• 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!

Is god a bilateral being

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Likely you imagine god as having a humanish form, with a set of eyes or hands etc. Evolution gives us the extras so that maybe if we lose one thing, we can still make use of another. Arguably, god could be one-eyed and one handed, and one-minded. Why would it need to operate with a bilateral system? But if you are made in the image of god, perhaps this idea does argue that god is bilateral.
 

SeekerOnThePath

On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
But if you are made in the image of god, perhaps this idea does argue that god is bilateral.

The "Image of God" is spirit, which is also identified as Breath and Consciousness.
Even in Christian theology, Jesus is born of the holy spirit (in Mary's womb). God breathed the spirit into Adam (Genesis 2:7), Man made in the Image of God (Genesis 1:27). And Qur'an says in Surah 3:59: "Indeed the case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was."
Judaism is pretty clear that the "image of God" is spirit (ruach) too.
waYiv'rä élohiym et-häädäm B'tzal'mô B'tzelem élohiym Bärä otô zäkhär ûn'qëväh Bärä otäm


And no, Anthropomorphism has nothing to do with the God of Abraham.

Likely you imagine god as having a humanish form

Well from the Jewish and Islamic POV, that is one of the most offensive and blasphemous things you could possibly utter with your mouth.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Likely you imagine god as having a humanish form, ...
^ a bold claim from the mouth of "standard animism."

Evolution gives us the extras so that maybe if we lose one thing, we can still make use of another.
Finally, evolution explained:
one eye and an extra ...
one ear and an extra ...
one hand and an extra ...
one leg and an extra ...
one foot and an extra ...

I suspect that few theists think of god as 'humanish' and that very, very few evolutionary biologist think of evolution as intentional.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Well from the Jewish and Islamic POV, that is one of the most offensive and blasphemous things you could possibly utter with your mouth.
When no one has proved the existence of God / Allah, why talk of offense or blasphemy. First prove that. If all things have to be imagined, what is wrong with the Flying Spaghetti Monster for West and Cthulhu for East.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
^ a bold claim from the mouth of "standard animism."

Hm.. well with that statement, I was attributing the readership with thinking god might be humanish, not necessarily giving you my view. The readership is mostly christian I had thought. The gods are in nature, that remains my view. They might cast the illusion of being human by the occasional shape-shifting, or more commonly, to channel themselves through a man

Finally, evolution explained:
one eye and an extra ...
one ear and an extra ...
one hand and an extra ...
one leg and an extra ...
one foot and an extra ...

I suspect that few theists think of god as 'humanish' and that very, very few evolutionary biologist think of evolution as intentional.

It's all intentional, and with nature, we form one creature. We don't even have the greatest mind within it. In my view, this mind is the one which humans desperately to get back in touch with, otherwise it's back to the stone age

In case you're curious, though you're probably not, I was wondering why Odin might have been thought to have but one eye. Even so, he could still study all the deeds of men from afar. It occurred to me that god needn't be shaped like a man, he needn't be bilateral or even bicameral. The one tool, be it an eye or a hand etc. (in the case of Tyr) was enough if it had the power of god behind it. Why would god need an extra eye then, if he had the ultimate eye, the monistic eye of all eyes
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
The "Image of God" is spirit, which is also identified as Breath and Consciousness.
Even in Christian theology, Jesus is born of the holy spirit (in Mary's womb). God breathed the spirit into Adam (Genesis 2:7), Man made in the Image of God (Genesis 1:27). And Qur'an says in Surah 3:59: "Indeed the case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was."
Judaism is pretty clear that the "image of God" is spirit (ruach) too.
waYiv'rä élohiym et-häädäm B'tzal'mô B'tzelem élohiym Bärä otô zäkhär ûn'qëväh Bärä otäm


And no, Anthropomorphism has nothing to do with the God of Abraham.

I think that refers more to distinct 'personalities' than to physical bodies.

