<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The downside of anthropomorphism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/</link>
	<description>Leaping Point: Take a flying leap and see where you land</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Inadequate infantile attitude at Punctum Saliens</title>
		<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/comment-page-1/#comment-3390</link>
		<dc:creator>Inadequate infantile attitude at Punctum Saliens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punctum-saliens.org/?p=249#comment-3390</guid>
		<description>[...] written elsewhere about the anthropomorphism of God but another parallel with Jung&#8217;s psychology has suggested itself. This time, it is the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] written elsewhere about the anthropomorphism of God but another parallel with Jung&#8217;s psychology has suggested itself. This time, it is the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/comment-page-1/#comment-2781</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 20:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punctum-saliens.org/?p=249#comment-2781</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;"I think one often tries to relate to the ineffable in someway through our human constructs–otherwise, we would have a hard time talking about the subject at all. We construct models in our heads for that which cannot be modelled."&lt;/i&gt;

Yes, we do. And, yes, it's necessary. The problem arises when we start being fooled by our models into thinking that the model is the thing. And we do the same for many other things besides God. Nature, for instance, is often anthropomorphized(?). We talk about the wind blowing, the sky looking angry, mountains standing, etc. Yet, most people can realize the difference between the model and the thing. Perhaps it's because science understands (or thinks it does) the thing whereas God is not understood and so it's easier to get caught up in the model as the thing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;I think one often tries to relate to the ineffable in someway through our human constructs–otherwise, we would have a hard time talking about the subject at all. We construct models in our heads for that which cannot be modelled.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Yes, we do. And, yes, it&#8217;s necessary. The problem arises when we start being fooled by our models into thinking that the model is the thing. And we do the same for many other things besides God. Nature, for instance, is often anthropomorphized(?). We talk about the wind blowing, the sky looking angry, mountains standing, etc. Yet, most people can realize the difference between the model and the thing. Perhaps it&#8217;s because science understands (or thinks it does) the thing whereas God is not understood and so it&#8217;s easier to get caught up in the model as the thing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mystical Seeker</title>
		<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/comment-page-1/#comment-2778</link>
		<dc:creator>Mystical Seeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 18:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punctum-saliens.org/?p=249#comment-2778</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;God is more than our human conceptions otherwise he would not be God; he’d be understood by us. So why do we insist that everyone hold the same limited conceptions as we? Can’t the ineffable be reduced to more than one subset of ideas and still be the same?&lt;/i&gt;

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I think that it is hard for people not to anthropomorphize.  I think one often tries to relate to the ineffable in someway through our human constructs--otherwise, we would have a hard time talking about the subject at all.  We construct models in our heads for that which cannot be modelled.  And in the West, that usually means giving God human characteristics.  Not just a personality, but also very human personality characteristics, including anger or authoritarianism or changing "his" mind.  Oh yeah, there's the little matter of gender.

