Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?
by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Twitch
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.
Not sure I agree with that. Projecting human traits on non human things seems a natural function on a base level and may be good for pets but really has no relevance to anything non human IMO. Likely related to the concept of mind we all learn in childhood, the distiguishing of one's individuality as compared to and identified with others.
I'd say it gives depth and profoundness in understanding each other but human traits only apply to humans IMO
It is strongly linked to democracy.
Anthropomorphism is common in many cultures and beliefs but just because the majority believe something doesn't make it right. Consider that at one time, some guy drove a flaming chariot across the sky every day. Everyone agreeing it was true didn't make it so.
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).
On a social macro level, maybe. Not sure I understand the meaning here
last but not least it stimulates the imagination and enables us to move away from doctrinal beliefs (which paradoxically are man-made - lol)
Well, certainly it is imaginative and adds some spice to life. However, I don't see how it breaks down doctrines and would say that it's because of anthropomorphism that we have many doctrines and religions. It's fair to say the trend is declining though; the further back in history you go, the more "human" our gods seemed to be.
I'd say if one wants to break from doctrinal beliefs, one must realize the composite of assertions one has, challenge them and break them down with reason. Personally, I'd rather have evidence and reason as a core for my beliefs with respect to the god question, not imagination. The latter is best used in other pursuits IMO
Of course, one can choose to believe as they wish; our inherent diversity naturally gives rise to all sorts of beliefs, all of which are man-made. Ultimately, one must define what god is, if anything at all.
-
KateWild
Well I thought this topic had wound up now. It's nice to see you guys having fun.
Oh and DJS if I ever become an atheist I would like pink for my certificate, but that will hapen when Hell freezes over. LOL! Kate xx
-
besty
somebody send Kate her pink atheist certificate
-
KateWild
hahaha besty, trust you to find that. Kate xx
-
Ruby456
twitch thanks for taking on board my paradoxes as that is exactly how I intended my comments to be taken, although I would say that paradox is also inherent to the approach you define - that of breaking things down by reason and this approach also involves quite a lot of imagination.
In general I am looking to have positive sum discussions on JWN and as such I'm not committed to leading peeps toward a particular path as as it is more refreshing to see how the same question can generate a multitiude of relevant replies. Then too, imo, Kate is asking a question that has more to do with social science and politics than with the kind of hard evidence that scientific authority derives from so I thought I would bring in some political perpectives. Her question also has international and national resonance all the way down to local communities and in all three one has to call on human as well as whatever divine resources one has at one's command, even if these are imagined, in order to go beyond the boundaries of what governs ordinary events - events that would perhaps only puctuate life with a comma to the kind of events that bring life to a full stop. Yes reason has a role but so do emotion, imagination etc.
edit: lol at besty. my goodness I started this post more than an hour ago and then got distracted by other things
-
Twitch
Ruby456
I would say that paradox is also inherent to the approach you define - that of breaking things down by reason and this approach also involves quite a lot of imagination.
To a degree, however imagining something doesn't make it reasonable. In fact, I'd say the two are rather opposed by nature. And as I mentioned, much of our current doctrinal beliefs are due to imagination, not reason. Politics and social pressures only compound the problem of breaking these down IMO.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course and we all see things differently. Which is why there have been/are so many gods in history; people believe in whatever they wish to imagine, whatever they feel. Doesn't make it true though, with respect to the god question. Most of the old gods are passe, which begs the question of the validity of current gods.
Anthropomorphism of god is more of a philosophical and ontological question and less a political and social one IMO. But again, it really depends on if or how you define god. Some prefer a god with human qualities, naturally.
-
Ruby456
thanks twitch - I agree
-
KateWild
Anthropomorphism of god is more of a philosophical and ontological question and less a political and social one IMO. But again, it really depends on if or how you define god. Some prefer a god with human qualities, naturally.-twitch
I agree, to say one believes in God only gives a limited amount of information. That's why I started this thread the help define the God I believe in. But if ones choose the label me atheist because I do not believe in an a'morphic God, then that's their label of me not mine. Thanks Ruby and twitch for your exchange I have enjoyed watching you chat.
Kate xx
-
Ruby456
thanks Kate. I wanted to share a political viewpoint because who knows you may be the next president in the making
