God cannot have Form?

[anthony55]

levite:

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.

I do not agree with that. The words speak for themselves.

 

[Otherright]

levite:



I do not agree with that. The words speak for themselves.

Do you mean like in Exodus 33?

 

[Levite]

I do not agree with that. The words speak for themselves.

Words in Torah very seldom just speak for themselves. We hold that every word in Torah has an infinite number of potential meanings, and every verse can be interpreted on many levels in different ways.

The Written Torah requires interpretation. That is why it was given along with the Oral Torah, and why the one cannot be read and understood in any kind of sophisticated way without the other.

 

[Otherright]

Words in Torah very seldom just speak for themselves. We hold that every word in Torah has an infinite number of potential meanings, and every verse can be interpreted on many levels in different ways.

The Written Torah requires interpretation. That is why it was given along with the Oral Torah, and why the one cannot be read and understood in any kind of sophisticated way without the other.

This is true in Judaism. I was wondering though, if you had a problem with Christians reading the OT and using their interpretations of it. I know some Jewish people kind of frown on it or shake their heads when they hear Christians reading the OT. Where do you stand on it?

 

[Acim]

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 reread this several times, and focussed a bit on "within a manifest form." Fully present within is not same as fully present as a manifest form. I think it gets tricky and I would say delusional. If we accept form as "the reality," I think it is delusional. And yet, I freely admit that I have acted as if physical is real, and 'other' is the delusion.

I do think another way to understand this is via night dreams. Outside the dream, I understand the illusion for what (I think) it is. I understand that my mind is manifesting the form as myself, a physical self. And that, I am really all beings within the manifested reality that is the dream world. Yet, within the dream world, that is not my awareness. Instead, I am quite convinced that form is real, that my perspective is limited to my solitary physical self. i am further convinced that the other participants in the dream are not of my making. Even upon waking, I may utter something like, "hey friend, you were in my dream last night."

I understand God Self as fully aware of (God) presence within the perceptual order of forms. That God is not the dreamer, nor limiting (self) knowledge to perspective of I am (as) form.

So, the objections, as I see it against personal form of God is that God Self will not portray Him (or Her) Self as, "I too am that which is (your) illusion." Or, I too am one who is isolated to this form. Instead, I do think God is highly personal in sense of being fully present within all manifested forms. In human understanding and desire to quantify, I find this to be beyond (my) comprehension. I feel it is known to me, while limited by my choice of self awareness (as a being stuck in solitary form).

Hope this helps. The other responses on this thread I think say similar message. The 2nd post, by Marble, says it far more concisely than I just put it.

 

[anthony55]

Do you mean like in Exodus 33?

see post 59

 

[Levite]

This is true in Judaism. I was wondering though, if you had a problem with Christians reading the OT and using their interpretations of it. I know some Jewish people kind of frown on it or shake their heads when they hear Christians reading the OT. Where do you stand on it?

I don't have a problem with anyone reading and studying the Hebrew Scriptures-- in fact I have often taught text to non-Jewish students.

I am mildly annoyed, but not really enough to work up a snit about it, by Christians calling it Christian scripture and naming it as the "Old Testament" (by implication superseded by their "New Testament").

But I have a serious problem with Christians reading the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically, and then telling Jews that the Christian interpretation is not only the only legitimate interpretation, but is the one that the text's authors intended from the start. To me, it is more than a little presumptuous to tell someone that you know their textual tradition better than they do, especially when generally speaking, you haven't even read the texts in the original, let alone been shown how the tradition of the text teaches that they be interpreted. And it seems unlikely to me that the Jewish authors of Jewish texts, written for Jews in the Jewish language, would have intended their words to be prophecy concerning the practice of a religion incompatible with Judaism, hundreds of years in their future.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

God cannot have Form?

God concept includes and excludes anything a human mind can THINK off and so neti, neti is a way for understanding and we know that God is there is everything.

In this argument what can be done??
Transcend THOUGHTS [mind] and to understand and realise what IT is all about, and that is what all enlightened humans have been trying to point AT.

