God cannot have Form?

[Madhuri]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

 

[Marble]

God is manifest in all forms - but bound to none of them.

 

[Vendetta]

Well any deity who has an ability to be present everywhere can also be present somewhere. To say God "cannot" imparts some impotency on God's ability and thus makes God deficient in that respect. For example from the Christian view God morphed into Jesus. Of course the nature of Jesus is complicated so, of course that is another debate but personally I think any God who can manipulate the universe at will can also sustain itself in one or many physical features.

 

[blackout]

I see the UniVerse,
and All things/forms in it
as the ever shifting form
that is gOd.

ie., the Universe itSelf is gOd.

To me,
All things are gOd,
or no'thing is.

EDIT: Humans can play either role.
god, or not god,
as they embody the mind of god,
or not.

 

[Levite]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

I don't believe that God has form, and I do believe that God is everywhere.

Judaism has always rejected the notion of God taking physical form, because the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and because the full truth of God's transcendent, paradoxical, eternality, omnipresence, and arationality would not only be uncontainable in this universe/plane of existence, but would be inimical to it, like trying to contain the power of a nuclear blast inside a 9-volt battery-- it simply was not designed to deal with that level of energy.

My personal belief about the omnipresence of God is complicated. But I'll try to encapsulate it quickly.

We have a concept in Lurianic Kabbalah (a type of Jewish mysticism) called tzimtzum, which means "contracting" or "pulling inward," and originally, it referred to a hypothesis that God had to contract Himself in order to create a void in which He might create the universe. Now, I never cared for this idea in its original form, because it implies that the universe occupies a space in which God is not present-- an idea I reject.

So what I think it means is that God contracted himself to expand the density of His own substance.

The analogy I like to use is that, outside the universe, God is like ice. His glory and presence solidly occupy everything else there is. But inside the universe, God is like liquid water. And the created universe-- and everything within it-- exists within that water. We live within God, and yet we are not ourselves God; much like fish exist within water-- they breathe water, they take nourishment from water, they cannot live without water-- and yet they themselves are not water...they are fish. Even so, we live within the materia divina, we are sustained by God, we are never out of contact with God, and yet we ourselves are not God, we are human beings, created by God. And even as the fish (which are not water) are themselves creatures composed in part of water, we (who are not God) have a divine spark powering the center of our souls.

 

[PolyHedral]

The analogy I like to use is that, outside the universe, God is like ice. His glory and presence solidly occupy everything else there is. But inside the universe, God is like liquid water. And the created universe-- and everything within it-- exists within that water. We live within God, and yet we are not ourselves God; much like fish exist within water-- they breathe water, they take nourishment from water, they cannot live without water-- and yet they themselves are not water...they are fish. Even so, we live within the materia divina, we are sustained by God, we are never out of contact with God, and yet we ourselves are not God, we are human beings, created by God. And even as the fish (which are not water) are themselves creatures composed in part of water, we (who are not God) have a divine spark powering the center of our souls.

Just to throw a wrench in your metaphor the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating as time goes on.

 

[elmarna]

To me god is the very essence of life!
So ... YES GOD CAN BE EVERYWHERE!
he is life & we are life.
How we percieve him & how we think & feel about him is what comes out based on those beliefs.
I LOVE GOD !
THAT IS FIRST & FOREMOST IN ALL THAT I DO
Smile & inspire the world in good way
SO I SEND YOU SMILES!

 

[horizon_mj1]

I see viewing any aspect of Divinity, that putting any restriction what so ever as insulting. If it was so wanted that every person "viewing" or "seeing" the chosen embodiment or form, everyone could either see the same thing, or everyone could see something different (if so wished). (Of course this is IMO)We as humans through religion (science, beliefs) try to way over simplify Something that can not be simplified, but can be endlessly understood, as long as you look with pure intent. People place expectations on The One who can allow any and all avenues; to any question there is more than one answer, all answers should be "expected", unless of course you can make an educated guess by knowing the controlling Energy behind the answer.

 

[Willamena]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

There is a perspective from which "no form" is a form. "Limitless" is a form. Anything that puts an image on "God" by expressing an understanding is a form. If they truly want to express formlessness, they could go with the Zen habit of silence.

Trouble with that is that many people often fail to learn, then.

Another method is to express "God" in negative: neither limited nor limitless; neither everywhere nor nowhere; etc. What this accomplishes is to translate an image beyond both negatives, beyond all images to express.

In terms of "present", "God" does not fail to be everywhere and nowhere.

 

[BruceDLimber]

God is fully present everywhere at all times.

Of course!

If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

Very simple!

I quote an official Baha'i source:

"The human temple that has been made the vehicle of so overpowering a Revelation must, if we be faithful to the tenets of our Faith, ever remain entirely distinguished from that 'innermost Spirit of Spirits' and 'eternal Essence of Essences'--that invisible yet rational God Who, however much we extol the divinity of His Manifestations on earth, can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and incompatible with, the essentials of Bahá'í belief as are the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic conceptions of God-- both of which the utterances of Bahá'u'lláh emphatically repudiate and the fallacy of which they expose."

—(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 113)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Storm]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

Was this topic meant to include alternative concepts of God like mine?

 

[SageTree]

Not trying to make or break your posts here, rather just placing some links in here that resonate with my understanding of what you presented.

Stop me if you've seen this stuff before

There is a perspective from which "no form" is a form. "Limitless" is a form. Anything that puts an image on "God" by expressing an understanding is a form. If they truly want to express formlessness, they could go with the Zen habit of silence.

