If the Divine is human in form and this is why it is represented in this way, why do they also give it the forms of irrational creatures? If its form is that of irrational creatures, why do they also represent it in the forms of rational beings? If it is a combination of both, and they have conceived God as combining the two, with forms of both irrational and rational beings, why do they divide what is joined together? Why do they separate the carvings of irrational animals from those of human beings instead of always carving Him with both kinds of features, like the creatures invented in myths—Scylla, Charybdis, the Hippocentaur, and the dog-headed Anubis of the Egyptians? They ought either to depict their gods only in such composite forms, or, if they have one form, not invent the other for them as well.
Again, if their forms are male, why do they also give them female forms? If they are female, why do they falsely give them male forms as well? And if the gods are both male and female, they ought not to be divided; both should be joined together and made like the so-called hermaphrodites, so that their superstition would furnish onlookers not only with impiety and slander, but with something to laugh at as well.
More generally, if they suppose the Divine to be bodily, so that they imagine and fashion for it a belly, hands, feet, neck, breasts, and the other organs involved in human reproduction, see how far their mind has fallen into impiety and godlessness to think such things about the Divine. For it follows that it must also undergo everything else that happens to a body: it can be cut, divided, and finally destroyed altogether. Such things are not properties of God, but of bodies on earth. God is incorporeal, incorruptible, and immortal, needing nothing whatsoever. These images, however, are corruptible, are forms of bodies, and need care from the very people who worship them, as we said before.
For we often see images that have grown old being renewed, and those damaged by time, rain, or some other creature on earth being restored. Here one must condemn their madness: they proclaim as gods those whose makers they themselves are; they ask salvation from things they themselves adorn by their craftsmanship to keep them from decaying; they expect their own needs to be supplied by things they know need their care; and they are not ashamed to call lords of heaven and all the earth things they shut up in little shrines.
If the Divine is human in form and this is why it is represented in this way, why do they also give it the forms of irrational creatures? If its form is that of irrational creatures, why do they also represent it in the forms of rational beings? If it is a combination of both, and they have conceived God as combining the two, with forms of both irrational and rational beings, why do they divide what is joined together? Why do they separate the carvings of irrational animals from those of human beings instead of always carving Him with both kinds of features, like the creatures invented in myths—Scylla, Charybdis, the Hippocentaur, and the dog-headed Anubis of the Egyptians? They ought either to depict their gods only in such composite forms, or, if they have one form, not invent the other for them as well.
Again, if their forms are male, why do they also give them female forms? If they are female, why do they falsely give them male forms as well? And if the gods are both male and female, they ought not to be divided; both should be joined together and made like the so-called hermaphrodites, so that their superstition would furnish onlookers not only with impiety and slander, but with something to laugh at as well.
More generally, if they suppose the Divine to be bodily, so that they imagine and fashion for it a belly, hands, feet, neck, breasts, and the other organs involved in human reproduction, see how far their mind has fallen into impiety and godlessness to think such things about the Divine. For it follows that it must also undergo everything else that happens to a body: it can be cut, divided, and finally destroyed altogether. Such things are not properties of God, but of bodies on earth.
God is incorporeal, incorruptible, and immortal, needing nothing whatsoever. These images, however, are corruptible, are forms of bodies, and need care from the very people who worship them, as we said before.
For we often see images that have grown old being renewed, and those damaged by time, rain, or some other creature on earth being restored. Here one must condemn their madness: they proclaim as gods those whose makers they themselves are; they ask salvation from things they themselves adorn by their craftsmanship to keep them from decaying; they expect their own needs to be supplied by things they know need their care; and they are not ashamed to call lords of heaven and all the earth things they shut up in little shrines.