I really like this response!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God cannot have Form?
- Thread starter Madhuri
- Start date
I really like this response!
There has been some really good points made. Even though I'm arguing against some people, I am trying and wanting to make sense of the alternative concepts. So far I think I am understanding a little, but think I see flaws. Otherwise, it is simply a matter of having different concepts.
It's still bizarre though to think that God could be limited by being too powerful!
It's still bizarre though to think that God could be limited by being too powerful!
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I always think of ‘form’ in its broadest sense when dealing with God, so that not only are we talking about form in the physical world, that being our 3 dimensional reality, but also in concept within the minds of those who think about it. What is Gods form or presence in that dimension, a dimension quite important to us? Might we not expect him to be fully present there also?
I always find the word God to be almost beautifully ambiguous and ill defined. I for one most definitely have barely any real tangible concept of what God is, or could be. Im almost holding the label in my head, but am content in leaving it there, turning a blind eye to its inadequate state, as it is not about to ever be put to the test as it were.
I think about what is at the core of meaning in the world for me, and I often come up with beauty, elegance and symmetry and the like. I do find value in all things that show this quality and that resonates with me. And for me, for good or bad, when dealing with God, ive felt uneasy with my inadequate concept of what it is or could be, and have infact found some greater beauty in the concept of no defined or definable God. That the world is itself, in all of its own greatness, un tarnished by my efforts to scribble on a labeled meaning that may infact add nothing to the world as it stands, and neither likely provide any of the genuine value i might seek when i attempt to scribble away.
Alex
I think your concept of God is unrealistic. I, like many believe that God created the physics that holds the universe together but cannot randomly or magically change it. He works within His own laws of nature. They are tangible. I think this is a big misconception amung non-believers and maybe even fundamentalists. The notion that if God "existed" He could do things beyond the natural world. And maybe that is further enhanced by those who also take the bible so litteral. At least IMO.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
We don't limit God, either!
But as was pointed out in the quote I posted, a God who incarnated Himself would immediately cease to be God!
Peace,
Bruce
But as was pointed out in the quote I posted, a God who incarnated Himself would immediately cease to be God!
Peace,
Bruce
Oneatatime
Huh?
Its all made up anyway so God can be whatever you want it to be with whatever limits you choose to impose, including those which bizarly exist to restrict limitation.
These bold statements about the nature of God are just silly given that it amounts to little more than idle speculation, including the writings in religious texts.
These bold statements about the nature of God are just silly given that it amounts to little more than idle speculation, including the writings in religious texts.
What does it mean for god not to have form? God is just some sort of mist and can't be a solid form? Well the way I see it is that god would be some form or even all forms made from the same as what the universe is made of. Invisible or spirit means nothing more than different forms of natures building blocks.
God cannot be FULLY present everywhere and be FULLY present in one particular space and time. Those two are contradictory. Is it possible for god to limit himself to one particular space and time and still be omnipresent?
Isn't "mist" a form?
Can God not be FULLY present everywhere and FULLY present in EACH particular space and time? Would that be contradictory?
Yup mist is a type of form so I have a hard time conceiving formless.
When I think of fully present everywhere I get an idea of a piece of god being everywhere giving full awareness of all things. My logic tells me that god being fully in one place might leave some other space empty of any piece of god.
Then again I'm not a quantum physicist so what your saying might be possible especially with the circular time theory but then thats where logic stops being logical.
That's okay --I think that's a requirement (that "hard time").
JMiller
Member
It might be helpful to consider the idea of "too powerful" as not meaning anything at all.
In this instance God would be presumably as powerful as any "thing" or "something" could be. Therefor, God could never be too powerful. On the other hand, "we" can apply human concepts of power to God, that are illogical, thus rendering the power of God unrealistic.
Two very distinct subjects. Hope that helps a bit.
There isn't really "too powerful" within reason. Presumably a being so powerful would have the ability to control or limit their own power not that I think a being would do that. They could even give their power away or share if the all powerful being were lacking in intelligence. The point being that an all powerful being has complete control on how much power would be used, limited or not.
JMiller
Member
OK, but my point was that we as humans often times play with illogical ideas with power and divinity.
If I subscribed to a God, I personally wouldn't subscribe to a God that could do anything, in that, "anything" might encompass illogical notions.
Yeah like a god so powerful he could destroy himself. Or God creating a rock too heavy to lift. I'm sure it's possible but an all powerful god would be retarded to do so.
I think maybe you under estimate an All Powerful being. Could I be over estimating?
I think maybe you overestimate the concept "possible."
fearfurry
New Member
God created everything including time and space and sustains them, every moment. If God has form, it means he is within the confines of the space!. It is impossible unless someone else is sustaining the space. Then that one would be the real God.
God could give more capabilities to one of his creations and make it special from all others. But that wouldn't make it God, it is still God's creation only.
God could give more capabilities to one of his creations and make it special from all others. But that wouldn't make it God, it is still God's creation only.
If God cannot have form, then explain how that Adam was made in the Image and Likeness of God with the form He took on as being made a Man.
Gen 1:26
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now the word image is the hebrew word
tselem :
image
a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)
b) image, likeness (of resemblance)
c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)
The word likeness is the hebrew word
dĕmuwth:
likeness, similitude in the likeness of, like as
It also is translated fashion as here 2 Kings 16:10
10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.
Now the word fashion is defined in our english dictionary as :
to give a particular shape or form to; make
So how is it, Adam was in the Image and Likeness of God, and had a Form of a Man ?
Gen 1:26
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now the word image is the hebrew word
tselem :
image
a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)
b) image, likeness (of resemblance)
c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)
The word likeness is the hebrew word
dĕmuwth:
likeness, similitude in the likeness of, like as
It also is translated fashion as here 2 Kings 16:10
10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.
Now the word fashion is defined in our english dictionary as :
to give a particular shape or form to; make
So how is it, Adam was in the Image and Likeness of God, and had a Form of a Man ?
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
The Rabbis of the Talmud, and the classical commentators, are universally in agreement that tzelem and d'mut refer not to physical imagery (because God has no form), but to more intangible qualities. Tzelem is being used not in the sense of an eidolon, but in the sense of a cast shadow, something which echoes the original in some way. D'mut is being used not in the sense of a literal image, but in the sense of a thing resembling another, or recalling it. It is akin to the word "imagery" in English, in the sense of not having to mean literal pictures, but referring often to allusions or metaphors in literature, that bring to mind certain times or feelings or a certain atmosphere or subtext.
The Rabbis and commentators are almost all agreed that the two intangible qualities being referred to are free will and reason, although there is some dispute about which word refers to which quality.
The notion that tzelem and d'mut here are literal, and refer to some divine physicality is absent from any normative Jewish tradition entirely.