92 comments posted
oh yes it was

the universe was absolutely, positively, created by God.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/15/2015 - 16:39
That's an opinion

You have no way of knowing. None of us do. To say that you absolutely know is profoundly ignorant.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 04:07

They "absolutely know" because that is what they believe, their opinion as you call it. And there is plenty of historical proof to back these beliefs. To call them "profoundly ignorant" is quite contradictory considering you state there is "no way of knowing" and "none of us do" which is very opinionated and they could call you the same. As you are certain in this belief, they are certain in theirs.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 06/08/2016 - 06:15
There's no proof.

So how do we actually know he is real?

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 20:12
Of course

Then time, as we know it, this time around, began whenever anything slowed down below the speed of light after the Big Bang.


Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 09/21/2014 - 21:56
there was no big bang

How could there have been a big bang? Where did the big bang come from? Who witnessed it? How do you know if it existed it no one was there to see it?

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/15/2015 - 16:45
NO !!!!

The human trait would be conceiving; i.e: time is not of itself, a human trait.
Time is not the 'idea of time'; and your 'idea of time', while being part of humanity,
is not cast upon a non-human. You seem to be casting a concept upon a concept.
Quite clever. Using a transitive relation in a non-mathematical statement.

But, G-d our father, would be personification, as is Father Time.

Time and the idea of time did not begin with creation. Time is that field (plane), which, man through duality (right-wrong, past-future, etc) casts himself. G-d does not reside in the field of time, G-d is eternal (outside of the field of time). Time and the idea of time began with the fall, when man opened duality with the knowledge of good-evil and fell into the field of time, the awareness of dualities.

Don't mistake eternal with forever. Forever is in the field of time.

Everything is the same thing only different and these words are not the ideas they represent. Don't get stuck in complexities. This is this, this is not that.

Back to the subject:

I look at personification as, anything non-human wearing a humanity suit; And,
Anthropomorphism as humanity wearing a non-human suit.

Yes, Fred Flintstone's character is an example of anthropomorphism.

tg, out

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/30/2014 - 06:52
i'll back you up

God isn't in time. He created time foe man's benefit. God is outside of time as we know it. When God sent his son Jesus down to earth, God, in the form of a man, stepped into time, once again for our benefit.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/15/2015 - 16:48
Anthropomorphism v Personification

Personification is the metaphor it is like, it does not become partially human.

Anthropomorphism the non-human becomes, is, human or partially human.

examples of Anthropomorphism:
the rabbit from Alice in Wonderland

the White Rabbit actually reads the watch. Anthropomorphism, it has the human ability.
the cat peered at the watch as if he understood the passing time. Personification


Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 05/21/2014 - 02:58
"Anthro..."-ish: Do you know this OBSCURE* literary term?

I've spent hours online looking for a very specific, clearly obscure literary device that Google thinks is "Anthropomorphism."

Background: I learned the name of this literary device years ago while studying "The Scarlet Letter"--it very succinctly described Arthur Dimmesdale's A-shaped rash.

The term is similar to "Anthropomorphism" and "Pathetic Fallacy" in that an author uses it to articulate a character's personality, key traits or emotional state through physical manifestations--such as ailments (ex. Arthur Dimmesdale's adultery rash & King Lear's amoral handicaps) or physical features. I cannot, for the life of me, find it.

And so I come to you, learned forum-posters. Please, please, please:

Does anyone know the EXACT word for a character state that manifests (or is already manifested) physically in/on the character's body?

Your help is greatly needed and appreciated.

* Errant capitalization is for ease of reading, not (purposefully) wanton ignorance.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 06:43
The Unknown Word

It is possible that the word you are searching for is 'physiognomy' although this would, I do not think, constitute as being a particular literary device. However it is the closest word I can think of matching your description.

The definition of physiognomy being: "The assessment of a person's character or personality from his or her outer appearance, especially the face. The term can also refer to the general appearance of a person, object or terrain."

Hopefully this is of some help to you

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 15:05


Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 03:34
they are different

the examiners report from the IB higher English examining board stated this

students should:
- find out the accurate meaning of 'personification‘. It is not the same as 'anthropomorphisation‘.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 05/01/2013 - 21:23
Only half the story.

Many have posted a translation of anthropos but ignored the second half of the word, which implies change (possibly with regard to shape).

To that end I have always taught anthropomorphism to be where anything, animate or inanimate, is ascribed an action as if it were a human in that form. So if a can of drink suddenly sprang arms and legs and grew a face it could do things an ordinary can couldn't (like run across a table).

Personification, being more specific, is a metaphor, examining the movements or characteristics of an object, and for figurative purposes, compares or describes that action to a human action or intention.

As the wind whispered in the trees - describes something a tree does as a similar human action.

The tree danced romantically in the gentle breeze - same thing.

The tree turned around and told the wind to leave it alone and then sat down with its back to the breeze in protest - anthropomorphism.


Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 04/27/2013 - 14:34
Smart kid said


Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 05/13/2014 - 01:08

Personification is the ascribing of LIVING characteristics to non-living objects (i.e. The stapler jumped out of my hand)
Anthropomorphism is the ascribing of HUMAN characteristics to non-human objects or beings (includes animals).
Pathetic Fallacy is the ascribing of the MAIN CHARACTER'S emotions to the surroundings. (Usually the weather and nature)

[My English teacher got a little too enthusiastic while describing this and almost hit a student. Her colleagues gave her a "Personification-safe stapler" for her birthday]

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 02:59
I Think you guys are missing something

anthropomorphism is giving human qualities to non-living objects which makes it like personification but anthropomorphism usually involves a body part; ex: finger nails, arms ect.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 04:58


Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 11/13/2012 - 04:16
very helpful

this helps a lot

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/29/2012 - 18:41

Most of the examples here are anthropomorphism. Though it often IS used interchangeably with personification, this is a misunderstanding. Personification is when a person or anthropomorphic item or creature embodies or represents an idea or concept. For example, Father Time personifies time, Mother Nature personifies the natural world. Most of the characters in Pilgrim's Progress are personifications of traits or characteristics of human nature of temptation; i.e., Greed, Lust, etc.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 08/30/2012 - 20:22

That would be an allegory (pilgrims progress) by the way, not a personification!!

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 06:35
if so what about

if so what about personification

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 19:55
I still get confusion about

I still get confusion about the differences between these two terms how they differ?

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:42
Anthropomorphism vs. Personification

Anthropomorphism gives human qualities to a being or thing that is not human. It is most commonly used to describe a deity.

Personification gives human qualities to inanimate objects.

Therefore, personification is a type of anthropomorphism; however, not all anthropomorphisms are personification. This is the same simplistic concept as women and humans. All women are humans; however, not all humans are women.


"The table was strong." This is giving the human quality of strength to a table (an inanimate object). It represents anthropomorphism as it gives the human attribute of strength to a table. Likewise, it is personification of the table as the table is an inanimate object.

"The pig thought about it." This example gives the human quality of thinking to a pig (an animal that is not human). It represents anthropomorphism as it gives the human attribute of thought to a pig. However, it is not personification as the pig is not an inanimate object.

Make sense?

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 02:19
thanks mate


Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 07/09/2014 - 06:28
Antropomorphism v Personification

Thanks! Your succinct explanation is very helpful!

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 19:08
Similar to personification?

Does anyone know if the definition of anthropomorphism is similar to personification? Isn't it very similar? I mean, anthropomorphism means to use a characteristic of a living thing for a nonliving thing? Can anyone list examples?

(For example, the branches seemed to clench their fists, leaning forward gradually to clasp my neck.)

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 12:49

I have heard the term anthropomorphism most often in reference to giving god human characteristics, as in to anthropomorphize god.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 01:21

Being from Greece, I'm able to answer the question.

Anthroporphism has a Greek origin from the word 'anthropos', which mean human or person.

And as a result, Anthropomorphism is the action of placing human characteristics to a non-human object.

Therefore, anthropomorphism can be safely be considered the same literary device as personification

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 00:40

If I could offer an example:
"We shouldn't wear fur because it doesn't look good on a person" is an example of anthropomorphism because we approach the argument from a human perspective rather than from the perspective of the animal. In other words, we attribute a rather selfish human concern in the sentence above. We could also say that wearing fur is bad because we kill animals in order to do this, in which case we show concern for the animal. The sentence is therefore not anthropomorphic.

Personification is an entirely different literary device, which attributes human characteristics to non-human things.

I could be wrong, but I would venture a guess that we are confusing the two concepts.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:47

Personification adds a living quality. This adds a human quality. Or the other way around. Am I correct?

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 16:40
personification adds a human

personification adds a human quality, this adds a living one.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 23:45

What is the difference between anthopomorphism and personification

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 18:29

That ex. is more like pathetic fallacy.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 08:31

personification and this word basically presents themselves with the same meaning

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 06:34

Would it be safe to say that anthropomorphism and personification are interchangeable identifiers for the same literary device? They both grant human traits to non-human subjects, correct?

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 20:32


Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 22:02

I'm quite certain they got a few details wrong. Anthropomorphism is really the giving of a LIVING trait to a non living object, it doesn't necessarily have to be a human trait.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 23:43

No, anthropomorphism involves ascribing human qualities to non-human things.

Indeed, "anthropos" is Greek for "man", so "anthropomorphism" suggests that we are granting human or male characteristics to things which are not human.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 15:20
I think you may be wrong about that...

This is from wikipedia.

Anthropomorphism is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

This is from

the attribution of human form or behaviour to a deity, animal, etc

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 00:20

You can't trust wikipedia. Wikipedia is a site were anyone can put down information. Don't trust it.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 03/26/2013 - 16:35

A very interesting and totally new word to me. I decided to look it up elsewhere and, bingo! it could be found in another lexicon. I really love this site: very good definitions and examples to go with them. Well done.............

* Mystique*

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 15:13

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options