Would it matter if, rather than saying 'the Lord' commands us to do so and so, one instead said 'the Lady'? God changed to Goddess? What if I changed the name to Allah but otherwise followed all the biblical principles, or called Allah God but otherwise lived life as a good Muslim?
Does it matter specifially in your religion? For instance, I was reading about a nun on belief.net who had been abducted in, I think, Columbia, and ruthlessly tortured over a period of some days such that she now will not call God 'God'. Unless I misremember, I believe she does refer to God as some kind of feminine. Goddess, perhaps. I think from the interview her reason was that she had a hard time associating the mascualine as 'divine'. In any case, I gather that Catholics would have no problem not calling God 'God' but something else.
Interested in Hatrack's thoughts on this.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well on this I can only speak for myself, but basically I don't care a whole lot what God is called. However, there are a few limitations on that. For one, when I speak to God, I want to show respect, so any name that wouldn't stir up some respect in my would be bad (joke names, for instances, would not be high on my list). Second, is that I believe God is my Heavenly Father, so however much other people seem to think it's some how sexist for God to have a gender, I wouldn't use any female names for the Lord.
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I can understand that nun, though. I used to have a problem with male authority figures, so when I first approached God (or He me) it was in the form of the Christ child. It was only later through Him that I was introduced (so to speak) to God the Father.
I think God is willing to show different aspects of Himself in order to speak to His children in a way they can hear.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mostly, it doesn't matter.
However, calling God by the name Rufus, is right out.
God also doesn't appreciate, "His holy-cowness," "Barney", or "The Big Pimp in da Sky."
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
OH Dan_raven...you're incorrigible.
[ June 23, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Answer?
Yes.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just don't call collect.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Or if you do, use 10-10-220, it'll save Him a buck or two.
Hobbes Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Does that make Carrot Top the Arch-Angel Micheal?
I always saw him as Satan myself. I mean, add up the digits in 10-10-220--You get 6. You use that three times, and you get the Hotline to Hell-o. Well, since its Carrot Top, maybe the hotline to Heck.
Anyway, sorry for disrailing your thread.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I think God is willing to show different aspects of Himself in order to speak to His children in a way they can hear.
Could this mean "Zeus" or "Ra" or "Odin" or "Nana" or...(don't hurt me) "Santa?"
I have always wondered about the godly lineage from our bear skin wearin' days to the "enlightened" monotheistic god. Did "God" the individual not exist until we created Him or were our foregrandfathers and mother just inane to worship trees and goats or the wiley and randy pantheons of old? Or were these aspects and however you find or name "it" "him" or "her" or even "them" good enough.
Meaning, if "Barney" works, why not?
fil
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I don't think it matters, because I don't think that the truly divine is limited, and I think names are limiting.
For example, My husband calls our dog (a stray we took in a few weeks ago) "Bitey". She snapped at a few strangers, very early in her stay, and Ron was going to take her to the Animal Shelter. But he couldn't, because she's such a great dog.
I don't like the name, but It will do the purpose of keeping new people at arm's length, so it has stuck. This dog is way better than that.
I happen to think of god as an infinite non-local organizing intelligence, or INOI, for short. *resists urge to post devil Graemlin*
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:"Santa?"
Who is actually based on a real individual. Remember Saint Nick?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Who is a character placed into a Catholic fable overlaying an older Santa (admittedly Hogfather is closer to the original spirit of WinterSolstice).
[ June 23, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, in the Buffyverse, Santa is real:
quote:DAWN: Um, guys, hello, puberty? Sorta figured out the whole no Santa thing.
ANYA: That's a myth.
DAWN: Yeah.
ANYA: No, I mean, it's a myth that it's a myth. There is a Santa Claus.
XANDER: The advantage of having a thousand-year-old girlfriend. Inside scoop.
TARA: There's a Santa Claus?
ANYA: Mm-hmm. Been around since, like, the 1500s. He wasn't always called Santa, but you know, Christmas night, flying reindeer, coming down the chimney -- all true.
DAWN: (smiles hopefully) All true?
