Amarok is playing...
Navigation
Search
User login
Syndicate
This Sunday: In God's Name?
Submitted by Rolf on 25 November, 2007 - 10:01
One often hears the phrase "in God’s name" or "in the name of God" used in everyday conversation. It has just occurred to me that I’ve never heard God’s name. Does God have a name? The gods of other religions have names. Thor is the name of a Norse god, Odin is another. The god of Judaism is Yahweh. And, of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses call their god Jehovah. Christians call their god God. Excuse me for saying, but the generic name "God" seems pretty lame and uncreative. Does the Christian god not have a proper name? If not, why not? And if he does have a name, what is it? It could be something simple like Bill, Bob, John or Mike. Maybe his name would be a little more formal sounding: Daniel, Richard, Samuel or Victor. Or perhaps it would be something more cosmopolitan like Alfonso, Gaston or Wilhelm. But then again, it could be that my speculation is all for naught. Maybe the real reason he doesn't have a name is because he doesn't exist.
- 992 reads
How about "Nigel"? Actually,
How about "Nigel"?
Actually, Yahweh will work for the Christian Deity, as well as "Jesus" (except for JWs since they are rather non-trinitarian).
English "God" works pretty well, too. In the ancient near East there was a deity named "El" but the word "el" was also a common noun (masc.) for "god" and could be formed in the plural. It also had feminine form for the ladies. "El" is also the root behind "Elohim", (actually a grammatically plural form) that is used as the name of the biblical god in very many parts of the Old Testament. Our English use of god as both a common and proper noun is oddly very comparable to the ancient semitic uses.
But I still prefer "Nigel". "Tinkerbob" might be better, though.
Praise be to Nigel.
Praise be to Nigel. Yes I like it. And Making Plans For Nigel by XTC could be adopted as a song of praise.
Creation Revised
In the beginning when Nigel created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from Nigel swept over the face of the waters. Then Nigel said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And Nigel saw that the light was good; and Nigel separated the light from the darkness...
What is His Name?
True Christianity has its roots in the Old Testament therefore the Christian's God is Yahweh.
Interesting that Moses (like yourself) didn't know God's name either. When the angel appeared to him at the burning bush Moses asked "What is his name?" (Exodus 3:13). The response by God is "I AM THAT I AM". In essence, this is a very literal translation of the name Yahweh. The idea in Hebrew is something along the lines of "I was, I am and I will be" (a continuous tense verb).
Therefore, he does have a name and it basically means "I exist". So it's quite ironic that you say, "Maybe the real reason he doesn't have a name is because he doesn't exist." His name attest to the fact that he is the Eternal One.
On a further note, anytime you see the word LORD in all caps in a Bible it is his name Yahweh. Basically, this is a mistranslation by the translators. Jehovah is another English form of the word Yahweh.
Certainly full of Himself then?
I am that I am, or I was, am, and will be, indicates one of two things:
1) God is clearly inarticulate and can only exist as a tautology. That or, as a subject of a sentence without an object, meaning that God is not anything since the verb be requires a direct object.
2) God, being in whatever state or non-state God might have been in, or will be in, is a megalomaniacal and solipsistic old bugger, or is entirely insecure, depending on how you look at it. He is either incredibly self-absorbed such that simply stating "I exist" in some form or another is sufficient to warrant thousands of years of slaughter and inhumanity in "His" name (or specifically lack thereof), or he is so insecure that he needs to constantly make sure that everyone knows that he exists.
Either way, God could have used a good session with Lacan to get over his linguistic troubles and Ego/Id issues as the object of his own affection.
"'I AM THAT I AM'. In
"'I AM THAT I AM'. In essence, this is a very literal translation of the name Yahweh"
THis is completely in error. The divine name, YHWH, if it is derived from the Hebrew verb "to be" would result in a third person form, i.e., "he is". When the deity says "I am who I am" he is NOT making a literal translation of YHWH. He is making a word play, repeating the verb "to be" but in the first person. The author has the deity making a word play, anticipating the revelation of the name YHWH a little later in the story.
The fact that the name seems to be based on the word "to be" says little of the ACTUAL existence of the deity so named.
