Post by goz on Jul 21, 2020 23:21:27 GMT
Yes I remember this claim before. It is not clear however why God would swap (or want to swap) between a human form, an abstract, a code of ethics and the 'essence of nature' - all things you have claimed it is in turn, or even one of these whichever you have settled on for now - while remaining logically coherent as an idea. Perhaps you can elucidate? Evasion will be noted.
Even if we accept your odd reckoning then presumably you mean that outside of JC, every other anthropomorphic representation or characterisation of God in the Bible is just a figure of speech.
Here is the famous moment in Genesis since, predictably, you evaded dealing with the verse from John last time:
"And [God] said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” (Ex. 33:19–23)
Please provide the exegesis whereby we are persuaded that the writers do not mean this extreme anthropomorphizing to be taken literally. Evasion will be noted.
But this is just a convenient watering down. Originally you were reluctant to discover any anthropomorphism in the Bible, while those traditionalist who took all those references - even if just those emotions regularly attributed to the Almighty right across scripture and still preached today - literally as being the same as humans relate to, were mistaken, stupid or non-existent. Suddenly your claims are more modest and sensible, and one can see why. Meanwhile not a single Christian here has confirmed that they take the characterisation of the Almighty in scripture as an entity of love, prone to anger and jealousy yet compassionate etc as 'just a figure of speech'. Not one. Funny that. Perhaps you can find substantiation of this suggestion on line. Should I hold my breath? LOL
When your analysis has been, as always, sweeping and dismissive of those who disagree with you while ignoring plain chapter and verse which can be quoted, it is easy to find fault.
No, figures of speech cannot 'experience' anything. Neither can codes of ethics, or something entirely abstract, come to that. I hope that helps, since you seem confused. But even if they could, that would still represent an anthropomorphizing figure of speech would it not, projecting the human onto something other? Have you thought this through?
Something with which I did not disagree with, although that does not affect the fact that anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object and such a process can readily be discerned in the Bible, just as I said. Since you now agree with this point (as you mentioned last time the "truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible.") I think the discussion is ended, since it is time you descended into rudeness.
See above. My complaint is not that figures of speech do not exist in scripture, just that such a literary technique does not apply in every instance and you have agreed lately that yes, there are some "truly anthropomorphic" instances to be found. So ... see you on the next thread. Feel free to answer those two specific pieces of scripture in the light of your views meantime. But you probably won't.
For 'symbolic speech...= word salad