ANYA: Well, he doesn't traditionally bring presents so much as, you know, disembowel children, but otherwise...
TARA: The reindeer part was nice.
(From "The Body," Season 5)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I gain more respect for Buffy every day.
I'm not Santa Claus, but I play one for money.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Buffy's theory on Martha Stewart is good, too. But I can't find it here at work. Drakester? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
For the record, I happen to think it is important.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote: I happen to think of god as an infinite non-local organizing intelligence, or INOI, for short. *resists urge to post devil Graemlin*
Not a Vast Active Listening Intelligent System (VALIS)?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I agree thatthe topic is serious and important (But the Buffy quote was really funny).
Edit to Erik: I think it does a heck of a lot more than listen
[ June 23, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag,
I found two Martha Stewart quotes for Buffy. I think this is probably the bit you're referring to:
quote:BUFFY: What's up?
XANDER: Anya has a theory. She thinks that Martha Stewart froze that guy.
ANYA: Don't be ridiculous. Martha Stewart isn't a demon. (to Buffy) She's a witch.
XANDER: Please, she- (pauses) Really?
ANYA: Of course. Nobody could do that much decoupage without calling on the powers of darkness.
(From "Wrecked," Season 6)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I don't think names are limiting unless either the person using it or the person called BY it lets them be. A name is, to me, sort of like a Dewey Decimal #. It refers a specific thing, and that specific thing can be great or small.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Oops, I checked the PKD site. It's Vast Active Living Intelligent System.
Just the obligatory Horselover Fat reference, never mind....
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
It's the specificity that bothers me, though, since I believe God is non-specific. But I know that is a view that most 'racker probably don't share, so that's okay. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Erik, I knew it was a quote I didn't recognize. Sorry to spoil your joke. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Physicly speaking, a DistantExternalObserver Deo or since physics concerns itself with information and organization, perhaps DistributedExtensibleOpenSystems, Deos
[ June 23, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Actually my concept moves beyond a simple "godhead", so it was refreshing to see that view expressed. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ok, serious answer.
God is infinite.
Any name we mortals give God is just our way of putting a finite handle on that infinite so we can use it in our lives and in our thoughts.
The only problem, short of the Old Testament Curse of not calling God by his "true" name unless you were a priest, is that the finite names we give God may have their own limitations that get in the way of our understanding. We limit what God can do in our lives by giving him a limiting name.
If we call God--Allah, then we may have trouble seeing him as the all loving God of Jesus. If we were raised in the belief of God as the jealous, vengeful figure of the Old Testament, then we have trouble seeing him as the motherly compassionate being that comes to mind when we say Goddess.
I do not imagine I know what God cares for or doesn't. What I believe is that it is more important for us to give God the broadest, widest names imaginable, for God is beyond imagining.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
After reading that I begin to think I missed my calling.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: "Santa?"
Who is actually based on a real individual. Remember Saint Nick?
Are you saying Odin, Zeus or God are not based on real beings? Or are you saying that Santa does exist and does come down chimneys and...er...disembowels little children?
Santa is the pre-God construct that indoctrinates children to organized religion. Santa is the all giving father who lives above us in the North Pole and that we we have to impress in order to get his gifts at the end of the year. Or, replace "Santa" with "God" and "north pole" with "Heaven" and "end of year" with "end of life" and you have Christian primer, 101.
Merry X-Mas!
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really. We have no way to impress God, and being good is decidedly not enough.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
fil,
you still haven't explained where the reindeer fit in. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm thinking the answer to this might depend on how specific your religion is. But for me, I wouldn't want to call God anything that refers to another god, since they are not all the same. Similarly, calling him by any name that belongs to someone else, or something else, changes the way that I see him.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think that in one sense, it has no matter because it is truly important what is in your heart. But in another sense, it kinda does matter, because God should be seperated from limitations of gender and the such. I dissagree with Dan on the OT. If you read the hebrew bible (i never read it translated into the king james), God is refered to by his different names. Je(h)ova, and Elo(h)im. The former being used in situation where god is merciful, and the latter in cases where he is seen as a judicious. Btw, the hebrew bible doesnt call god a jealous god, but thats off topic. Basically what Im saying is that any name that limmits god, shouldnt be used. I have no problem saying Allah, as he and my god are the same. I have a problem saying Vishnu, and Zeus, or Buddah when referring to my god, for the obvious reason that those titles limit god to being a certain character that I dont believe in. Many people that I know have a practice of not even using the words "he" or "she" when describing the actions of god, but rather using the hebrew words: Hakadosh Baruch Hu, or Hashem (Meaning: The holy one blessed is he, and "The Name" respectively).