The pronunciation of YHWH as 'yahweh" is widely accepted by scholars as the closest approximation of the original sound of the name. "LORD" in English bibles is NOT a mistranslation at all. Rather, it reflects the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the name YHWH. When reading aloud Jews traditionally replace the name with the word adonai which means "the Lord".
"Jehovah" is actually right out of the question as an approximation of the original reading for YHWH. The J comes from the German in which it is pronounced like an English Y, but even Yehovah is nonsense. These vowels are taken from the vowels of Hebrew "Adonai". They were added during the medieval process of vocalizing and punctuating the traditional Jewish text. The Masorete added these vowels to the divine name to create a reminder to say "adonai" when YHWH was encountered.
Reply To Jim & Tim
Jim & Tim: In writing this post I was aware that the Old Testament god is called Yahweh. I also realized that I was going out on a limb by ignoring that and suggesting that the god of Christianity is nameless. I was also aware that someone would probably call me on it as you both did. The point of my post is simply to draw attention to what I think is the absurdity of calling the Christian god God.
Both of your comments lead to further questions: Does the god of the New Testament have a name? Is he a different god than Yahweh? Are there two Christian gods, Yahweh and God?
"It depends"
Sorry to have led the discussion astray! I don't think there is a formal name for the deity in the NT.
I'm not sure, but I think the NT simply uses the Greek equivalent of Hebrew El / Elohim (theos ?)and titles like "Lord" (kurios ?..Its been ages since I did anything in Greek) I forget how NT handles its quotes from the OT.
The lord's prayer simply has the believer call the deity "Our father".
I don't think calling the Christian god "God" is really absurd. The English seems to reflect ancient convention of using a word in two ways, as a common and a proper noun.
Christians sometimes make the distintion between the NT and the OT on the grounds that in the NT divine grace is emphasized whereas in the OT god is rather judgmental. On the other hand, however, it would be a rather odd Christian denomination that would claim that their deity was not the same deity that is called Yahweh, Elohim, Shaddai, etc. in the Hebrew Bible. As I understand it, some ancient Christian Gnostics made that distinction, since the Old Testament god was seen as an evil entity, responsible for bringing base matter into existence. The Gnostics did not succeed in winning the "hearts and minds" of the bulk of Chritianity, however.
One could make a case that the OT's "Yahweh" at one time was not considered the same entity as the god called "El/Elohim". Some texts try to affirm that "Yahweh is (the?) god / El. An odd thing to say if there were no question of it!
Hope this all helps.
In the absense of anything better, "Nigel" will have to do.
To Quote XTC Again
"Dear [Nigel],
Don't know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book,
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look.
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it ain't and so do you."
Anyways, thanks for listening Nigel, you're a good buddy, next time you're in town drop by and we'll go for a beer.
Yahweh Reformed
So maybe the NT god is really a reformed Yahweh after a stint in rehab? And they called him Nigel and it was good.
Rehab?
How about just a lot of PR work, "rebranding", if you will. REvelation seems pretty Old TEstament to me!
In the beginning was Nigel, and Nigel was with Gord, and was Gord, and it was confusing. And Nigel was the Larry of the world, and no one gets to see Gord except by making an appointment with Nigel. And Harriet was pissed.
Move over FSM!
We're only making prayers to Nigel...
What Confusion?
Let me see if I have it straight. Nigel is Gord and Gord is Nigel. Pretty straightforward so far. Now, here's where I get confused. What about the ghost of Nigel? Is the ghost of Nigel Gord too? Or is the ghost of Gord Nigel? Oh, wait! I get it now, Nigel, Gord and their ghost are all the same, ah, "being". But how does Larry fit into the picture? Oh, and just one more thing, who the hell is Harriet?
Wow...
For all the talk about how judgemental and narrow minded we horrible Fundamentalists are, there sure is a lot of trash and judgementalism spewing from otherwise intelligent, professedly enlightened people. I cannot deny or endorse some of what has been done in the name of Christianity, any more than you can deny or endorse (at least I hope you would not endorse) what has been done to Christians in the name of ....whatever it was done in the name of. However, I can say what the Bible teaches and that is that we as Christians are to strive to live at peace with everyone, SO FAR AS IT IS UP TO US. I can't say that everyone who claims to be a Christian lives this way, but there are a lot of things that we as Christians are to live by that most don't.
