Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

What would God look like?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10398		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:23 am ]
Post subject:  What would God look like?
What do you think God would look like?

I've always envisioned him as a more or less shapeless smoke...dude. Possibly with a robe. Also, I drew him as a hippie once and that made my Sunday School teacher mad, but Mom liked it, so that's good.

(This isn't intended to be some huge debate--just what you think he looks like.)
Author:  Schmelen [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:25 am ]
Post subject: 
I always thought of God as a sort of aura thing. God is everything, and nothing. Make sense? It does to me. Seeing as I don't really believe in God, if there was one, that's what it would be.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:39 am ]
Post subject: 
For some reason, I think God looks pretty human. The Bible does say we're created in His image.
I don't know that He looks exactly like that "Old dude with billowing white hair and long, flowing robes" you often see Him portrayed as on television, but I don't think it's too far off.
Author:  BazookaJoe [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:40 am ]
Post subject: 
I've always envisioned him as some sort of cloud with a face. Something non-specific, and not as weird as it sounds.

Though realistically, he probably looks a lot like us, since the Bible says that God created us in his image.
Author:  Code J [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Schmelen wrote:
I always thought of God as a sort of aura thing. God is everything, and nothing. Make sense? It does to me. Seeing as I don't really believe in God, if there was one, that's what it would be.


Yep. My thoughts exactly. If I thought there was a god...I don't think it would be a human. It would be more like what Schmelen described....a kind of entity that is everything, not some guy pulling the strings.
Author:  ramrod [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, and these are just me beliefs, I believe that God looks just like us. I mean, when I see him, he might look different to someone else. He might look like me when I see him, but if Rad see's God, Rad may think that God looks like, well, Rad.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:50 am ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
but if Rad see's God, Rad may think that God looks like, well, Rad.

If that were the case, my faith would be shaken a bit.. If I had ultimate power over the universe, I'd look a little better than me.. I'd be taller. I'd be a baller.. wait.. Wrong song..
Author:  ready for prime time [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:19 am ]
Post subject: 
i always thought god was jesus.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:01 am ]
Post subject: 
You have a point, there, RFPT.

I was going to say George Burns or Morgan Freeman. But definitely not Samuel L. Jackson or Sean Connery.
Author:  ramrod [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
ready for prime time wrote:
i always thought god was jesus.
Well....kinda. He was God's son. He even called up to his father, before his trial.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
But definitely not Samuel L. Jackson.

You sure about that Dids? There are several snake handling churches around here. Whether or not they own planes is to be decided.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think God gets stoned. I mean look at some of his creations like the Platypus. The Platypus, an egg laying mammal that looks like the result of an experiment between a beaver and a duck. God had to be on something when he created that concoction.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
ready for prime time wrote:
i always thought god was jesus.
Well....kinda. He was God's son. He even called up to his father, before his trial.

The Father and the Son are one in some way that we cannot understand, and yet they are also distinct. It's one of those mysteries of the divine essence that transcends human understanding.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think God, being an incomprehensible being, would look equally incomprehensible -- to the point that there would be no point in trying to describe it.

Or if you mean what he'd look like if he had to show himself in a comprehensible form... well, then he'd look like whatever the heck he wants to look like, of course!

Or maybe the universe is God, so God is everything we see. That'd certainly cover the part about God being omnipresent! Heck, it'd cover being incomprehensible, too. The universe is pretty incomprehensible, isn't it?

- Kef
Author:  Droideka [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
ramrod wrote:
ready for prime time wrote:
i always thought god was jesus.
Well....kinda. He was God's son. He even called up to his father, before his trial.

The Father and the Son are one in some way that we cannot understand, and yet they are also distinct. It's one of those mysteries of the divine essence that transcends human understanding.


Exactly.

I have no clue what God would look like, I'll find out when I die, or if Christ returns, whichever comes first.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
In order for something to have an appearance, it has to have mass & reflect light. God, being intangible, has no mass, therefore doesn't look like anything. Or so I would think. If I believed in a god, I would imagine that he'd be something like consciousness, that, despite existing, has no measurable existance.

But if I were to put a human image to God, I think he'd look to be around in his forties with longish hair and a goatee. Just because that's the image I associate with a scholarly man, and I would certainly consider God to be a great scholar.
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Beyond the Grave wrote:
I think God gets stoned. I mean look at some of his creations like the Platypus. The Platypus, an egg laying mammal that looks like the result of an experiment between a beaver and a duck. God had to be on something when he created that concoction.


Quoted for lulz. And like I said, I drew him as a hippie once when I was young. Like, 3rd grade or so. My reason for this was that God is all for peace, right? And hippies are all "peace, love, and happiness". For some reason my Sunday School teacher got all angry about it. :P

This is really interesting to read, guys. As for the whole "created in his image" thing...I don't think they meant PHYSICALLY, but...like...mentally. I dunno how to explain it. But I think I might think that because I believe in aliens that are not humanoid. :P And presumably God created them as well. But that's another topic, so whatever.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mandy wrote:
As for the whole "created in his image" thing...I don't think they meant PHYSICALLY, but...like...mentally. I dunno how to explain it.
That's what I was just gonna say... but then I realized you already said it. Yeah, I think what was meant in the Bible by 'image' was not the computer definition of 'image' that we think of nowadays but in likeness and personality and emotionally. Since Jesus was God, I suppose that that's what God looks like, and Jesus was the only physical, visible form of God.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I think God, being an incomprehensible being, would look equally incomprehensible -- to the point that there would be no point in trying to describe it.

Or if you mean what he'd look like if he had to show himself in a comprehensible form... well, then he'd look like whatever the heck he wants to look like, of course!

