Greetings Wil, Do I *personally* hold such a belief? Or is it a commonly held belief, particularly among those either with an axe to grind (straw man) or who can't be bothered (or who don't have the capacity) to explore the subject in greater depth and detail? To the first, no my personal view of G!d is far broader and far more encompassing than any "body" could contain. To the second, I do believe an anthropomorphic "G-d" is a convenient symbol commonly ascribed by many, including atheists. I do hold to linguistic tradition, but I also recognize it is a limitation of language. We have to have a way to convey a thought to another, even to ourselves...but in that process sometimes nuance falls to the side. How does one explain, in a simple and concise manner without constant re-explanation, a G!d that is male and female, both and neither, and transcends even the need for "housing" or "containing" in any form of "body?" I haven't yet found a simple way to convey that concept, and I suspect the Sages over the millenia never quite found a way either. Loaded question, methinks. Is love real? You made a statement later in the discussion that I not only agree with, but I think is central to your question. Humans think in symbols. Stated another way, rational thought in humans is done through a set of shared symbols. It would hardly be appropriate to expect humans of 3,000 years ago to explain things with 21st century symbolic language, any more than to expect us today to explain in symbolic language that includes concepts we have yet to even begin to imagine. How does one explain the unseen? What is love?....if "love" even exists! It is trite to blithely say that words fail to adequately describe the unseeable, unknowable, unfathomable mystery...but yet, in reality that is the conundrum we face, the quandary we find ourselves attempting to overcome. I think the ancients probably had a far better grasp of the IS as a concept, their minds were not clouded by "unreality." They had a firm grasp of the here and now, their minds weren't clouded with unfounded worries and fears and other gross imaginings. So they could "see" G!D for what "He" IS without added cultural clutter, or rather, they could sense the presence within / among the nature of which they were an integral part. That is where I find agreement with the Buddhist teaching of not mistaking the pointing finger for the moon it is pointed at. All of our cultural expressions of "G!d," whether monotheist, polytheist, atheist, deist, antagonist, protagonist, inflationist, deflationist...every single one...are pointing fingers. NONE of them are the moon.