To define God as other than a set of rules, is idol worship.

What if you defined God as something that is not a "set of rules" and did not worship him?

nah, you're full of it.

btw

I am not sure if you have not taken some matters a little more a priori than should be. Now, I am new here, and you'll have to give me some room for wriggling around in that sense, but it is really most accurately correct to understand the English word "God," as being used in place of, and as an equal to, the Hebrew proper noun (a name) YHWH.

Therefore to question the definition/description of the referent towards which the word YHWH points, one must take into consideration that database.

Then, I am certain that there must be some misconception regarding the part I have put in bold, in the quote above. I would greatly appreciate it if you could firsly expound on that understanding/assertion, please. Thanks !

I have no problem with not worshipping any set of rules or God. That is healthy and allows for your growth in thinking.
I am a Deist, my closest label, who, thanks to my apotheosis or rapprochement to the Godhead, un-provable of course, do not worship what I found and no demands to do so were expressed.

BTW.
How do you define God?

Regards
DL

So then why not show what you think it means.

Chastisement without correction is just cruelty. Do you punish your children without telling them why?

What God do you follow and do you not follow his rules as opposed to some entity?

Regards
DL

The Hebrews were careful to explain that God's name was to not be spoken and this is why they gave an unpronounceable name.
The Jews follow this advise and have always questioned God and their own scriptures and do not idolize either as a finished product.

Regards
DL

Thank you for your response, Greatest I am, it's good to see you keeping the thoughts going. What you have presented, however, is a later Second Temple period phenomenon, and not original to the earlier monotheistic movement within the Jewish nation. There is far more than enough evidence in even the texts which were re-collected during that period, and archaeological finds with inscriptions. For this specific reason, we'll find that such superstition (as the concept that YHWH ought not be read aloud) is exactly that...superstition...and is not found in the canonical texts, nor (as far as I have studied) any non-canonical texts either.

However, we can also see here that the early movement (and later hands) have a deity which (being only human in nature) went by a name, and which was both described by, and prescribed by, the contents of the texts which deal with such matters.

However, what might you offer in expansion towards my last question in my earlier post?

Eek... I probably differ in my definition based on the context of a conversation, to be honest. Usually, however, I think of God as some sort of ephemeral spiritual being that is All Powerful, All Knowing, and All Good. I also happen to think that this being does not exist, though I'm fine if others do. (Unless they start declaring the earth is 6000 years old, or are vehemently opposed to evolution in schools... something along those lines)

"The word God should then never be personified. When we do, it becomes idol worship."

I would almost agree, but I would say that the concept of God has been irrevocably personified for all practical purposes. And you can't just remove the connotations of a word. So God is anthropomorphic by definition. You have to call a set of rules a code or philosophy or something like that.

Read my bio if you want to know in what I believe.

Other than that, you are simply so wrong and confused about the Judeo-Christian world perspective.

But since you asked........

That which you refer to as "God" is beyond human imagination, beyond the categories of being and non-being, it is, and is not.... how can two different people have the same concept...of the ineffable? In choosing your God, you choose your way of looking at the universe. There are lots of Gods, choose yours. The God you worship is the God you deserve.

Simply because we all say the same name for God does not mean we have the same relationship to "that", or the same concept of what it is...and this concept of God is only a foreground of the experience.

In the Gnostic gospel according to Thomas, Jesus says, "cleave a piece of wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find me there."? in this manner has the historical Jesus identified himself with the Christ... or Buddha consciousness. He is living in terms, not of the ego, but of the Christ, seeing the ubiquity in all of the radiance of that which is the deepest center of being within you. ....you wont find that in the orthodoxy of Christianity, too bad, for it works....hhhmmm, maybe that's why it isn't part of the orthodoxy.

The crux of Christianity is the identification of the historical character as the only incarnation in history of the second person of the Blessed Trinity. The latter is a theological principle. When Paul said "?I live now not I, but Christ in me,"? he didn't say Jesus, the historical character, in me, he said "Christ in me."?

Jesus called his followers to a new law, that of love, not of fear, nor of hate. It is one thing to read the Bible as historical fact, it is quite another to understand its metaphorical connotations, and the remarkable values Jesus' message shows.

The difference is between the connotation and spirit (and God is that before all else) and the denotation, the concretization, that to believe the sun stood still so Joshua could conquer and cast down the walls of Jericho is fact or that Jesus died and rose to heaven.

These items have been found now to be undercut by newer, more rational observations of physical laws, laws that are definable, reproducible, and predictive. If anyone wished to believe the aforementioned examples, that is fine, but you should be expected to prove these things with the newer tools of the human mind's trade, not simply say "because GOD said so".

