An anthropomorphic God

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Sorry for the big word.

I guess the definition would be, ascribes to human characteristics. But, that is sort of putting the cart before the horse I think. My parents do not take after me. I take after them

Is it possible that we have some of the same qualities and characteristics of the one who created us and maybe, is still in the process of honing those qualities and characteristics?

I look like my dad. When I was young, there was not so much of a resemblance. But, as I got older, I looked more and more like him. Now that I am old, i am a dead ringer of him.

I never was one to picture an old man with a long white beard. I have my own thoughts which I will keep to myself.

As far as image goes, a young man many years ago said that God was spirit. Does spirit have an image? I don't know. Maybe an investigation of the word image and its truest definition should be in order. It would be interesting to know the word in its original language, and to analyze it.

Somehow, I cannot conceive of an entity who designed us in this fashion,that would be void of any similarities of what that entity designed. Of course, if you do not believe in a designer, this makes no sense. But for those who do belief in this cause, why would this designer create something that did not resemble the designers self?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,336 • Replies: 14

No top replies

@Elmud,

Well Christianity has a human God- and an image of the father and the holy spirit. Of the three, only Christs image is literal (or as much as a depiction of someones features we can't be sure of can be) and the other two are metaphorical. The 'old man with a white beard' is a patriachal figure, emphasising wisdom, sterness, creation- the attributes of a father. This image has undeniable links with more pagan deities- zeus, minus the mucking around with mortal women, or Odin, a deity who fits even better. This is not coincidental, as the Father would by his very nature be recognised and worshiped before the coming of Christ- not as perfectly, perhaps, even in the Judaic tradition (though it was the best), as he can only be understood fully in relation to the other persons of the trinity. The Holy Spirit represents wisdom, power, magic, inspiration, peace- a moveing, swift being- a being with wings, bearing hope within its beak leading us onwards to salvation.

However Islam has no representation or image of God- it is forbidden. God is to them spirt, and invisible and indefinable power. This reflects the simplicity, purity and austerity of the Islamic creed- there is no need for mediating imagesl; indeed they are regarded as barriers between us and God. The Christian tradition is in contrast almost entirely made up of images- in paintings, tapestries, on furniture, carved into every free bit of space in church, cathedral and abbey. Because of the complex theological relationships of the Trinity, and the diverse nature of Christianities origins, images have been seen not as impediments, but paths to God. By looking at an image of an angel, the holy spirit, the virgin mary or any other sacred being, we can learn more about God and the Cosmos. Beauty honours God. Ultimatly God can never be represented correctly in an image, just as we cannot draw, for instance, the concept of love in the same way we could draw a tree. However we can draw a heart, or two lovers- and we will recognise, and perhaps understand more deeply, the nature of love.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Anthropomorphism implies finiteness. If God has describable qualities, then He is necessarily not infinite (and therefore finite). Since if God is, He is infinite, He cannot thus be constrained by anthropomorphic qualities--that is, He is not anthropomorphic.

The anthropomorphic images are just metaphors for how we perceive God (and therefore neither a true image of God nor idols by which we concentrate votive worship of God). It is important to bear that in mind while looking at them.

3 Replies

@hammersklavier,

In the Abrahamic tradition aren't we really Diemorphic men?

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Anthropomorphism implies finiteness.

Yes. It does. If by definition it implies that a creator has human qualities and characteristics.

I guess what I am getting at is, looking at it the other way around, do humans have some of the qualities and characteristics of the one who designed them.

If we were created, what pattern could have been used? If we evolved, to what end or finished product did this person have in mind?

0 Replies

@Elmud,

I don't want to sabotage this thread and take it in another direction, but I've had some thoughts about the notion of God being anthropomorphic. What I'm really curious about is, what if God is far more anthropomorphic than we ever thought? What if he has actually made mistakes and learned from them, like humans. That is, what if he's not perfect and all-powerful? Is this notion way out of left-field? And would God still be a fitting object of worship?

In the Bible sends a rainbow to say he will never flood the earth again. While in the desert with Moses and the Israelites, he says he will strike them down numerous times, but then doesn't due to Moses' pleas. Are these examples of God changing his mind and/or making a mistake? Any thoughts? Sorry, if this is too far off. I will make a response to what's actually been said a bit later.

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I don't want to sabotage this thread and take it in another direction, but I've had some thoughts about the notion of God being anthropomorphic. What I'm really curious about is, what if God is far more anthropomorphic than we ever thought? What if he has actually made mistakes and learned from them, like humans. That is, what if he's not perfect and all-powerful? Is this notion way out of left-field? And would God still be a fitting object of worship?

In the Bible sends a rainbow to say he will never flood the earth again. While in the desert with Moses and the Israelites, he says he will strike them down numerous times, but then doesn't due to Moses' pleas. Are these examples of God changing his mind and/or making a mistake? Any thoughts? Sorry, if this is too far off. I will make a response to what's actually been said a bit later.

Perfectly imperfect? Who's to know. There are those that would say that the Creator could not have the same qualities and characteristics of humans because that would make the Creator finite. I don't buy into that idea. How about this, what if this person is just conducting an experiment? Maybe hoping that someday, we will evolve into something that might resemble that person? Who knows. Just a thought.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

...But for those who do belief in this cause, why would this designer create something that did not resemble the designers self?

Another way to look at it might be to ask: Why would a designer create something that did resemble itself?

Assuming there is a creator and that we are the product of that creation, I think it just as valid to consider the inverse. We assume we know other's motivations based on our own. But if there is a creator how can we possibly understand it's mindset?

