Adam
The question posed by Kate in her first post in this thread was "do you think if God existed, he is Anthropomorphic".
If God does not exist then there can be no discussion as to whether he is anthropomorphic. So I made it clear in my post that for the sake of the discussion I was ignoring the argument whether God exists or not.
You do not address the points I raised about anthropomorphism but ask "what the hell this 'spirit' thing is". Any good dictionary will tell you that 'spirit' (as a noun) refers to a supernatural being, which means it pertains to a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. If you want to start your own thread on "what the hell this 'spirit' thing is", go ahead, but this is Kate's thread and her question is if God existed, is he Anthropomorphic. So I will ignore your harping on about your choice of topic.
Essentially my position is this. For the sake of the discussion I assume God exists because that's what Kate said. So either he has not revealed himself and we (humans) invested him with the qualities attributed to him in the Bible. Or else he has "revealed" himself and in that case I am saying he has explained himself in human terms but really he is quite beyond our comprehension. Jewish kabbalists and Christian gnostics dabbled in this but while we may be in his image we can only see him through a glass, darkly.
Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?
by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Earnest
-
FlyingHighNow
Good post, Earnest.
-
adamah
Earnest, let's review what anthropomorphism (noun) means, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.
Note that anthromorphism is a NOUN (a concept), whereas anthropomorphic/anthropomorphize are adjectives that describe the ACT of ascribing human traits to non-human things (usually by writers).
So when Kate said:
"do you think if God existed, he is Anthropomorphic".
We're already in nonsense land, since it's a malformed and ambiguous sentence that likely reveals she doesn't really know what the term even means (believers tend to do that kind of thing ALOT, like when believers say, "God is LOVE", without so much as blinking, since love is a TRAIT, and beings aren't traits; they possess traits. It's also a personification, but a rather sloppy use of it).
It's an even sillier question to ask, primarily because the authors of the Bible (both OT and NT) engaged in full-tilt anthropomorphism of God, having Him talk, rest, create with His hands, walk in the garden, smite, turn his back on Moses, has a face, show human emotions (anger, love, regret), etc.
So why is God anthromorphized in the Bible? Simple: to make Him more relatable, and the author(s) of Genesis give themselves poetic license to do so early on by claiming that God made humans "in His image" (which actually allowed them to creating a depiction of God in THEIR image, when there in fact WERE many inanimate objects that were worshipped as Gods around and similarly anthropomorphized, eg Egyptians worshipped the Sun and Moon, but ascribed them with thoughts and emotions).
Then you say this:
Earnest said-If God does not exist then there can be no discussion as to whether he is anthropomorphic. So I made it clear in my post that for the sake of the discussion I was ignoring the argument whether God exists or not.
See, we're already in trouble, since do you mean God ascribes human traits to non-human entities, too? You used the noun, so what does that even mean?
But if you meant it as an adjective (which I suspect, with God being the SUBJECT who is anthropomorphized by us), then sorry, that's simply not true.
God's existence or non-existence has absolutely NO bearing on whether God can be 'anthromorphized' (or even should be, which is likely what Kate meant), since existant beings (eg the cat that lives in my neighborhood) and non-existant beings (eg animal characters portrayed in a fairy tale, or the wind in a fictional work) alike can be anthromorphized. Again, any non-human entity or force can be personified.
BTW, the Bible of course anthropomorphizes God throughout, but then flip-flops by later claiming (in Isaiah) that God is "mysterious" and "unknowable"; His ways "are ineffable".
Well, which is it? Is God a mystery, uncomprehensible since He is so above us, or does he share human traits such that we can relate and understand his motives, desires, etc? Heck, God supposedly gave us a Holy Book to educate humanity of his Divine Will for us! Why would God write a Bible, if only to NOT communicate?
The whole "God is ineffable" claim is an example of deepity, and used as a "get out of jail free" card by believers, AKA a thought-stopper. It falls into the category of giving someone the royal kiss-off, telling someone that you COULD explain something to them, but they're simply too stupid to understand it. It's a non-response.
Earnest said- You do not address the points I raised about anthropomorphism but ask "what the hell this 'spirit' thing is". Any good dictionary will tell you that 'spirit' (as a noun) refers to a supernatural being, which means it pertains to a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Ohh, lookie there: another deepity (AKA a thought-stopper), with 'spirit' being beyond all known laws of nature, and incomprehensible by us stoopid (sic) humans.
Earnest said- Essentially my position is this. For the sake of the discussion I assume God exists because that's what Kate said. So either he has not revealed himself and we (humans) invested him with the qualities attributed to him in the Bible. Or else he has "revealed" himself and in that case I am saying he has explained himself in human terms but really he is quite beyond our comprehension. Jewish kabbalists and Christian gnostics dabbled in this but while we may be in his image we can only see him through a glass, darkly.
