|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 12, 2018 11:57:21 GMT
It is hard to think of something more anthropomorphic than a masculine-framed entity. One moreover which, you suggest, articulates and which has emotions, as well as then empathy - each of which are aspects highlighted in your second paragraph. Have you thought this through? Meanwhile the Bible clearly considers Jehovah anthropomorphically, right down to basics as when He shows His cosmic arse to Moses. It is only deists who, away from scripture, can argue consistently for a different type of god. As for God 'not necessarily' being a creature of flesh, have you mentioned this to the Trinitarians here? They may be on the wrong track. Arlon: You are evidently not familiar with the concept of grammatical gender. I am but thanks anyway. I simply read the anthropomorphic terms into which you quickly slipped to describe your purported deity, to attack others who do the same. Irony noted. An insult is not an argument Arlon, as you have been reminded several times in the past. But I can why you might feel it is all you have left. I see, so that part of the Bible - and presumably every time God is treated anthropomorphically (quite a bit of scripture), must be accounted 'slang' and not literal? Its a bit of stretch and I am sure biblical scholars would enjoy such a novel concept. And you still need to explain this to any Trinitarians present who might also choke over their holy wafers on hearing this. But how I love the smell of special pleading in the morning!
|
|