Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 More abstract stuff from your friend here in West Texas... Today's topic: If you were God, would you create yourself a mate, and if so, what qualities would you give it, her, him? Humor is welcome, but I am asking seriously as well. Thanks, ENDIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Naw, I'd just make my pecker long enough to reach my lips. Or would that be queer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If I were god, why would I create A mate? I ask in all seriousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 12, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2009 If you were God But I AM. Behold all the beautiful creatures I've put here for my pleasure! To you, I have given a hairy palm. Enjoy yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If you were God, would you create yourself a mate, and if so, what qualities would you give it, her, him? Large breasts Honestly I am not sure what a god would need with a mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 As God, would I need to have a mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 As God, would I need to have a mate? He didn't think it was suitable for Adam, and Adam was created in His image. And the whole Bible seems to be the need of God to develop a suitable bride, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 As God, would I need to have a mate? He didn't think it was suitable for Adam, and Adam was created in His image. And the whole Bible seems to be the need of God to develop a suitable bride, no? End3, would it be possible for you to imagine a concept of God apart from the one presented in the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 For one thing, that "bride of christ" thing is not a whole bible advent. It's easy to read the new testament and then inventively connect the old one to that concept. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 As God, would I need to have a mate? He didn't think it was suitable for Adam, and Adam was created in His image. And the whole Bible seems to be the need of God to develop a suitable bride, no? End3, would it be possible for you to imagine a concept of God apart from the one presented in the Bible? Yes, but not today....and Genesis 1:27 also makes me think that the God form has both male and female aspects. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If I were God, I would be immaterial. A "mate" is generally considered to be a partner of the opposite sex, with whom you can mate to produce offspring. Having no gender or material substance, I fail to see how God could mate with anyone/thing. If I were God, I think I would redistribute myself throughout the universe in a myriad of life-forms, each of which had forgotten that it was God. Then I would go through a lengthy process of remembering and re-discovering myself. It would be pointless to create a partner, friend, helpmeet, etc. as along as I was fully God, because conversation would be useless. God: So, what's up? Partner: Well, I . . . God: I already know what you're going to say. And what's up. And every possible permutation that this conversation could possibly have. You hold zero surprises for me. Partner: Er, mmm . . . God: Holy Me, this is boring. See what I mean? God's only recourse would be to limit him/her self so as to recreate the element of surprise and novelty. Put on a whole lot of different bodies and have all sorts of hot alien sex. Create, destroy, love, hate, laugh, cry - anything but float around being omniscient and timeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 For one thing, that "bride of christ" thing is not a whole bible advent. It's easy to read the new testament and then inventively connect the old one to that concept. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? Way to go Dhamp...could it be that God was in the process of forming a mate for himself through humanity? (I told you it was abstract). Would you not give that person/entity freedom and not make them mindless robots? And here we are... Isn't that what we desire in a mate is freedom for them but friendship/faith to the highest degree? Good job Dhamp... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If I were the god, I would have much more fun popping into churches and annoying the religious types that want to keep me quiet and in a box of their own theological design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 For one thing, that "bride of christ" thing is not a whole bible advent. It's easy to read the new testament and then inventively connect the old one to that concept. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? Way to go Dhamp...could it be that God was in the process of forming a mate for himself through humanity? (I told you it was abstract). Would you not give that person/entity freedom and not make them mindless robots? And here we are... Isn't that what we desire in a mate is freedom for them but friendship/faith to the highest degree? Good job Dhamp... Way to go, end3 ... you managed to completely miss Dhamp's point, ignore his questions, and ascribe to his post meaning that was not there. Good job end3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 This question is much too undefined for my tastes. When you say "God", do you mean the xian god, or just any god whose attributes we choose? I ask this because certain gods, like the Greek gods, could and did mate with others. That doesn't really seem to be the xian god's thing, though, unless you count impregnating Mary. Would this "God" be able to create a mate whose power, omniscience, etc. are equal to his/hers, or would this mate have to be subservient? I have a lot more questions, but they're all based on what answers I receive from those two questions, so I can't ask them yet. I thought this was funny, though: It would be pointless to create a partner, friend, helpmeet, etc. as along as I was fully God, because conversation would be useless. God: So, what's up? Partner: Well, I . . . God: I already know what you're going to say. And what's up. And every possible permutation that this conversation could possibly have. You hold zero surprises for me. Partner: Er, mmm . . . God: Holy Me, this is boring. I also fail to see why a god would need to create a mate. If you can create people on your own, why would you need to procreate? If you really wanted to procreate, you could always take a page out of Zeus's book and turn into a swan and get with someone that way, but that's only if you're really bored. If it's companionship that this god is after, then that would make more sense than creating a mate for purposes of procreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 For one thing, that "bride of christ" thing is not a whole bible advent. It's easy to read the new testament and then inventively connect the old one to that concept. