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

[Beet]

I do not mean the Trinity per se (although this fits the bill, IMO) but God himself. And I do not mean in the sense of physical shape shifting, but rather the representation of God to humanity. Hence avatar. When understood in this way, I believe that it is almost trivial to say that God assumes a different avatar for each person. That is, when each person says "chair", we are thinking of a similar, but slightly different, image in our minds even when the thing is a real chair equidistant and visible to us both. Hence how much more, when thinking of God- that each of us when we pray-imagine God, personify God ( as is wholly necessary ) create a different avatar for him?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think I kind of get what you mean, but could you be more specific?  In what ways is God imagined differently?

[Beet]

I think I kind of get what you mean, but could you be more specific?  In what ways is God imagined differently?

It could be in an infinite different ways, as long as you were imagining God the almighty. For instance, suppose that a person living in South Asia in the 5th c. BC had never been exposed to scripture, yet somehow came to believe in an ultimate being, by definition the creator of the universe, all powerful and sentient, yet conceived of this person as a woman named Tapati, dressed in red and riding a horse? And prayed to this avatar? Would God respond? Of course he would- because we do not know God's form, if he even has one. Would this be any less legitimate than a burning bush or an old guy with long flowing beard? Each of these is only for human consumption.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think I kind of get what you mean, but could you be more specific?  In what ways is God imagined differently?

It could be in an infinite different ways, as long as you were imagining God the almighty. For instance, suppose that a person living in South Asia in the 5th c. BC had never been exposed to scripture, yet somehow came to believe in an ultimate being, by definition the creator of the universe, all powerful and sentient, yet conceived of this person as a woman named Tapati, dressed in red and riding a horse? And prayed to this avatar? Would God respond? Of course he would- because we do not know God's form, if he even has one. Would this be any less legitimate than a burning bush or an old guy with long flowing beard? Each of these is only for human consumption.

I see.  My only problem with that is people tend to use the Humanization of God to make God something that was created in the image of man; sharing our prejudices, our selfish desires, our politics, our thirst for vengeance against those who do us wrong, etc.  Eventually you get a God whose ethics are completely in conflict with each other but is only considered good because He or She mirrors he who conceived of Him.  Don't get me wrong - I think theists should believe that which makes them have a personal relationship with God, but the potential for abuse should not be ignored.

[Beet]

Well I agree with what you're saying, which is why I think it's important to be very careful about "bringing God into being"- too many people do this. They confuse arbitrary symbols, representations to help us better understand God, with God itself. Priests change from humans who try to do a religious service to agents and representatives of God; hence when they are corrupt or abusive, it becomes fodder for atheism. That why I'm talking about avatars and not God itself. My point is just that these religious symbols, are totally arbitrary (I mean, the cross is there because it was the shape of a historical instrument of execution, not because there is anything inherent holy about two lines perpendicularly crossed) including our representation of God.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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?

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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

[Sol]

Only certain avatars- perhaps Nathan?

(just kidding)

[Deus Naturae]

If you believe in some form of polytheism, pantheism, universalism, or simply believe that God is a man-made construct, then the answer would be yes.

If you adhere to a religious system in which God only has one "true form" then I'd still lean towards yes, as most of these religions acknowledge that other religions are a sort of "search for truth" which are products of attempts to worship a God that one is ignorant of.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

But it does imply that Man always chooses what form(s) God may take and that God has no ability to choose which form ey uses.  Now, I do believe that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then ey has no free will, so in that sense God would be constrained to appear in the form(s) that Man would be most receptive to, which would be in line with what you said in that post of yours you linked. Yet that makes another assumption, that God cares to influence Man. It's an assumption that I hold to, but the contrary could be the case.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

But it does imply that Man always chooses what form(s) God may take and that God has no ability to choose which form ey uses.  Now, I do believe that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then ey has no free will, so in that sense God would be constrained to appear in the form(s) that Man would be most receptive to, which would be in line with what you said in that post of yours you linked. Yet that makes another assumption, that God cares to influence Man. It's an assumption that I hold to, but the contrary could be the case.

How can God be omnipotent and at the same time have no free will?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do believe that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then ey has no free will.

How can God be omnipotent and at the same time have no free will?

Choices have consequences.  God's omnibenevolence constrains em to select the choice that omniscience informs em to have the greatest good.  If God were free to chose otherwise, ey could not be omnibenevolent.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do believe that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then ey has no free will.

How can God be omnipotent and at the same time have no free will?

Choices have consequences.  God's omnibenevolence constrains em to select the choice that omniscience informs em to have the greatest good.  If God were free to chose otherwise, ey could not be omnibenevolent.

But is not every act of God 'good' by definition?  If God is the highest good, there is nothing to inform Him of His choices.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do believe that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then ey has no free will.

How can God be omnipotent and at the same time have no free will?

Choices have consequences.  God's omnibenevolence constrains em to select the choice that omniscience informs em to have the greatest good.  If God were free to chose otherwise, ey could not be omnibenevolent.

But is not every act of God 'good' by definition?  If God is the highest good, there is nothing to inform Him of His choices.

If there is no objective standard of good, then there can be no evil.  God is defined by goodness, not goodness by God.  However, because Man lacks omniscience, Man cannot always perceive what is good and evil.  We've got some general principles to follow, but even so, sometimes we cannot perceive them correctly, primarily because our limited scope of knowledge only allows us to judge good and evil based upon what we know and not the factors that we do not know that an omniscient God does know.