The message of Jesus is the valuable lesson to be learned: to see the Christ in each of us and in the world around us. Seeing the ubiquity in all of the radiance of that which is the deepest center of being within you.

His death and resurrection is a "?metaphorical"? image that sets the soul on fire: that we are all to die to our "?flesh"? and rise again as human beings and souls. and the pointing of a way to lead a good life and to seek the transcendent. This was and is the religious part of the message, a way to a truly religious or transcendent experience. I would submit that those who do not learn the "?spirit"? of the WORD are not very far removed from the swine mentioned in Matthew 8:6.

"? Tut tvam asi"? is ancient Sanskrit, from the Chandogya Upanishad, which says "You are it" or "thou art that". That divinity which you seek outside, and which you first become aware of because you recognize it outside, is actually your innermost being. It's not a nice thing to say; for it's not good for institutions if people find it's all within them... it is the God within you coming out... and blasphemy to the western religions.

The divine lives within you. The separateness apparent in the world is secondary. Religion is a constellation of metaphors, ones that point to connotations that are of the spirit, not the history books.

By the way, I am a christian, with a small "c."? I believe in the teachings of Jesus as a way to the transcendent or ground of Being, but it is a "?Way"?, not the only "?Way"?.

Finally, I am critical of your initial post because you misunderstand the concepts you are discussing.

btw: just to help you, your term "Idol worship" is exactly the state of mind of concretizing the metaphorical symbol.

Only that Jews do not take their scripture literally. At least the more progressive sects. I am not sure about the more conservative ones. I do not know any. If Jews did, read literally, they would not have put God an trial and found him guilty. To worship their God by name, if they do, would be idol worship.
Remember that Moses came down the mountain with rules, not a named God.

Regards
DL

I take a more active role against irrational belief in fantasy characters. Google Jesus camp or killing African witches to know why.

For evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing.

Regards
DL

I hear you but I am patient. Who knows, Webster may hear of me and re-write the definition. For this O P though, it is useful to push the notion for thought and to make my point.

Regards
DL

kuvasz

Yes, I have heard many say that god is ineffable and incomprehensible and alpha this and omega that. All B S hear say and Bible say to keep the sheep from questioning why their God is a genocidal maniac. All B S fantasy based on talking animals and a water walking scapegoat that they follow as to not have to step up to their responsibilities. Follow without understanding why but keep your wallet open.
Nothing like voting democrat or liberal without knowing WTF a democrat or liberal stands for or why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp9XIh-BPio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The vicarious sacrifice of Jesus was refused by God. As it should have been. It was immoral.

Why have you forsaken me is answered here.

Pro 21:3 To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Psa 49:7 None [of them] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Your turn.

Regards
DL

I don't think it necessarily follows that belief in God implies an irrational belief. Further, I think there are more relevant causal factors than a belief in God with respect to the evils committed in the name of God. People of all theistic stripes have committed moral abominations. Further, people of all theistic stripes have committed morally commendable acts. So I find the causal implication of any theistic stripe to any act to be dubious at best. As such, I don't think the pro-active approach to conversion on the metaphysical existence of God is the best approach to stopping the type of activity displayed in "Jesus Camp". Rather, I think discussing what is right and wrong while promoting rationality as a general approach to be far better.

You might want to connect to this link, of a topic I started a week or two ago.

The idea of God, in the form of Jesus, being anthropomorphic.

Also, what my conception of God is...

http://able2know.org/topic/145426-1

You really are ignorant about Christianity. Nothing you have written shows that you understand the subject, nor the purpose of religion in general. You are doing just what I warned about, concretizing the metaphorical imagery and calling it "religion," and attacking that denotation. That makes you as bad as the folks you are dissing.

The gospels are only first century narratives from first century interpretations, nothing more and never have been. You must not read them to find the literal truth about Jesus, rather to be seen and read as the way into the Jesus experience they were written to convey. The experience always lies behind the inevitable distortions by the limiting factor of mere words.

To see the revelation of truth, you must go beneath the words, and discover the experience that made the words necessary. Only in this manner will the meaning of the words be revealed. Do not identify the text with the revelation or of the messenger with the message. The gospels are not in any literal sense holy, they are not accurate and they should not be confused with reality. The gospels represent the stage in the development of the Christian faith story where ecstatic exclamation begins to be placed into narrative form.

The stories in the gospels were designed for a different age, and were to be understood as midrashic writings, not literal ones.

