BS: Theology question

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:32 PM

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me

That doesn't say there aren't any other gods, nor even that you may not worship any other gods. It's merely that (S)he is the really respectable, important, powerful one, "the real McCoy", as it were, who is entitled to and DEMANDS primacy.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:47 PM

Bushy white eyebrows?

LOL!!!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:02 PM

Yuh; I was raised with the standard belief that the Bible consistently "says" that there is only one God. It took a long time before I realized that the natural reading of a number of Biblical stories is not that the other gods didn't exist, but that Jahweh could whup all of them at once with just a flick of his bushy white eyebrows.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 12:38 PM

Which "we" is that, Les?

The spectrum of understanding <==> abysmal reactivity is wide and deep and our current 6,697,254,041 souls are sprinkled all along and across it.

We all have our tokens, wards, icons and mechanisms.

( Of course, I agree it is a profound error to run around waving bad maps and claiming they are actual territory.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 12:26 PM

I am constantly amazed by the number of people who believe all this stuff. Have we learned nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 11:03 AM

I don't see how that business about children of a lesser god is a metaphor, Tug.What is it supposed to convey? It is an acknowledgement of the existence of other ,but lesser, gods, surely. I am the lord thy god and I am a jealous god said Jehova in the Ten commandments . He didn't actually say that he was the only god . I'm sure he would have done if that's what he had meant at the time.

Here's a list of the different gods mentioned by name and described as gods in the bible. See: http://www.bobgod.com/other.html
Astroloth - Judges 2:13, Samuel 7:3-4
Baal - 2 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 17:1, 18:17-19; 2 Kings 1:2-5; Jeremiah 9:13-16; Hoseah2:2-13, 14-22
Baal-zebul - 2 Kings 1:2-5
Bel - Isaiah 46:1-4 (also in apochraphal chapters removed from Daniel)
Beelzebul - Mark 3:22
Chemosh - Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24
"Day Star" and Dawn - Isaiah 14:12-15
Hadad-rimmon - Zechariah 12:11
Ishtar - Jeremiah 44:15-28
Marduk - Jeremiah 50:2-3
Milkom - 2 Samuel 12:30
Nabu - Isaiah 46:1-4
Sakkuth and Kaiwan - Amos 5:26
Tammuz - Isaiah 17:9-11; Ezekiel 8:14-18; Daniel 11:36-39

Also , this is from Psalms 82 : "God standth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods"

I've heard it said-or perhaps read somewhere - that the only truly monotheistic religion is Islam . The Christian concept of the Trinity is seen by many as polytheistic .

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:37 AM

Well, I would say the "sameness" of the entity being discussed is seriously problematic, for one thing.

And for another, my point was that it isn't necessarily an identical referent; that means it could be but does not have to be. The assertion that it just is doesn't change the logic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 09:21 AM

"Mousethief is perfectly correct: the fact that the two groups use the same word for a hypothetical sensed entity does not necessarily mean they sense the same entity or sense it the same way."

The point isn't that two groups use the same word for possibly different entities, the point is that they use different words to describe the same entity.

The common western Myth is that Allah is the moslem god, while God is the christian one.

In fact they are just different names for the same entity as described in their common scriptures and are only diffferent as they are said by people who speak different languages.

Allah = God

Umbrella = Parapluie

etc.



"If all these religions agreed on one god, they'd all belong to the same church."

By that argument, if each of these religions had the same understanding of God within their own scriptures, there would be no divisions within each religion, protestant/catholic - sunni/shiite - etc etc.

But an interesting point that it does raise is how personal our understnding of God is. Each man has his own understanding, sometimes informed by a particular faith or denomination, sometimes informed by their own hearts and consciences.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 08:49 AM

That is a metaphor....the Commandments make it clear that there is only one god, all others being false. Doesn't mean its true, just theologically accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mayomick
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:22 PM

All three religions may worship the same God ,but the bible does refer to other gods - "children of a lesser god" etc .

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

Followers of all three religions would say that they worship the God worshipped by Abraham, and that there is no other God.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:10 PM

If all these religions agreed on one god, they'd all belong to the same church.
When asked what religion I belong to I say I'm a "none". (None of the above).

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 12:53 AM

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 12:04 AM

Mousethief is perfectly correct: the fact that the two groups use the same word for a hypothetical sensed entity does not necessarily mean they sense the same entity or sense it the same way.

