Images, names and words of God

[Mithrae]

As a theist-leaning agnostic, there are still some things from ancient Hebrew religious tradition which I find quite interesting or even profound, at least in concept. For example in the story of how Jacob got the name Israel, after wrestling with God Jacob asks for his name and is rebuffed (Genesis 32), and eventually in the story of the burning bush when Moses asks God what his name is the answer is simply "I am who I am" (Exodus 3), offered as an explanation for the divine 'name' Yahweh. Similarly in the ten commandments and elsewhere we see prohibitions against both using any kind of image to represent God and against misusing the name Yahweh (Exodus 20). As with images and names, associating God with words or commands falsely was treated as deadly serious: "any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speakthat prophet shall die" (Deuteronomy 18).

Real or not, the idea of a creator god is one of the grandest and loftiest things we could ever try to conceive, and as such can have incredible power over individuals and societies at large. The idea of God can and has been used as the basis for people
- selling all their possessions to give to the poor, or
- slaughtering neighbouring peoples down to the last woman and child, or
- devoting their lives to fighting injustices and oppression, or
- sacrificing their own children in offering or appeasement, or
- committing mass suicide to be closer to God....
At the same time however, if God actually does exist, how could our tiny brains come even remotely close to comprehending her? Genesis 1 claims that humans were created in the image of God, but surely we have pretty good reasons for suspecting that most if not everything that humans have said since then has been more a case of creating God in our own image, or at best bringing him down to our own meagre level of understanding!

The prohibition of images and coyness surrounding the 'name' of God may well have been intended (at least at some point in the development of the Torah) to offset that inclination; to at least mitigate people's tendency of bringing God down to our level and thinking that we know what he is like. If so that seems like a very wise idea to me. It hasn't been very successful of course: The Tanakh records that use of images in worship was more or less commonplace throughout pre-exilic history, and Christians for the most part have been more than happy to portray God as a big old man in the sky extending a fleshy appendage down to Adam. Ancient Jews invented all kinds of different names for God which Christians have upheld, and some Christian sects even make the supposed 'name' of God one of their key points of focus.

The most miserable failure however hasn't been in the area of assigning images or names, but in assigning words and commands to God; that is where the real consequences are to be found, the sacrifices and bigotry and oppression and wars and genocides. And the good things too, the uplifting or inspiring things; but what good things do we really need taught to us as commands from God? According to the apostle Paul, only one thing; "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"" (Galatians 5). The apostle John agreed; "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4). Hillel the Elder - the grandfather of Paul's purported mentor Gamaliel and an older contemporary of Jesus - reportedly put it a little differently but more clearly "That which you hate do not do to your fellow, this is the whole of the law; the rest is commentary, go and learn." And of course in his own, positive formulation of the golden rule, Jesus is reported as saying "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7).

What do we really need beyond those words, even for those convinced that God is watching and judging their every move? Or more to the point, what is the threshold of certainty or evidence we should require before assigning words or commands to God? That passage in Deuteronomy 18 offers one disqualifying criterion - if a 'prophet' says things which aren't true then they are not speaking for God - but it seems that many Christians and Jews don't bother applying that standard even in the most blatant cases, such as Ezekiel's false predictions that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt and destroy Tyre for all time (Ez. 26-29, notably 29:18 where the 'prophet' even admits his own failure!). It seems that religious believers are happy to assign words to God even when they are brazenly and obviously false, as this and plenty of other biblical examples show. But even if that were not the case, surely the low bar of just avoiding disqualifiers like obviously false claims would not be enough to be confident that a command comes from God.


Given what a serious issue some passages in the Torah treat it to assign images, names and words to God - and that of these, assigning words to God can and historically has had the most devastating real-world consequences, by far - surely anyone with even a smidgeon of respect for the reality or even just the idea of God would demand a very high bar before assigning words to him!

> If you believe (contrary to Paul, John etc.) that we need something more from God than "love one another," what kind of proof do you require before taking that deadly serious step of publicly assigning words to him?

> If we see people assigning words to God based on flimsy pretexts - even such vile accusations as genocides and eternal torture - does that tell us anything about their respect for God, relative to human institutions and traditions?

> Do the Hebrew or Christian canons suggest any other way of seeking or receiving guidance from God?

[JehovahsWitness]

That's rather closed mined when speaking of something that's promised to everyone if they simply believe, as Christianity says.

What are you refering to here? What is (in your opinion) is "promised to everyone"? And how does that relate to the issue of universal sovereignty ?




JW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #22]

"promised to everyone"?

Love. Forgiveness for those that ask.

Biblically speaking, those that do not recognize God's existence aren't even in the conversation.

Why not? Are they not worthy? Or are they not indoctrinated enough? (clarified error in case it was confusing originally)

And how does that relate to the issue of universal sovereignty ?

Love? It doesn't I suspect. What I was referring to is that one has to believe in God in order to believe in the sovereignty of him. But I'm even more curious about the bolded term above. What is that?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #22]

"promised to everyone"?

Love. Forgiveness for those that ask.

Bibically, God doesn't love the wicked, he hates violent people. Forgiveness is not pomised to everyone and neither of the above impacts on my point about universal sovereignty.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Biblically speaking, those that do not recognize God's existence aren't even in the conversation.