When the gospel stories of Jesus were composed, circa 90CE, they were created to help interpret the meaning of his life. His followers believed that their experience was that in Jesus they had met God, and it was that reality to which they were responding.

However like Paul before them, the authors of the gospels were limited by the use of language and the current and prevailing definition of God. God had always been thought of as an external and unlimited source. They saw in Jesus a transcendence and only God could have created him.

They were attempting to say that the qualities found in Jesus were then not within the capabilities of human beings to create. Therefore he must have been the product of God's spirit. To show this and pass on the ecstatic experience they mined both their sacred traditions and their vocabulary in order to speak rationally of what they had experienced by themselves capable.

It is the ideas behind the words that are the important things to bring to one's heart, not the fairy tales.

And you are doing nothing more than attacking fairy tales, e.g.,



Good Lord, you really don't know this stuff.

The symbolism and its use by the Church of Original Sin and the act of Atonement, AT-One-Ment, i.e., ( also known as The Sacrifice on the Cross) has been around for so long in Christian theology that it is apparently a sacred mantra. It is neither questioned nor because of its self contained structure in need of further explanation.

First God creates the World, populates it with Adam and Eve, by listening to the voices of temptation, Satan, disguised as the serpent, they disregard the prohibition and eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, the forbidden fruit whereby their eyes are opened and they know good from evil. God has been disobeyed, perfection ruined, and human life has fallen into sin.

Sum it up?

Remember now, before they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve were considered immortal, otherwise why curse them with death, Eve with childbirth and Adam to earn his living by the sweat of his brow. Since all generations are told to be based upon Adam and Eve, all humanity is blighted with this sin and mortality. The sign of the universality of the human condition, mortality is interpreted as a sign of the universality of human sin.

Thus all human life stands in need of redemption. All life cries out for a savior. And this became the central focus of the traditional Christian story. In fact, the Christian story of redemption has been told of just this story (or myth).

According to the story, God started the redemption process by selecting a particular people that God would use to work out this redemption, the Hebrews and their Messiah.

Via stories of holy selection, sacrifice and salvation, first, Abraham's small sacrifice of his son (well, almost, anyway), thru Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and Joseph over the first born, Ruben, the story motif is played out, of one chosen by God to carry the purpose of God.

We know that an ancient system of sacrifice was developed to close the chasm between God and Man. See Yom Kipper, and Leviticus 16, where the scapegoat appears. Another ritual of Yom Kipper was the sacrifice of the lamb, unblemished, a lamb of atonement (Leviticus 23:26-32).

Yet, as this lamb is subhuman, it is not capable of immorality, since immorality requires the ability to choose right from wrong. However, these sacrifices were made to pay for the sins of the people.

As a result, it was adopted that the giving of the law and the process of sacrificial worship were interim steps that humanity would use to deal with the hopelessness of sinfulness and death. To be human was by very definition, evil, fallen, and in need of rescue. As Paul wrote "?all have sinned and fall short."? (Romans 3:23)

From this idea and adaptation of ritual, of the conviction that humans were sinful, and in need of redemption that has enabled guilt and religion to be so closely wedded in western history.

The power of Christianity (and Judaism) has been of the religious people to understand and manipulate the sense of human inadequacy and fear that expresses itself as guilt. They do this by basing their purpose of life as to be whole, free, and at one with one's creator.

When the history of the church is examined one can see it is guilt more than is it forgiveness that has been the lever of church power. The church has faith in life after death, and it is predicated upon worldly guilt being alleviated, expiated, or punished with eternal damnation.

The masterstroke of the church that allowed this ecclesiastic power to hold sway and control was achieved when the pervasive human guilt over inadequacy, fear and failure was connected to human desire, especially sexual desire. Sex was evil. Sex was universal, so evil was universal.

This is about how it was, and how it goes in Christianity.

Frankly, we are in agreement about the problems of Christianity, except that like a good math teacher, I expect any critic of Christianity to show their work and how they arrived at their conclusion. You dear fellow, based upon your earlier posts, are not savant enough to simply disdain the religion without a concise understanding it.

The thing is, Greatest I am, that you are speaking of what has come to be in the fairly recent age, whereas I am speaking of that of the compilation of the texts. Additionally, as everyone keep capitalizing the word god, they are, by mere traditional English usage, only talking about YHWH, and thus have only that model to speak of.

Of course, the Moses story should not be taken as an exact description of actual historical events--even though they were exactly understood to be such, way back then.


While perhaps I can empathize with the emotional pressure to express, I would wonder if it would be good to do so.