Then we have genesis 3:8. Why would we hear god walking? How does he walk, and why? If we assume that he walks like a man walks, we might safely assume that he was choosing to take a bilateral humanish form, using two legs to walk
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Likely you imagine god as having a humanish form, with a set of eyes or hands etc. Evolution gives us the extras so that maybe if we lose one thing, we can still make use of another. Arguably, god could be one-eyed and one handed, and one-minded. Why would it need to operate with a bilateral system? But if you are made in the image of god, perhaps this idea does argue that god is bilateral.
Being made "in the image" of God is not about physical body shape. It is a spiritual and moral reference.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Then we have genesis 3:8. Why would we hear god walking? How does he walk, and why? If we assume that he walks like a man walks, we might safely assume that he was choosing to take a bilateral humanish form, using two legs to walk
This seems a bit naive of you, to be honest. We've had countless threads in which it has been pointed out that the Genesis accounts are allegorical.

According to Christianity, God, in the person of God the Son, did, at one time in history, take on human flesh. But the very fact that this was such an important event shows that God was NOT thought to have had human form up to that point.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
It's poetic language. It's called 'artifice'.

This seems a bit naive of you, to be honest. We've had countless threads in which it has been pointed out that the Genesis accounts are allegorical.

Alright maybe I'm not making the best arguments.. and maybe I kind of misspoke in attributing so many people with thinking god might be anthropic on some level

But honestly, it's hard to pin down a general trend with how others make the human form relate to god. We have the 'three persons' idea, and the figure of Jesus, who some think was god in the flesh. We have the idea of receiving or retaining a body after death, in heaven. The bible populates heaven with different creatures that have bodies. Heaven has a throne, which requires a bodied entity to sit upon it. I am reading some lines from revelation where it says 'someone was sitting there,' and how can it sit unless it is bodied? Then there is the story of Moses, where god is said to have a face of some kind. I wonder what bible believing people from those past eras thought when they imagined what god looked like. Did they anthropomorphize god more than modern people do?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Likely you imagine god as having a humanish form, with a set of eyes or hands etc. ...

Bible tells God is spirit and love. I think that is very different than physical human form.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

But, maybe He could be called multilateral, because for example my hands are His hands and I think everyone who uses his arms for God, has God’s arms.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Alright maybe I'm not making the best arguments.. and maybe I kind of misspoke in attributing so many people with thinking god might be anthropic on some level

But honestly, it's hard to pin down a general trend with how others make the human form relate to god. We have the 'three persons' idea, and the figure of Jesus, who some think was god in the flesh. We have the idea of receiving or retaining a body after death, in heaven. The bible populates heaven with different creatures that have bodies. Heaven has a throne, which requires a bodied entity to sit upon it. I am reading some lines from revelation where it says 'someone was sitting there,' and how can it sit unless it is bodied? Then there is the story of Moses, where god is said to have a face of some kind. I wonder what bible believing people from those past eras thought when they imagined what god looked like. Did they anthropomorphize god more than modern people do?
Where do you get this about God having a face in the Old Testament? I can't seem to recall that.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Where do you get this about God having a face in the Old Testament? I can't seem to recall that.

exodus 33:20

The form or appearance of god's face cannot be seen by a man, otherwise he will die. Something about the image apparently invokes virtue, and so much of it, that it not only exceeds your expectations, but you cannot visually handle it. This might be sort of the opposite of what you see in humans, where they often don't meet your expectations, and may have a negative influence on your character, to relate something I read just now from Seneca. I struggle to think of the ways in which this is a metaphor at the moment, though I'm sure one can be thought of. Something about god is face-like, and it cannot pass before the eye or vision of man
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
But, maybe He could be called multilateral, because for example my hands are His hands and I think everyone who uses his arms for God, has God’s arms.

I like the term "multi-lateral." I think I will try to use it more. Things aren't just only metaphors or realities, sometimes they might be both
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
exodus 33:20

The form or appearance of god's face cannot be seen by a man, otherwise he will die. Something about the image apparently invokes virtue, and so much of it, that it not only exceeds your expectations, but you cannot visually handle it. This might be sort of the opposite of what you see in humans, where they often don't meet your expectations, and may have a negative influence on your character, to relate something I read just now from Seneca. I struggle to think of the ways in which this is a metaphor at the moment, though I'm sure one can be thought of. Something about god is face-like, and it cannot pass before the eye or vision of man
Ah I see. But the whole point of that is that we CAN'T see God's "face". The reference to "face" means direct, close up, i.e. face to face. Whatever the experience is like, it would be too much for us.
 
Top