Is Christianity the most Anthropocentric Religion since it teaches that God become a

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is Christianity the most Anthropocentric Religion since it teaches that God become a Human is the form of Jesus Christ to die for the sins of the Human Race while Judaism and Islam teach that God can't and or won't ever become a Human and walk on this Earth ?

[ComradeMan]

Is Christianity the most Anthropocentric Religion since it teaches that God become a Human is the form of Jesus Christ to die for the sins of the Human Race while Judaism and Islam teach that God can't and or won't ever become a Human and walk on this Earth ?

But I don't think Islam and Judaism do actually teach that God can't- otherwise he would not be omnipotent- just that he hasn't or won't.

[NGNM85]

'Anthropocentrism' is far, far from being the biggest problem with Christianity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Christianity is rather schizophrenic in it's attitude to humanity in general. On one hand, humans were supposedly created in the image of the divine, yet on the other hand humans are "Fallen" creatures with a propensity to sin. Christians seem unable to agree with themselves on the issue, insisting that Jesus was human yet simultaneously getting indignant if it is suggested that he had typically human traits such as a sexuality.

In my estimation Christianity combines the worst aspects of anthropocentrism (an anthropomorphic tyrant who rules the universe) with a seething hatred for humanity - we may be made in God's image, but that is only for the edification of a being that, going by the Bible, is a wholly unpleasant character, not only laying down stupid and cruel rules that go against the natural proclivities of humans, but also sending down his supposed son to be tortured and murdered by his creations, so that Jesus could die for the sins that God defined and sends us to Hell for.

Of course, some Christians believe that Jesus was actually God in human form, which adds a bizarre twist of sadomasochism to the whole sorry tale, but certainly doesn't make it any less nonsensical, or any more just.

But that's the thing, isn't it? We don't have any direct observations or any other actual evidence for all this God and Jesus nonsense, so we are supposed to take the believers' and theologians' word for it. But if God and Jesus really exist, then we should be able to find evidence for it, for existence implies interaction of some kind which would be detectable. But it has been thousands of years and not a smidgeon of reliable evidence has ever been found.

[ComradeMan]

Christianity is rather schizophrenic in it's attitude to humanity in general. On one hand, humans were supposedly created in the image of the divine, yet on the other hand humans are "Fallen" creatures with a propensity to sin. Christians seem unable to agree with themselves on the issue, insisting that Jesus was human yet simultaneously getting indignant if it is suggested that he had typically human traits such as a sexuality..

Well the spiritual interpretation would be that humans were "created" in the image of the divine but fell from divinity when they became aware of sin, i.e. duality good-bad etc. This idea of non-duality is also apparent in some Vedic and/or Buddhist religions/philosophies/schools of thought. If some prude Christians become indignant at the thought that Jesus the human had human traits that is rather infantile but it is not a reflection on Jesus or the religion per se.


In my estimation Christianity combines the worst aspects of anthropocentrism (an anthropomorphic tyrant who rules the universe) with a seething hatred for humanity - we may be made in God's image, but that is only for the edification of a being that, going by the Bible, is a wholly unpleasant character, not only laying down stupid and cruel rules that go against the natural proclivities of humans, but also sending down his supposed son to be tortured and murdered by his creations, so that Jesus could die for the sins that God defined and sends us to Hell for...

The God of the Old Testament/Tanakh and subsequently Judaism as we know "it" now is definitely not anthromorphic in anyway shape or form. Hence the commandment against anthropomorphising God that is so strictly adhered to in Judaism, Islam and some forms of Christianity. Where anthropomorphism occurs with the use of "he" for example, it is usually agreed upon as a convention for the lack/want of a better word. The Abrahamic God cannot be defined by humans. There is no real reference to Hell in the Bible but rather three versions of some kind of afterdeath existence according to merit in this life. The cruel punishments you describe could also be seen as some kind of karmic, to use an eastern analogy, effect.


