-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who is God?
- Thread starter enchanted_one1975
- Start date
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
There would be a beginning and an end. It would just mean the beginning is also an end and the end is also a beginning. So both beginning and end would be simultaneously be end and beginning respectively.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
But personally, I think this is the beginning of the end of my contributions to the ending of this thread. But I look forward to a new beginning.
Baydwin
Well-Known Member
I thought "God" was just the English translation or cognate for deus. So Christians calling their god "God" is essentially the same as Muslims calling their god Allah, lit. "the god". Right?
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
Wow...I started this thread just to make people think a little. Now we have over 200 replies. Either I got lucky and picked something good to discuss or Thoth has, yet again, given me great inspiration. 
I think I will be giving the credit to Thoth.
I think I will be giving the credit to Thoth.
godnotgod
Thou art That
...which brings one back to the fact that, in reality, there is no actual beginning or end, this being the true nature of the divine essence. "Beginning" and "end" are but concepts, and not real at all. There is just this eternal Present Moment.
If we understand the statement:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega"
...to mean either that the deity has no beginning and no end, or, that it does, is to become side-tracked.
The verse in Revelations might instead have read something like:
"I have existed eternally, without beginning nor end"
But even that is incorrect. The true nature of the divine essence has neither beginning nor end, nor not-beginning nor not-end.
The verse implies that the speaker is the only one that is the Alpha and the Omega. Anyone who has attained union with the Infinite can indeed make the same claim. To realize that your true nature is Unborn; that it emerges out of this eternal Present Moment; that it is Universal; that it has neither beginning nor end, is Nothing Special. It is just the way things are in actual reality. If everyone's true nature is without beginning or end, then why make the statement as if it were something extraoridinary? It would be like someone saying: "I am The Human". Everyone is. After all, the point of all religious endeavor is to realize union with the Infinite, and that means that the distinction between self and other; between the Miraculous and the Ordinary, becomes completely dissolved.
Is'nt that what we all really want?
Isn't that what we already have?
***********
"The Kingdom of God is within you"
JC
"Tas atvam asi" (Thou Art That)
Upanishads
"God became man that man might become God"
St. Athanasius
"The eye with which you see God is the same eye with which God sees you"
Meister Eckhart
**********
"Say... Did you know that THE Messiah was also A messiah?"
Last edited:
IndigoStorm
Member
I'm not supposed to know this cos I'm an atheist so I googled:
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]
phokist33
Member
It's because they couldn't think of a cool name, similar to how you run into men some times who's name is guy. The one who named him didn't know what else to call him.
It can also be compared to native americans. like when they saw the first train, they called it iron horse, nothing else made sense to them.
It can also be compared to native americans. like when they saw the first train, they called it iron horse, nothing else made sense to them.
MountainHumanist
Member
bit of trivia: When you see the word LORD written in all caps in the Bible, that is a stand-in for the "unnameable" name of their God YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah).
Thief
Rogue Theologian
My copy reads differently...I Am that I Am.
It's more a statement of existence than anything else.
It also presents the notion that calling God by any name is a bit demeaning.
godnotgod
Thou art That
"Christianity began to die in the moment when theologians began to treat the divine story as history--when they mistook the story of God, of the Creation, and the Fall for a record of facts in the historical past. For the past goes ever back and back into nothing; it never leads to its Creator; to its explanation--at least not in the backward direction. For the past is the creation, the empty echo of the Now. Time does not flow forward from a Creator who made the world; it flows backwards, like the tail of a comet, from a Creator who makes the world, and whom no one can remember."
Alan Watts, "Myth and Ritual in Christianity"
"This hawk of truth is swift, and flies with a still cry, a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night"
Alan Watts, "Myth and Ritual in Christianity"
"This hawk of truth is swift, and flies with a still cry, a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night"
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
To some extent, we all create God in our own image.
Ah, that's why god is so damned good looking!
godnotgod
Thou art That
sonofskeptish
It is what it is
Perhaps god has no name 'cause he didn't have parents to name him.
jaareshiah
Member
The God that Abraham worshiped is Jehovah, with his name in the Bible in the form of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Abraham said to the King of Sodom: "I do lift up my hand in an oath to Jehovah (YHWH) the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth, that, from a thread to a sandal lace, no, I shall take nothing from anything that is yours."(Gen 14:22, 23)
However, at some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of Gods true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly called the Old Testament, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.
More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name, such as the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danbys translation of the Mishnah states: And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever! (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.
Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty unless he pronounced the Name, and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to say expressly what he had heard, presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those that have no share in the world to come, states: Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters. Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God], the example of Boaz (Ruth 2:4) then being cited.Berakhot 9:5.
Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalems temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces.
(source of information - Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2)
However, at some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of Gods true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly called the Old Testament, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.
More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name, such as the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danbys translation of the Mishnah states: And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever! (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.
Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty unless he pronounced the Name, and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to say expressly what he had heard, presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those that have no share in the world to come, states: Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters. Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God], the example of Boaz (Ruth 2:4) then being cited.Berakhot 9:5.
Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalems temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces.
(source of information - Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2)
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't feel like slogging through 22 pages to see if this has been said, so forgive me for any repitition.
My understanding is that "God" is not the Name. The Name of God cannot be spoken. Sometimes this takes the form of prohibition, which results in using honorifics such as Adonai, Lord, or simply God. However, another expression of the tenet is the belief that to know the Name is to know God in full. In Islam, the ultimate goal of many mystics is to learn (or perhaps experience) the Hundredth Beautiful Name, the true Name.
DISCLAIMER: I'm neither Abrahamic myself nor an expert, and my information may be flawed.
imaginaryme
Active Member
god is
That is not dogma, that is saying all that needs be said about god; and my reason for making such a statement is based on my philosophy. Truth only exists in philosophy, but that is not a means of saying my philosophy is true; what is being stated is that for rational debate to occur, it must be based upon philosophy. A recurring theme in religious debate is the substitution of "being right" with "knowing truth," and this error is expressed within the concepts of "greater good, lesser evil, absolute truth;" all of which deny the fact that truth is absolute.
This is why taoist and Buddhist philosophies are not limited by mere "religion;" and that there is no conflict when truth is understood. I understand Christianity and the Western mindset, and the conflicts that arise when causality is misunderstood. So; if I may be so bold, I would offer these words of Jesus (with my philosophy in parentheses):
I am (god, the being, the eternal, the universal consciousness) the way (tao), the truth (philosophy), and the light. (Buddha) I would contend that one attains God through Jesus through becoming Jesus rather than preaching gospel, but that's just me.
That is not dogma, that is saying all that needs be said about god; and my reason for making such a statement is based on my philosophy. Truth only exists in philosophy, but that is not a means of saying my philosophy is true; what is being stated is that for rational debate to occur, it must be based upon philosophy. A recurring theme in religious debate is the substitution of "being right" with "knowing truth," and this error is expressed within the concepts of "greater good, lesser evil, absolute truth;" all of which deny the fact that truth is absolute.
This is why taoist and Buddhist philosophies are not limited by mere "religion;" and that there is no conflict when truth is understood. I understand Christianity and the Western mindset, and the conflicts that arise when causality is misunderstood. So; if I may be so bold, I would offer these words of Jesus (with my philosophy in parentheses):
I am (god, the being, the eternal, the universal consciousness) the way (tao), the truth (philosophy), and the light. (Buddha) I would contend that one attains God through Jesus through becoming Jesus rather than preaching gospel, but that's just me.