Exactly. Which would explain the Burning Bush, the Pillar of Fire and the Pillar of Cloud. Or, dare I say, Bread and Wine.

But what you said about his incomprehensibility: I think this is what God meant when he told Moses that no man can look at his face and live. God may be able to show himself in various forms, but the human mind is incapable of seeing him in his true form. It would be like trying to pour the whole ocean inside a tiny bucket. I also think it's why his sacred name is the verb "I Am" rather than a noun. When you get right down to it, all of existence could not contain him.

Mandy:

There have been numerous attempts to understand what "created in his image" means. I wish I had my Hebrew text to consult to see the exact term, but if I remember correctly, it means something along the lines of "something to represent," like an icon. In other words, man was intended to represent God's presence on the earth. Unfortunately, the Fall has pretty much ruined that now, and it is Christ who is now God's "icon" (the language of the NT that refers to Christ as "the image of God" is identical of that in Genesis, albeit translated into Greek). What does this mean? That mankind was intended to represent God's presence in the world. However, because of the Fall, mankind is no longer capable of fulfilling that role. But now, Christ does, and in Christ, true humanity is restored to its intended glory. And no, that's not completed yet.

EDIT: The term is tselem, which means literally, "something carved" or "resemblance." It is a term often used for idols. In other words, mankind is supposed to serve as pictures or statues of God. But, like I said, the Septuagint translates this term as "eikon," the same term used for Christ.
Author:  Cobalt [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:42 am ]
Post subject: 
God doesn't look like anything; only physical things can be seen, and God is not physical in any sense whatsoever.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
But what about when he took the forms of a Pillar of Fire and a Pillar of Cloud? Or when he wrestled with Jacob (thus naming him Israel, which means "Wrestles with God"?).
Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Real quick on the whole "Image" thing. We just touched on this in my huma class.

In ancient times, one thing that would happen when an army or force along those lines came through and took over. They would leave behind a statue "in the image of" their king. This statue was thought to contain the very essence of that king. So much, that defacing the statue or anything on those lines was on the same as doing it to the king himself. The word used in Genesis was the same as in common use at that time. So, in a sense, God made us with his essence in ourselves: we have intellect, morals (and moral inclinations), emotions, free will, etc.

I hope that helps out a bit.

As for me, I'm not sure what God would look like. Considering we've got the whole Trinity deal going on, it's hard to imagine, but then again that's something that will be answered later on, methinks.
Author:  Acekirby [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
I think God, being an incomprehensible being, would look equally incomprehensible -- to the point that there would be no point in trying to describe it.

Or if you mean what he'd look like if he had to show himself in a comprehensible form... well, then he'd look like whatever the heck he wants to look like, of course!

This is basically my stance on "what God looks like". The second part basically describes the burning bush and other such incidents.

I think if God decided to appear to everyone, he'd choose the stereotypical "big old dude in a white robe with beard" image so more people would be able to comprehend it. Then again, one cannot fathom the ways of God, so he could also appear as a basketball hoop.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hrm, I'm suddenly reminded by this of Flatland.

When the sphere decides to make contact with the square, the square can only see him as a circle, since he can only experience two dimensions. The circle is the cross-section of the sphere as he intersects with the square's reality. The square cannot comprehend the true form of the sphere until he is pulled into the third dimension.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Capt. Ido Nos: There is a problem. Humanity WAS created in God's image, but because of the Fall, that image is no longer intact. Imagine a statue that has been dropped and has shattered into a thousand pieces. You could glue it back together, but never perfectly; even repaired, it will remain forever flawed. Or if someone ripped the Mona Lisa into shreds. You could tape it up, but the tears will always be present.

So it is with the imago dei in humanity: it is flawed. We have intellect, but our thoughts are so often distorted by inaccurate or incomplete information and our own passions; we have emotions, but we are constantly caught in a struggle between our desires and pain. We have moral inclinations, but so often we ignore them to pursue our own pleasures. We have will, but find ourselves entirely incapable of consistently making the right choices, even when we can see clearly what they are (and even that's rare - like Luther, I believe that our wills are not nearly as free as we like to think).

Your analogy of the king's statue pretty much expresses what I was trying to describe with the terms tselem and eikon. That is what God intended us to be. Unfortunately, that's not what we are now.

Zeno: Not even then! Because the square is incapable of perceiving all three dimensions at once, and even if enabled to see that way, still incapable of processing information in 3D. At best, the square can say the sphere is sort of like a circle.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I was referencing the book Flatland, in which, against logic, the square does see the sphere. It blows his mind.

But yeah, you're right. You'd have to have 3D eyes to see 3D things...

But I digress.
Author:  Homerun Starrer [ Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Acekirby wrote:
furrykef wrote:
I think God, being an incomprehensible being, would look equally incomprehensible -- to the point that there would be no point in trying to describe it.

Or if you mean what he'd look like if he had to show himself in a comprehensible form... well, then he'd look like whatever the heck he wants to look like, of course!

This is basically my stance on "what God looks like". The second part basically describes the burning bush and other such incidents.

I think if God decided to appear to everyone, he'd choose the stereotypical "big old dude in a white robe with beard" image so more people would be able to comprehend it. Then again, one cannot fathom the ways of God, so he could also appear as a basketball hoop.
I wondered why my basketball hoop was shouting "REPENT!" at me lately... ;)

Anyway, I've gotta agree with what Kef said on this, God looks like whatever he wants to at the moment. Like Chuck Norris!

Sorry, I forgot this was a boring serious board. Continue your discussion. :P
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Homerun Starrer wrote:
Like Chuck Norris!


THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!
Author:  IantheGecko [ Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:35 am ]
Post subject: 
God=Chuck Norris^Chuck Norris.
Author:  Tian [ Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Whatever he wants to look like, of course.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/