God Is a Problem

[Hockeycowboy]

Judaism never accepted the notion that God could have a son...still less a human one...before, during and after the emergence of Christianity such an idea would have been heretical to Judaism. That is not merely a different way of worshipping...it is entirely incompatible concept of deity.

That's why the claim that Jesus was God's son was so shocking...a Jew claiming to be God's son...there was nothing that could have confronted their notion of deity more profoundly than that. They could barely get their theological heads around it.

And I haven't even got to the trinity yet...do JWs worship the same God as their mainstream Christian counterparts? From the JW perspective, is the trinitarian apostasy really just another way of worshipping the same and "only true" God? (John 17:3)

I don't think so...I see at least three distinct and mutually exclusive concepts of God in the respective traditions of Judaism, mainstream Christianity and Christian unitarianism such as that of JWs. And we are still talking only about the Gods of Biblical traditions.

Are Muslims also worshipping the same God in a different way...

What about the God of the Ba'hai faith with its "manifestations" - they would really like to hear that you think they're worshipping the same God in different way - but I reckon theirs is yet another manifestly different concept of deity than any of the traditions they have attempted to syncretize...

Etc.

We weren’t discussing Bahai’s, trinitarians, or Muslims; we were talking about the Jews, specifically, and JW’s as Christians.
And I meant to clarify those differing ways: comparing their way of worshipping Yahweh, through animal sacrifices required by the Mosaic Law, with the different path that Jesus was about to inaugurate: through faith in His sacrifice.

Different ways to worship Yahweh, yes…. But it’s still Yahweh.
I only know of 2 religions that worship Yahweh / Jehovah : Jews/Israelites, and JW’s.

The other religions don’t. Muslims worship Allah, & trinitarians worship Jesus. I’ve never heard a Bahai speak of worshipping Yahweh.
Why would you even bring them up?

 

[siti]

@Hockeycowboy we have gone way off topic with this...but you need to be careful you don't fall in the same trap that your evangelical counterparts do...taking obviously figurative language literally...I'm pretty sure you know that both angels and Adam were never thought to be actual Sons of God in the sense being made of God-stuff, as it were...

In Judaism, God is absolutely indivisible...there is no prospect of God having actual familial descendants...the idea of God having a real "Son" was and is heretical...it is opposed to their concept of God.

...but it is a defining feature of yours...if God does not have a real Son...well that's just not the God you believe in...is it?

Your God is not the same as the God of Judaism.

 

[siti]

We weren’t discussing Bahai’s, trinitarians, or Muslims;...
Why would you even bring them up?

If you go far enough back in the discussion, my point was that even among the so-called Abrahamic faiths, when people say "God" they mean quite different things. You have attempted (at some length) to show that two of them really mean the same thing...they don't...but even if they did, the others certainly, and by your own admission, do not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God can be called a “father” because father just means “life-giver”, nothing more. No coitus required.

Your God is not the same as the God of Judaism.

Exactly the same One. YHWH. The God of King David, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. The One who gave Israel the Law.
Why do you want to dispute that?

If you go far enough back in the discussion, my point was that even among the so-called Abrahamic faiths, when people say "God" they mean quite different things.

Yes, I agree. Many worship Jesus, but Jesus worshipped His Father (John 20:17;John 17:1-3); JW’s follow Jesus’ example.We try.

You have attempted (at some length) to show that two of them really mean the same thing...they don't

Yes, I was quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, mainly to show that ancient Israelites used their God’s Name. JW’s feel it’s important too, per the Scriptures I quoted.

And many Abrahamic-based faiths have deviated from those Scriptures, even taking the Tetragrammaton ie., God’s Name, out of His own book, over 6800 times!

That’s on them. Removing the Tetragrammaton, and then replacing it with LORD… and people in Christian lands are taught “Jesus is Lord”, so they think, “oh, that’s Jesus”, but it’s not.
More misinformation & confusion.

Have a good day.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Hockeycowboy we have gone way off topic with this...but you need to be careful you don't fall in the same trap that your evangelical counterparts do...taking obviously figurative language literally...I'm pretty sure you know that both angels and Adam were never thought to be actual Sons of God in the sense being made of God-stuff, as it were...

In Judaism, God is absolutely indivisible...there is no prospect of God having actual familial descendants...the idea of God having a real "Son" was and is heretical...it is opposed to their concept of God.

...but it is a defining feature of yours...if God does not have a real Son...well that's just not the God you believe in...is it?

Your God is not the same as the God of Judaism.

I showed you Hebrew Scriptures where the Israelites wrote that angels were “sons of God”. Job1:6 was one.

If their descendants (Jews) don’t want to accept that, then they’ve deviated from their own writings. It seems you overlooked that Wikipedia article, why?

