How is a personal god different from an anthropomorphic god?

[Mudhammam]

How would one be justified in the precision by which they draw a line between the anthropomorphism that Xenophanes mocked in the tales of the Homeric gods and that which the Muslims abhor in the tales of the Incarnated God of Christianity or that one may find objectionable in its incipient temple cult of the Israelites? Of course, "not all anthropomorphism is bad," but the point of the OP, I think, is that it is always unjustified when one is relating a metaphysical entity said to include the concept of infinity, of which ratiocination does not extend to such particulars as deities possessing analogous human characteristics, and the same suspicion that occasions egocentric or anthropocentric thought in other cases is most applicable here as well.

How would you show that it is always unjustified? How would you demonstrate that your position is credible?

Of course, I cannot assert that it is a priori impossible for deities with qualities analogous to human beings to exist, any more than I can absolutely rule out the possibility that a god with hooves or horns might exist too. Since certain knowledge is not attainable on this topic, I can only speak in terms of probabilities. First, I would consider the internal consistency in conceptualizing such a being, and the basis upon which we grant it the title of deity, then the arguments pro and con for the existence of such a being. If it seems more probable than not that a deity as such exists, then my position is for the time discredited. As I don't find that this burden can be overcome in the case of a deistic god, by default it eliminates one with attributes that are akin to man. One issue that plays a large role in the 'con' category is the long history of discarded ideas that unjustly bestowed upon objects anthropocentric and/or anthropomorphic characteristics, a few examples being: that the stars and planets possess intellects and move themselves; that the earth is the center of the universe; that human beings were specially created, as an act of god in their own right, apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Beyond the endless intellectual debates in which we were led astray by this kind of thinking, there is also the egocentric tendency possessed by nearly all individuals to place themselves as an objective center of gravity in the world, if you will, an observation one can make in almost every interview with a survivor of some catastrophic event. That this penchant for projecting one's self on to the universe is so common, and commonly erroneous, gives me, I think, just cause to be on guard against so natural a bias.

[Delicate]

How would you show that it is always unjustified? How would you demonstrate that your position is credible?

Of course, I cannot assert that it is a priori impossible for deities with qualities analogous to human beings to exist, any more than I can absolutely rule out the possibility that a god with hooves or horns might exist too. Since certain knowledge is not attainable on this topic, I can only speak in terms of probabilities. First, I would consider the internal consistency in conceptualizing such a being, and the basis upon which we grant it the title of deity, then the arguments pro and con for the existence of such a being. If it seems more probable than not that a deity as such exists, then my position is for the time discredited. As I don't find that this burden can be overcome in the case of a deistic god, by default it eliminates one with attributes that are akin to man. One issue that plays a large role in the 'con' category is the long history of discarded ideas that unjustly bestowed upon objects anthropocentric and/or anthropomorphic characteristics, a few examples being: that the stars and planets possess intellects and move themselves; that the earth is the center of the universe; that human beings were specially created, as an act of god in their own right, apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Beyond the endless intellectual debates in which we were led astray by this kind of thinking, there is also the egocentric tendency possessed by nearly all individuals to place themselves as an objective center of gravity in the world, if you will, an observation one can make in almost every interview with a survivor of some catastrophic event. That this penchant for projecting one's self on to the universe is so common, and commonly erroneous, gives me, I think, just cause to be on guard against so natural a bias.

False attributions of agency do indeed exist, I'll give you that.

But false attributions of agency happen in a certain way. They are assumed based on insufficient actual proof of personhood. Unjustified leaps, so to speak.

That's what happens when people attribute personhood or agency to nature in various ways (stars etc).

But this doesn't seem to be how it happened in Christianity. It didn't have such a process, if you look at its origins.

So how can you lump them together like this? I'd say, based on their difference, they are in different categories.

This is so far as anthropomorphism.

So far as anthropocentrisms, I wonder what you make of the non-anthropocentric data in Christianity: We obey God's commands, not ours. God is worshipped not humans. God dictates morality not humans.

This doesn't fit with the anthropocentrism thesis, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your god is anthropomorphic.  Yours perhaps moreso than any other, as it's said to have actually been a man, in the flesh. There's no escaping it, or arguing your way around it. Simply accept it. Does that matter to you, anyway? Does it matter to you that your anthropomorphic god leads to anthropocentric beliefs about command, worship, and morality? You mistakenly see your god as apart from man, then double down on this foolishness in the notion that because you believe god to be apart, this removes the anthropocentric taint. It does not and could not.