"Hear, O Śāriputra, emptiness is form; form is emptiness. Apart from form, emptiness is not; apart from emptiness, form is not. Emptiness is that which is form, form is that which is emptiness. Just thus are perception, cognition, mental construction, and consciousness."

--from the Heart Sutra

Easier said than explained

Trouble with that is that many people often fail to learn, then.

One of my favourite explanations of word usage incorporating emptiness into it's workings is 'The Two Truths Doctrine'

Form is Relative Truth while the concept/experience of Emptiness is an Ultimate Truth, but to even talk about it I acknowledge that a 'form' will be most useful for talking about it.

Good stuff. And imo really adds a funny layer of absurdity to even trying to talk about all of this in the first place. And I think that is the biggest lesson I take from it for any one alive.
Of course there is more philosophy tied up in it which is of use to me own practice, so maybe I'm a little biased

Another method is to express "God" in negative: neither limited nor limitless; neither everywhere nor nowhere; etc. What this accomplishes is to translate an image beyond both negatives, beyond all images to express.

In terms of "present", "God" does not fail to be everywhere and nowhere.

Apophatic vs Cataphatic
And
Neti neti which I learned about through my reading/experience w/ Advaita Vedanta, whose posits on God, as I gather it, are a very natural understanding to me.


I really enjoyed what you said, so I hope that it's okay that used its template to post a few of my own thoughts.

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."

"The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge."

"You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion."

— Meister Eckhart

I enjoy those quotes because I see so much truth and beauty in them, that is.... they mean something to me.
The first speaks of Oneness.
The second for me 'The Knower' was something I first encountered in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and I suppose it just spoke to my reasoning, from within the tradition I grew up in.
The third to me resonates with the 99 names of Allah, and perhaps, how we all pick one or two attributes to hold has to and practice. A painters pallet of Bhakti practices/focuses, maybe?


Anyways, again I hope it was okay to bring you into this, but your post really got the brain to finger highway flowing at top speed.


Thank you.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Willamena]

Anyways, again I hope it was okay to bring you into this, but your post really got the brain to finger highway flowing at top speed.

I'm flattered!

 

[Levite]

Just to throw a wrench in your metaphor the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating as time goes on.

I would presume that God contracted and diffused His essence enough to permit the full extent of the expansion of our universe (which, being God, He would know).

 

[atanu]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

Madhuri

Two concepts that are very important to Hinduism but do not occupy prominence in other religions are:

• Worship of form alone or the formless alone lead to deeper ignorance.
• Guru is God.

Neti-Neti is taught in Hinduism. Again, in Gita, Shri Krishna teaches that He was unborn. So, Hinduism does teach about inconcievabilty of the ultimate truth -- simply because the mind-senses are products of the inconcievable reality. Products cannot know their creators.

However, Guru, who is none but God appears in body -- but is not at all limited because actually Guru is not the body.

Guru is God, except that the Guru will shed the body and people will assume that Guru has died. That is our problem since we associate Guru with the body, which He is not. Guru is all-pervasive knowledge principle that uses a body.

 

[PolyHedral]

Products cannot know their creators.

IMO, this is a very silly meme, because it completely ignores the idea of emergent complexity. (Or possibly makes a different mistake due to the holism under it.) Simplicity can quite easily lead to complexity.

 

[Willamena]

IMO, this is a very silly meme, because it completely ignores the idea of emergent complexity. (Or possibly makes a different mistake due to the holism under it.) Simplicity can quite easily lead to complexity.

Perhaps that's why "emergence" emerged as an idea separate from "creation".

 

[nameless]

• Guru is God.

This should be in bold .....

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps that's why "emergence" emerged as an idea separate from "creation".

Because of atanu's idea, or it being wrong?

 

[Vendetta]

I don't believe that God has form, and I do believe that God is everywhere.

Judaism has always rejected the notion of God taking physical form, because the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and because the full truth of God's transcendent, paradoxical, eternality, omnipresence, and arationality would not only be uncontainable in this universe/plane of existence, but would be inimical to it, like trying to contain the power of a nuclear blast inside a 9-volt battery-- it simply was not designed to deal with that level of energy.

My personal belief about the omnipresence of God is complicated. But I'll try to encapsulate it quickly.

We have a concept in Lurianic Kabbalah (a type of Jewish mysticism) called tzimtzum, which means "contracting" or "pulling inward," and originally, it referred to a hypothesis that God had to contract Himself in order to create a void in which He might create the universe. Now, I never cared for this idea in its original form, because it implies that the universe occupies a space in which God is not present-- an idea I reject.

So what I think it means is that God contracted himself to expand the density of His own substance.

The analogy I like to use is that, outside the universe, God is like ice. His glory and presence solidly occupy everything else there is. But inside the universe, God is like liquid water. And the created universe-- and everything within it-- exists within that water. We live within God, and yet we are not ourselves God; much like fish exist within water-- they breathe water, they take nourishment from water, they cannot live without water-- and yet they themselves are not water...they are fish. Even so, we live within the materia divina, we are sustained by God, we are never out of contact with God, and yet we ourselves are not God, we are human beings, created by God. And even as the fish (which are not water) are themselves creatures composed in part of water, we (who are not God) have a divine spark powering the center of our souls.

Just to also throw an additional monkey wrench by saying "cannot" are you implying that certain divine rules cannot be broken? Or is the Jewish view is that God contradicting "his" own laws are unconscionable?