There is a good argument in this particular comparison that the two definitions are overlapping, if not identical. That this happens to be the case does not reduce the accuracy of MT's logic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:40 PM

Not at all, Logic says nothing at all, simply reveals what has already been said. It is often vitally important to do this.Once said, it becomes tautological to repeat it. We face the dilemma of being trivially true, or interetingly incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:23 PM

Then, dear Mousethief, you said nothing at all,

Logic is dead, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

Then, dear Mousethief, you said nothing at all, frogprince , however, scoops the prize for meaningful precis of the main points.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 10:43 PM

Ye gods. This is pulling teeth.

I said nothing whatever about whether or not we worship the same God as the Muslims.

I said the fact that we use the same word doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 09:58 PM

Criminey. I have never heard of any Christians who don't firmly avow that they worship the one creator God of the Bible, including the scriptures recognized by the Jews which constitute the "Old Testament" of the Christian Bible. The Islamic faith recognizes Jesus as a prophet, prior to Mohammed, of the same God they worship. Does that sound like it's just a matter of linguistics? The claim by some Christians that Allah is a different god is nothing more than an effort to demonize Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 09:25 PM

Lox: Yes, "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God". The question is, do the Christians and Muslims (and Jews) all worship the same God? The linguistic fact about the words "Allah" and "God" doesn't answer that question. It's a red herring.

This is like pulling teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Lox
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 08:23 PM

A better analogy would be:

John and I are from different cities.

He is from Beijing, but I am from Peking.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Lox
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 08:19 PM

"From this it follows that Ganesh and Yahweh are the same because both are called a 'god' by their followers who speak English."

Bit cheeky this post.

In particular this bit "because both are called a 'god'"

You are comparing chalk and cheese.

I didn't say Allah and God are the same because they are both gods (small g), I said that Allah is the name Given by Arabic speaking Christians to God (big G).

So in fact the distinction between God (big G) and Allah,, is false.

Its like saying that the french have no Libraries, only Bibliotheques.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Gloria
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 08:09 PM

She doesnt have a name

"Nature swears the lovely dears,her noblest work she classes O
Her prentice hand she tried on man, and then she made the lasses O"

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:37 PM

Wikipedia opines..

Allah (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤːɑːh] ( listen)) is the standard Arabic word for God.[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Jews and Christians, in reference to "God".[1][2][3] The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4]

The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) differ among the traditions. In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters - a concept which Islam thoroughly and resolutely abrogated. In Islam, the name Allah is the supreme and all-comprehensive divine name. All other divine names are believed to refer back to Allah.[5] Allah is unique, the only Deity, creator of the universe and omnipotent.[1][2] Arab Christians today use terms such as Allāh al-ʼAb ( الله الأب, "God the Father") to distinguish their usage from Muslim usage.[6] There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur'an and the Hebrew Bible.[7]

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM

If you are an Arabic speaker, you called the Great Spaghetti Monster "Allah", according to the logic herein. No? What am I missing?? :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:07 PM

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic religions; that is, each asserts that only one God exists. Case closed ~ pretty much...

Pastafarianism (Flying Spaghetti Monster worship) also posits that only one God exists. I think it would be grossly mistaken, however, to say that it's the same God as Christians worship. I don't think "these religions all assert that only one God exists" can be taken to be the same thing as "therefore they all worship the same God" if the "God" that each worships is very different from the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:04 PM

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic religions; that is, each asserts that only one God exists. Case closed ~ pretty much...

Of course, each of the three teaches/preaches a distinctly different vision of that One God; indeed, each of the three includes differing factions (sects) who disagree among themselves about the nature of God, and who each claim that they have exclusive access to the "truth" about the Divine.

People of different religions think and behave quite differently when they purport to be "serving God" or following His directives. So, in that sense, each group believes in a God whose attributes differ from those ascribed to Him by others. But each different group believes in One God; they each simply view God quite differently from each other.