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? Way to go Dhamp...could it be that God was in the process of forming a mate for himself through humanity? (I told you it was abstract). Would you not give that person/entity freedom and not make them mindless robots? And here we are... Isn't that what we desire in a mate is freedom for them but friendship/faith to the highest degree? Good job Dhamp... Way to go, end3 ... you managed to completely miss Dhamp's point, ignore his questions, and ascribe to his post meaning that was not there. Good job end3... That was not my intention, so I will try to address Dhampir again. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. I don't know that perfect has anything to do with God's act of creating. Can we determine perfect/imperfect, especially for the universe? Being God, why could you not create for pleasure? In this case, He gave the creation freedom, and the creation went awry. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? I find it interesting that you brought up "a" as in singular? I don't know that I could speculate on the difference between a single mate verses a plural. Why did you ask Damp? This scenerio does though account for different views. Let's take the nature thing. If God were preparing a place for a companion, then I would imagine that is why we "see" God in nature/ the universe. It would also satisfy the marriage in Heaven thing. The humanity that makes it to Heaven would be married, but not to each other. I was just please Davka to know someone thought on my twisted level....that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 This question is much too undefined for my tastes. When you say "God", do you mean the xian god, or just any god whose attributes we choose? I ask this because certain gods, like the Greek gods, could and did mate with others. That doesn't really seem to be the xian god's thing, though, unless you count impregnating Mary. Would this "God" be able to create a mate whose power, omniscience, etc. are equal to his/hers, or would this mate have to be subservient? I have a lot more questions, but they're all based on what answers I receive from those two questions, so I can't ask them yet. Yes, the Christian God. I don't that mate is the best choice of words. Companion maybe. I have no idea whether God would want to have God-sex. If it's companionship that this god is after, then that would make more sense than creating a mate for purposes of procreation. Yes, I think this last statement more accurately reflects what I was trying to get across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 That was not my intention, so I will try to address Dhampir again. Second, and I don't know if you go with the infallible, perfect god motif, but if god has any needs, for a mate or anything, then he's insufficient, which means he's imperfect. I don't know that perfect has anything to do with God's act of creating. Can we determine perfect/imperfect, especially for the universe? Being God, why could you not create for pleasure? In this case, He gave the creation freedom, and the creation went awry. Thirdly, since you referred to the BoC, which is a group of individuals, then my question is especially valid. That is, why would I create A mate? I find it interesting that you brought up "a" as in singular? I don't know that I could speculate on the difference between a single mate verses a plural. Why did you ask Damp? This scenerio does though account for different views. Let's take the nature thing. If God were preparing a place for a companion, then I would imagine that is why we "see" God in nature/ the universe. It would also satisfy the marriage in Heaven thing. The humanity that makes it to Heaven would be married, but not to each other. I was just please Davka to know someone thought on my twisted level....that's all. To need to find pleasure or create, to be insufficient with just yourself is as much a need as to find a mate, hence imperfection. Second, and this isn't really on topic, but no one "sees god in nature/the universe". We see THOSE things, and infer a god. If it were as you say, there would be no religions, and certainly no largely useless, albeit somewhat amusing questions about what we'd do if we were god. Third, why would there be marriage in heaven? What's going to happen if we don't get married when we get there? Is some other God (big G) going to move in on Yahweh's territory? I asked why just one mate, because you implied (by using the words 'a mate') that it would only be one companion. That as God, I strangely grew discontent with myself (an imperfection, but I think I said that already), and needed someone to... what exactly? What could having a mate do, as god, that ANYTHING else couldn't also do? Anyway, let's assume for a second that I was an imperfect god, that needed some sort of companionship. Why would I adhere to one concept of relationship, over the potentially billions I could come up with, being all-knowing and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 You know, I'm actually reminded of something I was once told. It's a very fringe idea, to be certain, but I guess it fits here. The idea is that Satan, contrary to popular belief, is not a male. Furthermore, Satan, known by a different name at some point, was actually created to be Yahweh's mate, and that the real answer to the question of why God doesn't simply destroy Satan, and end the evil (s)he has been causing all these eons, is because he can't bring himself to destroy his mate. Now sure, this idea is brought about by a misunderstanding of the OT, among other things, but