Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

bskeptic wrote:

spin wrote:If you can't answer a simple question, I guess you're just not that interested.

You aren't answering my simple question.

I can't reply to you, if I don't know what your position is or what you are trying to say.

This is unreasonable claptrap. Please stop.

bskeptic wrote:So again:

I don't know what your position even is. Do you find the OP issue to be of interest or not?

My interest in the o.p., as I have already indicated--in my very first reply, in fact--, concerns your posting of the topic, which is clearly expressed and which you have been dancing around.

You are not going to deal with this, so thanks for your time. I'm sure there are scads of other people interested in C.S. Lewis's comments on anthropomorphic language with regard to the christian god.

bskeptic wrote:If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying:

"I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here."

I guess it's of interest to you and of relevance to you!

spin wrote: This is unreasonable claptrap. Please stop.

This is mere assertion. Please stop.

My interest in the o.p., as I have already indicated--in my very first reply, in fact--, concerns your posting of the topic, which is clearly expressed and which you have been dancing around.

As I read you, you are suggesting that the thread isn't of interest. In which case, you come into threads to say you don't find the thread of interest...

Have I misunderstood you? I can't respond if you will not explain yourself...

spin wrote: Before you can talk about the value of anthropomorphic language toward god, don't you need to establish the existence of god?

A sincere question: Where is your verifiable proof that God does not exist?

Eric wrote:

spin wrote: Before you can talk about the value of anthropomorphic language toward god, don't you need to establish the existence of god?

A sincere question: Where is your verifiable proof that God does not exist?

I'm happy to believe you are sincere with the question, but it is not a well thought out question. As you have started a new thread on the topic, I've responded further there.

GakuseiDon wrote:

bskeptic wrote:Lewis is correct. While anthropomorphic language may fall short of explaining a God that is far beyond us it is the best language we can find for humans are the most “god-like” figures in creation. When we attempt to venture away from anthropomorphic language toward something that sounds “deeper” and more philosophical we may find that we are speaking of a depersonalized deity that is more of an oblong glob than a god.

This seems consistent with Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote in Chapter 31, Book 12 of his Evangelical Preparation:

• Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

IMO they are rather different ideas. Eusebius is defending the legitimacy and value of symbolic language about God. Lewis (following the neoplatonists) is arguing the necessity/unavoidability of using symbolic language about God.

Andrew Criddle

bskeptic wrote:

spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.

If you aren't interested in the thread, then just ignore it!

Simples!

Hear! Hear!

And Lewis's works are most certainly not for the main part, meant for children. Like it or not, Lewis is still a very popular Christian apologist whose books remain in print.

The problem of anthrpomorphization was a problem that was of great interest to medieval theologians that developed some odd ideas about it all. Such as impassibilty, the idea that God did not have emotions, emotions being a species of anthropomorphization.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful C

spin wrote:
Why could you assume it was of interest to anyone here? Are you prepared to respond now? After your initial post you've been anything but transparent. Do you want to start again and speak to the o.p. or do you want to forget about it and dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee?

Spin, a lot of your posts seem to me to be rather, snotty and pointless and sometimes just start pointless derailing arguments.

Into the kill file with you.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie wrote: Spin, a lot of your posts seem to me to be rather, snotty and pointless and sometimes just start pointless derailing arguments.

Yes, what he is posting does seem to be an off topic diversion.