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?

[brunumb]

When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.

Why should one love God? Even more pertinent is how can one be commanded to love?

[Mithrae]

> 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?

Personally, I like the way that synoptic Gospels put this. When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

However, I dont think that the synoptic gospel writers, or Paul and John for that matter, presented this is the only things we need to know from God. All of these writers wrote quite a bit more, and (if the accounts are true) Jesus taught quite a bit more than just that one commandment. Jesus himself considered it the second commandment, not the first and greatest commandment. So it seems that all these writers believed that we need more from God than just "love one another."

That we need more? Obviously they all thought that further information was useful, but necessary to live well and be 'saved'? Paul wrote that even without the Law of Moses and without its 'love your neighbour' command at all some gentiles "show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness." Luke's parable of the good Samaritan presumably could be extended to most other perceived heterodox religions such as monotheistic Vaishnavism, possibly Buddhism, or certainly Islam. As I quoted, John wrote that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" and his cryptic comment via Jesus that "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold" perhaps suggests something similar to the good Samaritan story. If anything I think a good case might be made that not even "you shall love your neighbour as yourself" as a divine command in so many words was considered necessary by these authors, as long as that's what was in folks' hearts.

Jesus' words on the 'first commandment' were actually what got me thinking and led to this thread; what does it even mean to "love God with all your heart etc."? Alone that's vague enough that anyone could choose to make it mean virtually anything - and indeed many have throughout history, as highlighted in the OP - but surely in contemplating the unknown of God we should begin with similar steps or perhaps even more caution (or reverence) than we would with a mere human.

• Mithrae wrote:
  Without some coherent, unifying principle or guideline on what is good and what is evil the deceitful hearts of men could easily be just as savage as the letter of the law itself! So then what is sin? Paul claims that "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"" (Gal. 5:14); in one version of the golden rule Hillel the Elder, the grandfather of Paul's purported mentor Gamaliel, said "That which you hate do not do to your fellow, this is the whole of the law; the rest is commentary, go and learn"; similarly Jesus, when asked about the 'first commandment' cited "love your neighbour" alongside love for God. Seems to me that there is no better biblical perspective on sin than this: Sin is unloving behaviour, simple as that. Sin is harming our fellow man. Sin is adultery or greed or murder or genocide. And for that matter sin is slandering God with claims that he commands genocide; personally as an agnostic I'm pretty wary about abuse of "love 'I am who I am' your God," but flippantly associating God with various images, names, words or commands (Deut. 18:20) is one of the most clearly-emphasized no-nos in the bible! Perhaps your reason and conscience will reach a different conclusion on that last point... maybe it's okay to associate images, words or commands with God on the basis of even a rather shaky chain of written claims?

When outlining the basis for the final judgement, Matthew's Jesus ignores religious devotions entirely and refers only to treatment of and compassion towards other people, explaining that "just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (Matthew 25). As you've probably read in some of my other posts, Jesus' perspective on "love your neighbour as yourself" is one which precious few Christians (or non-Christians) ever bother to take seriously. As John the apostle put it, "How does Gods love abide in anyone who has the worlds goods and sees a brother in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action" (1 John 3). As John the Baptist put it, according to Luke, "the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise"" (Luke 3). Rather than telling people to repeat that process coat by coat and loaf by loaf as long as there remained people in need somewhere in the world, Jesus simply took it to its logical conclusion and told people "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Mark 10) and "none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions" (Luke 14).

Anyone who has read the gospels and taken them even remotely seriously should surely be praying that a more vague sense of 'love your neighbour' is all that's actually needed and that Jesus' radical logic on that basis falls short of divine command. Most Christians seem to use their idea of 'loving God' as a replacement for Jesus' take on loving your neighbour, and 'believing in Jesus' as a replacement for doing what he actually taught!

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

They teach that we can gain guidance from God by directly asking God for guidance.

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

There seems to be an important theme of God giving guidance directly to those who ask Him.
Psalm 32:8
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Cannon also suggest that we can seek guidance by looking at the whole of the Cannon instead of just a few lines.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

2 Timothy was probably written by an imposter of course, and that verse arguably stands in contrast to Paul's views regarding "a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3) and "we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (Romans 7). No doubt any time-honoured words, 'Scripture' or otherwise, are worth reading to see if there's anything we can learn directly from or in contrast to them. But you never actually answered my first question: What kind of proof would you require before assigning words to God, or in this case before declaring words to be "God-breathed"? What threshold of evidence is required before it becomes acceptable to say that anyone - let alone a God of love - actively orders and engages in acts such as genocide and eternal torture? Those are the kinds of things which can be found in both the Hebrew and Christian canons, so even if that verse from 2 Timothy were important enough to heed you'd still be left with the question of what is it that legitimately constitutes 'Scripture.' Just popularity contests among the historical sects which were most successful in surviving (or wielding) the sword?

Those other verses you've cited sound quite similar to what Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews and Paul had to say about the 'new covenant'; guidance from God directly, in his people's hearts and minds rather than through the written letter. But that obviously stands in stark contrast to what many Christians believe regarding the bible. Priests and pastors in particular would seem to have a particularly strong vested interest in avoiding or downplaying verses like "they shall not teach one another or say to each other, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer. 31) and "As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you" (1 John 2)

[Mithrae]

The people claiming divine revelation in Genesis or Chronicles or Matthew (which the authors themselves never presumed to make) are not dead - as far as I can tell, you for one are alive and well ...

So all the excessive verbage aside, you are basically unhappy people like myself believe the bible (all the books in the bible canon) is the word of God. Does that about sum up your point?

