This is a huge topic.

Is GODHEAD a Personal Being, or is "It" an Imperonal Absolute. Could it be both, and can you pick your preferred inclination? Such has been the dillema accross cultures for millenia.

The notion of a formless Source has become increasingly prevalent in modern days. At first glance it doesn't seem logical that the origin of beauty be formless, of a sound be silent, of kindness be unkind, or  This may explain why human beings would have conceived a God in their physical image. Difficult to look at the human body and not notice the anatomic perfection in it. Should the Divine have an eternal body, difficult to match the beauty and functionality of an ideally formed man or woman.

No wonder then that incarnations of the Divine Couple accross cultures, whether it is Asherah-Yahweh, Hera-Zeus, Juno Jupiter, Sita-Rama or Radha-Krishna, invariably appear as prime specimens of human beauty.

It is hardly surprising that advocates of impersonalism dismiss with a sweep of their hand what they view as the human weakness the tendency to bring down the Divine to an anthropomorphic level. By definition the formless Absolute cannot be seen ; much less be confined in a body. The human form itself is a temporary vessel from which our formless spirit is meant to free itself after death. In India one of the major religious traditions, the Adwaita Vedanta school,, is a strong advocate of the impersonal view. Its followers consider even Divine Incarnations like Rama, Krishna, or Jesus Christ, as mere personifications of the the all pervading Absolute (the formless Brahman). Likewise, the major currents of Buddhism never mention a Supreme Person. Instead, they posit Śūnyatā (emptiness, voidness) and Anatta (non-Self, no soul) as Supreme.

While this website has stated at the outset that GODHEAD includes both personal and impersonal aspects of Divinity, our readers are entitled to their own leaning in the question