Page | 106 connection with the nonhuman world. difference and the other accentuating The metaphorical and analogical identity, have varied according to social reasoning so characteristic of religious circumstance, rhetorical purpose, and interpretations of the world is not merely political ramifications. “Sinners in the a rhetorical flourish but is, instead, Hands of an Angry God” illustrates, in closely tied to general psychological one historical context, how processes in which self-knowledge and anthropomorphic language crosses the knowledge of other humans function as boundary of the human in order to the most readily accessible starting interpret human ethical responsibility to points for inferences we make about both the human and the nonhuman human connections to the most environment. comprehensive and consequential forces The Rhetoric of Divine Wrath at work in the nonhuman world.™ . Clearly, Edwards’s Anthropomorphism’s dual Ye . ye 4s . anthropomorphic rhetoric destabilized in perception of nonhuman phenomena—as a terrifying way the Enfield simultaneously both like and unlike a : congregation’s complacent perceptions human persons—has shaped modern , . _ .. ar of the world. It did so by starting from religious and spiritual perceptions in two an assumption that Edwards and the especially intriguing directions. In one congregation shared: that humanity’s case, it has fastened on the difference : : - ultimate environment should be between the human and the divine and 5 : ; P ‘ construed, anthropomorphically, as a cultivated iconoclastic perceptions of the . . - : . : cosmic society held together by a Spiniiiall, in w fish anthropemarphis covenant that God had made with the representation. 1s repamiled as a whole of creation. The sermon induced dangerously misleading, albeit h b dation to the terror among the congregants by ria ai daleale- ala viii graphically portraying their own limitations of human reason." In the ys . . . . . responsibility for disru