As for the name of God issue, the whole point He was making when he called himself I AM is that He is larger and ultimately the greatest being there is, greater than any man-thought name could provide. The "names" used throughout the bible, are more along the lines of descriptions used to refer to a being who is beyond human description. Jehovah Jaira (sorry if the spelling is incorrect), Jehovah Neecy, Jehova Shalom (God the provider, God the protector, God of Peace) Yaweh, Father, Lord, etc. are our best attempts to describe what God is. The capital G is the way to differentiate the one true creator God from other "gods" that the Bible talks about. The bible says that there are many gods, but only one true God. The word god simply means a being who supernaturally rules over something. Satan is referred to as a god, but not the God, as he was created by and ultimately fell from grace in the presence of the true God, and now rules over this world system. Polytheistic religions worship many gods, and the bible acknowleges this, but they fail to worship The God who created all of the others. Allah is also just a man given way of describing this ultimate God.
As for God being megalomaniacal and self absorbed, well, He's God. And aren't we being a little, no a lot, egomaniacal and self absorbed to assume that our ultimately limited and weak psyches know more and can do things better than the one who created us? If you don't believe in something greater than these fragile bodies and minds that we possess and think that we humans are the ultimate beings, then that is true egotism and self absorption.
" The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit. And he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. "
"However, I can say what the
"However, I can say what the Bible teaches and that is that we as Christians are to strive to live at peace with everyone, SO FAR AS IT IS UP TO US."
But this is hardly what much of the Bible actually says. Very many passages spew all sorts of hatred at the followers of other religions
"The "names" used throughout the bible, are more along the lines of descriptions used to refer to a being who is beyond human description."
Sure, so are the 99 names of Allah.
"The capital G is the way to differentiate the one true creator God from other "gods" that the Bible talks about."
No it isn't. It is simply because g-o-d can be used as a common noun and as a proper noun (like Nigel, or Larry, or even Harriet). Like this: 'Mr. Hunter is a hunter.' 'Mrs. Cook is a cook.' 'Yahweh, the god of the ancient Israelites is sometimes called "God", a name that is a translation of Hebrew Elohim'. Or 'Christians call their god God'. Get the difference? Deal with it. So your sentence:
"The bible says that there are many gods, but only one true God." is wrong. What you should have written is "The bible says that there are many gods but only one true god."
Biblical Hebrew, for example, makes no difference whatsoever in how it forms the word "god" (El) when, for instance, so folks are worshipping Baal or Yahweh as a god. Sometimes, elohim is used of many deities or quasi-dieties and that same word is the most common name of the Israelite god. I cant speak about the original NT greek, but my guess is that it doesn't really have special forms for the its equivalents of "God" vs. "god" etc.
"As for God being megalomaniacal and self absorbed, well, He's God."
And this god is depicted as an insecure megalomaniac.
"And aren't we being a little, no a lot, egomaniacal and self absorbed to assume that our ultimately limited and weak psyches know more and can do things better than the one who created us?"
No. We are not. You are simply assuming on our behalf that such a megalomaniac deity exists without producing any proof of our relative smallness.
" The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit. And he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. "
Self serving special pleading meant to bolster an otherwise indefensible theology.
My Nigel buy beer for us all.
True but...
True the Bible tells us not to be a party to other faiths and that we are to worship no other God, (or god, whatever your preference may be)and even calls them abominations in his sight. My point was that nowhere in the New testament Bible does it advocate Christians to do horrible things to each other. The scripture I used to illustrate this point is one of many that tells us this. It tells us not to be a party to other beliefs but never tells us persecute other beliefs. And Christians as a whole have been far more persecuted, even today, than any other group worldwide. Of course that's not the case here in the states because we are still primarily a Christian nation, however that is sadly changing. In the Old Testament, Moses had a couple million disorganized and shell shocked slaves that he had the charge of maintaining order over. That's why the laws were harsh and very legalistic, at that time that's what was needed.
