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

Forums: Religion, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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

Regardless of your religion, Christian, Muslim or any other religion, have you ever wondered why people began personifying God?

Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

The reason to me seems clear.
Our first God was a man.
Who but man can give voice to the will/rules of God?

There is only man.

The word God should then never be personified. When we do, it becomes idol worship.
God should be considered a title only. Somewhat like king or law.
Regardless of your religion or lack of it, to tie yourself to any Word is also idol worship.
We all label ourselves according to the set of rules we follow be they Christian, Muslim, Democrat or Green.

Our political Gods = rules.
Our religious Gods = rules.
Our natural Gods = rules.
Seek God yes. When you find Him, raise the bar of excellence for both Him and man.

Whoever you are, you live by one or two or three of those sets of rules mentioned. More than likely, a combination of all of them.
In this, none of us have any choice.

My question is aimed primarily at literalist and fundamentals who believe that their WORD is the WORD of a personified God. In other words, to my mind, idol worshipers.

Do you agree and see that to lock yourself to any WORD, including a personified religious God, is idol worship?

Am I wrong in saying that our first God was a man and that our last God should be a man as well?

Regards
DL

P. S. For a bit of Biblical history and insight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U&feature=related

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 887 • Replies: 18

[+3] - kuvasz - 06/10/2010nah, you're full of it. btw [quote]You keep using that word, [i]Word[/i]. I do not think it means, what you think it means. -----. Inigo Montoya[/quote]

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

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

nah, you're full of it.

btw

Quote:

You keep using that word, Word. I do not think it means, what you think it means. -----. Inigo Montoya

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Greatist I am wrote:

To define God as other than a set of rules, is idol worship.
Regardless of your religion, Christian, Muslim or any other religion, have you ever wondered why people began personifying God?
Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

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 !

1 Reply

@Huxley,

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

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

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

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

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

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

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.

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?

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

BTW.
How do you define God?

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)

1 Reply

"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.

2 Replies

@Greatest I am,

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

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

1 Reply

@Huxley,

Huxley wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

BTW.
How do you define God?

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)

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

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah wrote:

"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.

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

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

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

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

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.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah wrote:

"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.

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

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

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.,

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

Only that Jews do not take their scripture literally. . .
Remember that Moses came down the mountain with rules, not a named God.

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.

kuvasz wrote:

You really are ignorant about Christianity. Nothing you have written shows that you understand the subject, nor the purpose of religion in general.

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

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know