God Doesn't Have a Body?
errancy@infidels.org errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 20:34:50 EDT (00928215290, d163cb71.248484aa@aol.com)
In a message dated 5/30/99 1:24:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jftill@midwest.net writes:
>
> At 12:44 AM 5/29/99 EDT, you wrote:
>
> >> >RANDY
> >> >
> >> > No.(At least I don't think so. Since God doesn't have a body I'm
not
>
> >> > sure this question makes sense.)
> >>
> >> TILL
> >> God doesn't have a body? Then how do you explain the following
passage?
<snip passage>
> >>
> >> "
> >> >
> >>
> >> This passage is clearly teaching that Yahweh appeared to Abraham as
one
> of
> >> three men on this occasion. You may quibble that the "man" who was
> Yahweh
> >> on this occasion was just a "manifestation," but that wouldn't help you
> >> much. If Yahweh should appear as a man today and rape Hillary Clinton,
> >> would this be an objectively moral act just because God was the "man"
> >doing
> >> it?
> >>
> >> Now does this question make more sense to you? Please try not to
dodge
> the
> >> issue this time.
>
> >RANDY
> >
> > My bad. Even without this reference Jesus in His incarnation makes "
> sense"
> >of this question.
>
> TILL
> We all make mistakes when we type too quickly and don't proofread, Randy.
> Usually, readers can figure out what the writer meant, but I honestly don't
> understand what you meant. The example that I cited showed that Yahweh, in
> the company of two angels, clearly paid a visit to Abraham, who talked with
> him and fed him. How could this have been done if God didn't have a body?
RANDY
The reference you quoted shows that God had taken a body at one point.
>
> RANDY
> >Which I did answer by the way (note my "No" above.) Just to be plain I'll
> say it >again. It would have been morally wrong for Jesus to have raped a
> woman during >His time on earth.
> >
>
> TILL
> If I understood you correctly, you said that, no, it wouldn't be
objectively
> moral for God to rape Hillary Clinton. Then you went on to say that you
> didn't understand the question, because God doesn't have a body. I quoted
> the Bible, which you claim is inerrant, to show you that God can (at least
> on some occasions) have a body.
>
> But let's get back to your answer to the rape question. You are highly
> inconsistent, because you have said that if God made life, God has the
right
> to take life. I'm tempted to be very crude here, but I'm going to resist
> and allow your imagination to figure out what the ***** means. If God made
> Hillary Clinton's *****, then why wouldn't God have the right to take some
> of Hillary Clinton's *****?
>
> That is crude, but I'm trying to get you to see the absurdity of your
logic.
> On the one hand, you say that God can kill babies, because God gave babies
> life, but then you say that even though God made Hillary Clinton, he would
> not be morally entitled to rape Hillary Clinton. So you have taken the
> position that an act isn't necessarily moral just because God does it, so
> would you now explain to us why you think that killing babies isn't as bad
> as raping women?
RANDY
That's not what I think. The reasoning here involves the reasons that rape
is
wrong. Among many other reasons that rape is wrong one of the reasons is
that rape (and fornication) constitutes a lie. The act of sexual intercourse
has
and intrinsic significance and meaning, as do other acts of physical intimacy.
It is, among other things, an expression of a singular and ultimate commitment
between two people. For Jesus to have forced a woman to have engaged in
this act with Him would have been wrong because the commitment represented
by the act was not true.
Randy Bronson
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net
>
>