Classical Monotheism - Incorporeality

[Quintessence]

Western culture discusses theism almost exclusively from the lens of classical monotheism, so much so that theism is often considered synonymous with it. Anyone growing up in Western culture is bound to be raised with or heavily exposed to the assumptions about god(s) found in classical monotheism. This post may be part of a series aimed to get one thinking about the assumptions of classical monotheism and whether they align with our own conception of god(s). First up, let's consider the attribute of incorporeality:

"Incorporeality. God has no body (from Latin, incorporale), or is non-physical. This is a central tenet of monotheistic religions, which insist that any references to God’s eyes, ears, mind, and the like are anthropomorphic. Christian belief in the incarnation is a unique case in which God takes on human form in Christ."​

From - God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

In your understanding of god(s), are they necessarily incorporeal? What implications does this have for how you relate to your god(s) in your practice? Does ritual devotion to an incorporeal god look different than for a corporeal god, for instance? Perhaps put another way, does it matter whether or not we conceptualize god(s) as corporeal or incorporeal, and if so, in what ways?

 

[Bthoth]

God of make believe are man made. Only graven images and story telling can represent the man made deity.

Corporeal: The universe, all mass, all energy and all time as 1 is our everything. "WE' live within the body of god, eat of its body, etc..... It is how I comprehend, that any atrocity is done unto him and likewise, NO sin, evil or corrupt act can be undone.

 

[SalixIncendium]

God of make believe are man made. Only graven images and story telling can represent the man made deity.

Okay, then what about gods that are not "make believe?"

 

[SalixIncendium]

Personally, I have no horse in the race.

That said, whether or not a god would be corporeal or incorporeal is dependent on one's personal view of god. There are many that believe a god can be embodied, i.e an incarnation of a god, and there are others who do not.

Of course it matters if one conceptualizes their god as incorporeal or corporeal. A corporeal god would have the ability to interact with this reality directly, whereas an incorporeal god may interact indirectly through the devotee through commands or advice.

 

[Bthoth]

Okay, then what about gods that are not "make believe?"

The only deity that is not man made is nature itself. All of the rest are man made creations - make believe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only deity that is not man made is nature itself. All of the rest are man made creations - make believe.

And you have objective evidence to back this claim up?

Also, just so I'm clear, are all man-made creations are make-believe?

 

[Bthoth]

And you have objective evidence to back this claim up?

Mankind created all words.

Clear evidence: no words existed before mankind existed.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Mankind created all words.

Clear evidence: no words existed before mankind existed.

So by your logic, words are make-believe. Am I correct?

 

[Bthoth]

So by your logic, words are make-believe. Am I correct?

Words are man made (created)

my scope is far too rational: with words man can create about anything, even gods.

It's basic and simple rational. Even if few have ever considered it themselves.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Words are man made (created)

my scope is far too rational: with words man can create about anything, even gods.

It's basic and simple rational. Even if few have ever considered it themselves.

You didn't answer the question. In post #4 you equated man-made with make-believe.

By that logic, both words and gods are make-believe (as are houses, cars, the computer you're typing on, etc.). Is this your position?

 

[Bthoth]

You didn't answer the question. In post #4 you equated man-made with make-believe.

The hobbit is man made........... purely make believe

By that logic, both words and gods are make-believe (as are houses, cars, the computer you're typing on, etc.). Is this your position?

Words are not even understood by someone that does not know the language. Houses are like words, man made. Just like cars and computers.

My position is clear. All of the gods are man made except nature and many of the words describing nature are just describing make believe, hypothesis.

 

[JustGeorge]

Western culture discusses theism almost exclusively from the lens of classical monotheism, so much so that theism is often considered synonymous with it. Anyone growing up in Western culture is bound to be raised with or heavily exposed to the assumptions about god(s) found in classical monotheism. This post may be part of a series aimed to get one thinking about the assumptions of classical monotheism and whether they align with our own conception of god(s). First up, let's consider the attribute of incorporeality:

"Incorporeality. God has no body (from Latin, incorporale), or is non-physical. This is a central tenet of monotheistic religions, which insist that any references to God’s eyes, ears, mind, and the like are anthropomorphic. Christian belief in the incarnation is a unique case in which God takes on human form in Christ."​

From - God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

In your understanding of god(s), are they necessarily incorporeal? What implications does this have for how you relate to your god(s) in your practice? Does ritual devotion to an incorporeal god look different than for a corporeal god, for instance? Perhaps put another way, does it matter whether or not we conceptualize god(s) as corporeal or incorporeal, and if so, in what ways?

I chose the multiple option.

Perhaps some Gods have been physical. Perhaps others have not, at least not in the way humans term it. Perhaps some aren't detectable, but still 'are'. Perhaps some transcend this.

How I relate to a deity would greatly vary on which one.

I think it matters how its conceptualized to the one doing the conceptualizing(or refusing to do so).

 

[syo]

Gods are Brahman.

 

[wellwisher]

Western culture discusses theism almost exclusively from the lens of classical monotheism, so much so that theism is often considered synonymous with it. Anyone growing up in Western culture is bound to be raised with or heavily exposed to the assumptions about god(s) found in classical monotheism. This post may be part of a series aimed to get one thinking about the assumptions of classical monotheism and whether they align with our own conception of god(s). First up, let's consider the attribute of incorporeality:

"Incorporeality. God has no body (from Latin, incorporale), or is non-physical. This is a central tenet of monotheistic religions, which insist that any references to God’s eyes, ears, mind, and the like are anthropomorphic. Christian belief in the incarnation is a unique case in which God takes on human form in Christ."​

From - God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

In your understanding of god(s), are they necessarily incorporeal? What implications does this have for how you relate to your god(s) in your practice? Does ritual devotion to an incorporeal god look different than for a corporeal god, for instance? Perhaps put another way, does it matter whether or not we conceptualize god(s) as corporeal or incorporeal, and if so, in what ways?

We mortals live in space-time, where space and time are connected. This places physical limits on us mortals. For example, London is a place a space, that is also a function of time. If we go back into time, that same space we call London was different at different times; stone age to modern. Space-time creates specificity in time and space and will define each generation.

God, on the other hand, lives where space and time are not connected. It is as simple as that. This has a completely different physics. If one could move in space, unconnected to time, you would become omnipresent. We cannot do this in space-time, since space-time is about being in a specific time and place. But if time and space are not connected, the temporal limitations are removed.

If we start where space and time are not connected, and were to place limits, space and time could merge and space-time will appear, then we would get the Big Bang. This allows temporal to appear and with it the slow boat of evolution and change. The physics of separated space and time are different from what we now know, with our space-time based senses.

The prophets, who could sense a future, that is not yet in the time line of their space, would need to have inner senses that can move in time, not connected to space, to see the future. When this shuts off, they return back to their space-time to report it. Human have both skills, but separated space and time, is still being repressed, since it comes from the inner self.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

as an agnostic, I chose "undecided or unsure."

A good OP, and followup discussion so far.