It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is God ugly by modern standards?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
This post is more a question than some form of researched conclusion. I was just reading an article on the BBC news website, in which they discuss fossilized remains of dinosaur 'feathers'. One note they make throughout the article is scientific Fossil Records.

Which led me to ponder; humanity now holds many remains which are fossilized - showing irrefutably we once didn't look the same as we do today. Our ancestors by today's standards would be considered to be very ugly, almost ape like in many respects.

So I'm hoping somebody with more understanding of both the bible and the given scientific fields can answer something for me. If we were indeed made in the image of god, and with the irrefutable proof that we've changed (purposely attempting to not mention evolution) immeasurably. Does that mean we can conclude; god looks nothing like us, would be considered ugly to us, and we're no longer in gods image? Susan Boyle would be Pammy in heaven?

... Just a thought. But; Is God ugly (looks and features) by modern standards?
edit on 16-9-2011 by Sed Non Credo because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
How are we supposed to know whether he exists to prove he's ugly or not ?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


I never asked you to prove he exists, I essentially asked if my understanding is correct of the beliefs and whether it's then correct to conclude that he's ugly.

Light humour...

edit on 16-9-2011 by Sed Non Credo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I think we all know that Jesus didn't look like the pretty tall dude with straight long hair religious paintings make him out to be.


But I personally doubt that if there is a god, he/she/it would have human features at all, regardless of whether or not he/she/it even has a material shape or form.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sed Non Credo
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


I never asked you to prove he exists, I essentially asked if my understanding is correct of the beliefs and whether it's then correct to conclude that he's ugly.

Light humour...

edit on 16-9-2011 by Sed Non Credo because: (no reason given)

But seriously, how are we supposed to know what he looks like to even say anything at all, god could either be Jack Harkness on the looks factor or he could be ugly as a rundown dog, who the hell knows?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


If anyone knew I wouldn't be asking a light hearted question would I? Jesus, I wouldn't want to go to you parties.

But okay, I'll take it seriously. And say we could know, because the 'evidence' in the bible stating we are made in his/her/its image, and the evidence in the fossils showing us that he/she/it (/them ?) was at most in the form of an ancient human.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Sed Non Credo because: the sake of civility (is that even a word?)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
You got way to much time on your hands..



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
This is an easy question to answer. God does not exist, therefore we are not made in his image. ./case closed.......



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sed Non Credo
 


Mate

Your right. God would be some ugly punter, maybe like a large globular amoeba.

Anyway, I read your thread before you edited the last comment, probably the funniest sequence of posts I've seen for a while. How many face palms did you do.?

Cheers

And by the way Civility is a word.
edit on 16-9-2011 by myselfaswell because: confirmation



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Sed Non Credo
 


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.What looks attractive to me,may look ugly to you.

Perception.

If the Christian god were real ( I am agnostic at best, atheist at worst) I would say he was ugly.... and I am not basing that off of looks... More.... Personality....

Well, I would say that about the god in pretty much every religion....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


That I can't dispute. They go too easy on us at College these days.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Well, the question your asking is about looks and features right?
If you were to look past features and looks you will see that true beauty is from within not what's on the outside, so with that concept I would have to say that God would be the most beautiful in the universe.
The old saying goes " don't judge a book by its cover" and it stands true regardless of any changes to features/looks that have occured over time.

Hope this answers your question or allows you to think a little deeper into it.

Peace to you all



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rellix
 


Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, but yes, it was indeed looks and features I meant to question. Thanks for your response.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Sed Non Credo
 


Cool, I just wanted to make sure of your question. Yes, from what knowledge we have man has changed his features over time. God is meant to be immortal and infinite so I would think that he may change based on ageing but his features would remain the same, the bible states that we were created in his image so maybe you could say that yes he indeed does look different, whether or not we would say he is ugly is hard to say for sure. Maybe we change as he changes or vice versa and he would look normal to us.

Just my thoughts, no evidence.

Peace to you all



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Sed Non Credo
 


Don't know if you know but BBC are nicknamed "British Brainwashing Corporation" because they are good at lying and spreading Evil-lution amongst other things like war propaganda.

For your question, i think its not thought out that well. We were created in God's image but we have severely distorted that image and some have almost destroyed it by the way they live there lives without any morals.

As for the physical appearance of God, i have heard you cannot look into his face directly because it is so bright.

But if you want an idea of what Jesus looks like, type "shroud of Turin" into google images.
edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 
You mean the turin shroud that has been proven to be only 700 years old?

Since the Middle Ages multitudes have believed that a piece of linen enshrined in Turin, Italy, is the burial shroud that Jesus Christ left in the tomb when he rose from the grave. But last week Turin's Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero calmly announced that scientific testing proves the yellowing 14- ft.-long fabric is only six or seven centuries old and could not have dated from the time of Jesus. Thus ended the most intense scientific study ever conducted on a Christian relic.



edit on 16-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

If God looks anything like your avatar, mate, He’s hideous.

I think I asked you before but – why does your Jesus have a gaping, fanged mouth where his private parts should be?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Maybe fake maybe not, no one knows for sure.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Only your sinful mind and soulless heart could think of such a thing. You obviously don't know the relevance of a lion and Jesus but i don't supposed you've ever read a book let alone the bible. As for it being hideous i would have to disagree. Your just jealous you can't put up a better avatar because you don't know how.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 
This is some pretty sound evidence that its faked. Three tests =same conclusion.

Testing was done simultaneously at the University of Arizona, Britain's Oxford University and Switzerland's Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Each laboratory received four unmarked samples: a shroud cutting and three control pieces, one of which dated from the 1st century. The samples were chemically cleaned, burned to produce carbon dioxide, catalytically converted into graphite and then tested for carbon 14 isotopes to fix the date by calculating the amount of radioactive decay. Only London's British Museum, which coordinated the testing, knew which samples were which. Arizona's Physicist Douglas Donahue says that the three laboratories reached a "remarkable agreement," all estimating dates within 100 years of one another. Averaging of the data produced a 95% probability that the shroud originated between 1260 and 1380 and near absolute certainty that it dates from no earlier than 1200.

Maybe being wrong about the shroud gives you pause to consider you are totally wrong about evolution also?

edit on 16-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join