I think the word you're looking for is 'verbiage,' my semantically gifted and not-at-all-condescending friend I'm not "unhappy" that some people say that Obama was born in Kenya, but when irrational opinions directly or indirectly have real-world consequences it's often a fact worth highlighting. Assigning words to God - from the Book of Mormon, to the Quran, the New Testament and back to the Torah's incitements to genocide - is often far more consequential than slandering or misattributing words to a mere human, with examples ranging from justification of slavery and the 'curse of Ham,' to bigotry and oppression towards non-traditional sexualities, to division and emotional suffering between family members of different beliefs, to incentivization of a great conflict in the Middle East prophesied as ushering in God's kingdom on earth. "Concerned" might be a better word than "unhappy" here.

And for those who remain unmoved by the human suffering which has resulted from reverence of bibles and qurans, as I highlighted in the OP assigning words to God without grounds is also far more consequential than (and treated with at least equal severity as) the likes of idolatry, assigning a mere image to God.

[JehovahsWitness]

Assigning words to God - from the Book of Mormon, to the Quran, the New Testament , ...

ARE ALL THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE "ASSIGNED" TO GOD?

No, I dont believe so. The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil. I do not claim to "assign God all the words in bible". For example, we read in scripture that the Devil said the following words "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." As read in The New World Traslation that makes 19 words, the writer does not "assigned" to God but "assignes" to SATAN. I believe that To be accurate.

Thus I have demonstrated that all the words in the bible are not as you put it "assigned to God". The writer of Matthew attributes some words in the bible to Satan. I do not believe all the words in the bible were spoken by God, and have never claimed that I do.



JW

[nobspeople]

Assigning words to God - from the Book of Mormon, to the Quran, the New Testament , ...

ARE ALL THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE "ASSIGNED" TO GOD?

No, I dont believe so. The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil. I do not claim to "assign God all the words in bible". For example, we read in scripture that the Devil said the following words "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." As read in The New World Traslation that makes 19 words, the writer does not "assigned" to God but "assignes" to SATAN. I believe that To be accurate.

Thus I have demonstrated that all the words in the bible are not as you put it "assigned to God". The writer of Matthew attributes some words in the bible to Satan. I do not believe all the words in the bible were spoken by God, and have never claimed that I do.



JW

Did Mithrae say ALL WORDs?
I may have missed it but I saw "Assigning words to God...". No mention about ALL.

[Difflugia]

ARE ALL THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE "ASSIGNED" TO GOD?

No, I dont believe so. The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil.

Are you splitting hairs just to be contrary?

Did the entire sentence, including the part in bold, originate with God or not?

And he said to him, "All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Who is responsible for Psalm 14:1 in its entirety?

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

The question implied by Mithrae's statement is if, when the psalmist wrote down that verse, did the verse as a whole originate with the fool, the psalmist, or with God?

[JehovahsWitness]

Did the entire sentence, including the part in bold, originate with God or not?

And he said to him, "All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Obviously not since the ENTIRE sentence includes some words of the Devil in it. The sentence start with the word "And" ... and finished with "me".


Was there a par of "The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil" you were having trouble understanding?




JW

[Difflugia]

Did the entire sentence, including the part in bold, originate with God or not?

And he said to him, "All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Obviously not since the ENTIRE sentence includes some words of the Devil in it. The sentence start with the word "And" ... and finished with "me".

So, if I say, "JehovahsWitness said, 'There is no evidence that bananas exist,'" who is responsible for which words?

Was there a par of "The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil" you were having trouble understanding?

If you're not intentionally misrepresenting the spirit of Mithrae's comment out of pique, then I'm not the one that's "having trouble understanding" the conversation.

[Mithrae]

Assigning words to God - from the Book of Mormon, to the Quran, the New Testament and back to the Torah's incitements to genocide - is often far more consequential than slandering or misattributing words to a mere human, with examples ranging from justification of slavery...

ARE ALL THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE "ASSIGNED" TO GOD?

No, I dont believe so. The bible contains words spoken by Almighty God and words spoken by humans and words spoken by Satan the Devil. I do not claim to "assign God all the words in bible".

All your attempts to snip out and misrepresent fractions of a sentence seem to be tripping you up a little. Earlier you snipped and declared:

"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.

I accept everything written in the bible as a genuine revelation from God.

Not just the books in some general sense, but an underlined everything written in the bible was a genuine revelation from God, a few days ago. Now you seem to be saying that some things in the bible are from mere humans, or even from Satan himself! Maybe you are tripping yourself up over a confusing and so far unjustified doctrine (or perhaps just tripping yourself up in a pattern of obfuscation and diversion)... or maybe this change of tack is a genuine sign of progress? Let's see...

One biblical author writes:
"Daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
Blessed will be one who repays you
With the retribution with which you have repaid us.
Blessed will be one who seizes and dashes your children
Against the rock." (Psalm 137:8-9)

Is this a genuine revelation from God, that killers of children in the service of retribution will be blessed?

Or is it an outpouring of very human grief and anger, words spoken/written by humans as you've suggested? And if so, is there any reason to suppose that stuff like Paul's epistles for example are anything more than an equally-human expression of his own thoughts and theology? (As pretty strongly suggested by the fact that only on one or two occasions does even Paul himself claim to be offering more than his own views, most clearly in 1 Cor. 7:10-12, 17, 25.)

[JehovahsWitness]

Now you seem to be saying that some things in the bible are from mere humans, or even from Satan himself!

I can't help what it seems like to you, your conclusions are your own and I take no ownership of them. If you have any questions about anything I've written, feel free to ask.



Regards



JW