quote:

---

Isaiah 16:11

---

quote:

---

Ok can someone please tell me how anyone can even think of how *God* really looks like??

---

Well, we're actually a very visually oriented species. Kinda like the old saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words". It's just in us to draw pictures. And you will notice that usually the "gods" in the pictures look pretty much just like the person who paints the picture, when the gods are human-like (as opposed to the feathered serpent mentioned above). People really do believe that Jesus was a white man, just like the European monks depicted him! He was most likely much darker than most of the actors that play the part in modern day movies. It's a way for us to relate to our gods.

The Europeans picture God and Jesus as white men. The Hindu gods were Indian, Japanese gods were Japanese, etc. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone!)

When we think of a "being", we usually try to picture what that being looks like. Try to imagine a creature without using any characteristics that you know from nature. If you think about it, most mythological monsters or creatures are just mixtures of known animal characteristics. In fact, this is one of the "proofs" used to say that God must exist, as it is impossible for us to imagine anything that doesn't. (Try to imagine a new color, one that doesn't exist. Weird, huh?)

Well, I'm sure my ramblings didn't help at all, so I'll quit now.

------------

Sum Ergo Cogito

Edited by - tokyodreamer on 01/20/2002 23:00:01

quote:

---

Filthy, isn't that one Quetzacoatl? Think it's a hard K-etza cwottle..can't recall.

---

I think it's Quetzalcoatl, pronounced KET-zull-ko-AH-tull, or something close to that.

There is a Central American bird called the Quetzal. It may be the only animal named for a god. Can someone think of another example? Other than "Jesus Fish", of course...


Back on the original topic, this question is a good one to raise with literalists, because it can be used to demonstrate that even the literalists must do some interpretation. What I mean is, either the literalist has to accept that God looks like a man (limbs, hair, gentalia, and all), or that "image" doesn't mean literally "looks the same as".

If he chooses the former, it's easy to point out the problems (navel, appendix). If he chooses the latter, you can ask why "image" doesn't mean literally "image".

Hmmm... so if "image" means "something that is spiritually similar to", then it's OK to make graven images as long as they don't have souls... right?


-- Donnie B.

Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"

quote:

---

quote:

---

Filthy, isn't that one Quetzacoatl? Think it's a hard K-etza cwottle..can't recall.

---

I think it's Quetzalcoatl, pronounced KET-zull-ko-AH-tull, or something close to that.

---

I do believe it's Quit-zah-coat-l. Say that ten times fast.

quote:

---

Back on the original topic, this question is a good one to raise with literalists, because it can be used to demonstrate that even the literalists must do some interpretation. What I mean is, either the literalist has to accept that God looks like a man (limbs, hair, gentalia, and all), or that "image" doesn't mean literally "looks the same as".

If he chooses the former, it's easy to point out the problems (navel, appendix). If he chooses the latter, you can ask why "image" doesn't mean literally "image".

---

Ah, don't waste your breath.

quote:

---

Hmmm... so if "image" means "something that is spiritually similar to", then it's OK to make graven images as long as they don't have souls... right?

---

Only on Haloween. At other times, you have to get a special permit and the office hours for that office would make banker's hours seem like a 24/7 gas station.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha

quote:

---

It may be the only animal named for a god. Can someone think of another example?

---

quote:

---

A while back I was thinking about Martin Gardner's essay "Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?" when a similar thought popped into my head, so I wrote it down. While certainly not as eloquent as Garder, I hope 1) you like it, and 2) it makes sense. I welcome your comments:


Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Genesis 1:26

Martin Gardner once asked if Adam and Eve had navels (1). Simple enough question, but when you consider that according to Judeo-Christian mythology they were created and not born, thus having no need for umbilical cords and belly buttons, this is a legitimate inquiry. Gardner's intent was, of course, to use this question as a springboard to expose some of the inconsistencies and silliness of the creation myth as outlined in the Bible.

But why stop with Adam and Eve? What about God? Does God have a navel? After all, in Genesis the Bible states that man was made in God's image, after his likeness. It therefore stands to reason that if Homo Sapiens look like God, ergo God has the same morphology as Homo Sapiens. If true, then the contemplation of God's navel is just the first of a whole litany of questions we can ask with regard to God's surface anatomy.

Question #1: Does God have a navel?

Quite a loaded question, isn't it? If the answer is yes the corollary would be, "Why?" A navel implies the previous existence of an umbilical cord. This would not only mean that God has a mother and father (okay, just a mother, we can't discount the notion of virgin birth, now can we?), but that God has a biological origin, not a divine one. Of course, it could just be decoration, a non-functioning indentation in the belly. Is that possible on a perfect god? But what if the answer is no? That would mean that humans aren't a true likeness of God, we don't look like Him, really. If we indeed aren't a true likeness, then what other differences are there? Michelangelo's paintings of God on the Sistine Chapel depict a robed God with a hint of a navel through the fabric, so the Catholic Church at least appears to have no problem portraying God with a navel.

Question #2: If God is a He, does He have male genitalia?

The defining anatomical characteristic of a male is the possession of a penis and testicles. In the Bible Adam is made in God's image and so was made a male, this therefore suggests that God is anatomically a man. But what does God need a penis and testicles for? The penis on a human male serves two main functions, sexual reproduction and waste elimination. Does an omnipotent God need a penis to reproduce? What about waste elimination? This may seem like a minor question but it has profound implications. Does God urinate? If so, that implies the existence of a bladder and kidneys, or at least their equivalent. The physiological implication is that God needs to eliminate waste products from His body. Would a perfect God need to pee? And what about testicles? What use does God, who can create anything He wants out of chaos on a whim, need organs whose main purpose is the production of sperm for use in sexual reproduction? If He wants a kid, why not just point His finger and zap a virgin? Wait a tick….

Question #3: Does God have nipples?

All human males have nipples, but they serve no purpose. They are simply remnants of early embryonic development. God is a He, so does God have useless nipples too? Again, if the answer is no then we are not truly made in His image. If yes, then God isn't as perfect as some would think.

Question #4: Why does God have hair?

When God is painted or drawn by human artists He is almost universally depicted as having a full head of hair and even a beard. While seemingly innocuous, the possession of hair has some rather important implications. First, by definition having hair makes God a mammal. Mammals have hair to retain body heat. While humans have little hair on their bodies in comparison to other mammals, our heads have retained hair because about 20% of heat is lost through the head. Does God need to retain body heat? Wouldn't an omnipotent god simply turn up the temperature if He got chilly? I wonder if we had feathers on our heads would Judeo-Christians still depict God with hair? Obviously not, because in the end it's apparent God did not make us in his image, but we who made Him in ours.

*************************
1. Gardner, Martin. Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Discourses on Reflexology, Numerology, Urine Therapy, and Other Dubious Subjects. Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc., September 2000.


"Be careful about reading health books. You might die of a misprint." - Mark Twain

---

quote:

---

Another, yet very important question is "how did God know what he looked like?"

---