Even back in Jesus’ day, there were sects among the Jews…. no consensus. It’s even more so today.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God is absolutely indivisible

Yes, Deuteronomy 6:4

 

[PearlSeeker]

What does "God" refer to in your religion or culture?

Do you agree that use of the term is problematic outside of your own religion or culture? If not, how do you reconcile the differences? If so, what do you think can be done to communicate what is being referred to in interfaith dialogue or conversations with the non-religious?

In my culture it usually refers to Christian God.

Yes, I agree the term is problematic in interfaith dialogue. What can be done? Other terms can be used: supreme being, ultimate reality, superhuman being...

 

[siti]

It seems you overlooked that Wikipedia article, why?

I try to make a habit of overlooking Wikipedia articles. But in this case, I didn't...I made this comment on it (worth repeating for your benefit I think):

but you need to be careful you don't fall in the same trap that your evangelical counterparts do...taking obviously figurative language literally...I'm pretty sure you know that both angels and Adam were never thought to be actual Sons of God in the sense being made of God-stuff, as it were...

 

[paarsurrey]

God Is a Problem

One G-d (Allah) solves the problems, please, right?

Regards

ooo
My cherry pick page-1

What does "God" refer to in your religion or culture?

Is religion not a set of beliefs?

Of course religions are sets of beliefs. So are ideologies and several other non-religious entities.

"Religion" is indeed a difficult term to define.
It is arguably used improperly more often than not, and more useful for its abuse than for its proper use.

I give the etymology of the word "Religion" and or "دين" and or "dīn/deen" :-
دين
" Arabic[edit] Etymology 1[edit]
A historically conflated term derived from multiple layers of phono-semantic matching:

• Initially stemming from Proto-Semitic *dVn- (“obligated conduct; decisions of morality or ethics, judgement, decree, ruling”), where in Arabia it took specifically the foremost connotation of obligations, duty, what is expected or owed; hence also the sense of a monetary debt along with that which is owed to society ethically.
• Cognate terms in other Semitic languages also came with a more developed legal sense, rulings, a set of obligations, a law code; these senses were bolstered semantically borrowing from Aramaic דִּינָא (dīnā), Classical Syriac ܕܺܝܢܳܐ (dīnā, “judgement”), Hebrew דִּין (din), Ge'ez ደይን (däyn, “judgement”), which likely had their specified development from Akkadian https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dīnum#Akkadian (dīnum, “judgement; legal practice, precedent; legal case; court conduct, procedures, rule of law”). Another possible layer still is the term Sumerian https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/#Sumerian (di /⁠did⁠/, “lawsuit, trial; legal decision”) which is a term of uncertain origins; potentially an early Akkadian borrowing, at least semantically, or natively derived from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/#Sumerian (di, “to speak”), a form of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/#Sumerian (dug₄ /⁠dug⁠/, “to speak, talk, say; to order, to negotiate”).
• The sense of religious creed or a system of religious rules is borrowed from Middle Persian [Book Pahlavi needed] (dyn' /⁠dēn⁠/), which developed from Old Persian https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&redlink=1 (d-a-i-n /⁠*daina-⁠/, “a religious-informed or conscientious way of life”), which underwent influence from Akkadian when the Achaemenid Empire incorporated its Semitic kingdoms. Developing also from Younger Avestan https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&redlink=1 (dēnā), a term already having a predecessor with a religious sense in Avestan https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/#Avestan (daēnā), which is possibly akin to Sanskrit ध्यान (dhyāna), whence zen. This possibly derives in part under the influence of Elamite, developing from the Akkadian legal sense; religious obligation to deities, the system or conduct of the priesthood regarding divinities.
• The Qurʾān and later Islamic scholarship adds an additional layer of phono-semantic matching, melding the native significations with the connotations imparted by the languages of their neighbors, both from the Semitic family and those not. دين - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