Love & rgds

 

[Desert Snake]

This is true in Judaism. I was wondering though, if you had a problem with Christians reading the OT and using their interpretations of it. I know some Jewish people kind of frown on it or shake their heads when they hear Christians reading the OT. Where do you stand on it?

That's ridiculous. Btw, Jewish can mean the religion or the ethnicity. An ethnic Jew who converts to another religion does not magically aquire a new ethnicity.
This distinction is rarely, if ever made, thereby rendering the surrounding verbage moot.

 

[Levite]

That's ridiculous. Btw, Jewish can mean the religion or the ethnicity. An ethnic Jew who converts to another religion does not magically aquire a new ethnicity.
This distinction is rarely, if ever made, thereby rendering the surrounding verbage moot.

Actually, "Jewish" must mean both, since the religion and the ethnicity are intextricably intertwined. One cannot separate them. As you say Jews are Jews, whether they are observant or not, whether they are transgressors or not, even if they are heretics and apostates-- so long as they were born to a Jewish mother, or were properly converted according to Jewish Law-- they remain Jewish for life.

But I think what Otherright was asking about was whether Jews were radically proprietary with Jewish Scriptures-- whether or not there was anything prohibiting us from teaching Torah to non-Jews. Which, of course, there is not, and many Jews teach non-Jews Torah, all the time. Although I am hardly the only rabbi to have occasionally refused to teach Torah to evangelical missionaries or J4J's, who would twist it and use it against the Jewish People.

 

[Storm]

Actually, "Jewish" must mean both, since the religion and the ethnicity are intextricably intertwined. One cannot separate them. As you say Jews are Jews, whether they are observant or not, whether they are transgressors or not, even if they are heretics and apostates-- so long as they were born to a Jewish mother, or were properly converted according to Jewish Law-- they remain Jewish for life.

How can one convert ethnicities?

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually, "Jewish" must mean both, since the religion and the ethnicity are intextricably intertwined. One cannot separate them. As you say Jews are Jews, whether they are observant or not, whether they are transgressors or not, even if they are heretics and apostates-- so long as they were born to a Jewish mother, or were properly converted according to Jewish Law-- they remain Jewish for life.

But I think what Otherright was asking about was whether Jews were radically proprietary with Jewish Scriptures-- whether or not there was anything prohibiting us from teaching Torah to non-Jews. Which, of course, there is not, and many Jews teach non-Jews Torah, all the time. Although I am hardly the only rabbi to have occasionally refused to teach Torah to evangelical missionaries or J4J's, who would twist it and use it against the Jewish People.

Yeah, It just sometimes gets too vague, especially in forums.


Thats all.

 

[idav]

How can one convert ethnicities?

Circumcision of course.

 

[Levite]

How can one convert ethnicities?

If we really wanted to be technical, Judaism is a socioreligious ethnicity with semi-porous societal boundaries.

In other words, it is something which uniquely combines characteristics of a religion, an ethnicity, and a national/social entity. To be a part of it, one must be born within the group, or one may be adopted into the group via a legal and ritual methodology which has been fundamentally agreed upon by the members of the group, historically and traditionally.

Which is to say, if one isn't born Jewish, one can convert to Judaism. But when one does so, one gives up one's previous religious identity altogether, and one's ethnic and social identities become subordinated to the new dominant identity of "Jew."

 

[Storm]

If we really wanted to be technical, Judaism is a socioreligious ethnicity with semi-porous societal boundaries.

In other words, it is something which uniquely combines characteristics of a religion, an ethnicity, and a national/social entity. To be a part of it, one must be born within the group, or one may be adopted into the group via a legal and ritual methodology which has been fundamentally agreed upon by the members of the group, historically and traditionally.

Which is to say, if one isn't born Jewish, one can convert to Judaism. But when one does so, one gives up one's previous religious identity altogether, and one's ethnic and social identities become subordinated to the new dominant identity of "Jew."

