Is it possible for God to assume the form of different avatars?

[afleitch]

Man has always made god in his own image usyally based on the cultural template pertinent to his upbringing so it's nothing new.

[afleitch]

Man has always made god in his own image usyally based on the cultural template pertinent to his upbringing so it's nothing new.

And this is an inherently bad thing?

Where did I say it was. My statement was neutral.

[afleitch]

Man has always made god in his own image usually based on the cultural template pertinent to his upbringing so it's nothing new.

And this is an inherently bad thing?

Where did I say it was. My statement was neutral.

Not quite neutral, but close.  I say not quite neutral as you assert that Man made the image and neglects that God could have made an image than Man would find easier to relate to based n his culture.

A more neutral formulation of that idea would be that God has often appeared to Man in a culturally relevant form, thus leaving out the whole issue of who made the image.

Of course as with many such moderate heroish statements, my more neutral formulation is so bland as to be practically self-evident.

But saying that 'god had often appeared to man' isn't a neutral statement as it presupposes a god.

[afleitch]

Man has always made god in his own image usually based on the cultural template pertinent to his upbringing so it's nothing new.

And this is an inherently bad thing?

Where did I say it was. My statement was neutral.

Not quite neutral, but close.  I say not quite neutral as you assert that Man made the image and neglects that God could have made an image than Man would find easier to relate to based n his culture.

A more neutral formulation of that idea would be that God has often appeared to Man in a culturally relevant form, thus leaving out the whole issue of who made the image.

Of course as with many such moderate heroish statements, my more neutral formulation is so bland as to be practically self-evident.

But saying that 'god had often appeared to man' isn't a neutral statement as it presupposes a god.

But it supposes nothing about the nature of God, whether he be the Divine spark that animates the universe or in the words of Ebeneezer Scrooge to a different paranormal appearance whether he be "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato".  In either event, Man has seen God, whatever his true nature may be.

It might not presuppose the nature of god, but it presupposes a god/s or any entity, any thought, any understanding, any process or any thing that we endow with 'divine' properties even if we don't theologise them. Some people don't view the universe that way you understand.

[afleitch]

Man has always made god in his own image usually based on the cultural template pertinent to his upbringing so it's nothing new.

And this is an inherently bad thing?

Where did I say it was. My statement was neutral.

Not quite neutral, but close.  I say not quite neutral as you assert that Man made the image and neglects that God could have made an image than Man would find easier to relate to based n his culture.

A more neutral formulation of that idea would be that God has often appeared to Man in a culturally relevant form, thus leaving out the whole issue of who made the image.

Of course as with many such moderate heroish statements, my more neutral formulation is so bland as to be practically self-evident.

But saying that 'god had often appeared to man' isn't a neutral statement as it presupposes a god.

But it supposes nothing about the nature of God, whether he be the Divine spark that animates the universe or in the words of Ebeneezer Scrooge to a different paranormal appearance whether he be "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato".  In either event, Man has seen God, whatever his true nature may be.

It might not presuppose the nature of god, but it presupposes a god/s or any entity, any thought, any understanding, any process or any thing that we endow with 'divine' properties even if we don't theologise them. Some people don't view the universe that way you understand.

Are you seriously asserting that Man has not seen God?  Granted, not all men have, indeed, I have never had such a personal visitation.  I can respect your belief that those none of those visions have been real, which my formulation allows for.  But for you to continue to object to the way I phrased it, I can only assume you think no one has ever seen that which they believed to be God.

You're going around in circles a little. My exact phrase was; 'Man has always made god in his own image', which never suggests that there is never an actual god, merely that man constructs that which he believes to be god in the image that is most useful to him. I posted about it in great depth here; https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178083.msg3846367#msg3846367