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Armoth: Odd. I thought it did.
The Jewish bible calls God by at least 15 names.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Je(h)ova, and Elo(h)im. The former being used in situation where god is merciful, and the latter in cases where he is seen as a judicious.
Actually, in a few cases the two appear to be used interchangeable. See , for instance, Moses' vision at the burning bush. Both YHWH and Elohim are invoked there in the same appearance.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Basically what Im saying is that any name that limmits god, shouldnt be used.
...which, by your definition, it does. If you only see God as "God" and not any other possible variation on that theme (Vishnu, Zeus, "Bob" and so on) then you are, in fact, limiting god. By saying god can be ALL those things and much much more is the opposite of limiting.
And sndrake, the reindeer are...er...angels? Wait, no, that is the elves (the helpers of God, the ones that do God's dirty work, etc.). Lessee...er...guys gotta get around? Needs a ride? Better visual than the flaming chariot that the angels sometimes ride down in.
Gotta put the "gifts" (re: Salvation) somewhere!
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Not really. We have no way to impress God, and being good is decidedly not enough.
Oops...you CAN'T be a Catholic (or ex-, in my case). Asking for forgiveness (ala confession) each week to get on God's good side was a way of life when I was a wee lad...He knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake. Etc.
Let's see...the symbol for not doing good in God's...I mean Santa's...eyes? Coal. Which, you know, burns. Like hell. And all that.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:since they are not all the same.
Why aren't all God's the same god? This goes to the whole "Does the Bible PROVE there is magic and other god's" theory. I mean, good Christians have been known to make fun of other religions (or ancient religions) for their quaint naivete (forget calling the pot and kettle thing). I mean, sheesh...would could believe in a God like Zeus...throwing lightening bolts, killing Titans, having relations with mortal women so that his son could walk the earth...wait a minute... What I mean is, God says in the bible don't worhip those other gods (as if they were real and a part of a political campaign not as if they were fake) or use magic (not because it isn't real but because it is evil).
Another point is, why are all those "false" or "fake" when they believed as ferverently as any modern believer? Or why is another current religion any more or less a legitimate lifeline to God than another? If the connection feels meaningful and spiritually hip, what is the big bugaboo about what people call God or Goddess or Santa.
fil
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Taal, and the Jewish commentaries discuss extensively why both names are used there. (It's been over a year since we covered it in the class I attend, so I don't remember details, but I do remember it is a subject of debate.)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
fil:
They're different because...they are. No other reason. *glare* Don't ask questions, or you'll burn in hell, okay?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't think it matters as long as you are praying to the one God. If you call God Zeus but mean it as one god of many, than that would be bad. As long as you mean the right thing, I don't see that the name matters...after all languages have changed over time. Of course calling him Dude, prob is not the best thing to do.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Of course calling him Dude, prob is not the best thing to do.
Why not? I am curious.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oops...you CAN'T be a Catholic (or ex-, in my case). Asking for forgiveness (ala confession) each week to get on God's good side was a way of life when I was a wee lad...
Necessary does not equal sufficient.
Dagonee
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
It's a simple matter of respect.
Regardless of who your god is, do you respect your god?
If so, you'd call upon him in a respectful way.
Dude just doesn't seem to be a respectful way to address anyone in a serious manner.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Depending on the group of people you're with, Stormy, it can matter a lot, be a mere nuisance, or not at all.
12-Step programs frequently espouse that the important thing is that the sufferer gain some understanding and humility that he/she is NOT the supreme being. Call IT doorknob, call IT goddess, call IT whatever you like, as long as you understand that you are not IT.
