Who is the bigger blasphemer?

Originally posted by Agerg
Is it me, who claims that the god put forward by Bible literalists isn't just irrational, but is completely and totally daft?

or is it the fundamentalist theist, who claims that there exists a god that really *is* as daft as they claim!?


Can you imagine some god cringing up there in the clouds as people tell tales about all the "clever" things he's don ...[text shortened]... HIS IS HOW YOU REPAY ME!!??? by making everyone think I'm an idiot!!??? 😠 😠 😠 😠 RAGGGGHHHHH"

Agerg, may I ask you one question: What do you see when you look at yourself in the mirror? You seem distraught.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Very good, Joe. I agree.

Glad you and Joe are here.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t believe that.

But even if the revelation were directly from G*d, in words chosen by G*d—and even ignoring issues of translation, and metaphorical language and such—it is, I believe, self-deceptive to think that one does not interpret (and choose particular meanings from those available in the given words and phrases) as one reads. Even if the wo ...[text shortened]... who has chosen for them. Translation just exacerbates all that.

Hi, Joe. Hope you are well.

"I don’t believe that." vistesd, you assent to the presence of human volition; follow on question: what do you "believe"?

Originally posted by Agerg
Is it me, who claims that the god put forward by Bible literalists isn't just irrational, but is completely and totally daft?

or is it the fundamentalist theist, who claims that there exists a god that really *is* as daft as they claim!?


Can you imagine some god cringing up there in the clouds as people tell tales about all the "clever" things he's don ...[text shortened]... HIS IS HOW YOU REPAY ME!!??? by making everyone think I'm an idiot!!??? 😠 😠 😠 😠 RAGGGGHHHHH"

You are right to finally understand the falsity that is Christianity and Islam and Judaism etc.

Now instead of just walking away...................you must seek out TRUE religion.

The sincere and honest man shall find it..............and be pleased.

Originally posted by Dasa
You are right to finally understand the falsity that is Christianity and Islam and Judaism etc.

Now instead of just walking away...................you must seek out TRUE religion.

The sincere and honest man shall find it..............and be pleased.

Now you are being ignorant and dishonest. You ignore the falsity of the Vedas. 😏

Originally posted by vistesd
Rather like Zen koans: using words to “point to” what cannot be properly described.

Even pointing to, is a description of sorts, and thus definitional.

As a nondualist, what I call G*d is not likely what josephw, say, means. But I have argued at length before that the word—in other languages—has been used going back to ancient times to mean other things than the conventional god of supernaturalist dualism.
I see nothing wrong with a word having multiple meanings depending on context. Nevertheless, it must either hold some meaning, or be meaningless. Thus either the Rabbi must be content with it being meaningless, or he must be merely putting a limit on the specificity of the word. Surely that limit is arbitrary? Surely we can claim the Rabbi is an idolater too?

Originally posted by Agerg
Well if I was able to speak dog, and I created the entire universe, and I wanted dogs to tell tales about how awesome I was, and worship me, and so on and so forth ... and instead they all walked around with the passionate belief that I routinely do stuff that is thicker than the least of them. Then yeah ... I'd be pretty damned p!ssed at the dog that made a l ...[text shortened]... out of me, and those perpetuating it (it'll be poodles I'll wager ... can't trust any of them!)

yes, you force the idea of god to be an insecure egotistical little child who can't stand anyone having anything but the best opinion of him. so naturally he will be pissed with blasphemers.


i am asking you to look at it from another perspective. i am asking you to consider god as a hyper intelligent being. and THEN consider what traits would he have. do you, as an intelligent being, get upset at a dog which has a bad opinion of yourself? does neil degrasse tyson or bill nye get upset because hovind or hamm have a bad opinion of them? or do they simply not care?

i would go so far to say that tyson is actually amused by hovind

Originally posted by Suzianne
Dogs understand having an unconditional love, and therefore, in some respects I can see dogs having a better understanding of God than some people do.

so what you are saying is that the dumber you are, the more "understanding" you have of god?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so what you are saying is that the dumber you are, the more "understanding" you have of god?

No, I'm not saying that at all, and so you're still going to have to work on your understanding.

I can only assume that you miss the entire point of my post, which was unconditional love, on purpose, in order to make some nebulous point of your own. Well, try again.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, I'm not saying that at all, and so you're still going to have to work on your understanding.

I can only assume that you miss the entire point of my post, which was unconditional love, on purpose, in order to make some nebulous point of your own. Well, try again.

