To browse Academia. If the anthropomorphic god is such, no matter how superior to other gods he may be, shouldn't he really share the human form. Mahabbah: Journal of Religion and Education, Is it possible to think about God without anthropomorphizing him?
The fact that God has both anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic characteristics adds to theological confusion. Individual variances in God's views might be a reflection of how individuals understand God's portrayals. Intellectuals have argued for ages that theistic conceptions of God are excessively anthropomorphic, perplexing, and complex.
The paper focused on religious language and God's anthropomorphic identities. It employed a historico-comparative approach using library resources. The finding provides light on the limitations and potential of philosophico-religious transmission of the complex idea of anthropomorphism and offers a critical, constructive, and interpretive avenue for intellectual dialogue.
Anthropomorphism as a Form of Thought Denkform As is well known, anthropomorphism belongs to the oldest and most prominent forms of thought in the history of culture. However, a glance at how the notion of an anthropomorphic God has been received within religious history shows the degree to which this multifaceted form of thought is a problematic construct. Although in many religious doctrines God is imagined as a white adult male, and the transferral of the human form to a higher being seems to be a constitutive element of religion in general,1 the fragility of anthropomorphic thought was already remarked on and criticized in antiquity.
There is an emerging consensus among current, cognitive theories of religion that the detection and representation of intentional agents and their actions are fundamental to religion. By no means a monolithic theory, this is an argument with several separate lines of reasoning, and several different kinds of empirical evidence to support it.
