itsadryheat,

You've got it right. I would only add that it's not only a deity or deities we do it to, but also animals. Then there is anthropocentrism, which is having the view that humans are the most significant entity in the universe, but we don't want theme overload.

Just consider Chimmey I'm discussing this from a religious perspective. If I were to take the word deity away and all it implies we would be having a different discussion. So, I hope you'll allow me to go out on a limb just a bit. Also, my original post wasn't well stated at all and is a bit of an embarrassment. I swear I can do better (laughs). I was thinking too much and should have held off writing it. I'm a little bit of a lazy writer too, so I normally don't think about proofreading till after I've hit send. So, I apologize if my post was hard to follow. And hopefully, even though I’m pressed for time right now this post will come out a little more coherent.

I think we need to come to an agreement on the semantics of the word, so I’m going to post a wonderful definition that I have memorized; I can’t remember where it originated: “Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.”

In my original post I stated earlier philosophers believed that traits such as jealousy and hate are strictly human qualities. I don’t share that belief. I believe they’re qualities of God, and from that perspective instilled in us; one would be reflecting God, not God reflecting them. We could at this point diverge into a discussion on the merits or lack thereof of hate, but I hope we can avoid it.

Most Christians believe in the Trinity, three distinct separate beings and one substance. I won't dare offer an analogy that would be woefully inadequate to express the Trinity. There are several wonderful books that give great insights into it. Your statements of God’s humanization may have seemed logical to you, but your concept of the Trinity is in error and is direct cause to discard your rationale. God was never human, Jesus was. Your thinking is in line with Mormonism.

What's strange to me about anthropomorphizing a deity is when it's done to the point it morphs the supernatural out of that God. The God becomes so human that there is little deity left. What’s the point? Yes, it befuddles me, and much as it befuddles me when one believes in a deity of a book that they believed is flawed. From then where is the truth gained? The deity may lodge its presence in the heart and mind of men, but there is another necessity; a need for a place where perspective can be gained away from the human mind that will deceive itself, or from the human heart that renders itself useless for all manner of things. For many Christians this is the infallible word of God, the bible.

I have never thought was Jonah swallowed by a whale, but instead thought, a creator capable of creating the universe in that omnipotence is indeed capable of having Jonah swallowed by a whale. But even some Christians need to anthropomorphize the abstract concept of miracles (supernatural) into that something distinctly human and more palatable. Yet, let one of their loves ones become ill and they reach for heaven with a burst of belief and pray for a miracle of healing. Am I a literalist? I don’t even think like that. I believe the power is there. Humans create their own incongruence of faith, whether it is anthropomorphically or otherwise.

One very good example of someone that anthropomorphizes to the point of ridiculousness is Sylvia Brown, the psychic. If you listen to her it seems like God is going to be having people scrubbing pot and pans and cleaning toilets in heaven. Her explanation of living in heaven very much resembles life on earth. Well, I want to state emphatically, once I’m done here on earth, I’m done cleaning toilets for good.

Thank you for the cordial discourse.

I think the anthropomorphic language (there is a distinction between using the language metaphorically and ascribing qualities) in the Bible is natural and something one would expect to see when the relationship with God is both personal and rationale. Image and likeness (selem and demut), being fact to face, the smelling of sacrifice, the mention of God's eyes, is language used as to be instrumental in conveying God's sovereignty and uniqueness while offering the grounds for personalization. Yet, the imagery also meticulously avoids revealing God's holy mysteries, including absolute nature. But none of this can be considered true anthropomorphism anyway. I think the word has been incorrectly applied in the literature I’ve read. God instilling life with qualities he possesses, even if those qualities, or outcroppings, are unique only unto flesh is not anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism takes place when humans humanize, and in order for God to anthropomorphize he would have to be human and then ascribe, or inspire others to ascribe those qualities of humanness to the nonhuman creatures he created. Anyway, when anthropomorphic language is used in the Bible since most Christians believe the bible is divinely inspired and that it’s not mans’ thoughts that inspired the language the point becomes moot.

If we’re to take what the religious connotations of anthropomorphism are, which is a watering down of the impact of the word: perceiving God as human, as in flesh and bones, or just human form without flesh and bones, or recognition of human qualities in God, I would expect the word to fly adequate excursions fancily all over place, as it does. What a gentile nature the words perceiving and recognition have brought on the subject.

The word anthropomorphic becomes relevant in the debate with Mormons only if God is not flesh and bones. It’s my opinion that Mormons wrongly anthropomorphize God. The debate of God's corporeality and essential nature is a major source of contention that is not going to be resolved. There needs to be honest dialog so respect can manifest in a way that is lasting until God intercedes. The first step would be an acknowledgment that they’re two separate religions with very little in common, which since the Lord is not dictatorial has a right to exist in their rightness or wrongness, but that doesn’t mean the debate shouldn’t continue.

Serp.

Our thought process is the same as Gods, we hold the same emotions as well. Look at parallels between Evolution and our ability to create inner and new species.

There is a differance between thought process and thought capability.