*Shrugs*
And just when you get that part figured out, the next hurdle will be whether or not God is one and the same with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, or not.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Why should God be all of them? The flip side of that question is true as well....
Because some religions are contrary to each other. Not just mutually exclusive, but the basic tenants are different, as are the goals/rewards.
If you religion says that there is one God and all others are false while another religion says that there are many, how can they both be true?
I don't think that humans, any humans, know the complete truth, so I don't really go for all the exclusivity I see in most religions. I don't judge people, at least not in spiritual terms, because I don't see myself as a fit judge. I don't see any of us as fit to do that, not completely.
I do make judgments about the world I see, on actions that hurt myself and others. Things I have some experience with. But while I hope that I have some experience with spiritual matters here in this world, I am not an expert. I am as a child, and I see all of us that way.
So when someone holds different beliefs, or is a different religion, I don't preach my brand of truth to him, because he is the right one...lol..
Kwea
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
God is God.
I like Olivetta's word: non-specific. If I were going to believe in God, it would be as a non-localized phenomenon. If God is supposed to be infinite...to call it a name or even give it a gener means puting finite things on God...thus destroying our understanding of it. In that way, all religions have got it wrong because they try and personalize the infinite.
I guess you could call God anything...as long as the name ment what you were talking about. So, you could call it Santa only if Santa ment the universe or infinity or divine or God or whatever. You can't call the Universe Santa because Santa already means something else.
So...you can call God by other words as long as they mean about the same thing.
[edit]I guess you could call God "Santa"...because santa means "saint" which in turn means "holy".
[ June 24, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Well, God doesn't say "don't worship other gods" and God doesn't say, "I would like you to meet all my other god pals...Hades, you go first." Fact is, people tell us that and we hope and pray that the one we pick is the right one...if there is a right one. Take away what men and women have said God is and you are simply left with what you believe it is.
When I was a wee laddy, I was secure in the fact that I had a guardian angel (term parents call him, as he was neither guardian or angel...just a presence) named Giant. I of course, like many, grew out of this immature thought and gave him the name Santa (the next make-believe being that watched out for me) and made my final transformation to God when I became a teen and adult. Then left it all behind and realized that I think I had the better idea when I was a wee laddy.
The magic of spirituality comes from the joy and mystery that we lose in childhood. If God is infinite, why does he or she have to be a he or she...why not he and she. Or a bunch of them. Humans as an organism aren't a single living creature. We are made up of gobs and gobs of individual cells that all are individual living entities. If we are so complex, why does a God figure have to be so limited...to what it seems around here is a stern, disapproving father who regrets giving the kids the keys to the car and now we will never be in his good graces again.
Which is cool, if that works for you. But I still miss Giant and Santa.
fil
[ June 24, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmmm... The Undertoad...
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
I vote for BWUO (Being With Unknown Origins) (B-we-you-oh).
That's what we used to call God in one of my religion classes....
[ June 24, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Jaiden ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Why a being?
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Because we decided "Thing With Unknown Origins" sounded too much like a bad B movie title Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Why aren't all God's the same god?
Each god is described in a different way by his (or it's or whatever) followers. In some ways it's small enough that it doesn't matter. But in some ways it's large enough that one definition of god excludes another.
On the crazy, off chance that a god exists, don't you think he'd be confused at the definitions that don't apply to him? Don't you think he'd wonder how a group of people who claim he has properties that he disdains, worship him in a way that he never intended, and do things that he considers wrong "in his name" could possibly be considered his followers?
I'm not talking about one religion over another. I'm just saying that when definitions exclude each other, the only option is that either there are different gods, or that there is only one and the others do NOT exist. Either way, a being cannot have properties that COMPLETELY negate or exclude each other.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Each god is described in a different way by his (or it's or whatever) followers. In some ways it's small enough that it doesn't matter. But in some ways it's large enough that one definition of god excludes another.