Good thread Elmud

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Anthropomorphism implies finiteness. If God has describable qualities, then He is necessarily not infinite (and therefore finite). Since if God is, He is infinite, He cannot thus be constrained by anthropomorphic qualities--that is, He is not anthropomorphic.

The anthropomorphic images are just metaphors for how we perceive God (and therefore neither a true image of God nor idols by which we concentrate votive worship of God). It is important to bear that in mind while looking at them.

Perhaps God has some quality that humans have, which makes him anthropomorphic somewhat, but to an infinitely higher degree. Along these lines, humans have love to give, but God is love, or at least is the epitome of love. God and humans share this quality, and perhaps many others, yet God can still be infinite.

Another thought, is God actually infinite? Perhaps not. ?

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

In the Bible sends a rainbow to say he will never flood the earth again. While in the desert with Moses and the Israelites, he says he will strike them down numerous times, but then doesn't due to Moses' pleas. Are these examples of God changing his mind and/or making a mistake? Any thoughts? Sorry, if this is too far off. I will make a response to what's actually been said a bit later.

Actually, those are two different deities. The People of Moses came north, possibly out of Egypt, with a war god who demanded that his people worship no other god. The people of Moses came north and merged with the people already living in Canaan who worshiped a relatively more peaceful deity. Over time, as the people merged, so did their God until we end up with a monotheistic creator deity.

The point: God evolves.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Actually, those are two different deities. The People of Moses came north, possibly out of Egypt, with a war god who demanded that his people worship no other god. The people of Moses came north and merged with the people already living in Canaan who worshiped a relatively more peaceful deity. Over time, as the people merged, so did their God until we end up with a monotheistic creator deity.

The point: God evolves.

So the words"The same today, yesterday and forever", are not words you agree with Didymos? Just curious. Ya don't have to answer if you don't want to.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

The closest phrase I could find to the above in the Bible is Hebrews 13:8. In the passage, the author seems to be trying to assert the traditional elements of the new Christian faith; this makes sense because the Epistle was targeted at Jews.

13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

The following phrases are interesting. They have some humor today, I think:

9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

After asserting that Jesus preached the true word of God, or whatever we might call it, the author goes on to talk about strange teachings (as if Jesus' teachings were not strange), mocks ceremony, and then mocks "those who minister at the tabernacle", that is, the Temple priests.

To the question, though: this agree/disagree distinction is a little strange, I think. It depends on how one interprets the passage. In Buddhism, true and honest dharma does not change, it is always good teaching. Similarly, the teaching of Jesus are enduring. Clearly the teachings of Jesus were significant at the time of this Epistle's writing, but by including "yesterday" this implies that the teachings are also in line with the teachings of past Prophets who were often institutional shakers. And of course, by saying "forever" the author implies that the teachings will be eternally relevant: something you can pass on to future generations, something worth passing on.

So, let's just say that I like the phrase.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

This is a very interesting thread, something I am considering writing my dissertation on actually...thank you for bringing it up!!

I read a while back while researching into this area that similarly as the ice cream maker does not contain any properties of ice cream, why should we assume that God contains properties of His creation? We ascribe human attributes to God as it is assumed that He is our creator, but we would not ascribe attributes of coldness, flavoured, creamy etc. to the ice cream maker.

If we use anthropomorphism as a method of analogy for understanding God from concepts that we are aware of, then the analogy has to be consistent. Yet it is not consistent with the case of the ice cream maker. Does this matter? Is there an adequate reply?

Our language is limited to that of what we know, therefore, the only way we can talk of God is by the concepts we know. But from this we result in anthropomorphising Him. Yet there are words that we leave only to be ascribed to God such as omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Should we limit our language of God only to that which should only be applied to Him? Or is this anthropomorphic nature useful and acceptable?

I ask with the hope of inspiration for my dissertation and discussion points to consider!

2 Replies

@Jwheats,

I found an interesting passage in Spinoza's Ethics pertaining to this discussion. It's part of the Scholium to Proposition 15:

Quote:

Some imagine God in the likeness of man, consisting of mind and body, and subject to passions. But it is clear from what has already been proved how far they stray from the true knowledge of God. These I dismiss, for all who have given any consideration to the divine nature deny that God is corporeal. They find convincing proof of this in the fact that by body we understand some quantity having length, breadth, and depth, bounded by a definite shape; and nothing more absurd than this can be attributed to God, a being absolutely infinite.
[......................................]
...extended substance is one of God's infinite attributes.

0 Replies

@Jwheats,

Jwheats wrote:

This is a very interesting thread, something I am considering writing my dissertation on actually...thank you for bringing it up!!

I read a while back while researching into this area that similarly as the ice cream maker does not contain any properties of ice cream, why should we assume that God contains properties of His creation? We ascribe human attributes to God as it is assumed that He is our creator, but we would not ascribe attributes of coldness, flavoured, creamy etc. to the ice cream maker.

If we use anthropomorphism as a method of analogy for understanding God from concepts that we are aware of, then the analogy has to be consistent. Yet it is not consistent with the case of the ice cream maker. Does this matter? Is there an adequate reply?

Our language is limited to that of what we know, therefore, the only way we can talk of God is by the concepts we know. But from this we result in anthropomorphising Him. Yet there are words that we leave only to be ascribed to God such as omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Should we limit our language of God only to that which should only be applied to Him? Or is this anthropomorphic nature useful and acceptable?

I ask with the hope of inspiration for my dissertation and discussion points to consider!

We are not Ice creams. We are living beings with a conscious awareness of things.

0 Replies

An anthropomorphic God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know