A CONVERSATION WITH GOD. PART 8

For thousands of years, humans, first the priests, shaman, and the clergy, and then the ordinary people, have sought to speak with the gods, and then for the gods. 

Always being secure in the knowledge that the gods would not denounce what they have reported of these conversations. So, why have the gods remained silent? Why have the gods chosen not to speak for themselves?

I do not understand, G. Why beings who, if the prophets and scribes and priests are to be believed, destined to shed, as it were, their mortality. And assume appearance of spiritual being. 

It should be necessary for them know what it is like to be mortal beings. And to be incapacitated or limited by the frailty of which flesh and blood humans are weighted down.

G.: I cannot answer your question, T. As I have said, there is no easy answers. It is the case that empathy requires one to be able to put him/herself into the place of another person or other living creature. 

To, as it were, try to 'be like that creature.' 'To perceive, feel and act as it would do.' That is what empathy means. 

We have seen how the prophets and scribes account for Christ, the reputed Son of God, being made into the flesh and blood of mortals. 

So that he could, according to the explanation, could 'think, act and feel like mortal humans', and show them the way to heaven. 

Before, again, according to the prophets, scribes and priest, being killed and resurrected and ascending up to heaven. 

Of course, it is the case that the account of the resurrection reported that Christ's body could not be found in the tomb. 

Which really does not validate the argument that mortal human cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. And must therefore be transformed into 'spiritual beings.'

T.: And therein lies the paradox, G. Namely this. If Christ, your reputed son, had to take on mortal human form to live among humans. And then shed that perishable form at his apparent death, and revert to his imperishable spiritual form?  

Then why the need for his mortal body to disappear. Like the sleight of a magician's hand? 

After all, he no longer needed it, so, why was it necessary for the evidence to disappear? Unless it was to add mystery,confusion and speculation to the highly improbable and deceptive theory of the resurrection?

G.: It is clear that you are questioning the authenticity of the the reputed resurrection of Christ, T. But, remember, as I have said on so many occasions already. I am not the author of the Bible. 

It might be best that we continue to discuss the nature of god, of me, as it were.

To be continued.