Don't make me quote the old "four blind men describe an elephant" story. Or maybe I should. You all remember this, right? Each one has access to only a small part of the giant critter and each describe it as they 'feel' it. If we are indeed talking about something that is "infinite" or even just really huge, one can clearly see that God can be viewed differently in different cultures and still potentially be the same being of unknown origin.
Even Christians, who have one of the more blander versions of the supreme being (sorry, but upset old guy who keeps saying "keep off my lawn!" just isn't as rich or mythical as other pantheons) can't agree on how god is perceived. Aren't we talking hundreds if not thousands of demonimations which at some level must disagree on the whole "what is God and what does S/He want me to do?" question. I think there is a LOT of room for multiple interpretations and yet, the same being.
fil
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think it CAN matter what you call God, if you are using a descriptive associated with that name that is against your particular religion.
For instance, the use of Zues is offensive to most Christians as it is a pagan name, usually associated with a pantheon that many Christians have rejected. Although I have heard the statement that Allah is simply another name for God in a different language, that is not always the case. For an English speaker to call God Allah is offensive to many Christians who have rejected Mahhamad(?) as prophet and Islam as the true religion. The association of the name is too deep to simply use it as one of many label-names. In the reverse, if a person is to call God Christ rather than Allah, Muslims would be offended as it would imply a seperate divine salvational individual from Allah. Lets not forget how horrified Jews would be if someone called God Jesus as almost all Christians do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The thing is, Zeus is not the equivalent of the Judeo-Christian God (or the Muslim one, either). Zeus is a created being, so it's not even parallel.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
What about Allah?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
The point seems to be that it doesn't matter what YOU call God but it does matter what THEY call God.
YOU can't call God Zeus because it doesn't fit your understanding of God. THEY can call God Zeus because to THEM, it does fit their understanding.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Duh. I'm not saying they can or can't call anyone anything. I'm saying when they talk about Zeus, they are not talking about the same entity as I am when I talk about God. And when I talk about God, I'm not talking about the same entity as they are when they talk about Zeus.
Sheesh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But fil, in the blind-men-and-the-elephant parable, all the blind men are wrong. In fact, even the combination of all their perceptions is wrong.
What if, to extend the analogy, you believe that people all have varying degrees of blindness, from complete to very slight. Then some perceptions of the elephant will be entirely off-base, and some very close to accurate.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:The thing is, Zeus is not the equivalent of the Judeo-Christian God (or the Muslim one, either). Zeus is a created being, so it's not even parallel.
How so? Stepping outside the religious box leaves me with the same impression of both. I am outside of your religious beliefs and the Ancient Greek's religious beliefs. Both the Christian God and the Greek Zeus are equally "created beings" and their creators are obviously humans. From that perspective, they are similar. The whole "worship" thing is similar too...though Christians pray to God for all things and the Greeks might have spread their prayers over a pantheon, to presumably the same effect. From a storytelling point of view there are similarities, too (though I will hope a scholar of this stuff will wander by to make better points of this). I think the Jesus story verges away from this, but the whole "godstuff" history with rebellion of angels, lashing out against earth, and so on smacks of the same sorts of stories that other religions created to explain nasty events...why do bad things (floods, tornado, famine, disease) happen to good people? Well, they must not be all that good...and the story rolls along...
fil
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yes, you are outside the religious box, so of course you don't care what God is called. But can you truly not understand why religiously minded folks might prefer one term over another?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:But fil, in the blind-men-and-the-elephant parable, all the blind men are wrong. In fact, even the combination of all their perceptions is wrong.
This is the most relevant thing said in this thread, I think. In my opinion, anyway. I think this parable TOTALLY applies to the divine and spiritual. I don't think there is any group that has the answer...we are a bunch of completely blind beings grasping at tails and legs and never grasping the full picture. To take this story along a bit more, the state of the world today has the blind men not only arguing, but beating each other senseless about their perceptions when in the end, they are probably entirely wrong.
I think the bigger point is, reach out and make up your own mind what you are holding on to at that moment.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am outside of your religious beliefs and the Ancient Greek's religious beliefs. Both the Christian God and the Greek Zeus are equally "created beings" and their creators are obviously humans.