[Mudhammam]

But this doesn't seem to be how it happened in Christianity. It didn't have such a process, if you look at its origins.

So how can you lump them together like this? I'd say, based on their difference, they are in different categories.

This is so far as anthropomorphism.

So far as anthropocentrisms, I wonder what you make of the non-anthropocentric data in Christianity: We obey God's commands, not ours. God is worshipped not humans. God dictates morality not humans.

This doesn't fit with the anthropocentrism thesis, right?

I would disagree that Christianity "didn't have such a process." Its origins lie in the theology of the Old Testament following the integration of Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Stoicism, into Jewish thought. There are countless examples of anthropomorphization in the character and behavior of Yahweh, just as there in the pagan accounts of Father Zeus (granted that their moral concerns don't always overlap). After the turn of the Axial age, as monotheism became more popular, Yahweh came to be seen as transcendent and people found ways to interpret the records describing his attributes and passions in a non-literal manner. The same thing happened with the philosophizing done in the context of the pagan traditions. If anything, Christianity was regressive in that regards, as it turned God into a human being, one "Person" of a trinity that included an "Abba" whose son died a criminal's death as an act of friendship on behalf of mankind. As Paul declared, this was seen as foolishness to the Greek intellectuals and idolatry to the self-righteous Jews; in both instances, highly impious, a new and vulgar interpretation of the divine. So, I don't see what it is that you think exempts Christianity from my criticism. 

As to your question about "non-anthropocentric data," the notion that God has communicated a plan to a specific group of men, perceived by converts as the "elect" of which they are, obviously, providentially chosen participants, and that it includes a particular set of rituals and practices that, if not followed, result in individuals (those in the out-group) suffering punishment after death, is, of course, anthropocentric through and through.

[Pizza]

Imagine a scale 0 to 1, 0 being very much not like a human, 1 very much like a human, and 0.5 being in the middle.
Let's say we go along with personal cause (defined as a cause with rationality, self-consciousness, volition) existing, I see no reason to assume this cause would have to be near 1 on the scale in terms of thought and behavior patterns. Why not 0.5, 0.4, or lower? Why does a personal cause need to be very much human-like?

[Mudhammam]

Imagine a scale 0 to 1, 0 being very much not like a human, 1 very much like a human, and 0.5 being in the middle.
Let's say we go along with personal cause (defined as a cause with rationality, self-consciousness, volition) existing, I see no reason to assume this cause would have to be near 1 on the scale in terms of thought and behavior patterns. Why not 0.5, 0.4, or lower? Why does a personal cause need to be very much human-like?

Allah can probably considered to be such a deity.

[Delicate]

But this doesn't seem to be how it happened in Christianity. It didn't have such a process, if you look at its origins.

So how can you lump them together like this? I'd say, based on their difference, they are in different categories.

This is so far as anthropomorphism.

So far as anthropocentrisms, I wonder what you make of the non-anthropocentric data in Christianity: We obey God's commands, not ours. God is worshipped not humans. God dictates morality not humans.

This doesn't fit with the anthropocentrism thesis, right?

I would disagree that Christianity "didn't have such a process." Its origins lie in the theology of the Old Testament following the integration of Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Stoicism, into Jewish thought. There are countless examples of anthropomorphization in the character and behavior of Yahweh, just as there in the pagan accounts of Father Zeus (granted that their moral concerns don't always overlap). After the turn of the Axial age, as monotheism became more popular, Yahweh came to be seen as transcendent and people found ways to interpret the records describing his attributes and passions in a non-literal manner. The same thing happened with the philosophizing done in the context of the pagan traditions. If anything, Christianity was regressive in that regards, as it turned God into a human being, one "Person" of a trinity that included an "Abba" whose son died a criminal's death as an act of friendship on behalf of mankind. As Paul declared, this was seen as foolishness to the Greek intellectuals and idolatry to the self-righteous Jews; in both instances, highly impious, a new and vulgar interpretation of the divine. So, I don't see what it is that you think exempts Christianity from my criticism. 

As to your question about "non-anthropocentric data," the notion that God has communicated a plan to a specific group of men, perceived by converts as the "elect" of which they are, obviously, providentially chosen participants, and that it includes a particular set of rituals and practices that, if not followed, result in individuals (those in the out-group) suffering punishment after death, is, of course, anthropocentric through and through.

