What to make of anthropomorphisms for God

[Josh]

Josh wrote:2 Cor. 5:18-19...John 3:16...1 John 4:16a
I really want you to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's love for you is not a mere projection but is more real and objective than the universe itself.

yeshuafreak wrote:
i truly see your intention. in dealing with the verses, these lines are not fully adequete to adress them. however, you must remember that i dont blieve that those verses have to be true. just know that.

however, there is no reason to discard them so i will del with them: Paul spoke with the OT view of God- amorphism i belive it is called. he gives god desire, moods, hands, feet and body, etc. but that is NOT literal. those are "dumbed bown" explanations of God. and Yochanon spoke with metaphor VERY often, so i wouldnt put it past him to be using this word as a metaphor. however, since Yochanons theology differs (in nomenclature and technique, though not message) from Shaul, i see the need to interpret his writings differently.

love to John meant the Will to Give. it is the same hting. (i use will to give for reaons not needed to be discussed here) it is dealing with our eventual release from sin. love is the absence of fear and anger and such, according to Yochanon because his thesis is that God is love. if you consider God as love, then yes, everything against god IS evil. but i am calling something completely different Love, making a different point. i use Will To Give for God because i use love for a different meaning. i agree compoletely with R. Yochanon, but i just use different words. i also define love differently than you.

Josh wrote:
I haven't seen a defense here just descriptions of your new beliefs.

yeshuafreak wrote:
apologetics is not my bowl of nuts, but i do have valid reasons for believing what i belive, and can give them to you. right now is not the time. i willl start a different thread. but my main argument is from a philosophical and logical (it IS logical that god is illogical- something i will discuss later) standpoint. i dont use scriptures (not just biblical scriptures,) very much because i find those as expressions of the trusth AT BEST (sometimes they are false) and they are many times unreliable. but i still use them as supporting evidence and for communicating ideas to those who are not well versed in those scriptures. (that is why i dont quote bbile verses to you- you know them. but you dont know about hinduism and taoism and such, so i WILL quote those).

But what has motivated e to find a new system of beliefs is this: the traditional view does NOT work now. it just doesnt. there are to many problems with the augustinian God (a primitive one) and there are too many problems with taking the bible literally or anything less than figurative when speaking of gen 1-11 or stories like that. there are just too many. o i have looked at science, philosophy, etc for the answer. of course, they are NOT proof, but provide real evidence. even christians get evidence for their bleifs from archeology and such. i am taking the evidence and consturcting a theory that works.

i dont care if it is compatible with the bible is not. if something is proven to be wrong in the bible, than i am not going to twist the meaning of the verse, but i am just going to say that the person obviously let human nature take over or was not writing a historical account or that the text was changed or wherever the evidence points!

so if you want apologetics, i am going to be taking from science, philosophy, archeology etc that provides evidence- and then i am looking to the scriptures that need proving. they cannot provide the evidence, only the theory that needs evidence. saying that god performed mass murder during the flood and will in armeggedon and the lake of fire, is proposterous, and i will not serve a heavenly hitler. God is something more than a being just like us with as many problems that we have. i am looking for the meaning behind the amorphism.

shalom

[Josh]

Paul spoke with the OT view of God- amorphism i belive it is called. he gives god desire, moods, hands, feet and body, etc. but that is NOT literal. those are "dumbed bown" explanations of God. and Yochanon spoke with metaphor VERY often, so i wouldnt put it past him to be using this word as a metaphor.

I'm not going to disagree with you that when we speak of God we must use metaphor. Some of the metaphors used in Scripture are very "dumbed down" so to speak- like when Scripture says that "the eyes of the Lord roam to and fro throughout the earth". We know that God doesn't have literal eyes, yet the correct response to the statement isn't to throw our hands up in the air and say that this statement says nothing about the true nature of God. On the contrary, it does say something- namely that God is aware of all that transpires.

Now, I don't think attributes ascribed to God such as "love" or "will" or "desire" or "pleasure" or "hatred" are as nearly "dumbed down" as statements that imply He has eyes or feet or a robe. The reason is that God is spirit and the above qualities have to do with spirit, not flesh.

The Bible says we are created in God's image. That obviously does not mean we physically look like Him- it means we share spiritual attributes with him- such as those listed above.

When the Bible says God "loves" or "hates" or "wills" something it doesn't make sense to say that those are meaningless anthropomorphisms. Metaphors aren't used to express nothing- metaphors are used to explain something that is truer than words can describe.

When the Bible says God "loves" it shouldn't cause agnosticism in us about the truth of the matter. The intended response is for us to say, "Hmm. I know what love is. God is at least that and certainly more" not "we can't know anything for certain about God".

i also define love differently than you.