Why not? Are they not worthy? Or are they not indoctrinated enough? (clarified error in case it was confusing originally)

That too but then none of us'are "worthy" according to scripture. The the question is not, can I convince atheists I exist, an omnipotent God can settled that issue in a nanosecond. If we are here 6,000 years and counting it is to see it demonstration that only He has the RIGHT to rule. This is not settled by a vote, it is not settled by a consensus, and it certainly will not be settled by those don't even know there was a question in the first place, it will be settled by mankind's collective history and that [for] all eternity.

JW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #24]

God doesn't love the wicked, he hates violent people.

Violent people, or the violence people do? The term violent can be ambiguous. What constitutes violence to allow you to make sure a claim, outside of biblical references?

Forgiveness is not pomised to everyone

I don't think I said everyone, I think I said everyone that asks.

neither of the above impacts on my point about universal sovereignty.

Two points: 1) You never addressed (that I saw) what UNIVERSAL sovereignty is or means and 2) in order for one to recognize God's sovereignty they first have to believe in him, do they not?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #25]

can I convince atheists I exist, an omnipotent God can settled that issue in a nanosecond.

Can, yes. Done so? Absolutely not. Not to everyone.

If we are here 6,000 years and counting it is to see it demonstration that only He has the RIGHT to rule.

wording here seems odd. Are you saying we've been here so long that it demonstrates he has the right to rule (whatever right to rule means)?

it certainly will not be settled by those don't even know there was a question in the first place

That seems to mean there are some that he hasn't shown himself as it's worded here. Is that correct or can you clarify without preaching (which is against the rules if I remember right)?

it will be settled by mankind's collective history

History is full or religions, beliefs and the lack of. Mankind's history means nothing other than man has had a history filled with all sorts of things, some of God some not of God.

and that or all eternity

A lot of nonsensical words as far as I can tell. What does that even mean?!? Surely, we have no grasp on eternity - our brains can't handle such a concept.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #24]

God doesn't love the wicked, he hates violent people.

Violent people, or the violence people do?

PSALMS 11:5 - GOD'S WORD Translation

The LORD tests righteous people, but he hates wicked people and the ones who love violence.

VAROUS OTHER TRASLATIONS

NWT

Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one; He hates anyone who loves violence.

Contemporary English Version
The LORD tests honest people, but despises those who are cruel and love violence.

King James 2000 Bible
The LORD tests the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves violence his soul hates.

[JehovahsWitness]

and that or all eternity

A lot of nonsensical words as far as I can tell. What does that even mean?!?

Sorry that was a typo, should read " .... and that for all eternity."

And how does that relate to the issue of universal sovereignty ?

Love? It doesn't I suspect.

Obviously you know what universal sovereignty how else would you be in a position to suspect what does or does not relate to it? For example, I don't see how one can say "I suspect a computer doesn't relate to the issue of whether harvesting should be seasonal" if you dont know what a computer is?

If one don't know what is being discussed, one can have no meaningful input as to the the conclusions drawn.



JW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #29]

[quoteObviously you know what universal sovereignty how else would you be in a position to suspect what does or does not relate to it?[/quote] You're confusing yourself. No where did I say I know what UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY is. I actually asked YOU what it is.
Now then, if you're simply adding a descriptor to the word SOVEREIGNTY, that's something altogether different. Until that's clarified, I can't comment further.

If one don't know what is being discussed, one can have no meaningful input as to the the conclusions drawn.

Exactly. So please clarify what UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY is, as that's a two word descriptor I've not heard in ANY Christian teaching.

[Mithrae]

.In the case of the bible itself, as I showed, a fairly clear disqualifying criterion is listed in Deuteronomy 18 ... surely we have pretty good reasons for suspecting that most if not everything that humans have said since then has been more a case of creating God in our own image, or at best bringing him down to our own meagre level of understanding!

Evidently you feel that the bible itself contains enough information to make a "a fairly clear " assessment of what is not genuinely from God. You claim "we have pretty good reasons" to conclude as to what is false. Whatever is not disqualified by said criteria and reasons from being from God, would evidently qualifiy by that same merit. Deuteronomy to which you refer presents both criteria and methodology on the question of whether a Prophet speaks for God, the inference being : he who is not proved fake qualifies as genuine.

You've quoted half a sentence about Deuteronomy from post #13, snipped the rest and the subsequent sentence (which pretty much refute your whole post), and instead spliced in some unrelated comments from post #1. I really don't know what you thought that duplicity was going to accomplish?

"Yahweh says that the position outlined in the OP is correct." Since that is not proven fake by the criteria of Deuteronomy 18, I take it that you accept this as a genuine revelation from God? It's got even better credentials than most of the bible, since unlike most of the bible this comes 'in the name of Yahweh' as Deut18 stipulates.

... claiming the Bible/Quran/Tripitaka/etc. to be from God is equivalent to if not worse than idolatry

Idolizing what? Claiming a letter is from one's uncle is not idolizing one's uncle (or the letter). Would it be idoliizing if God DID communicate is word to mankind in written form? God either has or has not communicated his words to mankind. In either case I cannot see the link between the above and idolatry.

it's assigning an even more specific and even more consequential 'shape' to how we think about the ultimately Unknowable

That may (or may not be) the case, but that is not idolatry.

I said that this (false prophecy, technically) is equivalent to if not worse than idolatry, "unless a rather high bar of proof were met" to confirm that they are in fact the words of God. Your habit of seeing and quoting only the fractions of a sentence that you want to see really isn't accomplishing much beyond forcing needless repetition.

What is the most evil thing you can imagine?

How would you respond to someone who said that God does that? Would you just take their word for it, as long as some other Jehovah's Witnesses said it was right, or would you reject it pending some serious proof?