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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.