As for me not proving the existence of my deity, I can never prove it to anyone who does not want to see Him (or him whichever you prefer). Just like I lived as an Atheist/Pagan/Wicca/Satanist for much of my life, and sounding much like yourself in the process. God does not force himself on anybody, and we should not force ourselves on anybody. But telling somebody about something is far from forcing it on them. But no-one has proved the non-existence of my "deity" either, nor have they ever disproven intelligent design or any other theory related to the origins of this physical world. I guess I'll ask God, or Nigel, or Harriet,whatever you prefer, when I get to meet Him. God,or Nigel, or Bob...(whatever) bless you!
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for all your claims is not on any of us Canadians to disprove, but for you to prove. I'm skeptical of your claim that Christians are being persecuted today. Perhaps in the past that was the case, but last I checked Christians own an entire city state that controlled much of the world's wealth and power for a thousand years or more. Direct some of that persecution complex to a meaningful end and do something about Tibetan Buddhists instead of whinging on about injustices suffered 2000 years ago.
Moreover, I would welcome proof of your deity's existence, but that responsibility lies with you; and until you have some tangible proof, don't keep trying to use misleading arguments to keep the issue alive. Again, enough with the insistent whinging.
I'd very much like to see positive proof of any diety and then decide whether to believe in or worship said deity. Don't you think it is a little preemptive to want to believe and then go find some signs in the physical world that reify your belief? Until there is some sort of epistemologically verifiable evidence that holds up to scrutiny, the responsibility is not on any disbeliever to negate your claim (that because we can't prove god doesn't exist he exists). We're not the ones making the original claim here...
I have t agree with you
I have t agree with you about one thing. The premise that the burden of proof lies with the one making the original claim. That works both ways. For people who are opposed to teaching creation in schools, proove that it didn't happen, and why only Darwinian evolution is the only thing that bears credibility. You will not prove it to me through any of the "evidence" that has been presented on this issue either. You claim God does not exist and that we are following an unverifiable theology. ANY theology is unverifiable to someone who is bent on disproving it. The core of my beliefs is Faith. Faith is being sure of what you cannot see. I can't see Nigel, but I know he's there because I see the fruits of my faith and obedience to his way of living, much of which does not make sense to my brain. Living otherwise felt good before and would be more fun in the short term. You tell me to prove that my beliefs are right, and I say to people who attack my beliefs, prove me wrong. People say that we are trying to force our views on other people. Well, here in the states OUR views came first, to use your argument. Aren't you forcing your views on us when you want to remove the Biblical, moral foundation for our entire way of life?
As for persecution of Christians, it is not a complex as I have no fear of being persecuted in my own land. If I were to go to India, I would be put in jail or worse for my beliefs. I know this first hand as our Church has a very strong ministry and an orphanage operating in India. The indigeonous people who have become Christian Ministers are attacked and arrested on a regular basis. The Ministry team that went over there to train the Ministers in India were threatened with Jail or worse if they opened any of their meetings to the public. I won't even go into what happens to Christians in Muslim nations, and in China. The vast majority of the world's populations live in these regions, and Christians are actively persecuted in all of them. Here in the States and Canada, most of us cannot conceive of what true persecution is like, but it doesn't change the fact that it happens with much greater severity and frequency than you realize.
The Empire you talked about I assume is the Catholic Church, which we can get into another whole discussion about. The Catholic/Jewish/Pagan/Christian Church was established as a political power to dominate over the Roman Empire as the established Religion, similar to what the Jewish religious body was before. So again I agree that this occurred, but had no Biblical support. Eventually, we nasty, "Fundamentalist" Protestants got tired of their corruption and separated from them. That does not mean that Christians as a whole, world-wide were not and are not persecuted far more often and more severely than the other way around. That goes beyond just Christianity. Just go to any of these areas and try to operate a sight like this speaking against Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism and watch how violent their persecution is. Thank Gord that we have a Biblical foundation for a society that allows us to disagree in peace.
To your point
I see what you mean, and to your point, there is a burden of proof required regarding say, teaching of evolution in schools. You note that "For people who are opposed to teaching creation in schools, proove that it didn't happen, and why only Darwinian evolution is the only thing that bears credibility."