So: Theologically, all three of the great monotheistic religions worship the same God, because all assert that there is one and only one God. Practically, it makes a degree of sense to say they each pray to a different "God," because they have such different agendas, different ideas about the nature of that One God.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:02 PM

No, I think that it's a fallacy to say that because people use the same word, they are using it to mean the same thing. I was referring to the logical form, not the content.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:16 PM

"If you are a Christian who speaks Arabic, you call God "Allah""

"From this it follows that Ganesh and Yahweh are the same because both are called a 'god' by their followers who speak English"

mouethief, I don't even know what to call the logical fallacy you've come up with here; do you think that Arabic speaking Christians are inadvertantly addressing the wrong god when they say "Allah"?, or that no Arabic speakers are really Christians, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 01:46 PM

If you are a Christian who speaks Arabic, you call God "Allah"

From this it follows that Ganesh and Yahweh are the same because both are called a 'god' by their followers who speak English.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 12:42 PM

Ooh, never say Case Closed, all kinds of things will crawl out of the woodwork to show you're wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:36 AM

The religions of the middle east all trace themselves to Abraham...who made a covenant with god, Christian accounts claim the boy involved in the sacrifice episode was his son Isaac, through whom Judaism and Cheistianity descend, arab commentators claim it was his son Ishmael, whose line of descent includes Mohammed and the Islamic faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:16 AM

Sorry to be a bore, but the answer to Kendalls original question is simple.

"Allah" is the Arabic word for God.

If you are a Christian who speaks Arabic, you call God "Allah"

Case closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 05:31 PM

Can mean either. Joke's more funnier my way.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 04:49 PM

I thought it meant ass?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 04:25 PM

It's instructive that "fundamental" means "of or like a fundament" and "fundament" means asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 04:16 PM

This thread was fundamentally about whether hte Moslem "Allah" and the Christian/Jewish "God" were the same entity or not (they are), unclear what out of body experiences have to do with that?

WHo put the "mental" in "fundamental" anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:37 PM

More on the fundamentals of this issue.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:20 AM

.. can't shut him up now, for which I'm very pleased. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:13 PM

"at some point, the child learns to speak. some years later they become a teenager and revert to monosyllables, that's another part of the cycle. No amount of intuit or understanding can break through for at least two years..."

TWO YEARS? You got off lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM

Yeah. ;-) It's a lovely experience as far as I'm concerned. I could do with a lot more of it.

I think it is one of the main reasons people get so much joy out of having pets, feeding the birds and chipmunks, watering the flowers, and stuff like that. There's something sacred that occurs in those moments, not necessarily having to do with any deity as such, but having to do with the intimate experience of life itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:38 PM

Bill:

Communicating without any words is the scenario LH was offering. What happens when you have to do this is you fall back on your innate capacity for understanding without the complex process of analog audio symbols and syntax. Very refreshing. It also invokes a certain amount of telepathy depending on the individual.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

"I think you are perhaps dodging my hypothetical question by resorting instead to the usual busy flow of mentalizing about various details and apparent differences which words involve."

*sigh*... I am quite aware of what you were discussing....I merely added a qualifying comment, and THEN I went on to respond to your hypothesis/question about NOT having language.
YOU made the connection in your two paragraphs....first wondering about NO words, then saying "I've been in situations more or less like that with people who didn't know any English, and I didn't know their language either.

If you considered the situation of 'not knowing any English' to be 'more or less like that', my response was perfectly appropriate. If you didn't mean that, your point was not totally clear.....and since I was not there to watch you face and hear the tone in your voice and ASK you to explicate your point, why I just plowed ahead, 'mentalizing about various details ' and replied as best my limited understanding could manage.

Perhaps I shall someday learn to intuit intended meaning thru hyperspace connections and avoid such egregious misunderstandings... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:03 PM

Yeah, I've seen that monosyllabic teenage phase. Been through it myself...and I remember well. ;-) That's what people do when they have an intense desire to avoid communication/interaction with someone else.

People can communicate in a wonderful way with pets, because words don't get in the way. Can you imagine how annoying the average dog or cat could get if they could talk to us in our own language? (!)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:55 AM

Glad you enjoyed him, mousethief. I'm not a little athiette, btw, just an admirer of Phillip Adams :-)

Not a thiest either - maybe a cosmist, if there's such a thing. But definitions, words, you're right LH - if we could communicate via thoughts..

one of the many fantastic experiences when parenting is before the child can speak. A parent talks to their child, and the child understands -but they haven't learnt to speak yet. Yet there is complete understanding.

at some point, the child learns to speak. some years later they become a teenager and revert to monosyllables, that's another part of the cycle. No amount of intuit or understanding can break through for at least two years...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:20 AM

From: freda underhill - PM
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:42 AM

here's an interesting bit of writing by Phillip Adams, an Australian athiest, from just last week..