Once again, I'm saying that the way people anthropomorphize natural entities is not the same way people anthropomorphize God.

With nature, people look at phenomena (like rain) and infer its the physical result of divine action.

Can you point to a shred of evidence where this happened with Christianity? What physical phenomena led to invoking a God?

[Mudhammam]

Once again, I'm saying that the way people anthropomorphize natural entities is not the same way people anthropomorphize God.

With nature, people look at phenomena (like rain) and infer its the physical result of divine action.

Can you point to a shred of evidence where this happened with Christianity? What physical phenomena led to invoking a God?

Ha, really? Try "Jesus Christ" (I'm no fucking mythicist, 'scuse my French). Considered by his followers to be divine, by the rest of the world as a fraud, a charlatan, a religious zealot, a political antagonist, an impious deceiver, to the 2nd century writer Lucian, a "crucified sophist," etc. The part of that statement that matters is that he was believed by his followers, as a prophet at first, then greater than Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets), by the most ecstatic, the Messiah, then the "Son of God," and after his final act (his death as the "sacrificial lamb," not his resurrection) which earned him legendary fame (a far grander story than that of the Cynic Peregrinus under the reign of March Aurelius, which got some attention), resulting in the idea of Jesus physically resurrecting and hanging around on earth for an additional month and a half, to be carried "up into the heavens," where he would forever sit at the right hand of God's, his Father no less (hey Greeks and Romans, sound familiar?) throne. Why should that sound crazy absent of "physical phenomena" extending beyond the mysticism, unhealthy obsession with imaginative realities, sheer delusion, ignorance, overall uncultured religious fantasies that graced, in varying degrees, his most devoted handful? Take a moment and consider every popular, local cult existent in the world right now, and think of all the reasons for which you reject it. Yet there are people who are actually wholly convinced, just like the poor and uneducated, even the slave class, of whom the Christians primarily converted in the first 200 hundred years. If it's not anthopomorphization when they give God a virgin mother - and maybe that isn't embarrassing to some but it would be to me - then when is it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that Del is disputing that Nes.  Rather, that this particular instance of it is different, special, if you will......lol.

the way people anthropomorphize natural entities is not the same way people anthropomorphize God.

[Delicate]

Once again, I'm saying that the way people anthropomorphize natural entities is not the same way people anthropomorphize God.

With nature, people look at phenomena (like rain) and infer its the physical result of divine action.

Can you point to a shred of evidence where this happened with Christianity? What physical phenomena led to invoking a God?

Ha, really? Try "Jesus Christ" (I'm no fucking mythicist, 'scuse my French). Considered by his followers to be divine, by the rest of the world as a fraud, a charlatan, a religious zealot, a political antagonist, an impious deceiver, to the 2nd century writer Lucian, a "crucified sophist," etc. The part of that statement that matters is that he was believed by his followers, as a prophet at first, then greater than Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets), by the most ecstatic, the Messiah, then the "Son of God," and after his final act (his death as the "sacrificial lamb," not his resurrection) which earned him legendary fame (a far grander story than that of the Cynic Peregrinus under the reign of March Aurelius, which got some attention), resulting in the idea of Jesus physically resurrecting and hanging around on earth for an additional month and a half, to be carried "up into the heavens," where he would forever sit at the right hand of God's, his Father no less (hey Greeks and Romans, sound familiar?) throne. Why should that sound crazy absent of "physical phenomena" extending beyond the mysticism, unhealthy obsession with imaginative realities, sheer delusion, ignorance, overall uncultured religious fantasies that graced, in varying degrees, his most devoted handful? Take a moment and consider every popular, local cult existent in the world right now, and think of all the reasons for which you reject it. Yet there are people who are actually wholly convinced, just like the poor and uneducated, even the slave class, of whom the Christians primarily converted in the first 200 hundred years. If it's not anthopomorphization when they give God a virgin mother - and maybe that isn't embarrassing to some but it would be to me - then when is it?

Do you realize that belief in God for both Christians and Jews predated Jesus?

So how can Jesus represent the origin of anthropomorphic deity ascription for either tradition?

And moreover, how is any of your revisionist ham-history about Jesus analogous to deity ascription to weather patterns and natural disasters?

You totally lost the plot here. Saw a chance to preach and immediately got swept up in the fervor.