"anthropomorphism"?

[ahs]

I am having a discussion with a friend (in writing) and I am needing clarificatiopn on what he is talking about, as I seem to be talking past him. He is an ex-Christian, turned Jew, that struggles with hints of agnosticism (that last part is my opinion).

Backgroudn: We were discussing bio-urns of all things and he mentioned that “[the deity * call God” should logically be concerned with whether we turn into trees (google bio-urn for info…) or not since he’s [God is] concerned about everything else in a persons life. (The point he is making right now in a round-about way is that there is not God as we Christians understand Him because our “God” is only what we make Him to be and all these rules about morality, etc…are man-made.)

Anyway, can someone explain what he is talkig about in this response of his? I realize that he is talking about moral theology-type subject matter, but he is coming from a philosophical perspective. Philosophy is a weak area for me and I am unfamiliar with the language…especially “anthropomorphism”.

I have no problem with the existence of a god. I have a problem with the anthropomorphism thereof and loss of responsibility and free will in the wholesale outsourcing of your daily life to something else. If God didn’t want me to get a vasectomy then He (or She) should have told me himself or made it difficult enough that I would have gotten the point. Instead it was one of the more pleasant surgical procedures I have undertaken. I believe that 99.9999% of all this stuff that MAN has attributed to God is really just one faction looking to exert control over another. I just cannot put stock in a book and a rule set from 2000 years ago. Especially one where EVERYONE who does picks and chooses what rules to follow which ones to ignore; which parts are literal and which are allegory. It’s just not right.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We were discussing bio-urns of all things and he mentioned that “[the deity * call God” should logically be concerned with whether we turn into trees (google bio-urn for info…)

I had never heard of this before, but I was thinking of a similar idea earlier when I was looking at the trees growing on a mountain with a cemetery (or is it a tomb) here in Barcelona.

or not since he’s [God is] concerned about everything else in a persons life. (The point he is making right now in a round-about way is that there is not God as we Christians understand Him because our “God” is only what we make Him to be and all these rules about morality, etc…are man-made.)

This could also be the view of a deist.

Anyway, can someone explain what he is talkig about in this response of his? Philosophy is a weak area for me and I am unfamiliar with the language…especially “anthropomorphism”.

“Anthropomorphism” could possibly be interchanged with the word “Projection” here for many cases. People do this all the time, not just with god-concepts, but with other concepts as well, even if the person knows the object doesn’t really possess a set of properties. For examples, have you ever heard a person say that a computer doesn’t want to behave? Or described storm’s as being angry? More commonly I’ve known people to report after having talked with God the he is in agreement with a decision they’ve made (such as two unmarried people that say they are married in the eye’s of the Lord). Not that I can tell you that God really didn’t tell them this. If it turns out this information did not come from God and assuming the person is not trying to be deceptive it’s possible that the person’s own will is being unconsciously attached to their god-concept, or that some other interjection is being unconsciously attached to their god-concept.

It sounds like your friend is saying the the god-concept that Christians use is the result of an accumulation of attributes assigned from various people.

 

[GEddie]

Bio-urns???

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am having a discussion with a friend (in writing) and I am needing clarificatiopn on what he is talking about, as I seem to be talking past him. He is an ex-Christian, turned Jew, that struggles with hints of agnosticism (that last part is my opinion).

Backgroudn: We were discussing bio-urns of all things and he mentioned that “[the deity * call God” should logically be concerned with whether we turn into trees (google bio-urn for info…) or not since he’s [God is] concerned about everything else in a persons life. (The point he is making right now in a round-about way is that there is not God as we Christians understand Him because our “God” is only what we make Him to be and all these rules about morality, etc…are man-made.)

Anyway, can someone explain what he is talkig about in this response of his? I realize that he is talking about moral theology-type subject matter, but he is coming from a philosophical perspective. Philosophy is a weak area for me and I am unfamiliar with the language…especially “anthropomorphism”.

I have no problem with the existence of a god. I have a problem with the anthropomorphism thereof and loss of responsibility and free will in the wholesale outsourcing of your daily life to something else. If God didn’t want me to get a vasectomy then He (or She) should have told me himself or made it difficult enough that I would have gotten the point. Instead it was one of the more pleasant surgical procedures I have undertaken. I believe that 99.9999% of all this stuff that MAN has attributed to God is really just one faction looking to exert control over another. I just cannot put stock in a book and a rule set from 2000 years ago. Especially one where EVERYONE who does picks and chooses what rules to follow which ones to ignore; which parts are literal and which are allegory. It’s just not right.

God gave you the Catechism, read it. You seem very confused yourself, how can you instruct someone else? Linus

 

[LegoGE1947]

God gave you the Catechism, read it. You seem very confused yourself, how can you instruct someone else? Linus

Most cartoon characters are anthropomorphisms since real animals can’t talk or drive cars or do smart-aleck things.

 

[NovusAugustus]

Anthropomorphism is where you give human characteristics and powers to inhuman things. So, for example, I write story about Jimmy and his adventures to the pond deep in the woods where, to find comfort from the bullies at school, he talks to the sun, the trees, and the water, and they all talk back.

