Well, it’s a trap for sure. But I would say that it’s a trap only for an apprentice, a.k.a. aspiring mystic. I seriously doubt that anyone, after their final “Aha!” moment, would be fooled by inadequacy of metaphors. Quite to the contrary — the mystic who found the truth can finally appreciate their clever ambiguity that was always hinting at what he was searching for (and also discern the ones that are pure BS).

As I said earlier, it all boils down to the problem that language simply cannot fully express or name God. Even using the word God itself implies (for a seeker) some external entity, yet that what we call God predates space, time, entities, characteristics, attributes, and, of course, language, too (while not being separate from them, mind you). No wonder that Jews, who are forbidden to speak out the God’s name (or use it in vain), use in causal conversations simple title HaShem which translates as “The Name”. Though, considering the plethora of other names they use, I doubt they are aware of the true reason.

Essentially, whatever name or metaphor we use, it describes God, but it can also be misleading for the “unenlightened”. This poses a problem in transmission of knowledge, because people often mistake map for the territory, or, in Buddhist terminology, mistake the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon itself.

Thus, I really don’t care whether someone assumes that using finite and relative metaphors to describe the infinite and absolute means “implying that God has a certain character, which means [I’m] appealing to an anthropocentric metaphor.” Those who want to understand, in the end, will. And those who want to dismiss or twist it will dismiss and misinterpret, too. I guess, there’s nothing one can do about it.