You are missing the point. The burden of proof is not on the person denying the claim. The person who makes a claim for something (creation) needs to back it up. If that isn't possible, the new idea takes its place until another better one comes along.
Teaching evolution denies creation myths as necessary for explaining the complexity of life (not the universe's origins, make a note of that) and unless a better myth exists that can account for the complexity of life on this world, evolutionary biology becomes and remains the standard. If there is a better idea, it will be adopted, just like favourable genetic mutations get dispersed into a population of organisms over time. So far, ID isn't demonstrably better, though the political pressures and rhetoric surrounding the issue would make it appear otherwise to the uninformed observer.
Also, I am not bent on disproving the existence of god. That has been done many times and by minds far more capable and suited to such matters than mine. But we can and are functioning as a society without a controlling deity or proscriptive biblical morality (at least my friends, family, and myself are). For me, there is no need for a god or any extra faith over and above my own senses. In other words, I am sure of what I can perceive, and that is the minimum amount of faith required on my part to function in the world as a good and decent person (faith that my senses are generally reliable I mean).
But again, once better data comes along, I can interpret that and augment my sensory apparatus to accomodate it. For example, infrared or x-ray light aren't perceivable by our senses, but we can measure and work with it, and convert it between modalities or isometrically transform it into a form we can perceive.
That argument can lead down a slippery slope if we aren't careful. If you claim that you can perceive god but I can't, then either I lack a god organ and am defective, or I am more evolved because I have dispensed with a god organ. So the best option for both of us is to assume as little as possible about faith, that our senses are reliable, and nothing more.
I'll admit that adding in an external faith variable to an ontology is attractive as it gives a fixed point against which to measure and orient ourselves in the world (meaning). But it creates more epistemological problems than it solves, assuming of course that the whole purpose of the extra leap of faith variable is to "know" god and account for all his mysterious workings. But if it makes your life meaningful, I have no problem with that. But institutionally, there is need for such fancifulness.
Finally, you note that "here in the states OUR views came first, to use your argument. Aren't you forcing your views on us when you want to remove the Biblical, moral foundation for our entire way of life?"
Your views did not come first, there were Aboriginal people scattered across North America, and even their legitimacy as the first settlers of the continent is under dispute. Killing them was an imposition plain and simple. But Christian morality came to dominate (through force) and so the system remained. Now other faiths come along, and atheists too. The First Amendment was drafted to ensure that the balance of power didn't sway too far either way.
But we atheists and those of non-Christian faiths aren't trying to impose. The only intent is to question the relevance of an outdated bronze age desert mythology as the underpinning of society. It isn't needed any more is all, and when you mix in some fundamentalism that goes back to Old Testament prohibitions and morality based on killing or persecuting people for their differences, I'd say that mythology becomes downright dangerous to society.
Moreover, if a faith cannot stand up to questioning, then that faith is perhaps not so well suited to a central role within the legislative and social institutions within a society wouldn't you agree?
The real question I have, I've been saving it to the end here, is what morals are being or have been undermined? Think about it, the moral basis of most societies throughout history have pretty much always revolved around: not killing, stealing, and hurting people, or excessively desiring wealth.
It's easy, no bible needed, just some common sense and decency, a little sharing and all is well. I can do all those things without the bible and live a very meaningful life, so why bother with all that extra superstition/faith cruft at all?
Wow, an Atheist and a
Wow, an Atheist and a Fundamental Christian find common ground! I agree that there will always be changing theories on the complexity and/or origin of life and that is my point. Why can't we teach ALL of the viable theories that are relevant to our society. That would be the truly tolerant thing to do on both sides of the argument.
As for the Biblical, moral foundation of our society, certainly there has been elements of that morality in a majority of the cultures throughout the world. In the beginning of the institution we now live in, it was more than that. As I have said before there never has been biblical support for domination of other cultures by force, but a lot of the indians were not the innocent victims that we tend to think they are. That being said, when I talk about the attacks against that Biblical foundation, I'm talking about the lawsuits that get brought up over a bible statue at the courthouse, or a ten commandments poster that is on display in a public building. These are the foundations and what was used as the foundation for the very legal system that people claim they are trying to protect. I get offended when I see open Homosexuality on T.V., but as a free person, I have the ability to turn it off. I get offended that I can't offer a prayer at my son's school. I get offended when I walk in to a store to buy a coke and all I see in the magazine rack are pictures of mostly naked (or completely naked)people, and articles about infidelity, violence, or other harmful things. But again, I can not shop at that store any more, and I can teach my Children about Nigel at home.
