The One God and anthropomorphism

[gnostic]

Sometimes, when I write about a god....and I am talking about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god...and applied human characteristics to the god, I sometimes get response that god is not human, and that I shouldn't or couldn't apply something that human nature to a god. That anthropomorphism should not be applied to god, such as one like him.

Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, laughed or pour scorns for the polytheistic religions that depict god in human forms, and say that One God is different, and yet I don't see the difference.

But we have description of god, particularly in the Tanakh and Bible that really make look like human, for all outward appearance at least.

They say god is love.

But isn't that human emotion?

Then there are time, when he express compassion, pride (eg pride about Job's devoutness), anger (wrathful), jealousy (in Exodus 20, he say that "I am a jealous god"), upset, get showed regrets (Flood), etc. All of these - human emotions.

In the scriptures, he showed favoritism towards people, eg Israelites, Christians, Muslims, and towards certain individuals, like Abraham and David. Showing favoritism is showing biased in a human way, isn't it?

We called him, Father. How do you view a father? Masculine, human male who sired offspring.

We view him being on a throne, like a king, and we call heaven, as a kingdom of God. Like it or not, and despite all not making look or sound a human, even Jesus and prophets apply human title and description to him.

As much as people about God is not a man, and hence human terms can't be applied to him, the descriptions given about him, make him...well, more like a human.

Is God human?

And there's the rub. They denied that he is human being, and yet in Genesis 1, when God created humans, man and woman on the 6th day, he said that he would create humans "in his image" or likeness.

If God made Adam in his image, then wouldn't he looked human?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They denied that he is human being, and yet in Genesis 1, when God created humans, man and woman on the 6th day, he said that he would create humans "in his image" or likeness.

Without doubt the terminology employed in Genesis 2:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democritized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the author of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disks, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (salam) of the great gods." In light of this the characterization of man as "in the image of god" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact. [source]

The terminology no more conveys the idea that man resembles God than do the Assyrian steles convey the belief the Ashshur resembles a winged disk.

 

[painted wolf]

anthropomorphizing god makes 'him' easier to understand.

wa:do

 

[Wandered Off]

anthropomorphizing god makes 'him' easier to understand.

I'd say it makes a "straw god" that is easier to understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hence my belief that the lesser gods, the gods of this earth, are anthropomorphic in nature so that we can understand them. Sorry if my beliefs offend anyone, but I feel that the Judeao-Christian-Muslim God to be one of many gods of this earth; that he alone watches over the region we call the Middle-East, but that pantheons watch over other regions. The earthen gods are more than capable of humanlike emotions, but that they are expected to be in total control of them. (of course, one look at the Olympians...) I do not worship any of them, any more than I worship my brother. For to me, the gods are our brothers, born as well from the womb of Gaia.

Beyond this earth, beyond the gods, I do not even use the gender-based pronouns to describe the One. Even "One" is not an adequate description of It; indeed, there aren't any, even in the tongues of the gods. So I simply say that all that exists, whether we perceive it or not, is the very body of the One.

 

[Caladan]

God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. A corollary belief is that God is utterly unlike man, and can in no way be considered anthropomorphic. All statements in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise be impossible to talk about God at all. See Divine simplicity; Negative theology; Tzimtzum

God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rojse]

I'd say it makes a "straw god" that is easier to understand.

Too true. I often see it even in atheist arguments against the idea of God, that need to assume that God has a certain quality in order for the argument to work. A good example of this include the problem of evil.

 

[gnostic]

God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. A corollary belief is that God is utterly unlike man, and can in no way be considered anthropomorphic.

Then why did Jesus speak of him as a person, with kingdom and throne, heavenly or not. Speak of him as having love and compassion.

Seriously would god needs a throne, crown or sceptre?

And why does the Revelation depict him as a king, the angels as his subjects?

I know that you can't take the Revelation literally, but nothing indicate he was beyond all those earth-like powers and possessions, which make him no different from the Sumerian-Babylon, Egyptian or Greek gods. He is modelled like a human king.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All statements in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, ...

By some. You paint with an overly wide brush. Rambam had more than his share of detractors, and it would be little more than self-serving pretense to suggest that he reflected traditional Judaism.