How do you define it?

but you dont know about hinduism and taoism and such, so i WILL quote those

I have studied both Hinduism and Taoism (though of course I could always learn more) Hopefully your study of them goes beyond eastern philosophy cited by western popularizers like Eckhart Tolle.

so if you want apologetics, i am going to be taking from science, philosophy, archeology etc that provides evidence-

That's what apologetics is, of course. Although I'd add historical analysis to the mix.

and then i am looking to the scriptures that need proving. they cannot provide the evidence, only the theory that needs evidence.

Agreed. I am not one to use Scripture as a circular argument. The reason I have cited Scripture is not to prove my argument but to explain why I hold it or to get you to interact with the ideas. I believe Scripture is inspired for a variety of apologetic reasons. Those are the underpinning to my trust in the realibility and truth of all Scripture. But if you don't share that trust, then either we can discuss evidence for Biblical inspiration or we can use philosophy and other disciplines to continue our discussions.

saying that god performed mass murder during the flood and will in armeggedon and the lake of fire, is proposterous, and i will not serve a heavenly hitler. God is something more than a being just like us with as many problems that we have. i am looking for the meaning behind the amorphism.

You and I disagree about what is God's prerogative. To give and take away life, to me, is well within His good nature and does not imply "problems" within His nature.

But anyway, the meaning behind the anthropomorphism can't be less than the strength of the metaphor- if anything it must be more.

[yeshuafreak]

Now, I don't think attributes ascribed to God such as "love" or "will" or "desire" or "pleasure" or "hatred" are as nearly "dumbed down" as statements that imply He has eyes or feet or a robe. The reason is that God is spirit and the above qualities have to do with spirit, not flesh.

i do think that those are amorphisms. all things describing god are degrations of his true nature. words can not adeduetly describe colors (for experience needs to come in hand with them) much less the infinite God.

Metaphors aren't used to express nothing- metaphors are used to explain something that is truer than words can describe.

i agree copmletely. but i take love as a metaphor when you do not. you think he truly loves when i think that is an imperfect representation of what truly transpires within the ultimate reality of YHVH. i see nothing wrong with the imperfect representation but i see it as that- an imperfect representation.

How do you define it?

i see love as limited to the chemicals and mental interpretation of things. the Love that Yochanon speaks of as with most christians is my Will to Give, for that is the ultimate real love, not simply a mental idea (which i deal with a lot).

I have studied both Hinduism and Taoism (though of course I could always learn more) Hopefully your study of them goes beyond eastern philosophy cited by western popularizers like Eckhart Tolle.

i have read the tao te ching, upanishads, vedas, books by swamis and yogis. it definitely goes beyond western popularizers. i see tolle asa guide, but i in no way accept all or even most of his teachings. he helped me with my path but i am beyond him now.

and i didnt know you knew about hinduism and daoism. hipefully your knowledge of it is more about the theology than the basic idea because i studied more of the complex stuff within it.

That's what apologetics is, of course. Although I'd add historical analysis to the mix.

yeah i know. i just ont like apologetics because it usually leads to arguments when i am involved. i have not learned how to correctly defend my points of view without getting (a)sensitive or (b) argumentative. i would love to learn how but...

Agreed. I am not one to use Scripture as a circular argument... But if you don't share that trust, then either we can discuss evidence for Biblical inspiration or we can use philosophy and other disciplines to continue our discussions.

i dont believe that bible is the word of God, although i do believe it was inspired by God. by that i mean that Gods truth caused such a transformation within the people who wrote the bible that they decided to write it down. but i think THEY wrote it down in THEIR terms with THEIR mistakes and human tendancies like changing what they dont like.

but i dont want to discuss biblical inspiration. i would like to find more solid evidnce mainly to be found by history and the sciences. less so by philosophy but a good philosopher uses pretty hard evidence although less-than-empiracle is good for them. in other words, less-than-empirical evidence is fine, but empirical evidence takes precedence in our arguments- err, debates- if you agree.



i am looking forward to a good discussion.

shalom

[Josh]

I want to respond to the above. However, here's a response to something related you said elsewhere:

God has no will. he has no motivation to heal. he had only the desire to give in the dateless infinite past and created the world because of that desire. no other desire does he posses and there is not motivation to act where there is no desire.

How do you know this?

The bulk of religious thought would disagree with this statement.

Also, I think there are logical reasons to reject this.

Let me demonstrate:

Which is better? Consciousness or non-consciousness? For instance, which is better, a human or a stream of electricity?