So I suspect your friend is attempting to conclude that religious people project human characteristics onto God, who is infinite and impossible for us to comprehend. You should assure your friend that the Church does no such thing.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Anthropomorphism is where you give human characteristics and powers to inhuman things. So, for example, I write story about Jimmy and his adventures to the pond deep in the woods where, to find comfort from the bullies at school, he talks to the sun, the trees, and the water, and they all talk back.

So I suspect your friend is attempting to conclude that religious people project human characteristics onto God, who is infinite and impossible for us to comprehend. You should assure your friend that the Church does no such thing.

You mean trees, water, and sun don’t talk back? Okay sun, trees , water. Our conversation is over. Y’all go on back to the woods now! Ya know? I had a sneaking suspicion things were a bit too quiet around here

 

[Aloysium]

I just cannot put stock in a book and a rule set from 2000 years ago.

hmm, interesting

i take it you have read the Bible, and this is what you got from it

if this is true, it is scary because of what it says about the role of grace in our lives

you did post on a Catholic site for some reason
so i will take the liberty of recommending that
regardless of how you see things,
that you repeat the Lord’s Prayer regularly;
it can’t hurt and i believe it will help you and your family to do so

 

[ahs]

hmm, interesting

i take it you have read the Bible, and this is what you got from it

if this is true, it is scary because of what it says about the role of grace in our lives

you did post on a Catholic site for some reason
so i will take the liberty of recommending that
regardless of how you see things,
that you repeat the Lord’s Prayer regularly;
it can’t hurt and i believe it will help you and your family to do so

Those were not my words…I was quoting my friend and posted his response here because I was having trouble making sense of it, respective to his use of the word in the title. (The wording in blue is his…not mine.)

 

[ahs]

Thanks for the help in understanding his thinking more.

Linus, I DO appreciate the admonition to consult the Catechism. May I ask what you what I seem confused about other than exactly what I specificly stated I was confused about? And where should I have read about “anthropomorphism” in the Catechism? Do you think I was unwise to come to this forum to ask for guidance from other people?

 

[Aloysium]

i’ll go by the definition of anthropomorphism as the attribution of human traits on something that does not possess them - eg. cats and dogs (not wanting to antagonize anyone), the sun and moon, leprechauns etc.

your friend said: “I have no problem with the existence of a god. I have a problem with the anthropomorphism thereof and loss of responsibility and free will in the wholesale outsourcing of your daily life to something else.”

yeah some ppl anthropomorphize God: attributing to Him human qualities
fact is that He transcends us: rises above and goes beyond the limits of human existence, and its restrictions; He exists prior to, beyond, and above all creation
He is the source of our being as person; His spirit is our human soul
He is the sea of infinite compassion in which we float.
All creation emerges into existence through His love.
Having fallen, we are redeemed by His death and resurrection in Jesus
Your friend, if he is actually interested in Truth, should no doubt agree that this is not anthropomorphizing

Regarding the outsourcing to something else: what this entails is not outsourcing to “something” but rather to He who knows everything about oneself, the One who counts every hair on your head, whose love surpasses any that one may encounter among humanity (in fact that love is ultimately of Him). So you are surrendering to that which has your ultimate happiness as His goal.

Regarding freedom: it is sin that binds us. Do what He wills, you will find love and fulfillment, however life treats you. Do what you will? Pick up the newspaper and learn what happens when ppl do what their own (transient self-interest and sin) will dictates.

Free will can be understood as a choice as to who will be the master of your life. Your choice.

 

[Gorgias]

Anyway, can someone explain what he is talkig about in this response of his?
I have no problem with the existence of a god.

Well, that’s nice; one hopes that God doesn’t have any problems with the existence of your friend.

I have a problem with the anthropomorphism thereof and loss of responsibility and free will in the wholesale outsourcing of your daily life to something else.

It would seem that his problem isn’t with ‘anthropomorphizing’ God, but rather, in the notion of a ‘personal’ God. That is, if God were to stand at a distance from humanity, so that humans lived their daily life without thinking about God, then that’d be ok with your friend. He’s talking about deism here, not anthropomorphism.

If God didn’t want me to get a vasectomy then He (or She) should have told me himself or made it difficult enough that I would have gotten the point.

This is one of the most silly things I’ve ever read – so, in order to be ‘God’, God needs to treat us like children, rather than as adults? God has to put locks on everything that’s bad, rather than letting us know these distinctions and giving us the responsibility to act appropriately? How demeaning!

Moreover, does your friend know that he’s directly contradicting himself? On one hand, God should be distant and let us be responsible and let us exercise free will and let us live our daily lives without interaction from Him – but God should also directly intervene in our daily decisions and speak verbally to us and take all our temptations and snatch them out of our reach whenever we see them. Is he serious, or just being silly?

Instead it was one of the more pleasant surgical procedures I have undertaken.

Riiiiiight! 'Cause the measure of the objective goodness of an act is how pleasant the experience is…!