Yeah, that's a long string of highly-questionable assumptions and fantastic assumptions that rely on deep dippity-doo, and I'm not interested in wading into that mess right now, since when you cite Kabbalic mysticism and gnostic beliefs to back your point, you're well beyond my allowable daily-allowable dose of deep deepity.
Adam
-
Earnest
Adam, as you are more interested in your own verbosity than in addressing the actual subject matter I concede your choice not to wade into it right now.
-
Twitch
Hmm, gonna jump in here and read the thread later
The thread title is leading. Millions die with or without god, fact. God couldn't do anything if he didn't exist. Therefore, the OP title asserts a god that does nothing by choice. The question assumes this plus the idea that such is a human trait.
I think Spinoza was spot on in such matters
This assumes he is right, which is a big assumption :)
-
Ruby456
twitch, I keep going back to the thread title too but now I am asking, in view of Adamah's posts denigrating it, is anthropomorphism such a bad thing? And here are my reasons
Anthropomorphism helps us to see more acutely the depth and profoundness of the world we live in.
It is strongly linked to democracy.
Anthropomorphism also expresses empathetic links to the world in which we live via emotional intelligence (although paradoxically human wisdom can be limiting if taken too seriously).
last but not least it stimulates the imagination and enables us to move away from doctrinal beliefs (which paradoxically are man-made - lol)
over and out - see you all tomorrow
-
DJS
Kate,
What color do you want for the border on your official atheist certificate?
-
Earnest
Adam, while I have no intention of chasing rabbits you must have spent considerable time on your last post and so I do not wish to completely dismiss your efforts. Paul wrote to Timothy not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and so whether Kate used a noun as an adjective or had the wrong tense or any of your other complaints her simple query was whether God has human characteristics.
If God is indeed uninvolved in the earth and what goes on in it, and has not revealed himself in any way (apart from the marvels of science), then we have simply ascribed human characteristics to God whether he has them or not. On the other hand, if God has revealed himself as the Bible indicates then I suggest that the use of human characteristics to describe him are as close as we can get but we have no chance of really comprehending the greater picture.
-
adamah
Earnest said-
Paul wrote to Timothy not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and so whether Kate used a noun as an adjective or had the wrong tense or any of your other complaints her simple query was whether God has human characteristics.
The OP was so discombobulated, it left many other posters (who actually understand what these literary terms actually mean) confused by Kate's confusion.
I passed on the entire discussion, as I wrote it off as simply containing too many issues to address, until Kate continued to perpetuate her manipulation of Einstein's words (which is all good now, since she's acknowledged the problem, and promised not to do it anymore).
I had to back-track and try to lay the groundwork on what a'ism actually means, etc, but helping others to learn via interaction is the goal of a discussion site like JWN, so people at least have a chance to learn stuff the right way, and not merely propagate their misunderstandings to others (as JWs do, by knocking on doors and acting as if they have the Truth). So it's hardly quibbling, and the words we use matter, since people confusing other people for fun and profit has consequences, sometimes even fatal (eg JWs die over blood policy).
Anyway, you raised an interesting issue when you said-
Earnest said- If God is indeed uninvolved in the earth and what goes on in it, and has not revealed himself in any way (apart from the marvels of science), then we have simply ascribed human characteristics to God whether he has them or not.
And that sounds like the description of a deistic God, which then implies the Bible (which describes a human-like God who wants to be BFF with each and every last one of us, so we can have a personal relationship with Him and his son) is pure fiction, since Abrahamic God of the Bible is NOT deistic in any way, shape or form.
That's trying to change the God concept into some ill-defined being, and only engaging in circumlocution to giving him name like Supreme Being, the God of Nature, the Grand Architect, etc. It sounds like a concept of men, who simply are unable to accept Bible God, but cannot get over their addiction to a God they can conceive of, even if it means giving names to the properties that make God inconceivable (eg ineffable).
Earnest said- On the other hand, if God has revealed himself as the Bible indicates then I suggest that the use of human characteristics to describe him are as close as we can get but we have no chance of really comprehending the greater picture.
Again, as I said above, Isaiah 55 is an example of the Bible's covering all positions on the craps table, so something is guaranteed to work.
Isaiah 55 was an attempt to convert God into a more deistic-like being, who's ALSO inconceivable (eg ineffable) while the Torah depicts a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent God who was quite fallable and couldn't foresee outcomes of future events (i.e. in Genesis 6, God expressed regret for making man and animals that He just made earlier, in Genesis 1/2, so He wiped them all out in the Flood; afterwards, He regretted wiping the Earth clean with a Flood, so created a rainbow as His promise not to do it again, in Genesis 9). Genesis is riddled with God's limits, but suddenly becomes the all-powerful God in Isaiah? God evolved!
So my question to you is:
How does one discriminate between a deistic God (which was admittedly defined by the minds of men in the 17th century) in one case, or an anthropomorhized God of the Bible (which was admittedly defined by the minds of men of 1,000 BC) in the other?
Adam
-
FlyingHighNow
Earnest, I'm sending you a PM.