The Form of God

[Rival]

Do you believe that only Catholics are Christians? Do you understand your religion? These are the questions, here.

Can you find me one place where Frank has ever said such a thing? Do you understand anything Frank is saying? These are the questions, here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you believe that only Catholics are Christians? Do you understand your religion? These are the questions, here.

No idea how you got that from anything I said.

 

[Rival]

No idea how you got that from anything I said.

Because that's not the point. The point is to throw random attack questions in order to avoid answering any, silly.

 

[Desert Snake]

No idea how you got that from anything I said.

It's relevant because Catholicism holds certain definition traditionally for what a "Christian", is, and therefore if you are arguing from that perspective, it affects your given definitions for "Christian".


I have no idea why you wouldn't answer that question,

// now, regarding the example I gave, that is accepted Biblical study information, and the only reason you can't accept it, seems to be that you don't understand that Christianity is Judaic. Which is odd, since that is the clear inference from Scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that God has a form. Yes many claim that scripture states God has no form, I believe that this is a misinterpretation of not necessarily a constant form, and a lack of understanding for Elohim inference, as opposed to a god that could not have any plurality.

I answered the thread question, here.

Because that's not the point. The point is to throw random attack questions in order to avoid answering any, silly.

Neither you, nor st. Frankenstein has answered the thread question. Which is the main question, here.

 

[Akivah]

One of the defining marks of Judaism is that they reject Jesus as the Messiah. Otherwise, they would be Christians.

Not only that, Judaism has many more differences to Christianity, other than the identity of the future messiah.

 

[Jainarayan]

I see God as having both form and being formless. God takes a human-like form and partakes in many pastimes for the purpose of helping his devotees fixate on him more easily than they could if he were only formless.

Me too, me too! This is how I'd answer the o.p.

 

[Akivah]

Exactly. I do not practice Christianity.

Nor Judaism.

 

[Akivah]

To my knowledge, Hassidic Judaism didn't exist at that time. I don't believe Christ was a part of any of the existing Jewish sects in Second Temple Judaism, but started His own movement. What do you think, @Tumah, @Akivah and @Rival?

Well, I don't think that jesus ever actually existed. He's just a fictional character. The Christian stories portray the fictional jesus as being ignorant of basic Judaism laws. So I wouldn't think he was part of any Jewish denomination, even assuming that he existed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's relevant because Catholicism holds certain definition traditionally for what a "Christian", is, and therefore if you are arguing from that perspective, it affects your given definitions for "Christian".


I have no idea why you wouldn't answer that question,

// now, regarding the example I gave, that is accepted Biblical study information, and the only reason you can't accept it, seems to be that you don't understand that Christianity is Judaic. Which is odd, since that is the clear inference from Scripture.

That is totally irrelevant.

Christianity came from Judaism, yes. But obviously Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. I'm not sure why you're stretching things so much.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is totally irrelevant.

Christianity came from Judaism, yes. But obviously Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. I'm not sure why you're stretching things so much.

Why don't you answer the thread question?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why don't you answer the thread question?

Why don't you buzz off and stop trolling me.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is totally irrelevant.

Christianity came from Judaism, yes.

No, Christianity came from a Hebraic paradigm using some of the same texts as 'Judaism', Rabbinical Judaism. That is why, for example, Essenes were many of the early "Christians".

 

[Ponder This]

Inspired by a couple of threads that mention anthropomorphism, I'm curious how members here view their God. It would appear in this painting by Michelangelo, likely the most popular and recognizable depiction of God, that many anthropomorphize God.

What form does God take in your belief structure?

If you anthropomorphize your God(s), what is the purpose of doing so?

I think the painting gives us at least one reason: to convey meaning. If the lens of human perception is to see things as human, then that becomes the media for the transfer of ideas.

 

[74x12]

See Ex. 8:16, 14:31, Num. 9:18, Deut. 11:12, Jer. 3:15, Isa. 66:1, Psa. 34:17, Job 36:32 for examples of various body parts that are used as metaphors for various ways G-d administers the world.

So we're made in the image of God as in what He would appear as if He did appear. I agree with this.

These are topics that you don't know enough about in order to decide whether they are right or wrong (f course, not that I'd suspect you of agreeing to it even if you did understand it as you're not Jewish). G-d Himself is not called Ein Sof and G-d is personal in Judaism.

Ein Sof is beyond even God which is why I have a problem with the concept. God says there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5) And why does God say that before me there was no God formed? (Isaiah 43:10)

Hypothetically what is to stop someone going around God; directly to Ein Sof if they don't want to obey the commandments of God?

In this case, I meant for the "nothing" to be taken in two senses. First, as possibly simple non-existence. That is, there is no core to the onion because god does not exist. Second, as possibly mystery. That is, there is no core to the onion because god, while existing, is truly beyond comprehension.

I understand your point. But, I'm asking what that really means. So, you peel away the onion; until you have nothing left. Then you see nothing and you say surely God does not exist or else God cannot be known. Yet something was there at first ... and it's not the onion's fault it is now gone.

 

[Tumah]

So we're made in the image of God as in what He would appear as if He did appear. I agree with this.

No. And you're not doing yourself any favors by showing everyone how you have difficulty understanding when metaphor is being used in a verse.

Ein Sof is beyond even God which is why I have a problem with the concept. God says there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5) And why does God say that before me there was no God formed? (Isaiah 43:10)

Hypothetically what is to stop someone going around God; directly to Ein Sof if they don't want to obey the commandments of God?

I am not allowed to - and would not regardless - give you a lesson in kabbalah. Ein Sof is not G-d, is not greater than or equal to G-d and not created before G-d. Whatever ideas you had are wrong.

 

[roger1440]

God is more so known not by his appearance, but what he has done, doing and will do. In other words he is known by his actions.