe and everything in it.

Then where and when did God evolve from a mortal primate into a God? Did God exist somewhere outside of the universe? If so, then you and I have a different understanding of what "universe" means.

Well since I don't plan on learning the Mormon faith from scratch in order to continue this debate, I'll leave it here. For the majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims who believes God is infinite, my points stand. For a lesser Mormon god though I guess your views will do.

We do not think Him one bit 'lesser,' but thanks for playing.

A god that is not infinite and merely the result of evolution from a finite being is lesser than a God that has always been infinite. A God that relies on arms and legs to do his daily routine is lesser than a God that does not rely on anything.

I'm not outright saying "the Christian god is better". To me that's like saying Superman is better than Spiderman. Both are fictional so it really does not matter. I am, however, saying Mormonism is much more absurd and mythological than Christianity. The way you discribe God makes him sound like a member of the Greek pantheon.