So in your mind the question is really, "Does it matter if we call Gandalf Dumbledore?"
Since your talking about a different question than me, I guess the discussion is pointless.
Dagonee
[ June 24, 2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am outside of your religious beliefs and the Ancient Greek's religious beliefs.
Therefore, for you this whole discussion is meaningless. Call God whatever you want, or nothing at all. However, some people ARE in particular religious beliefs and therefore names DO mean things. It doesn't matter how similar the things may or may not be -- Jesus Christ is NOT ever going to be a Jewish name for God.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Duh. I'm not saying they can or can't call anyone anything. I'm saying when they talk about Zeus, they are not talking about the same entity as I am when I talk about God.
Why not? Did God only decide to talk to His creations at one particular time and one particular way? I suppose according to Judeo-Christian teachings, that is exactly the case. But that is limiting, not expansive. Not nearly the immense being that I imagine the divine to inhabit.
fil
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Oh well. You can believe what you want. However, don't assume others should see it a different way because your way is so much more expansive. It smacks of "my God is bigger than your God" that you seem to at least imply shouldn't be going on.
[ June 24, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Hey, I didn't start this thread. Just participated in it. For you, it is obvious that the hypothesis of this thread "Does it matter what you call 'God'?" would be yes! For me, no.
I wasn't trying to be snarky...I am as outside of the Christian and Greek relgions as most of you are outside of Greek or my belief system. Is this thread only for Judeo-Christians? In that case, maybe I made a mistake posting here. It should have said "Does it matter what Christian's call 'God'" in which case, the answer would be "maybe" at best.
As an ex-Catholic, I never heard Jesus and God being the same thing. One is definitely separate from the other. In other Christian denominations, that isn't the case and Jesus and God are one and the same.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not? Did God only decide to talk to His creations at one particular time and one particular way? I suppose according to Judeo-Christian teachings, that is exactly the case. But that is limiting, not expansive. Not nearly the immense being that I imagine the divine to inhabit.
Because Zeus is a created being who did not make the Universe, and God is not. They're entirely different entities, as different from each other as God is from us.
That's the point of the monotheistic religions, and was a marked break from the surrounding religions.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I personally don't think Zeus ever "revealed" himself to anyone. I think they are stories, though perhaps in their ancient beginings based on actual interactions between God and man. I realize others look at my believed deity as being just a story. But I honestly believe that what Zeus is told to be is not very much like what God actually is. So if that is what I believe, why would *I* call God Zeus? It doesn't make sense.
Out of curiosity, does anyone believe in Zeus anymore? The Greeks?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I wasn't trying to be snarky...
But you have been *repeatedly* asking these Judeo-Christian posters why they believe as they do as though to to say you think it is silly and ridiculous. That seems snarky to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As an ex-Catholic, I never heard Jesus and God being the same thing. One is definitely separate from the other. In other Christian denominations, that isn't the case and Jesus and God are one and the same.
Then you weren't paying attention. From the Nicene Creed:
quote:We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
It's said at about half the masses each year.
And no one said you couldn't post. But when people who are part of the faiths you are asking about tell you that it does matter and give the reasons for it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to just say, "It only matters because they're all fake."
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Yes, you are outside the religious box, so of course you don't care what God is called. But can you truly not understand why religiously minded folks might prefer one term over another?
Well, I should have caught and editted it a bit...I should have said "outside of SPECIFIC religious boxes, namely Judeo-Christian and the Greek Pantheon" but I did not.
I can understand why some religiously minded folks might prefer one term over another but again, if this is a primarily Judeo-Christian forum (duh) then it IS kind of a moot question...unless you are okay with pagans, heathens, and (gasp) Unitarian-Universalists mucking up the discussion with ideas that God (to me and others) is bigger than any one religion's labels.
Which brings me back to the point...It doesn't matter what YOU call God (you call him Jesus and that is important to you whereas another YOU (like Nicolas who calls his God Zeus) but it does matter what OTHER people call God.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:It's said at about half the masses each year.
