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?
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?