Looking at the Bible, I am reminded of the story in the Garden of Eden, where God was said to be physically walking in the garden and didn't even know where Adam was.  Talk about anthropomorphizing!  I think that over time, there was an increasing development of an idea of God's universality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>God is more than our human conceptions otherwise he would not be God; he’d be understood by us. So why do we insist that everyone hold the same limited conceptions as we? Can’t the ineffable be reduced to more than one subset of ideas and still be the same?</i></p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t have said it better myself!</p>
<p>I think that it is hard for people not to anthropomorphize.  I think one often tries to relate to the ineffable in someway through our human constructs&#8211;otherwise, we would have a hard time talking about the subject at all.  We construct models in our heads for that which cannot be modelled.  And in the West, that usually means giving God human characteristics.  Not just a personality, but also very human personality characteristics, including anger or authoritarianism or changing &#8220;his&#8221; mind.  Oh yeah, there&#8217;s the little matter of gender.</p>
<p>Looking at the Bible, I am reminded of the story in the Garden of Eden, where God was said to be physically walking in the garden and didn&#8217;t even know where Adam was.  Talk about anthropomorphizing!  I think that over time, there was an increasing development of an idea of God&#8217;s universality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/comment-page-1/#comment-2777</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 15:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punctum-saliens.org/?p=249#comment-2777</guid>
		<description>Mystic-- Agreed. But I see much of Christianity as being stuck in the "forms" and not going beyond. If the early church, as some suggest, did not focus on &lt;i&gt;the man&lt;/i&gt;, Jesus, then there was a progression from the OT to the NT. But, in that case, Christianity has done an about-face and has gone back to the forms instead of continuing to evolve. Furthermore, this insistence on thinking of God as Father and Jesus as God incarnate is actually mutually exclusive with going beyond the forms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mystic&#8211; Agreed. But I see much of Christianity as being stuck in the &#8220;forms&#8221; and not going beyond. If the early church, as some suggest, did not focus on <i>the man</i>, Jesus, then there was a progression from the OT to the NT. But, in that case, Christianity has done an about-face and has gone back to the forms instead of continuing to evolve. Furthermore, this insistence on thinking of God as Father and Jesus as God incarnate is actually mutually exclusive with going beyond the forms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MysticSaint</title>
		<link>http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/05/11/the-downside-of-anthropomorphism/comment-page-1/#comment-2776</link>
		<dc:creator>MysticSaint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 20:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punctum-saliens.org/?p=249#comment-2776</guid>
		<description>Hi Ken,
Greetings. Thanks for continuing and adding your conscious thought. I appreciate it.

How the concept of God was given according to the time and its stage of evolution of humanity is interesting to note as you pointed out from OT to NT. You might notice if we further go back into the history of world religions, we will see based on the time and the stage of human conscious evolution, the very concept of the Divine also was very much according to that evolution. 

For the older generations, God needed a form, needed a place. That explains the idols, Mount Sinai. There is no problem with that, but understanding it deeply helps understanding the wholeness.

if we go back further even more ancient tradition, God Spirit is worshiped in nature, in huge mountains in australia and tall trees of africa. see how the stage of mind affects the perception?

now along that line if we progress and go forward we will see that the higher mode of evolution let go of forms and reaches to what is beyond our ideas of Beyond. 

Abrahams rejection of idols and turning his face to One Transcending God was an example of "Punctum Saliens", a leaping point at the history of conscious evolution toward understanding of God. All gnostics and mystics also easily grasp the idea of God Who is beyond our ideas of Beyond. It is so Transcendental that they begin to see His Presence is every form and shapes. 

Thats what Buddha declared, everyone is Buddha, everything intrinsically have Buddha Nature in it. 

peace be to you and to all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ken,<br />
Greetings. Thanks for continuing and adding your conscious thought. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>How the concept of God was given according to the time and its stage of evolution of humanity is interesting to note as you pointed out from OT to NT. You might notice if we further go back into the history of world religions, we will see based on the time and the stage of human conscious evolution, the very concept of the Divine also was very much according to that evolution. </p>
<p>For the older generations, God needed a form, needed a place. That explains the idols, Mount Sinai. There is no problem with that, but understanding it deeply helps understanding the wholeness.</p>
<p>if we go back further even more ancient tradition, God Spirit is worshiped in nature, in huge mountains in australia and tall trees of africa. see how the stage of mind affects the perception?</p>
<p>now along that line if we progress and go forward we will see that the higher mode of evolution let go of forms and reaches to what is beyond our ideas of Beyond. </p>
<p>Abrahams rejection of idols and turning his face to One Transcending God was an example of &#8220;Punctum Saliens&#8221;, a leaping point at the history of conscious evolution toward understanding of God. All gnostics and mystics also easily grasp the idea of God Who is beyond our ideas of Beyond. It is so Transcendental that they begin to see His Presence is every form and shapes. </p>
<p>Thats what Buddha declared, everyone is Buddha, everything intrinsically have Buddha Nature in it. </p>
<p>peace be to you and to all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