...and I only went to a quarter of them. And didn't pay attention!
fil
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Which brings me back to the point...It doesn't matter what YOU call God (you call him Jesus and that is important to you whereas another YOU (like Nicolas who calls his God Zeus) but it does matter what OTHER people call God.
Yeah, I remember you stating that. I didn't understand what you meant then, and I still don't understand what you are saying. I must be slow.
I'm not sure why you have interpreted hostile reactions here as hostile against your beliefs. I for one respect how you view God. But I am annoyed at the way you question other's views as though you don't understand them when I think you do. It is as though you want to grapple people over to your view of God. I don't like that.
I think we understand what you have explained about your beliefs, and I think you understand what others have explained here. What you are trying to do beyond that feels suspect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It doesn't matter what YOU call God (you call him Jesus and that is important to you whereas another YOU (like Nicolas who calls his God Zeus) but it does matter what OTHER people call God.
You're still missing the point. The greeks believed in gods, plural. Beings all of the same type, although some were much more powerful than others. A Greek worshipper presumably wouldn't think that their gods were the same as a non-corporeal being that created everything.
If you prefer, the platonic ideal referred to by Greeks worshipping Zeus is a different platonic ideal referred to by Christians worshipping God.
It seems like you're really asking if all religions have dieties that correspond to the monotheistic concept of God; the answer is no.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, as I said before, they can call anyone Zeus they want to.
[ June 24, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, you might be surprised how open some Christians can be (Universalists for instance) toward concepts to the point of this not a moot point. For instance, bet you didn't know that half those who say "it didn't matter" are actually part of that exclusive group of Judeo-Christians?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
It is only snarky because I am the heathen among the enlightened. OBVIOUSLY I am completely wrong and God of the Old and New Testement is exactly as depicted there...to you. Doesn't anyone else see the irony in this? People can sit there and say that a whole other religous belief is just a bunch of stories and it is okay...until it gets to YOUR religious beliefs. Then it is personal. I love all religious beliefs and feel that if people live a positive life that is rewarding to them, their family and their community, by golly that is a good thing. And if you call god "dude" or "santa" or "Lord Almighty" that is cool as it doesn't matter (to me) what YOU call God.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To Occaisional: Yes, I did. But they were answering the question in an entirely different way than fil has been asking it.
They were talking about names, not differences of concepts.
[ June 24, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fil, none of us has questioned your beliefs or told you we think you are wrong. You have done both.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil: the point isn't that you disbelieve our beliefs - most of us having this discussion with you believe mutually exclusive things about God.
The point is you are simply stating the same thing over and over again, and insisting on trying to fit all religions into a monotheistic mold when they just don't fit into it.
In other words, you are misstating both what we believe and what the Zeus-worshippers believe.
And it may surprise you to know that I don't consider Zeus to be just stories.
Dagonee
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
OBVIOUSLY I am completely wrong to bring my ideas about God to the surface. I should just reject everything I know and succumb to your superior indifference.
In case your wondering, none of us have argued you are wrong. What we have argued is that not everyone sees things, or wants to see things, the way you do. It is you, and not us, that is arguing the "your ignorant" card.
To Dagonee: I wasn't talking to you, although the post came right after yours. sorry.
[ June 24, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag: Huh, I guess that answers my question. I stand corrected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. I see what you were referring to now, Oc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bev, what question?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I wondered to myself aloud if anyone these days believed in Zeus, you implied that you think there is more there than just a story. I am ignorant on the subject.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Fil, none of us has questioned your beliefs or told you we think you are wrong. You have done both.
bev, you are absolutely right. I am sorry. I am getting way to excited about this. Too much time I could be spending cleaning the house or something! Thanks for pointing it out.
I guess I am so sensitive to this because the whole concept of what people call "god" is at the center of so many major events right now. We have this Christian/Islam/Jewish war going on in the world. We have the whole separation of church and state thing going on in the US and I guess I am projecting my fears of how this all could end keeps me on edge.
I apologize. My point was never to question people's beliefs, only to point out that all beliefs are equally valid to others in the world...one person's Allah is another's Zeus and that should be an okay thing.
