I couldn't agree more.
http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/montaigne/2xii.htm
"Things most unknowne are fittest to be deified. Wherefore to make Gods of our selves (as antiquitie hath done), it exceeds the extreme weaknesse of discourse. I would rather have followed those that worshipped the Serpent, the Dogge, and the Ox, forsomuch as their Nature and being is least knowne to us, and we may more lawfully imagine what we list of those beasts, and ascribe extraordinarie faculties unto them. But to have made Gods of our conditions, whose imperfections we should know, and to have attributed desire, choler, revenge, marriages, generation, alliances, love, and jealousie, our limbs and our bones, our infirmities, our pleasures, our deaths, and our sepulchres unto them hath of necessity proceeded from a meere and egregious sottishness or drunkennesse of mans wit."

This explains a lot in Mormonism and Mormon History. The bacchanalian dedication of The Kirtland Temple with Ejiah showing up and requiring the dead to be included in The Restoration pretty much proves Montaigne was right.

Always has seemed the height of hubris to limit god to the extents of man -- extents of woman might be ok ;-)

golumn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always has seemed the height of hubris to limit
> god to the extents of man -- extents of woman
> might be ok ;-)

I agree with Montaigne. Making God out of flesh seems a bit stupid because it requires marriage, family, godlets, a homicidal being with the same parts and passions as yourself "looking out" for you.

I get the appeal - "if god was one of us" - Joan Osborne.

... don't have much need for an anthropomorphic god. At best he/she would be like Q some sort of weird trickster alien with no morals. On the other hand the universe doesn't seem terribly interested in our prayers either ... so not much room for god and the cracks are getting smaller.

There is one crack that god might fit into and that is as the simulator in this possible "ancestor simulation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQlyQlNjkFc (ancestor simulation explanation ...)

This is a profoundly disturbing possibility ... or rather if the philosophers are to be believed an almost certain probability. But this kind of "god" is almost certainly amoral at best and not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent except within the confines of this universe.

I don't see what is so different about making God "like us" vs just having him be some timeless, spaceless, all powerful, random entity that - because it is a paradox of itself - we couldn't possibly understand.

Some religions have animals for gods and some have human-like gods and some have hybrids.

In the end, it's all made up so why pick on Mormons' idea of god like that? There are many other things we should using to pick on Mormons :)

cecil0812 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the end, it's all made up so why pick on
> Mormons' idea of god like that? There are many
> other things we should using to pick on Mormons :)

Such as?

So, The Mormon nature of God isn't something to pick on? It seems to me like a good place to start picking...

cecil0812 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the end, it's all made up so why pick on
> Mormons' idea of god like that? There are many
> other things we should using to pick on Mormons :)


Seems a bit trollish not to backup why you think my "picking on Mormons" was so bad with regards to their nature of God...