The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

[godelian]

Why?

It is only when his original form disappears that he "becomes" something else.

Wait. First you said that God HAS no form (or "body"), and now you say he needs an "original form" (or some kind of "body") so badly that if he abandons it he becomes something different? Make that make sense, if you can.

If God became a man, he is no longer what he was before, in whatever form that may have been. That means that we would end up with no God and one more man. So, that would lead to an atheist situation. Believers would be praying to something that is no longer there.

[Immanuel Can]

It is only when his original form disappears that he "becomes" something else.

Wait. First you said that God HAS no form (or "body"), and now you say he needs an "original form" (or some kind of "body") so badly that if he abandons it he becomes something different? Make that make sense, if you can.

If God became a man, he is no longer what he was before, in whatever form that may have been.

So you still think God has a "form"?

[Age]

Wait. First you said that God HAS no form (or "body"), and now you say he needs an "original form" (or some kind of "body") so badly that if he abandons it he becomes something different? Make that make sense, if you can.

If God became a man, he is no longer what he was before, in whatever form that may have been.

So you still think God has a "form"?

Well you obviously do.

And, that form includes a penis and gonads, obviously.

[godelian]

So you still think God has a "form"?

You are frantically looking for an elusive justification, some kind of good-sounding word salad that turns God into a man, because you are sure that it was a hominid who created the universe and who then decided to come to earth in order to enjoy the fruits of his work by dying at a cross.

I am telling you, the man who died at that cross, was not the creator of the heavens and the earth. He wasn't Christ either, who was released before that happened.

The entire doctrine is fake as hell, and built on forgeries and lies, to convince the gullible, the simple of mind, that a man created the earth and the entire universe. A man who says that he can do all of that, is a born liar. Period.

[Immanuel Can]

So you still think God has a "form"?

You are frantically looking for an elusive justification,...

Not at all. It's your topic, so you're the one in need of a justification; not I.

Rather, I'm trying to understand how you could worry that an omnipotent God can't become a man, when you also believe that God a) has no form, b) is only an abstraction, c) somehow manages to cause things anyway...

A lot isn't making sense about that: but it was you who chose this topic.

I suppose you thought it would be easy. Now you know it isn't.

[godelian]

So you still think God has a "form"?

You are frantically looking for an elusive justification,...

Not at all. It's your topic, so you're the one in need of a justification; not I.

Rather, I'm trying to understand how you could worry that an omnipotent God can't become a man, when you also believe that God a) has no form, b) is only an abstraction, c) somehow manages to cause things anyway...

A lot isn't making sense about that: but it was you who chose this topic.

I suppose you thought it would be easy. Now you know it isn't.

There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent man. There never was, and there never will be. Of course, there have been men who claimed that they were, but they were all liars.

[Immanuel Can]

You are frantically looking for an elusive justification,...

Not at all. It's your topic, so you're the one in need of a justification; not I.

Rather, I'm trying to understand how you could worry that an omnipotent God can't become a man, when you also believe that God a) has no form, b) is only an abstraction, c) somehow manages to cause things anyway...

A lot isn't making sense about that: but it was you who chose this topic.

I suppose you thought it would be easy. Now you know it isn't.

There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent man.

We've already agreed: no man can make himself God.

But we're still working on the opposite: is this omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God able to manifest Himself as a man?

There's absolutely no reason why not, of course.

[godelian]

Not at all. It's your topic, so you're the one in need of a justification; not I.

Rather, I'm trying to understand how you could worry that an omnipotent God can't become a man, when you also believe that God a) has no form, b) is only an abstraction, c) somehow manages to cause things anyway...

A lot isn't making sense about that: but it was you who chose this topic.

I suppose you thought it would be easy. Now you know it isn't.

There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent man.

We've already agreed: no man can make himself God.

But we're still working on the opposite: is this omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God able to manifest Himself as a man?

There's absolutely no reason why not, of course.

Such manifestation would result in a man who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We have already agreed that there has never been a man like that.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent man.

We've already agreed: no man can make himself God.

But we're still working on the opposite: is this omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God able to manifest Himself as a man?

There's absolutely no reason why not, of course.

Such manifestation would result in a man who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We have already agreed that there has never been a man like that.

No, we've only agreed about what a man can do, not what God can do. But you seem confused about the meaning of "omnipotent."

[godelian]

We've already agreed: no man can make himself God.

But we're still working on the opposite: is this omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God able to manifest Himself as a man?

There's absolutely no reason why not, of course.

Such manifestation would result in a man who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We have already agreed that there has never been a man like that.

No, we've only agreed about what a man can do, not what God can do. But you seem confused about the meaning of "omnipotent."

A man who is God would have the same knowledge and power as God, which would be unlimited. Such man has never and will never exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Such manifestation would result in a man who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We have already agreed that there has never been a man like that.

No, we've only agreed about what a man can do, not what God can do. But you seem confused about the meaning of "omnipotent."

A man who is God...

We're not talking about that. We've already agreed about that, so there's nobody for you to debate on that. Sorry.

Our question is about God being capable of manifesting as man. And you don't seem able to answer...

[godelian]

Our question is about God being capable of manifesting as man. And you don't seem able to answer...

As I have answered umpteen times already, if God simultaneously also still exists as the non-physical supreme being, then God has not become that man. He has merely grabbed control over that man.

So, the question always implies: Can God remove himself as the supreme being?

Answer: no.

It would amount to claiming that the omnipotent God can commit suicide. I do not believe this.

[Immanuel Can]

Our question is about God being capable of manifesting as man. And you don't seem able to answer...

As I have answered umpteen times already, if God simultaneously also still exists as the non-physical supreme being, then God has not become that man. He has merely grabbed control over that man.

But since men don't pop into existence by themselves, God has also created that human form he animates. A man has not become God; God has become a Man. And this is precisely how the Scriptures (the same ones upon which Mo quoted for his own authorization) describe the Incarnation:
"And beyond controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." (1 Tim. 3:16) Not "a man became God," but rather "God was manifest in (human) flesh."

Can the omnipotent God choose to manifest Himself as a man? You say "No." Then I say, you have a limited God, and one that cares nothing for man.

[godelian]

Our question is about God being capable of manifesting as man. And you don't seem able to answer...

As I have answered umpteen times already, if God simultaneously also still exists as the non-physical supreme being, then God has not become that man. He has merely grabbed control over that man.

But since men don't pop into existence by themselves, God has also created that human form he animates. A man has not become God; God has become a Man. And this is precisely how the Scriptures (the same ones upon which Mo quoted for his own authorization) describe the Incarnation:
"And beyond controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." (1 Tim. 3:16) Not "a man became God," but rather "God was manifest in (human) flesh."

Can the omnipotent God choose to manifest Himself as a man? You say "No." Then I say, you have a limited God, and one that cares nothing for man.

What stops any Japanese from using the same word salad to insist that the emperor of Japan is also a god?

[Immanuel Can]

As I have answered umpteen times already, if God simultaneously also still exists as the non-physical supreme being, then God has not become that man. He has merely grabbed control over that man.

But since men don't pop into existence by themselves, God has also created that human form he animates. A man has not become God; God has become a Man. And this is precisely how the Scriptures (the same ones upon which Mo quoted for his own authorization) describe the Incarnation:
"And beyond controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." (1 Tim. 3:16) Not "a man became God," but rather "God was manifest in (human) flesh."

Can the omnipotent God choose to manifest Himself as a man? You say "No." Then I say, you have a limited God, and one that cares nothing for man.

What stops any Japanese from using the same word salad to claim that the emperor of Japan is also a god?

Now you're speaking about a man becoming God. And you and I have already agreed that's impossible.

You're confusing yourself, because you've lost the question. The question is, "can God choose to become a Man," not "can a man become God?" The initiative starts with God, not man.

So what's the answer? Could your god, Allah, have ever chosen to become a man, or is he impotent in that area, less powerful than the Jewish and Christian God?