I also agree with you that change in ideals is inevitable, and ultimately the most palatable one to the masses at the time will prevail. I see our culture declining from what it once was and it will continue to decline, feeling great the whole time. We are a relatively young society founded under certain principles and ideals and that is changing. The Persian Empire, the Greecian Empire, and the Roman Empire all did the same thing and ultimately fell to outside forces, although they existed far longer than we have. But they ultimately fell as a result of these changes and destroyed them selves from the inside out. We are no different.
While I have very pure, Christian, beliefs, I also believe that we should and can find a common ground and still maintain the core moral values that kept our society together. Fundamentalism is very different from Extremism, even though the two are sometimes used interchangably.
As for Faith, I guarantee you that you operate in faith every day beyond what you can see. You go to work and operate on a budget based on the faith that you will be paid a certain amount of money for your efforts. You don't see that money ahaid of time, but you have faith that it will be there based on a promise. We make plans days even months ahead of time with the faith that we will be here in the morning. We accept things that are taught to us in school about things that happened and people who existed long before we ever existed. All without seeing any of these things ahead of time some not ever being seen at all. People live in faith beyond what they can see, we have to, it's just a matter of what we put our faith in.
Past and Present Tense
"As for Faith, I guarantee you that you operate in faith every day beyond what you can see. You go to work and operate on a budget based on the faith that you will be paid a certain amount of money for your efforts." Based on past factually verifiable experiences.
"You don't see that money ahaid of time, but you have faith that it will be there based on a promise." Based on past factually verifiable experiences.
"We make plans days even months ahead of time with the faith that we will be here in the morning." Based on past factually verifiable experiences.
"We accept things that are taught to us in school about things that happened and people who existed long before we ever existed." Based on past factually verifiable experiences.
"People live in faith beyond what they can see, we have to, it's just a matter of what we put our faith in." Past, factually verifiable experiences?
I don't know that the sun will actually rise tomorrow, and I go to sleep at night relishing the fact that it might not. But based on past experiences, it will. I don't call that faith god. I call it having faith in my past sensory experiences of the sun rising at a particular time of day, everyday. That's the faith I'm talking about, it is the most minimal amount necessary for my continued day to day existence. I don't dispute the need for faith in some form, just the amount required.
There is no tangible proof of god to my knowledge, and until there is, I cannot operate (make future plans etc.) based on a lack of past factually verifiable experiences. Maybe that's a problem with my particular world view that makes a distinction between past, present, and future, but I've made it this far with a minimum amount of faith (call me solipsistic if you must) and am happy and enjoy my life and family and friends, and they would say the same. What more is needed?
True, you CONTINUE to
True, you CONTINUE to operate in set of circumstances based on past factually verifiable experiences. This is no longer faith, but believing that something exists a certain way based on your senses. But you had no past factually verifiable experiences the FIRST time you went to work, or the FIRST time you accepted something you were told. The first act of stepping into something without any factually verifiable experiences was done in total faith. Continuing in that activity was based on receiving something after the fact that supported further action or belief in the situation. If you had gone to work the first day and never gotten paid, you wouldn't go back to work, at least not there. We are told that man went to the moon, and we (at least most of us ) believe that, but I did not personally see anyone go to the moon. The reason I believe it is because of the evidence that has been presented later that supports it. Again we all have to operate in faith at some point. The reason we continue is because we have later received evidence that supports it. This is now belief, not true faith. Again it is simply a matter of how much faith we have and what we put our faith in. Without ever taking that first step of faith, we will be very limited in what we receive or accomplish. I would never have anything if I held the mind set "prove to me I'm going to get paid this week and then I'll come to work for you".
Judgmental Indeed!