I'm not sure I buy that, but I won't argue.

 

[Madhuri]

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?

Yes I believe it is possible. God can be fully present everywhere at once. When God is manifest on Earth, he is still manifest in his realm, he is still manifest in numerous places as that form, present simultaneously in limitless areas of limitless universes that are all part of his energy.

All of existence, which is infinite, is God. Nothing is not God. And God is fully present within every part of his/her Self. That is the Vedic understanding. Through self-realisation, even the individual learns to connect with the whole of existence through her very Self, which we come to realise is not separate from the Supreme. The whole of existence is within our very self here and now. That is the Vedic understanding.

And so if we can believe this, we can certainly believe that God can manifest as form on Earth without the slightest effort.

 

[blackout]

every form is gOd manifest.

We, are the I's/eyes that recognize divinity,
in any one place
at any given time.

 

[Muffled]

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 no evidence that God has form.

The argument from omnipotence is limited by reality. God is what He is and no amount of power can change that. That agrees with the concept that God is immutable.

I believe that God although disperse is one everywhere. Equally present suggests a lack of oneness that I don't believe in. Obviously the fullness of God is not contained in one place. However because of God's oneness the essence of Godliness is in every place.

God is also present outside of time.

God has the image of being fully present through His oneness. However there is a marked difference between God simply being present in a form and being linked to a form. God was present in Hitler but quite obviously not linked to him or he wouldn't have practiced evil. God is linked to the form of Jesus as the only spirit linked to Him but God is linked in believers as the Paraclete through the spirit of the believer. The fact that God is linked does not eliminate the fact that God is everywhere else at the same time, so one can't limit God to that link. However since God is one the linked person is one with the universe through the link.

 

[Madhuri]

There is no evidence that God has form.

The argument from omnipotence is limited by reality. God is what He is and no amount of power can change that. That agrees with the concept that God is immutable.

I believe that God although disperse is one everywhere. Equally present suggests a lack of oneness that I don't believe in. Obviously the fullness of God is not contained in one place. However because of God's oneness the essence of Godliness is in every place.

God is also present outside of time.

God has the image of being fully present through His oneness. However there is a marked difference between God simply being present in a form and being linked to a form. God was present in Hitler but quite obviously not linked to him or he wouldn't have practiced evil. God is linked to the form of Jesus as the only spirit linked to Him but God is linked in believers as the Paraclete through the spirit of the believer. The fact that God is linked does not eliminate the fact that God is everywhere else at the same time, so one can't limit God to that link. However since God is one the linked person is one with the universe through the link.

How is being fully present everywhere anything but oneness???
It is the idea that God is only in one place but can be separate from another that is dualistic. The idea that God is within and without, that God is everywhere, is the essence of monistic thinking.

Because God is everywhere, obviously God is present within and without time. Time is but one aspect of God's energy.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between being present within and being linked to? If God is present within you, how is he not linked to you? Please explain this.

And how is it that you conclude that there is no evidence that God has form? How is there any more evidence that there is a God at all? Or do you mean that based in the limited scope of your particular religion, there is no scriptural basis for concluding that your particular concept of God has form?

And finally, what does it mean to you that God is 'one everywhere' but not 'fully present' everywhere? What does 'one everywhere' even mean?

 

[Acim]

Yes I believe it is possible. God can be fully present everywhere at once. When God is manifest on Earth, he is still manifest in his realm, he is still manifest in numerous places as that form, present simultaneously in limitless areas of limitless universes that are all part of his energy.

All of existence, which is infinite, is God. Nothing is not God. And God is fully present within every part of his/her Self. That is the Vedic understanding. Through self-realisation, even the individual learns to connect with the whole of existence through her very Self, which we come to realise is not separate from the Supreme. The whole of existence is within our very self here and now. That is the Vedic understanding.

And so if we can believe this, we can certainly believe that God can manifest as form on Earth without the slightest effort.

Would Vedic understanding go as far as to suggest 'we are God(s)?'