Anthropomorphic God?

Anthropomorphic (as i am using it in this case): the attribution of a human form, human characteristics, or human behavior to nonhuman things such as God.

I don’t see it ever being possible.

God=ultimate truth

God…cannot be in any way human-like. no he can’t its not possible we must drop all misconceptions that God is ‘vengeful’ or ‘loving’ or ANYTHING because those are all human traits.

yeah yeah. so you think God created humans and that means that he is like us “God created us in the image of himself”, well i dont buy it. what makes you think God gives a shit about humans or even ‘gives a shit’, because God is GOD he is not something we can describe with any human terms or rational.

sorry if that came off rough…but what do you think? Is God anthropomorphic or is he not? and for those who believe he is not anthropomorphic (if there are any) then i have a response prepared.

i don’t know what anthropomorphic means, and i’m too lazy to look it up. but who’s to say that emotions are purely a human trait, and can thus only be used to describe humans? i can think of plenty of animals that seem capable of love, anger, vengence, sadness, and other emotions. (but those animals don’t really feel emotion! they are just trying to get food or something!) is that so? well how do we know those emotions exist for us? aren’t we just trying to procreate? (i’m sorry! what a pointless argument that was!)

i think that:
Man is the only evil animal.
Man is the only word animal.
Word equates instituted evil.
Word adultism is anti-child.
A 'word god’can be erased.
Word brings a Babel curse.
Get ready for armageddon.
Beliefs equate pornography,
for they coexiston the web.
There is no damn word god.
Truth is physical, word a lie.
It is what you do, not utter.
Without deed, word starves.
Word god lends not a hand.

your thread opening is no different then how i think Mr.Kebop

definition of Anthropomorphism;from Wikipedia.

Anthropomorphism, a form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) and similar to prosopopoeia (adopting the persona of another person), is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, natural, or supernatural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown authors of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis.
From the perspective of believers of a religion where the deity or deities have human characteristics, it may be more accurate to describe the phenomenon as theomorphism, or the giving of divine qualities to humans, instead of anthropomorphism, the giving of human qualities to the divine. The reason for this being that according to their beliefs, the deity or deities usually existed before humans, and therefore humans were created in the form of the divine, not vice versa. However, for those who do not subscribe to the beliefs of the religion, the phenomenon can be considered anthropomorIt is a common tendency for people to think of inanimate objects as having human-like characteristics. Few, if any people, believe this to have real significance. Common examples of this tendency include naming one’s car or begging a machine to work. Advances in artificial intelligence are beginning to identify such foibles as a potentially more significant phenomenon; however, as computers begin to reach the point where they can recognize spoken language. Some computers are already very good at displaying very specific and specialized categories of human-like behaviour, such as learning from their mistakes or anticipating certain input; playing chess and other games with human-like capability; and even, in the case of robots, potentially taking on humanlike form. Anthropomorphobia, a phobia traditionally associated with anxiety responses to nonhuman living things displaying human behavior, is now used to define the phobia of nonliving things that exhibit human qualities.
The use of anthropomorphized animals has a long tradition in art and literature. Frequently they are used to portray stereotypical characters, in order to quickly convey the characteristics the author or artist intends for them to possess. Examples include Aesop’s fables, George Orwell’s Animal Farm and political cartoons, e.g. Maus. Many of the most famous children’s television characters are anthropomorphized funny animals: Mickey Mouse, Kermit the Frog, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Scrooge McDuck, for example. While being “funny” is a common trait, it is not a hard rule; Bert the Turtle, star of Duck and Cover is a children-oriented exception. While children- and family-oriented series have often featured anthropomorphic animals, newer adult-oriented television series such as Family Guy and Father of the Pride also make use of anthropomorphized characters. The human characteristics commonly ascribed to animals in popular culture usually centers around either their perceived personality or disposition (for example, owls are usually designated as wise); their appearance alone (penguins are usually portrayed as plump aristocrats, because their plumage resembles a tuxedo); or a combination of both (raccoons are commonly portrayed as bandits, both because of the characteristic black stripe over their eyes, which resembles the stereotypical mask of a bandit, and because they roam at night, sometimes breaking into peoples’ garbage).
Since the 1980s, furry fandom has focused on the appreciation, promotion, and production of stories and art about anthropomorphic animals, as well as the exploration, interpretation and examination of humanity and human values through anthropomorphic expression. Furry fandom and the Furry subculture it is part of have only recently come to the attention of the media.
Anthropomorphism has also been frequently applied to entities other than animals in modern times. The red blood cells in the film Osmosis Jones and robots in Stanislaw Lem’s The Cyberiad may be considered examples of anthropomorphism.
While anthropomorphism is the practice of giving animals human qualities, Zoomorphism is the practice of giving humans animal qualities. These qualities can include everything from physical shape or movements (“She moves like a cat”, “He looks as strong as a bear”) to mentalities (“He is savage as a lion”, “She’s a dumb bunny”) or a mix of the two (“I sting like a bee”).
In the sense that anthropomorphism can include the giving of human qualities to a deity or deities, the opposite is Theomorphism, the giving of divine qualities to humans.

if you want my views on this approach for/against God,i think you should take in consideration the thought of him being just a word-god,his son has exposed him but not once has he exposed himself like For real,i hope you understand what i’m trying to say.

Describing god in terms of human qualities is a problem that has been a part of christian philosophy since at least the pseudo-dionysus. Their are two ways to describe god, one is called affirmative and one is negative. The affirmative way takes all the things that god is, and moves down to lesser creators calling them imperfect reflections of god. So if god is wisdom, then human wisdom is flawed. The second method is the one that is more accepted. It takes all the qualities of lesser creators and denies that they apply to god. So if you call a man good, you must call god super-good, or goodness, or essential-good. It understands that human “good” and “goodness” for god are nothing alike. Both these methods are employed to avoid anthropomorphizing god.

For Christianity a primary example is the father and the son. This describes nothing about the relationship between the triune god, but rather is an admitedly flawed way of describing something that we could otherwise not talk about.