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?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #1]

Real or not, the idea of a creator god is one of the grandest and loftiest things we could ever try to conceive

Maybe. Grand for sure. But the ideal of infinite space, other possibilities and what ifs, for me, trumps any god creation, even if by the smallest of margins.

if God actually does exist, how could our tiny brains come even remotely close to comprehending her?

No way no how. At least by today's mental capabilities. Maybe sometime in the remote future, assuming humanity lasts that long.

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!

Absolutely, mostly out of necessity I'd think, not out of want.

what is the threshold of certainty or evidence we should require before assigning words or commands to God?

It depends on the person I'd guess. Some need more, some need less, some need nothing.

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?

For me, I don't see anything I need from God. Want? Sure. Need? No.

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?

I don't see being honest (assuming we are) about our ideals and perceptions of God have to do with any respect to/for God. To me, God isn't that important, though I know not everyone sees it that way.

[JehovahsWitness]

The most miserable failure however hasn't been in the area of assigning images or names, but in assigning words and commands to God"

FALSELY assigning words and commands to God would indeed be reprehensible and somewhat harmful. But that doesnt mean God doesn't have the right to "assign" words to himself (God).



Indeed, If there is an all powerful Creator, then He would obviously be capable if communicating using words. If God did choose to transmit his thoughts, name, words and commands to humanity, there is no reason to consider such a phenonemen a "miserable failure " ?





RELATED POSTS


Which of the many gods proposed by religions is the TRUE God ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p991368

Go to other posts related to THE DIVINE NAME , LORD and ...GOD

[JehovahsWitness]

.. 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!

I wouldnt disagree that most if what has been said and written about God has been the result of human thinking. That said however, logicially an omnipotent Creator would be capable of accurately communicating information about Himself in a way we can understand and accept.

Since we have reason to believe He has indeed chosen to do this, it is for each individual to make the needed effort to seek truth.




JW



RELATED POSTS

In what what manner does God reveal religious truths?
viewtopic.php?p=900951#p900951

For more information please go to other posts related to...

GOD, TRUTH and ...RELIGION

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

If God did choose to transmit his thoughts, name, words and commands to humanity, there is no reason to consider such a phenonemen a "miserable failure " ?

Why not? Surely he could be more direct, yes? Why all the smoke and mirrors without being direct?

People say if aliens landed on the White House lawn, it would go a long, long way in proving, to the masses, of their existence. Same could be said of God, honestly. Why not be direct and make it so that there's no doubt, only allowing for those who out right deny him?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

If God did choose to transmit his thoughts, name, words and commands to humanity, there is no reason to consider such a phenonemen a "miserable failure " ?

Why not? Surely he could be more direct, yes?

If He is omnipotent he could indeed be more direct. Logically then, if an omnipotent God isn't always direct it's because he doesn't want to be.

Why not?

Possibly because He is not interested in having a relationship with people that insist He has to be more direct than he has been already.

...Why not be direct and make it so that there's no doubt, ...?

Biblically because his existence is not the major issue; Satan is not an atheist. The main issue is not God's existence it is His sovereignty.





Why believe in any gods at all?
viewtopic.php?p=998032#p998032

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE TRINITY

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #6]

an omnipotent God isn't always direct it's because he doesn't want to be.

Then we would have to question 'why' as the below quote doesn't seem very loving at all, really (to me at least)

He is not interested in having a relationship with people that insist He has to be more direct than he has been already.

Biblically because his existence is not the major issue

Being that the bible doesn't make sense to much of the human race, I'd disagree that it is a major issue no matter the qualifying context one wants to attach to it.

Satan is not an atheist.

Neither are agnostics

The main issue is not God's existence it is His sovereignty.

But first one has to believe and accept he exists at all. That comes before any talk of sovereignty.

[JehovahsWitness]

The main issue is not God's existence it is His sovereignty.

But first one has to believe and accept he exists at all. That comes before any talk of sovereignty.

Biblically speaking, those that do not recognize God's existence aren't even in the conversation. Atheists are like the children that are in the room while surgeons discuss an operation, their input is not required before the serious issues at hand are dealt with.

EPHESIANS 6:12

because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.

JW

[brunumb]

If He is omnipotent he could indeed be more direct. Logically then, if an omnipotent God isn't always direct it's because he doesn't want to be.

[Why not?]

Possibly because He is not interested in having a relationship with people that insist He has to be more direct than he has been already.

I am always a little amused by those who attempt to read the mind of their God. If we want to actually consider logic, then the reason that God isn't direct in his interactions with people is probably because he doesn't exist.

On the issue of this omnipotent deity having a relationship with humans, you really have to wonder why. He plonks a few hapless individuals on a largely uninhabitable rock in the middle of nowhere, hides himself outside of spacetime, and then wants a relationship with them. It's a bit like me wanting to have a relationship with the ants that occasionally invade my kitchen, or with my pet rock. The ants and Rocksy have an advantage over God in that regard because they are actually there. Rocksy even answers my prayers to the same extent that God allegedly does.

It's also something of an indictment of this all-loving deity that he denies his relationship to those, who through no fault of their own, have brains that require more than hearsay to believe he exists. And, if faith is a gift from God, he should be prepared to give it freely.

[Difflugia]

Biblically speaking, those that do not recognize God's existence aren't even in the conversation. Atheists are like the children that are in the room while surgeons discuss an operation, their input is not reqired before the serious issues at hand are dealt with.

Yeah. The atheists would have no idea what kind of bird to sacrifice on the patient's behalf or which toe gets anointed with the lamb's blood. It's best to leave that stuff to the professionals.