- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,521
- 4,393
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Celibate
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?
The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?
Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.
When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.
I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.
The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?
Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.
When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.
I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.