Yes, I am Judgmental. I am judgmental of people who try to force their religious views on others. I am judgmental of people who want to legislate what a woman can and can't do with her own body. I am judgmental of people who want to subvert government with religious ideals. I am judgmental of people who wish to undermine science education with the pseudo-science of creationism and intelligent design. I am judgmental of people who spew hate towards homosexuals. The bottom line is that I am judgmental of people who just can't keep their religion to themselves. And if it weren't for the current Fundamentalist assault intended to limit the freedoms of people to live their lives as they see fit, I wouldn't be sitting here typing this reply on an atheist blog. Sometimes you've got to fight fire with fire.
There is a big difference
There is a big difference between hate and speaking out against a harmful lifestyle being openly embraced and actually endorsed by the mass culture. As for religious ideals and Government, well that is why this country exists in the first place and why we are even able to have this discussion. The idea was separation of CHURCH and state, not separation of GOD and state. And in case you want to place in the Hate class, I have many Hoomosexual friends. And they all know I love them but don't agree with their lifestyle. Two of my closest are dying of AIDS as a direct result of their lifestyle. God or Nigel or Fred.....well, the one you all dont think exists, bless you.
Am I missing something?
"Polytheistic religions worship many gods, and the bible acknowledges this, but they fail to worship The God who created all of the others."
So what, all the gods who were worshipped before your god came on the scene were just stand ins? Why would any god let another do something like that? How about Isis and Ra and Horus? They were around at least 1200 years before the old testament earth even began... What about Anu and Ishtar? Odin? Zeus? Crap, don't forget about Rudra/Shiva.
The list goes on and on and on. The point is that any faith that claims to have the one true god is entirely self-aggrandising and perhaps borders on megalomaniacal. How does one really know? Is it because the bible is supposed to be innerant?
Also, after reading Exodus chapters 3 and 4 again, and seeing how doubtful the author(s) made Moses of god, I think that he isn't self-absorbed at all, but is entirely insecure. Why else would he have to constantly reassure Moses that he was who he said he was? Isn't god's existence supposed to be self-evident? God even goes on to say that people won't believe Moses. Why not just exercise some of that omnipotence and make them believe? Seems a little passive-aggressive as well as insecure.
And finally, relax. Gord and Nigel mean well I'm sure. We're just having some fun with them, and any Gord or Nigel worth any praise would certainly welcome a little light-hearted fun don't you think? If not, then that Gord or Nigel isn't worth a pile of gopher poop, and I'll gladly live in permanent celestial serfdom to avoid having to grovel before a self-indulgent and petty, or insecure and/or narcissistic god like Larry.
P.S. (Watch out for Harriet, when she sets her mind to it, she's capable of some wickedly vicious smiting. She's definitely not worth your time, you'd best move on).
Whew
I think we all need for Harriet to provide Beer after all this "Whinging".....:)
One quick question...As much
One quick question...As much as I enjoy intelligent conversation about all of these topics, why is it there is nothing on your site trying to debunk, or poking fun at, or attacking other belief systems in the world? When I called myself an Atheist I wasn't just against Christianity. Surely you can find something to debunk about Islam, or Hinduism (maybe you have an affinity for cows as well), or Buddhism all of which encompass much more of the world as a whole than Christianity....or is Christianity truly a threat to your world view and the others aren't.....why would that be?? Hmm, these responses should be interesting..
A Quick Response
My off the cuff response is that I have no regard for belief in any supernatural being, Christian or otherwise. But it is Fundamentalist Christianity that I have been personally closest to. Christianity has been and continues to be the most influential religion in N. America and currently poses the greatest threat to limiting our freedoms if the separation of church and state is not maintained. Eventhough the other major religions do influence so much of the rest of the world, I don't perceive them as having that same threat.
Other religions.
Basically what Rolf said...
Christianty is a powerful political force in North America; not so strong in Canada, but then there is the Christian Heritage Party. The discourse for teaching ID in schools is mainly a Christian phenomenon.
On my blog, there is a post about the Indian gov. basically deferring to the sensibilities of Hindus regarding a dam near a holy site, and I've been meaning to post stuff on the silly Shariah laws that have an English teacher in Sudan arrested because her class named their teddy bear Muhammad. But when this story was breaking I was busy having revelations of Nigel, and dreams of Nigella Lawson which were always interupted by Harriet.
Post new comment