then, since pretty much all of Christianity is in that same boat, it doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 OK, let me rephrase: I cannot conceive of the Christian God needing or wanting companionship. I know that's what the church teaches, but they also teach the exact opposite: God needs nothing, and only chooses to interact with us because of his great love, etc. It is, as is often the case with traditional Christianity, self-contradictory: we have a perfect God who neither needs nor wants anything, yet he chooses to create a bride for some unfathomable reason - and what's more, the creation of this bride requires eternal torment for 99% of humanity in order to get to the 1% who actually make it to heaven to marry God. WTF??? Doesn't sound omnipotent, omniscient, or loving to me in the least. Either God needs nothing and wants nothing - in which case there is absolutely no excuse for creating humanity only to damn the vast majority of us - or he is needy and wanting, and therefore not the omniscient omnipotent omnipresent etc. god of 2k years of Christian theology. Take your pick: cruel and powerful, or loving but weak and needy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I cannot conceive of the Christian God needing or wanting companionship. I know that's what the church teaches, but they also teach the exact opposite: God needs nothing, and only chooses to interact with us because of his great love, etc. It is, as is often the case with traditional Christianity, self-contradictory: we have a perfect God who neither needs nor wants anything, yet he chooses to create a bride for some unfathomable reason - and what's more, the creation of this bride requires eternal torment for 99% of humanity in order to get to the 1% who actually make it to heaven to marry God. WTF??? Doesn't sound omnipotent, omniscient, or loving to me in the least. Either God needs nothing and wants nothing - in which case there is absolutely no excuse for creating humanity only to damn the vast majority of us - or he is needy and wanting, and therefore not the omniscient omnipotent omnipresent etc. god of 2k years of Christian theology. Take your pick: cruel and powerful, or loving but weak and needy. How would you wish me to respond Davka? Do you think I could take this theory into the church and all of them would say, "WOW! Way to to End3! We finally see it". It says that we are images/shadows of God. Why would you think God not share the same needs. I'll admit, that is not what I have been taught either. But again, why would God create at all if he has all the "omni" qualities? BTW, where was your picture taken...I assume that is you between the rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Yes, but not today....and Genesis 1:27 also makes me think that the God form has both male and female aspects. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Male and Female = Babies Why would anybody need any baby gods? Why would god need a baby god? Is he going to die? Sexual reproduction helps organisms adapt to changing environments. Does God need to adapt? Would the baby have 3 heads? Would the mate be a goddess? Would god be a quadrune god? Isn't Mary already the Mother of God? Since at the moment at least there are only boy gods, is god queer? If God has a pecker, does he masturbate? Is there a PlayGod mag? Naw, God wouldn't do this, it would be too big of a can of worms. Not even he could sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 To you, I have given a hairy palm. Enjoy yourself. Ah, but that all depends on WHICH god you are. If you are Yahweh, it BETTER be Rosie Palm, or else you'd have to smite yourself. Apparently for certain other gods, however, Harry Palm would be just right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Yes, but not today....and Genesis 1:27 also makes me think that the God form has both male and female aspects. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Male and Female = Babies Why would anybody need any baby gods? Why would god need a baby god? Is he going to die? Sexual reproduction helps organisms adapt to changing environments. Does God need to adapt? Would the baby have 3 heads? Would the mate be a goddess? Would god be a quadrune god? Isn't Mary already the Mother of God? Since at the moment at least there are only boy gods, is god queer? If God has a pecker, does he masturbate? Is there a PlayGod mag? Naw, God wouldn't do this, it would be too big of a can of worms. Not even he could sort it out. Oh come on Chef, Put your intellectual preacher collar on and give it your best shot. Heck, this revelation was from the Spirit. I am sure you intellectual types can tell me why it's wrong. You know, something other than "gawd doesn't exist so it is all bs anyhow" Ahhhhhhhh, sorry, I am getting tired of that tired ole statement just typing it... Somebody answer with substance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 How would you wish me to respond Davka? Do you think I could take this theory into the church and all of them would say, "WOW! Way to to End3! We finally see it". Of course not. They're too sold into the fantasy that there is a God who is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, created all of humanity (knowing, of course, that most would sin and go to Hell forever), and is still somehow "loving." It says that we are images/shadows of God. Why would you think God not share the same needs. I'll admit, that is not what I have been taught either. But again, why would God create at all if he has all the "omni" qualities? A god who is not omnipotent or omniscient is also not the One True God - more of a Greek god type being, a minor deity. Or maybe a Mormon god, some guy who was a good Mormon and then died and gets to play god. Why would I want to worship a being who would send people to Hell for not believing the unbelievable? Or worship a minor deity who is needy enough to create this painful mess we live in just so he can have some snuggle time? BTW, where was your picture taken...I assume that is you between the rocks. Yep, it's me. Santa Barbara, up in the hills - there are some really nice wind-sculptured rocks in a valley at the top of the mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts