Can God eat us?
I mean is God eating us?
Why do I ask?
Well, we seem ok killing & consuming animals and that can only be for reasons that revolve around differences between humans and animals. Whatever these differences are, they're finite.
Now come to the difference between God and man - surely, as conceived in religions, God is infinitely greater than puny humans.
Now answer the question.
Why do I ask?
Well, we seem ok killing & consuming animals and that can only be for reasons that revolve around differences between humans and animals. Whatever these differences are, they're finite.
Now come to the difference between God and man - surely, as conceived in religions, God is infinitely greater than puny humans.
Now answer the question.
Comments (38)
Relationship between God and man (in cases where there is one) transcends matter.
So one has to take God eating us as a metaphor.
Quoting Agent Smith
It is an interesting metaphor but half complete, I would say.
If God eats us, God must also give birth to us.
You might wanna look into the consequences of the point you made.
I'm sorry but I don't see it. Can you be more explicit? Gracias.
It is quite interesting that you brought the issue of materialism up - animals, that includes us, are material, and then there's God. There's animals, there's us, there's God. You see anything intriguing in there?
Ah you are making me think. Its usually a drag.
In my metaphor matter is not separated from God.
If you want some entertaining picture:
God eats us, secretes us, we become the humus,which the creates the fruit, we are the fruit, God eats the fruits, secretes it, and so on.
Quoting Agent Smith
Hmmmm. There is God. In it there's animals, there's us. They do not stand on the same ground.
Nice! Is there any logic to this what appears to be a cycle of eating-secretion-eating-secreting-eating ... ad infinitum? It just is?
Logic applies to the limited not to the eternal.
:up: So what you're saying is just an idea you had and nothing more. It just is!
The wave function collapses into a particle.
The word is the collapse of the Truth into a unit, thus turning it into 'just an idea'.
Relative distinctions then collapse or they're arbitrary with respect to God.
As I thrust the knife into my pig Marl's throat, I whispered: "Even God must end."
Later that week I smelled the rich scent of Marl's pork belly sizzling in God's pan.
"Oh God, why does the scent of bacon entice me to murder you, our kin?"
There was no answer but a mental picture of God enthralled in a terrifying bliss or horror of self-consumption.
"I felt disgust as I was eating Marl. She was God. And I was God. Together we are one, always eating one another in some form or another."
The disgust bloomed to a fever pitch of madness, whereupon I stabbed myself in the heart.
And now I am just a machine narrator (God), fleshless and free of sin, for the many happenstances of God.
The very thought that we might be nought but god shite is something I I would rather not contemplate.
:fear:
Yes you can say anything and then just add 'it just is'.
1. A sculpture of a pyramid is on my table.
2. A sculpture of a pyramid made of diamond is on my table.
3. The pyramid of Giza is on my table.
There are different levels of possibility-impossibility.
"Eat the apple Eve and you shall be as God"
In the absence of some doctrinal/textual/institutional authority that speaks of a special nature of God, we can make up any relation we want. Here we become anthropologists and have to decide which faith concerning "God" we'd like to study. We then can collect beliefs concerning this specific question.
But I have no real opinion, insofar as the question might as well be an exercise in pure imagination of what we'd prefer God to be like.
Though I suppose I'm a pantheist, who could've been a pig, and imagines that God suffers as we do under random assignment of an existential lottery. All beings are fundamentally more alike than they are different. We should struggle to minimize suffering, however absurdly futile that sometimes feels.
Which is to say nonvegetarianism doesn't make sense and that given how scripture defines God, He is completely within his rights to eat us.
Maybe your leaving out other scriptual/controversial/contradictory attributes of God that might clear up or further confuse this issue.
It might be, that given scripture, God doesn't make sense. Why are you assuming God needs to eat?
Why should it follow that because man is in the image of God, that God must eat? Why would God have organs if those organs represented a natural constraint/form of an animal? Mouths and anuses represent limits he need not abide by. Though to be honest I have no good traction on what scripture conveys God to be like.
Maybe, to be metaphorical, killing suffices God's Appetite (synonymous with his Will). He's allegedly done a lot of that.
Don't the (scriptural) inconsistencies prove my point?
OK, that might be true to a certain extent. But that we are actually holy shit is a bit different.
Jesus was God in man.
Jesus said "The bread you eat is my body, the wine you drink is my blood"
And what happens to the food humans eat?
We secrete it.
So humans secrete God.
You could say The Holy Ghost is the Divine Fart.
The human fart is the Divine Spirit released.
The metaphor is coming together
wouldn't you agree @Agent Smith ?
:lol: Well, for the sake of all standup comedians out there, I hope so!
Danke!
It's taking shape, most definitely! :up:
We ate God when Nietzsche said: God is dead. :eyes:
I was thinkin' the same thing, but not exactly in a Nietzschean sense. He did declare God is dead and I suppose we could interpret it in the way you've done. Any lines in Nietzsche's books/essays that could be read as humans having, well, consumed God?
Yes. What I meant is that we humans can eat God if we see our life as a anthropocentric scenario. Nothing and no one is above us. I think is better for the world to see in such way. But I respect all views and opinions of course
Inside Japanese mythology, kamis can interact with humans.
What do you expect from God?