Of course, some Christians believe that Jesus was actually God in human form, which adds a bizarre twist of sadomasochism to the whole sorry tale, but certainly doesn't make it any less nonsensical, or any more just....

Being of one substance with the father means the non-duality I was speaking of before and is similar to concepts found in eastern religions and philosophies.


But that's the thing, isn't it? We don't have any direct observations or any other actual evidence for all this God and Jesus nonsense, so we are supposed to take the believers' and theologians' word for it. But if God and Jesus really exist, then we should be able to find evidence for it, for existence implies interaction of some kind which would be detectable. But it has been thousands of years and not a smidgeon of reliable evidence has ever been found.

Well you can't throw God and Jesus into the same bucket here. Leaving discourses about God aside, there is some historical evidence of a Jesus and if no Jesus had ever existed where did these early Jewish-Christians spring from? They certainly had very little to gain by being what they were.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well the spiritual interpretation would be that humans were "created" in the image of the divine but fell from divinity when they became aware of sin, i.e. duality good-bad etc. This idea of non-duality is also apparent in some Vedic and/or Buddhist religions/philosophies/schools of thought.

That doesn't make sense. How is it that humans can fall from divinity by knowing of good and evil, yet God remains divine despite presumably knowing the same?

Also surely, if God were omnipotent as is claimed, He would be able to create beings that know of good and evil while at the same time remaining divine? The question then becomes, why did God set us up for a Fall?

It strikes me as the act of an asshole of cosmic proportions.


If some prude Christians become indignant at the thought that Jesus the human had human traits that is rather infantile but it is not a reflection on Jesus or the religion per se.

They're Christians; since evidence is not available, I then have only what Christians say to go on. What am I to conclude when Christians fail to agree with each other, as they often do?


The God of the Old Testament/Tanakh and subsequently Judaism as we know "it" now is definitely not anthromorphic in anyway shape or form.

Bullshit. He gets angry (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/anger.html), he shows his arse to Moses (Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen") and more Bible verses support the notion that he has a humanoid body (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html) or is otherwise capable of physically manifesting himself in human form, than otherwise.

More to the point, if we're supposedly made in His image, how can He be anything but anthropomorphic?


Hence the commandment against anthropomorphising God that is so strictly adhered to in Judaism, Islam and some forms of Christianity.

There are proscriptions against idolatry, but that is not the same thing as anthropomorphisation. You don't need to make idols to anthropomorphise a god. All you need to do is impute human qualities, such as emotions, and you're already heavily anthropomorphising a being that, logically speaking, should no more give a stuff about us than a lab technician would give a stuff about a colony of E. Coli in a petri dish.


Where anthropomorphism occurs with the use of "he" for example, it is usually agreed upon as a convention for the lack/want of a better word. The Abrahamic God cannot be defined by humans.

How the fuck can you worship something that cannot even be defined?


There is no real reference to Hell in the Bible but rather three versions of some kind of afterdeath existence according to merit in this life. The cruel punishments you describe could also be seen as some kind of karmic, to use an eastern analogy, effect.

Even if we discount Hell, the real world contains a multitude of horrors. If there is a God and he is the Creator, then he is responsible for those horrors and is thus not worthy of worship.


Being of one substance with the father means the non-duality I was speaking of before and is similar to concepts found in eastern religions and philosophies.

Why should that matter? It's all unsubstantiated assertions, East or West.


Well you can't throw God and Jesus into the same bucket here. Leaving discourses about God aside, there is some historical evidence of a Jesus and if no Jesus had ever existed where did these early Jewish-Christians spring from? They certainly had very little to gain by being what they were.

The historicity of Jesus is debateable, but even if I grant you that, all religions have to start somewhere. Why not start off as an apocalyptic Jewish cult, centred around the personality of Jesus? Of course, the existence of a man called Jesus says nothing about whether Christianity is actually true or not.