" دین / dīn
"For the Muslim majority – either practising or culturally Muslim – of the Persianate world, the word دین/dīn ‘religion’ needs no explanation. Unknown to many, however, is that دین/dīn is not an Arabic word, but a Persian one.
Many Muslims know that the translation of دین/dīn in یوم الدین/yawm al-dīn ‘Judgement Day’ is different from the ‘usual meaning’ of the word, but few have asked why. In fact, they are two words. دین/dīn meaning ‘judgement’ is of Semitic origin and native to Arabic (from the triliteral root د-ي-ن/d-y-n). دین/dīn meaning ‘religion’, however, is a loan from Persian, more precisely, the Middle Persian dēn (another well-known attestation is the Sogdian cognate δēn). The Semitic scripts closely associated with Iranian and Persianate world, namely the Hebrew/Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, as well as the Sogdian and Pahlavi scripts derived from Semitic, tend not to distinguish the long [eː] and long/short [i(ː)] in writing, which explains why the Arabic letter ي/yāʾ is used to write both the long e and the long [iː] (in older manuscripts, also the short ) in New Persian, which probably gave the initial impetus to the merger of these two sounds in Iranian Persian (which famously does not distinguish شیر/šēr ‘lion’ from شیر/šīr ‘milk’ phonetically, which are spelt identically), as well as the merger of the Semitic دین/dīn ‘judgement’ and the Iranian dēn>دین/dīn ‘religion’ in Arabic.
Indeed, the Arabic دین/dīn ‘religion’ is unattested in other ancient Semitic languages, but دین/dīn ‘judgement’ is. The Akkadian word dīnu ‘verdict, decision, judgement, punishment, law’ (Gelb et al. 1959), the Hebrew word דין/dīn ‘judgement’, the Aramaic word דין/din with the same meaning, the Syriac ܕܝܢ/din, again with the same meaning, are tell-tale. Interestingly, in a cross-linguistic twist of fate, the Biblical Hebrew word for ‘law, decree’, דָּת/dād, which gave the Modern Hebrew דת/dat ‘religion’, was a loan from Middle Persian word dād (spelt dʾt or dʾd) ‘justice, (religious) law’ (>New Persian داد/dād)."

دین / dīn

For the Muslim majority – either practising or culturally Muslim – of the Persianate world, the word دین/dīn ‘religion’ needs no explanation. Unknown to many, however, is that دین/dīn is not an Ara…

vajabaz.wordpress.com

religion (n.)
c. 1200, religioun, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "action or conduct indicating a belief in a divine power and reverence for and desire to please it," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion, relegion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).
This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.
In English, the meaning "particular system of faith in the worship of a divine being or beings" is by c. 1300; the sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
also from c. 1200

religion | Etymology of religion by etymonline

"state of life bound by monastic vows," also "action or conduct indicating a belief in a… See origin and meaning of religion.

www.etymonline.com

Right?

Regards

 

[sayak83]

No, not the being, deity, concept, or whatever you call God, but the name itself, especially in interfaith discourse or when speaking to the non-religious.

I've seen "God" (note the capitalization rendering the word a proper noun) used to describe everything from a personal deity, to a creator, to an underlying substratum for reality, to existence itself, and many things between. Yet people use the word even when their religion or culture has another name for it.

An example off the top of my head is Ramakrishna apparently referring to Nirguna Brahman as "God" in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Of course, what he means is understood by Vedantins and probably most Hindus, but the meaning of the term is likely lost on people outside of this subset.

What does "God" refer to in your religion or culture?

Do you agree that use of the term is problematic outside of your own religion or culture? If not, how do you reconcile the differences? If so, what do you think can be done to communicate what is being referred to in interfaith dialogue or conversations with the non-religious?

Well, as you know, in Hinduism Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahmana, Ishwara and Devas....all have been translated as God or god's at one time or the other.
I would prefer to expand the English word God or gods as any entity, being, presence or principal essence that humans find worthy of veneration, reflection, prayer or meditation. So it will obviously be very different among different traditions and subtraditions. But that makes comparative religion and theology useful. If the differences did not exist, why the need of discussion or debate?
Somewhat like dark matter we have a functional similarity ....any entity, being, presence or principal essence that humans find worthy of veneration, reflection, prayer or meditation.
But just like multiple diverse candidates have been proposed as dark matter candidates, so too multiple conceptions of God

 

[LuisDantas]

@paarsurrey

I have on occasion seen claims that it may be misleading to extrapolate from (say) Christianity to Islam, because Islam is a "deen" (sometimes explained as meaning "a way of life"). You are describing that term and its etimology in the previous post, and that is certainly fair.

I will however point out that the actual pratical meanings of all of these words - religion, deen, dhyana, zen, dharma - and several others are simply not all that stable even within any given family or community of practice. They also vary along time and even emotional state.

Islam generally sees itself as a religion or deen that is built around a perceived need to obey the will of God (Allah). That is one perspective, which in itself will originate several subvarieties of its own based on comparably less determinant differences of perception.

In that, Islam is not at all unusual. Every religion, deen, dharma, etc will have its own perspective and it will be divided by its turn. That may be challenging, but it is not wrong. It may even be necessary for the well-being of the religion itself, even if that may appear counterintuitive.

I do think that the initial meaning of "deen" that you describe is perhaps the most commendable if we want to define what it means to be a religion; religions as I view them do indeed need and value the ability to make judgement calls and to establish ethical values.

At the end of the day, that is all the same just my take on the matter. Others will disagree, perhaps fiercely - e.g., by insisting that a religion must have and value a god-concept of some sort to be a religion at all.

If there is some sort of consensus on this matter, I don't think I have met it. At some point I decided that it is not worth putting much energy in attempting to find it or (perhaps worse) build it either.

Instead, I think we should simply be well aware that those words have significantly different meanings for different people and cultures, and attempt to explain from which perspectives and premises we make our claims and statements.