I thought those were just fancy towels.
-
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!
does this exist?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
With all respect to the artist, I don't think anyone really thinks God looks like this. He is not a man. He has no body, no form. He is neither male nor female, nor young or old. Misrepresentations like this are a big reason Jews do not make depictions of God.
Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” LINK
You present a very confident position as to the nature of "God", or some very firm positions on what it is not. What informs your stance? You also associate the masculine pronoun 'he' to what you describe as a non-gendered entity. Is that simply out of convention? Do you consider such a convention misleading or confusing given your position?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Looks like my uncle, actually...
If anyone is now wondering, I am not @TagliatelliMonster's uncle (at least to the best of my knowledge). 
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I thought his washing machine had way too much detergent in it.
Perhaps @IndigoChild5559 was being overly generous.
Given that we live in a world still capable of produce YECs and the like, rather than saying
I don't think anyone really thinks God looks like this
he probably should have saidI don't think any reasonable person really thinks God looks like this.
In that light then, the post should also be interpreted to say, "any reasonable person knows He is not a man. He has no body, no form. He is neither male nor female, nor young or old."
So I am asking, "How does a reasonable person know these things?"
I think it's a worthless question, primarily because I believe it unreasonable to claim to know much of anything about preternatural agency. At the same time, one might reasonably presume that God does not look like the picture just as one might presume that God does not have nine eyes and a fluffy tail.
Opinion noted. Still, @IndigoChild5559 stated a position rather definitively and my questions have been in regard to that definitive position.
Why? What informs you that there is such a thing as "preternatural agency" to begin with, and therefore what may be considered reasonable or unreasonable in terms of knowledge of it?
Why is that reasonable? Based upon what?
You too. Cheers.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There are only so many pronouns that can be used, and all of them are problematic. For example, if we were to use "it," this would make it seem like God were an object. I think "he" was originally chosen because the culture was patriarchal to a flaw. However, I would say that most monotheists today don't fall into that description, but are merely using he because of, as you say, convention.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am, but most of my confidence likely is the result of being taught these things from my mother's knee -- that God is not a man or a tree or a rock or an idol, that we do not make representations of him because all representations would be mistaken. Thus, when I think of "God," no picture comes to my mind.
Philosophically, I'm very reluctant to make statements about God, because how can a finite being fathom the infinite? Yet I still find these representations of God to be a bit silly. For example, a human being with hair, eyes, nose, mouth, etc., is a biological life form that has evolved here on earth. It just makes no sense to say that a non-corporeal, non-biological being that has not evolved would have those same traits.
I've always found this sentiment to be meaningful.
I tend to agree with this, although I keep thinking of how many times people keep saying "Man was created in God's image," which implies that humans look like God (and that God looks like humans).
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The standard understanding of "image of God" has nothing to do with physical traits. It refers to humans having attributes of God's character, such as agency, concience, etc.
He's wearing different clothes and sunglasses, his hair is tied up in a bun behind his hat, and he's not meditating in a sauna like the guy pictured above, but...
Anyone with a beard is OK with me because if ya Dad doesn't have a beard you've got two Mums.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Or in a sauna after a healthy match.