[ComradeMan]

@Noxion..... I suggest the four interpretations and also think about the whole duality vs non-duality idea. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, Judaism would have no anthropomorphism of God and treates the verses as allegory.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is Christianity the most Anthropocentric Religion since it teaches that God become a Human is the form of Jesus Christ to die for the sins of the Human Race while Judaism and Islam teach that God can't and or won't ever become a Human and walk on this Earth ?

God did come down to Earth in human form in the Old Testament. He visits Abraham with two angels.

Genesis 18

[RadioRaheem84]

That doesn't make sense. How is it that humans can fall from divinity by knowing of good and evil, yet God remains divine despite presumably knowing the same?

Also surely, if God were omnipotent as is claimed, He would be able to create beings that know of good and evil while at the same time remaining divine? The question then becomes, why did God set us up for a Fall?

It strikes me as the act of an asshole of cosmic proportions.

You answered your own question. He can remain sinless even though he knows of sin and can create beings to sin themselves.

I think the main crux of the story is that sin just means 'far from perfect' rather than the traditional Catholic interpretation of simply lusting over your gf's best friend. It's just a barrier or measure that Christians believe humans will never meet because they're not perfect.

According to the doctrine, humans need Jesus to cross that barrier. Jesus was God and at the same time man, but in his humanness he never sinned because he was also God/divine. I guess it was just supposed to be an even bigger testament to the sin nature in human beings.

So the point isn't necessarily that sin is just something that people are supposed to ever overcome, but that you need Jesus the savior in order to bridge the gap between the father and yourself.

[The Man]

I laugh everytime I see these thread titles.

[Astarte]

Is Christianity the most Anthropocentric Religion since it teaches that God become a Human is the form of Jesus Christ to die for the sins of the Human Race while Judaism and Islam teach that God can't and or won't ever become a Human and walk on this Earth ?



But I don't think Islam and Judaism do actually teach that God can't- otherwise he would not be omnipotent- just that he hasn't or won't.

I think the notion is mainly that God, the Monad and first self-created, is suppose to be completely Perfect, and that descending into the flesh would hinder its Unity and Perfection, and restrain its omnipotence.

Its kind of a contradiction of theology, and I suppose a "mystery" of Christianity, since an omnipotent Godhead should be able to incarnate in flesh, but by doing so its power would be self-limited and in the process no longer be the omnipotent Godhead.

[RadioRaheem84]

But in the Old Testamant, i.e. the Jewish Talmud (or Tanahk, I forget), God does come down in human form and visits Abraham along with two angels. It's in Genesis 18 and it's pretty well known among Christians and Jews.

So, the premise of this thread is flawed.

[ComradeMan]

But in the Old Testamant, i.e. the Jewish Talmud (or Tanahk, I forget), God does come down in human form and visits Abraham along with two angels. It's in Genesis 18 and it's pretty well known among Christians and Jews.

So, the premise of this thread is flawed.

Tanakh is the word you seek, not Talmud. The Talmud is a different thing. (In response to your question....)

Yes God manifests in front of the tent of Abraham and Sarah. I forgot about that and of course there is also the curious Genesis 32:22 in which Jacob struggles with a man until daybreak that turns out to be God who blesses him and gives him the name Israel.

[eric922]

You think mainstream Christianity is Anthropocentric? Try the Latter-Day-Saints (Mormonism) they believe that God was actually a man at one point and was raised to godhood by his own god and that men can become Gods. They have a saying that goes something like this: "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become."

[ComradeMan]

You think mainstream Christianity is Anthropocentric? Try the Latter-Day-Saints (Mormonism) they believe that God was actually a man at one point and was raised to godhood by his own god and that men can become Gods. They have a saying that goes something like this: "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become."

1 Corinthians 3:16- Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Matthew 22:29- The kingdom of God is within you...

John 3:7- Spirit of God dwelleth in you..

etc.

If you look at these ideas through a non-duality perspective, like in some Hindu schools of thought, then it is not so much anthropomorphism but rather unity that is possibly being emphasised.