The Athiest delusion

Thanks for this link. Good read. Adams was pretty good (some errors in logic and fact but not many). Although I will admit I thought less of him when he mentioned Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian -- I chewed that book up and spit it out in college, but that's just me.

But aren't the little atheiettes cute? Trotting out their little platitudes like so many happy puppies and having no idea how they're just like the religious people they so despise? If this is the state of modern atheism, religion is probably still pretty safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:13 AM

I wasn't saying those people I mentioned had "no language", Bill. I was proposing a hypothetical question to wonder about: what if WE ALL had no spoken language, other than sounds (but not words). I merely used the example of people with different languages whom I have met to make a philosophical point about what happens in direct human communication in the absence of common spoken language. I think you are perhaps dodging my hypothetical question by resorting instead to the usual busy flow of mentalizing about various details and apparent differences which words involve.

That is, I think you're looking for something to draw differences between, something to semantically pick apart and oppose on some specific detail. That's what people who deal mainly in words always seem to do. They pick apart things. They look for something to object to in what the other person said.

Think how much time we spend arguing fruitlessly about our mental symbols!

When one is not using words, but communicating intelligently in other ways to another human being, one does not pick apart things in that obsessive mental way that words involve, one integrates things...in my experience. One finds what is in common. And that was my point.

People use words all the time to oppose each other, and in so doing they distance themselves from reality and each other, because words are merely second-hand symbols for reality. We know what reality is, because we meet it directly. Our words, our naming of things, are attempts to render it into complex sets of agreed upon mental symbols...and those symbols are not the reality itself. The can't be. They are a mental abstraction of something that's absolutely self-evident when it's encountered directly.

Example: If I encounter an apple, look at it, pick it up, feel its texture, smell it, and then eat it...I know by direct experience exactly what it is...and in a very intimate way. I know something about it that words can't adequately tell me.

Someone who is very hung up on words, however, only thinks he knows enough about the apple when he has memorized the names of a whole lot of different types of apples and a whole ton of other stuff he's heard about apples or read in a book somewhere. He knows a bunch of words then, a bunch of mental abstractions and formalities....but he doesn't really know apples. Not until he has directly dealt with them and eaten them does he know apples.

People argue about words. They do so endlessly. And in so doing, they distance themselves from reality and from each other...in my opinion.

The fact that I have to talk with you about this using words, via a keyboard, has just chewed up an inordinate of my time which might have been far better spent by...eating a delicious apple! ;-)

My only real concern here is that you should understand the point I am driving at. If that happens, it will have been worth it. If not (shrug), well, then, I've wasted a bit of time, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:57 PM

"I've been in situations more or less like that with people who didn't know any English,.."

Which is not the same as not having 'language'.... they had words, just not your words, and with gestures and pointing we can, if we choose and have some time, easily agree on some words in each other's language.
Not having words yet, and only grunts & gestures is exactly what Chongo's relatives deal with. Other primates don't even have the developed hyoid bone which facilitates speech. It's hard to even develop the idea of gods when the very concept of naming is rudimentary.

(and when *I* am attempting to communicate in this awkward medium, I use every trick I can think of in HTML and using symbols to try to give (see?☺) emphasis and 'feel' to my posts. I want it to sound like I am speaking. Which means I really hate it when folks type with no caps and almost no punctuation. I like KNOWING whether they are teasing or dead serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:56 PM

Which makes me wonder, Bill...what would it be like if we had no words? We would have to rely on eye contact, body language, tone of voice, smiles and gestures and actions to establish communication.

I've been in situations more or less like that with people who didn't know any English, and I didn't know their language either...and you know, the emotional communication was very good (and positive) in those situations, because the complexities of human language and all the mentalizing that goes with it didn't get in the way to distract us and create an artificial emotional distance.

That's something we can't do when typing to one another via computer keyboard. That's why face to face communication is so much better. In the absence of words, one has to face another human being directly. It demands greater openness and permits less evasion.

People hide behind their flood of words.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:49 PM

Nawww, Amos.... when I observe beauty, I am just channeling Plato's 'forms', with sub-context by Aristotle.....(he said, with tongue pressed firmly into cheek)

'beauty' is one of them 'ostensive' concepts....and in some ways it is actually semantic/linguistic. Very handy that many of our nerve channels are stimulated in a similar manner, huh? .....and that we have a word we agree on to refer to the experience.