I believe that 99.9999% of all this stuff that MAN has attributed to God is really just one faction looking to exert control over another.

Perhaps. However, he still needs to prove that he can demonstrate which is “stuff that man attributes to God”, and which is “stuff from God”. There are two options, here: either he’s saying that 99.9999% of what is attributed to God is really from the minds of men (in which case he needs to back that up with some sort of heuristic that enables us to make that distinction), or he needs to identify how much that is said of God is truly “of God” and how much is “of man” (so that we can apply the 99.9999% rule to the latter, and ask him why he doesn’t want to obey the former).

I just cannot put stock in a book and a rule set from 2000 years ago.

This is the worst of the lot. Truth is determined by the calendar date? If Jesus had walked the earth in the 1950s, it would’ve been believable, but since it was 2000 years ago, it isn’t? Just what’s his cut-off? 1800s? 1700s?

Moreover, this means that truth was ‘truth’ when it was ‘fresh’, but somehow, it got ‘stale’ and now its shelf-life has expired. Soooo… those in the first millennium should listen to the Bible 'cause it was more recent then, but we shouldn’t because it’s too old? Does that mean that there’s stuff in the Bible that’s still valid now, but will reach its expiration date years from now? Puh-leeze…!

Especially one where EVERYONE who does picks and chooses what rules to follow which ones to ignore… It’s just not right.

Why should that disturb him? That’s exactly how the world works: do you want to stop for that red light or blow through it? Pick and choose. Do you want to shoot the next person who makes you angry? Pick and choose. (Of course, when it comes time for the rules to be enforced, you’re subject to the authority who’s made the rules. God isn’t a traffic cop who’s sitting behind a bush, waiting to jump out at you and write you a ticket. However, if you think that there’s not an accounting to be made at some point down the line… oh, my! )

 

[ahs]

Thanks for the excellent explanations and insights guys (gals?)! The conversation with him is going well…and I’ve borrowed a couple comments from here (I promise I put them into my own words though ). I have a feeling our discussion will come to a close pretty soon here…from his last couples responses I get the impression that I’ve hit a nerve and I don’t want to damage it, if you know what I mean…just let it sit there tingling for him while I pray for him. Please, anyone reading this, pray for my friend and me that God will open our eyes and give us a daily increase in understanding.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Well, that’s nice; one hopes that God doesn’t have any problems with the existence of your friend.

It would seem that his problem isn’t with ‘anthropomorphizing’ God, but rather, in the notion of a ‘personal’ God. That is, if God were to stand at a distance from humanity, so that humans lived their daily life without thinking about God, then that’d be ok with your friend. He’s talking about deism here, not anthropomorphism.

This is one of the most silly things I’ve ever read – so, in order to be ‘God’, God needs to treat us like children, rather than as adults? God has to put locks on everything that’s bad, rather than letting us know these distinctions and giving us the responsibility to act appropriately? How demeaning!

Moreover, does your friend know that he’s directly contradicting himself? On one hand, God should be distant and let us be responsible and let us exercise free will and let us live our daily lives without interaction from Him – but God should also directly intervene in our daily decisions and speak verbally to us and take all our temptations and snatch them out of our reach whenever we see them. Is he serious, or just being silly?

Riiiiiight! 'Cause the measure of the objective goodness of an act is how pleasant the experience is…!

Perhaps. However, he still needs to prove that he can demonstrate which is “stuff that man attributes to God”, and which is “stuff from God”. There are two options, here: either he’s saying that 99.9999% of what is attributed to God is really from the minds of men (in which case he needs to back that up with some sort of heuristic that enables us to make that distinction), or he needs to identify how much that is said of God is truly “of God” and how much is “of man” (so that we can apply the 99.9999% rule to the latter, and ask him why he doesn’t want to obey the former).

This is the worst of the lot. Truth is determined by the calendar date? If Jesus had walked the earth in the 1950s, it would’ve been believable, but since it was 2000 years ago, it isn’t? Just what’s his cut-off? 1800s? 1700s?

Moreover, this means that truth was ‘truth’ when it was ‘fresh’, but somehow, it got ‘stale’ and now its shelf-life has expired. Soooo… those in the first millennium should listen to the Bible 'cause it was more recent then, but we shouldn’t because it’s too old? Does that mean that there’s stuff in the Bible that’s still valid now, but will reach its expiration date years from now? Puh-leeze…!

Why should that disturb him? That’s exactly how the world works: do you want to stop for that red light or blow through it? Pick and choose. Do you want to shoot the next person who makes you angry? Pick and choose. (Of course, when it comes time for the rules to be enforced, you’re subject to the authority who’s made the rules. God isn’t a traffic cop who’s sitting behind a bush, waiting to jump out at you and write you a ticket. However, if you think that there’s not an accounting to be made at some point down the line… oh, my! )

I had a vasectomy several years ago and I didn’t think it was so pleasant. In fact I had to have it done twice because the doctor the first time had never done one before and cut a blood vessel so the second time they had a Urologist do it while the first doctor watched!