I've never said anything about God's glowing. To the best of my recollection, neither have you. Why do you have an opinion as to what I think in regards to this? I've never even thought of this, yet you're asking me why I don't believe it.

What I have said is that important issues are spiritual ones, involving the character, as opposed to physical ones involving the flesh. Your posts strike me as being preoccupied with the latter.

Regarding #122584, GC, I asked you:



I don't see that you addressed this question.

Regarding if God literally is the things mentioned, let's consider one of them, the first one you mentioned, light.

Light is, literally:



To answer your question, no, I don't believe this is literally what God is.

I'll await your comment on this one, and we can consider some of the others.

I hasten to add that just because God is not literally this, it doesn't follow that the phrase "God is light" is false. A thing doesn't need to be literal to be true. Indeed, literal and true/false are orthogonal concepts.

For example, is it true that Christ dwells in one's heart by faith? Certainly. But it's not literally true, as literally Christ is in heaven, and Christ is a person, and people do not literally dwell in other people's hearts.

Tom,

God is not ONLY light, or fire, or love, etc. He is ALL of these things together. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man at the same time--still is. Is God now human?

God is the One who says He is fire and light. Not me. Please take your argument that He is not really this to God/the Bible, because who am I to speak of that which I have not personally seen or known. As for me, I accept by faith what the Bible says on this point, and have ample evidence to believe it is literally true in addition to it having spiritual value for us.

I don't understand how so many witnesses in the Bible of God's presence by fire would be insufficient evidence to you of this literal attribute of God.

"I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory . . . stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." Revelation 15:2, 3.

The righteous will be in the "lake of fire" just as much as the wicked...but, as kland brought out, the righteous will not burn. According to Isaiah 33, the righteous will dwell with "everlasting burnings." Strange to have this "eternal fire" if God is not fire.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, it appears to me you're confusing the words "real" and "literal."

Not at all, Tom. But perhaps you would like to clarify why you take issue with me saying that God is really fire, as He says He is. Is this not literal?

Let me put the question to you thusly:

Were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah burned with real, literal fire, or were they somehow consumed figuratively?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course, I already know your answer to that last question, because, according to your concept of God, the people cannot possibly have been punished by real, literal fire. It must have been fake fire, or symbolic, or they actually died first of a heart attack before the flames came upon them. Right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Moses saw a burning bush.

Was that real or literal?

It was not burned up. Why not?

kland, It's not clear whom you were asking, but I spoke to this issue in post #122584.

The Bible presents two possible outcomes with the Fire of God's Presence: 1) combustion, and 2) no combustion. In the latter case, it is always on account of righteousness and/or sinlessness, and in the former, there is always sin. The bush had not sinned.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, it's not literal. Real <> literal. Something literal is always real, but a thing can be real without being literal. God is really light, but He is not literal light, as per the Webster's definition.

Light has to do with illumination. When there is light, one can see truth. Light reveals. By light we can behold things, and understand things.

Jesus Christ is the light of the world, who illuminates everyone who has come into the world. He is really light, but He is not literal light. There is a difference between literal light and Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the bread of life. Bread gives nourishment. We obtain nourishment from Jesus Christ. He is really bread, but He is not literal bread. There is a difference between literal bread and Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the water of life. Water quenches thirst, and cleanses. Jesus Christ quenches our thirst for righteousness, and cleanses us from sin. He is really water (living water), but He is not literally water. He is not H2O. There is a different between literal water and Jesus Christ.

The same statements could be made in relation to God the Father.



Literal fire. The flood was involved literal water.

Why you think this has any connection to God's literally being fire seems odd to me. Should we conclude that God is literally water since the flood was comprised of literal water?

Are you being serious here? Or just trying to be funny?

I don't think it's very funny. If you're being serious, that's rather sad.