Again, I am sorry. I will shut up now.
fil
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here is what is ironic for me: That in some cases what I am arguing about making a difference in the use of names, can be used against my religion getting included in a particular catagory. Therefore, I am not as high strung about this as might be supposed. Its just that the whole argument seemed to become way too one-sided. Not that I disagree with myself (I am not playing devils advocate), but that I can see where the "no-label" just doesn't work.
[ June 24, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, I guess I can understand your frustration that people's religious beliefs have affected this war and have caused such suffering. If more people looked at deity as you do, things would be different. I know when I get deeply involved in a discussion it is often because there are concerns in my mind related to but outside of that discussion.
Thanks for explaining. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil, I think the point people are trying to get across is that one person's Allah is NOT another person's Zeus, and to say that is actually (in this case) to project a western monotheistic religious view on a pagan religion. You're the one limiting what religion can be by making equivalencies that don't exist. It's as if you're saying, for a people to have a religion, they must have a God-allegory.
The irony is that Jews/Christians/Muslim have far more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.
If you're just trying to make the larger point that respect for others' religious beliefs would help make the world a nicer place, I doubt anyone here would argue with you. But part of that respect is realizing that the ancient Greeks are NOT the same except that they call God Zeus.
Dagonee
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here is the question I was working from. At what point does a lack of name for God make you no longer part of a religious group? IF you say that you are not part of a religious group, than the question is probably not very important. On the other hand, if you do belong to a particular religious group, than what kind of names have associations that go against your religious beliefs or not?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
oooooh..I can't shut up. But I won't say anything remotely snarky. I hope.
I guess I look at God in a certain way (and maybe it would help if I stray away from "religion" which is why even people who believe in the same god can still shoot each other, as Dag points out with the similarities between Islam/Judeo/Christianity). And by that I mean, I look at how other people look at God. Why do they look to God? Some for comfort. Some for guidance. Some for repentance. Some for forgiveness. Some for help. Some to simply worship. Some for...whatever. Many for all these and much more.
By this thinking, people look to their various gods for these things. One might pray to the Judeo-Christian god for good luck with the crops this year. Ancient Norse would pray to Thor (I think,the whole thunder thing) for the same thing. People go to church and pray to God to send their loved ones home from the war safely. Ancient Greeks might have prayed in the same way for the same thing to Mars.
This is why for me it doesn't matter what people call God...just that they get the same thing out of it.
Does that make better sense? At least for where I am coming from in this discussion?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It makes sense. But I see that as more limiting of religion, not less.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: It makes sense. But I see that as more limiting of religion, not less.
At least I made sense! I would also agree that religion can limit God, but I don't want to talk religion, just God (if that is humanely possible). I think as a rule religions limit what God is or what God can be by the very rules that separate one religion from the other.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
...and to continue that thought, it goes great with Occ's point.
quote:what kind of names have associations that go against your religious beliefs or not?
This is where people choose their religions, I guess. Do people switch religions or churches because their view of God is different from the the church they are attending?
fil
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Remember the line from "Sister Mary Ignatius"? (I will paraphrase because my copy of the script is packed away right now)
"We refer the mother of the Lord as the blessed virgin....we do not call her Mary with the cherry."
I pretty much think God will answer to anything as long as it is said respectfully.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ooo, good thought Jalepenoman!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Do people switch religions or churches because their view of God is different from the the church they are attending?
Happens all the time, every day. In fact, many become agnostic because of that.
By the way Dagonee, can you explain your concept more. I don't think you meant what it sounds like you said, although I could be wrong.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:
quote:Je(h)ova, and Elo(h)im. The former being used in situation where god is merciful, and the latter in cases where he is seen as a judicious.
Actually, in a few cases the two appear to be used interchangeable. See , for instance, Moses' vision at the burning bush. Both YHWH and Elohim are invoked there in the same appearance.
For the record, YHWH (or Jehovah) is a proper name. Elohim is a title.
As in the case of "Jesus Christ" - Jesus is the proper name, Christ is the title.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Better visual than the flaming chariot that the angels sometimes ride down in. ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)