Refute this claim of anthropmorphism. I need another angle to dispute his claims

In suggesting that you believe God is a person and providing scriptures that symbolizes God with human characteristics is the practice of anthropmorphism…To even suggest that the ultimate energy of this universe can be simply reduced to a finite creature is simplistically absurd. To suggest that this brilliant energy NEED a supporting cast is imbecilic to say the least. For one, God is a man made term. Other than this allegorical book there is NOooooo record of a supreme being revealing itself to man stating to call me GOD. Man created Egyptian folklore, Greek mythology, Norse and Roman mythology, now we have Catholic mythology. These same biblical events were first introduced in these previous folklores. Born Dec 25, 12 disciples, born of a virgin mother, being the son of a diety, and making the ultimate sacrifice of death. Truly there is nothing new under the Sun. Your paragraphs of modern verbiage are simply thoughts of man. Until this supreme energy make a global declaration of its intent and purposes we are simply here to learn, love, live, and die. Find your purpose in this life and make this life better for you and those around you.

Specifically the God is energy comment.

I would not let him define what “anthropomorphism” is going to mean, particularly because it doesn’t mean what he said.

“[S]uggest[ing] that the ultimate energy of this universe can be simply reduced to a finite creature” might be simplistically absurd, but that’s not what anthropomorphism does, and it is not what Christians believe. What is does is allows us, who only have our human experience to draw from, a way to better understand a God that is above our normal human comprehension.

Anthropomorphism is ALSO not “believ[ing] God is a person”. Don’t let him define “person” for you, either. Just because God is a Person, does not mean we believe Him to be some creature, or on par with humans, or even be material.

Is God “energy”? I would say that is more absurd. God is not merely an “ability” or “a potential of an object to do something”. He is a thinking and moving Spiritual Being…a Person (3 Persons, to be precise). “Energy” only has potential to do something, but it cannot choose to do, nor can it act on its own initiative.

Thanks ahs I am using that and I will let you know the response. Hopefully you can contribute some more :wink:

cretin (n.) - Online Etymology Dictionary
www.etymonline.com › term=cretin
1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, “a dwarfed and deformed idiot” of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian,” a generic term for “anyone,” but often with a sense of " …

etymonline.com/

If you can only identify the most powerful force in the universe as to a mere mortal…then perhaps you can see how the title CHRISTIAN stuck…I rest.

He???..does God pee standing up…ridiculous.

At least you now know the caliber of the person you are dealing with. I would personally dust my feet and move on.

But, the fact is that, while someone may allege that “cretin” took on its meaning because someone wanted to belittle Christians, Christians got their name because they followed Christ, and we continue to be called Christians for that reason alone. Why is it relevant that the word “cretin” was used as a mockery of this?

And why is he still misrepresenting what we believe by saying reduce God “to a mere mortal”? (That’s a strawman argument on his part.) Christians would agree with the foolishness of reducing God to mere mortality. So, he’s not arguing against you…he’s arguing against some strawman he built…and he’s doing a fine job of bashing his own strawman to pieces. The problem is that he is not addressing what you believe…so he’s wasting your time.

You might ask:
“Why do you assume that calling God “He” necessarily assigns Him physical attributes? Did you want to discuss what Christians believe about God and why we portray Him as “He” (Father of all Creation)? Or do you just want to argue against a misrepresentation that is easier for you to defeat?”

Yes and it is frustrating. I think I’ll say my peace and leave it at that.

Thanks for your time

Odell

(I am assuming you are debating someone who does not believe in God, as we understand God.)

First of all, you have completely misrepresented what Christians believe about God. You can argue against your strawman all day long, and I would probably agree with you in arguing against it. But you are not arguing against Christianity in the least. If you actually want to discuss Christianity and our belief in a personal creating God, you might want to discuss what we ACTUALLY believe. Your strawman tactics just make you come across as ignorant and foolish.

(This may come across as a personal attack against him, but it’s not. He has shown absolutely no interest in discussing actual facts with you, and you are well within Christian charity to point out his appearing ignorant and foolish. If he can stomach this much, it is worth going on. If he can’t, dust your feet and move on.)

Now, you said I should make this world “better”. What do you mean by “better”?

(Here, you are about to get him into a trap. He can’t define “better” with any meaningful definition without relating it to what is “best”…an objective ultimate good. And there can be no objective “good” unless there is a God. This link explains in a real-life conversation that took place on this very matter: daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2015/11/terrible-things-in-bible-and-morality.html
)

You are very welcome. You don’t have to post anything from what I said immediately above. Use that for future reference. :slight_smile:

It is all being stored in Google drive for years to come :wink: Hope you don’t mind :slight_smile:

LOL! I don’t mind at all. That’s how I still do it. :thumbsup:

Does this energy have volition? Free will? Intentionality?

If so then it is a ‘personal’ Being. (As opposed to a robot/machine)

The accusation of anthropomorphism is something of a red herring when used as a supposed argument against theism.

We are anthropoids. How ELSE are we supposed to think of such matters? We simply don’t have any OTHER faculty or paradigm.

If we were cats we would probably see the world in cat terms. If we were horses we would conceive of all beings as nothing more than unusually shaped horses. Pet dogs seem to look at humans as members of their ‘pack’.

Anthropomorphism is just another word for perspective.

LOL. …there’s nothing to allege…I didn’t make it up. Its the etymology of the word. That is a major issue I have with cretins, excuse me, Christians, they will not except any historical facts unless its found in that man made book. Who is the author of the book? Who holds the copyrights to the bible?

Good point.

Or if the male “he” bothers the atheist so much, Odell could simply use a non-binary, gender-neutral pronoun like the type we are expected to use for certain members of the LGBTQI minority.

It strikes me as unusual that the atheist interlocutor Odell is speaking with wants to get pedantic about precise language in an age where the definition of so many words are changing. A woman can call zir self a ‘man’. Sex is just another word for ‘love’. The proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ frequently behave in the exact opposite way towards those of us who advocate traditional morality.

The ‘maleness’ attributed to God is quite justifiable and easily defended in apologetics but why waste your time doing so with a person who wont accept that the word ‘male’ isn’t compulsory in reference to God.

Could you please clarify if the above is your position or are you posting the position of a third person. Thanks.

Yes, third person!

What do you mean “stuck”?
The word Christian predates 1779.

Attempting to link the words cretin and Christian is an irrelevant ad hominem.
Furthermore, no biblical theist I’ve ever read identifies God as a “mere mortal”.
So ahs is quite right to dismiss this as an abject strawman argument.

Where exactly did you say your discussion on this topic was taking place? Is it a public forum? Because I would like to take a look at the entire conversation in context.

It is on Facebook and a friend’s wall. I am helping him out to the best of my ability. But some of this is beyond what I have experienced in apologetics. It isn’t open to the public. You are more than welcome to friends me to see. Message me you Facebook :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.