What "understanding of God" are you claiming dogs have?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even pointing to, is a description of sorts, and thus definitional.

[b]As a nondualist, what I call G*d is not likely what josephw, say, means. But I have argued at length before that the word—in other languages—has been used going back to ancient times to mean other things than the conventional god of supernaturalist dualism.
I see nothing wrong ...[text shortened]... y of the word. Surely that limit is arbitrary? Surely we can claim the Rabbi is an idolater too?[/b]

The JWs claim Jehovah is the name of God. When I respond with Exodus 3:13-14 of the King James Version of the Holy Bible giving the name of God, robbie carrobie says that makes no sense.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Does Jehovah make sense? What say you?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"I don’t believe that." vistesd, you assent to the presence of human volition; follow on question: what do you "believe"?

I think (believe) that it is not heresy to say that G*d cannot be known as Joseph asserted. The basis for that disagreement, in to context of his post, is that twofold: (1) I think that whatever revelation (if there is such) is of necessity subject to human interpretation (and thus it is those interpretations that we really debate on here); and (2) I think, with scholar of Judaic Studies David S. Ariel, that the Hebrew Scriptures represent the religious mythology of the Jews, not a literalistic disclosure of historical fact (either about the people or the divine). [Not that there may not be historical fact embedded therein.]

I do not hold mythology to be meaningless, just a different kind of discourse that, like poetic metaphor, has to be interpreted according to its own literary devices. (I prefer the word “story” to “Myth”, just because I think it is a broader term.)

Hi Grampy. Hope you are well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even pointing to, is a description of sorts, and thus definitional.

[b]As a nondualist, what I call G*d is not likely what josephw, say, means. But I have argued at length before that the word—in other languages—has been used going back to ancient times to mean other things than the conventional god of supernaturalist dualism.
I see nothing wrong ...[text shortened]... y of the word. Surely that limit is arbitrary? Surely we can claim the Rabbi is an idolater too?[/b]

[b]Nevertheless, it must either hold some meaning, or be meaningless.[//b]

Of course. That is just tautological.

I might be confusing things (since this is the kind of thing that you and I are usually in some agreement on), so I will try to clarify. I think our potential disagreement is centered on that word “definition.” So, I have committed the “sacrilege” of consulting the dictionary—for illustration.

The Oxford English Dictionary—here:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/48886?redirectedFrom=definition&

—offers 6 definitions of “definition”. I’m not saying that’s exhaustive, but gives some range. Which of those definitions of “definition” is closest to how you are using the word? Which do you think is closest to how the rabbi and I are using the word?

Originally posted by vistesd
Which do you think is closest to how the rabbi and I are using the word?

Probably 4b.
I am basically saying that the Rabbi is claiming we can say nothing about God, yet the very word must have meaning and thus be saying something about God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The JWs claim Jehovah is the name of God. When I respond with Exodus 3:13-14 of the King James Version of the Holy Bible giving the name of God, robbie carrobie says that makes no sense.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall sa ...[text shortened]... children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Does Jehovah make sense? What say you?

ehyeh asher ehyeh: I am that I am, or I will be what I will be, etc. (The Hebrew is in the imperfect tense, signifying uncompleted or continuing action—there is no present or future tense in the classical Hebrew, per se.)

YHVH: a 3rd person verb construct from ehyeh meaning “who is”, that is”, etc.

YHVH is taken as a name (names in classical Hebrew often, if not always convey meaning—in this case just uncompleted or continuing being or “beingness” ). But it is really a verb, not a noun.

Most Bibles substitute the word “LORD” for YHVH, in view of the traditional prohibition on pronouncing it. The New Jerusalem Bible uses “Yahweh” (though that may not be the way it was pronounced, and there are some arguments against it). An Orthodox Jewish Tanach that I have substitutes the word hashem, which literally means “the name”, but is used as name. Liturgically, Jews use “Adonai” (lord), but non-liturgically Hashem is the more often used word. Richard Elliot Friedman, in his translation of the Torah, just keeps YHVH.*

“Jehovah” is just a Latinization of YHVH, with vowels added for pronunciation.

_____________________________________________________

* An interesting aside on this: YHVH is all consonants—but happen to be the consonants that, in classical Hebrew, can sometimes be used as vowels. As all consonants, it is literally unpronounceable, but whether any, or all, of those letters were understood as vowels is unknown.