I think it is self-evident than a human is better than a stream of electricity. A human is more complex, aware, and volitional.

Personhood is better than the impersonal. I think we know this intuitively.

And if God is that being of which no greater being can be imagined, then he must be more than a person*, not less.

*with attendant complexity, self-awareness, volitional will, etc...

Another approach might be to ask you what would be bad about God having a will or loving or feeling anger?

[Josh]

i see love as limited to the chemicals and mental interpretation of things. the Love that Yochanon speaks of as with most christians is my Will to Give, for that is the ultimate real love, not simply a mental idea (which i deal with a lot).

Firstly, if I was defining love as chemical, subjective feelings as you are, then I guess I'd have to agree with you. I don't think that's the kind of love God has.

However, Scripture (and Greek) affords us different words and notions for love. And Agape is decidedly altogether different than your above definition. I think I'd agree that the "Will to Give" is a decent description of it.

But I'm confused- I thought you said God does not have a will?

For a great overview of the different shades of love I'd highly recommend C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves- which discusses at length phileo, storge, eros, and agape.


As to our exposure to other religions I think it's apparent that we both value being informed of a diversity of opinions. I have taught World Religions both at my school and with our Church and as an apologist I really value reading original source materials from a variety of viewpoints. It's especially important to read those with which we have some disagreement.


Lastly, yes, let's not discuss biblical inspiration here. There are plenty of other venues for that if you'd like- on your forums or these.

Let's stick with this topic though. I like it.

[yeshuafreak]

I'd agree that the "Will to Give" is a decent description of it.

But I'm confused- I thought you said God does not have a will?

thats where it gets complex. kabbalah talks of God choosing one of his many wills (he has all wills and therefore he has no will- negative to positive type thing) and the will causing him to create a being and fill it with unending pleasure (true pleasure not egoic pleasure). this is why the universe came into being. kabbalah takes more than just a post to explain so to understand my idea on the Will to Give (or at least a good overview) go to michael lightmans website.

As to our exposure to other religions I think it's apparent that we both value being informed of a diversity of opinions. I have taught World Religions both at my school and with our Church and as an apologist I really value reading original source materials from a variety of viewpoints. It's especially important to read those with which we have some disagreement.

wow didnt know that you taught so much.

For a great overview of the different shades of love I'd highly recommend C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves- which discusses at length phileo, storge, eros, and agape.

the loves are very interesting and i love CS Lewis- obviously you like him too.

Another approach might be to ask you what would be bad about God having a will or loving or feeling anger?

there is nothing wrong with it at all. however, it would not fit within the idea of him being a causal force. therefore, i revert to the ishvara-nirguna theory.

one way to understand my understanding of God is to explain it like this:

• we know some so God must know all
  
• we have limited power so God must be all powerful
  
• etc.
  

How do you know this?

its the only explanation that works in understanding him as the First Cause. he is purely causal and an effect of no one or no thing. therefore he has all wills and that means he has no will (property of negation).

The bulk of religious thought would disagree with this statement.

thats because the mojority of religious thought focuses on breeding the Ishvara projection. the only undersatnding we can have of God.

Which is better? Consciousness or non-consciousness? For instance, which is better, a human or a stream of electricity?

i personally think that cosciousness is better, but i dont care what is better- that is merely an opinion. i am looking for the truth. i have no need for what i think about something, though i will use my thoughts to Guide me. note however that i never said god was not conscious. he is, yet he isnt. God is the negation and contarpositive and modus tollens and modus ponens etc of everthing. he is everything and nothing the beg and the end the last and the first the day and the night the cause and effect the open and the closed the alpha and omega the alef and the tav. etc. He IS. he is the I Am, the first causal, the unlimitless the brahman the Dao YHVH the almighty the el shaddai the omnipotent lord the higher power. He is that He is.

and even that limits him. even that is projecting the largest most infinite limitations that i know as a human. he defies logic. of course i can symbolically describe him with emotion and titles, but that is always a degration of his true nature.

i speak of one aspect of him when i speak of his Will to Give, another when i speak of his Will to Recieve, all his wills when i say he has No Will. i speak of one aspeact of his being when is say he is, another when i call him Not-Being and all when i say he was and is and will be.

my theology is more an awe of God than an attempt to understand him. we can only study one aspect at a time. that is why the hindus created whole gods to explain one aspect of the almighty (of course thats not what the intial intention is but that is how it is understood now). (idolatry is placing the creation over the God, making God less than who he is- there is nothing wrong with an Ishvara as long as you do not identify Ishvara with Nirguna. The ancient hebrews saw the act of identifying any type of matter as God as disrespectful of the almighty.)

shalom