Does God need a name?

[marco]

God told Moses He was best described by the verb to be but did not dwell on the phonetics of the tetragrammaton. Before Moses rushed off to tell people he'd been talking to YooHWhoo, or whatever vowels should be divinely inserted, he had just a tiny fear folk would say he was lying. So God allowed his rod to turn into a snake, which is apparently the standard proof of a divine appearance.

Why does God NEED a name?

Is the transforming rod convincing, thousands of years on?

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning in it?

[liamconnor]

God told Moses He was best described by the verb to be but did not dwell on the phonetics of the tetragrammaton. Before Moses rushed off to tell people he'd been talking to YooHWhoo, or whatever vowels should be divinely inserted, he had just a tiny fear folk would say he was lying. So God allowed his rod to turn into a snake, which is apparently the standard proof of a divine appearance.

Why does God NEED a name?

Is the transforming rod convincing, thousands of years on?

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning in it?

Is this not a lot of disparate questions?

Why does God need a name: to differentiate himself from the other named deities of the time; perhaps to identify himself with the deity of their heritage.

The rod: what do you mean by "convincing"? I doubt any professed Jew or Christian is such because of that narrative.

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning: why do we need to find a figurative meaning at all?

[marco]

Is this not a lot of disparate questions?

If you mean different questions -yes, they are different. I avoid asking the same thing three times.

Why does God need a name: to differentiate himself from the other named deities of the time; perhaps to identify himself with the deity of their heritage.

Intriguing. That would seem to suggest one accepts Yahweh is on a par with the others - that is, fictional; or, other gods are on a par with Yahweh - that is -it's accepted there are many gods.

what do you mean by "convincing"? I doubt any professed Jew or Christian is such because of that narrative.

Have a try at taking its normal meaning.

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning: why do we need to find a figurative meaning at all?

To rescue the tale from childishness, as with the creation of Adam. "Hi, Moses, I'm Jimmy - let them all know," needs some figurative input. I'm using the ridiculous to indicate the ridiculous.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

liamconnor wrote:


Why does God need a name: to differentiate himself from the other named deities of the time; perhaps to identify himself with the deity of their heritage.


Intriguing. That would seem to suggest one accepts Yahweh is on a par with the others - that is, fictional; or, other gods are on a par with Yahweh - that is -it's accepted there are many gods.

I think it suggests one accepts that God is communicating to slaves of a pre-philosophical age; slaves that believe in the existence of other gods. Slaves whose categories of thought were not prepared to hear the kind of philosophical arguments which you take for granted.

I recommend reading "Before Philosophy".

liamconnor wrote:


what do you mean by "convincing"? I doubt any professed Jew or Christian is such because of that narrative.

Have a try at taking its normal meaning.

I did. It doesn't make sense. I conclude the error is on you.
liamconnor wrote:

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning: why do we need to find a figurative meaning at all?

To rescue the tale from childishness, as with the creation of Adam. "Hi, Moses, I'm Jimmy - let them all know," needs some figurative input. I'm using the ridiculous to indicate the ridiculous.

All that says to me is that you have not read much ancient literature, or perhaps much literature at all. We can start with the definition and examples of Genre

[marco]

I think it suggests one accepts that God is communicating to slaves of a pre-philosophical age;

Exactly, so he has little to say to users of the telephone. Even less if he's a fiction!

Have a try at taking its normal meaning.

I did. It doesn't make sense. I conclude the error is on you.

That's CONVINCING then.

All that says to me is that you have not read much ancient literature, or perhaps much literature at all.

An ad hominem argument concentrates on demeaning the opponent. I don't see a great deal of point in such speculation, especially since it is ludicrously false. Perhaps your other conclusions are in the same category.
We must take the train back to our original discussion.

Take care.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by liamconnor]

All that says to me is that you have not read much ancient literature, or perhaps much literature at all.

I had to read this many times to understand it, and I am still not sure.
Did you really just accuse marco of not having a background in ancient literature?
Are you sure you are responding to the right thread?
Have you ever read anything by him?

It may take a week or so to understand marco's alliterative summations, but his education and positions based on this background are astounding.

Perhaps, you should go through what he claimed again, and de-confound using your own illustrious understanding.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

Quote:
To rescue the tale from childishness, as with the creation of Adam. "Hi, Moses, I'm Jimmy - let them all know," needs some figurative input. I'm using the ridiculous to indicate the ridiculous.

All that says to me is that you have not read much ancient literature, or perhaps much literature at all. We can start with the definition and examples of Genre

I admit you tempt me into ad hominem arguments more than anyone else on this forum, and that is my fault, not yours. I appreciate the correction.

I do not doubt your education in general; however, your attacks against certain biblical narratives suggest your education lies elsewhere (Roman and Greek rather than Semitic). You accuse the Genesis creation as "childish". And this would be true if a literal reading were the only or even the obvious reading of this story. But have you never read other interpretations which place the story in the same world as the epic of Gilgamesh or other creation myths and read it in light of these? Or Do you dismiss these interpretations because the literal reading has the most hermeneutical power, or because the literal is easier to ridicule, etc. etc. ?

[marco]

But have you never read other interpretations which place the story in the same world as the epic of Gilgamesh or other creation myths and read it in light of these? Or Do you dismiss these interpretations because the literal reading has the most hermeneutical power, or because the literal is easier to ridicule, etc. etc. ?

I have studied Sumerian, and astonishingly managed to translate portions of poetry, so I bumped into Gilgamesh, Ur and Sargon.

As a teenager I discussed Genesis with a Jesuit, who pointed out to me the richness of a non-literal, poetic interpretation of Adam. That is all ye need to know, as Keats said.

I think you get confused with my frivolity. A good definition of satire is "mocking a folly out of fashion." There are reports that Christ was not put on a cross, nor could he have carried the tree that bore him, and nails would have been hammered in ineffectually. The Life of Brian satire conveys absurdity by using humour. I am far, far short of emulating greatness, but I try to convey some points as far as the restrictions of my brain allow. Hence my approach to the naming of God.

[liamconnor]

But have you never read other interpretations which place the story in the same world as the epic of Gilgamesh or other creation myths and read it in light of these? Or Do you dismiss these interpretations because the literal reading has the most hermeneutical power, or because the literal is easier to ridicule, etc. etc. ?

I have studied Sumerian, and astonishingly managed to translate portions of poetry, so I bumped into Gilgamesh, Ur and Sargon.

As teenager I discussed Genesis with a Jesuit, who pointed out to me the richness of a non-literal, poetic interpretation of Adam. That is all ye need to know, as Keats said.

I think you get confused with my frivolity. A good definition of satire is "mocking a folly out of fashion." There are reports that Christ was not put on a cross, not could he have carried the tree that bore him, and nails would have been hammered in ineffectually. The Life of Brian satire conveys absurdity by using humour. I am far, far short of emulating greatness, but I try to convey some points as far as the restrictions of my brain allow. Hence my approach to the naming of God.

Would you regard the same kind of satire on the side of Christians to be honorable and equally valid?

[marco]

Would you regard the same kind of satire on the side of Christians to be honorable and equally valid?

If I didn't I would be hypocritical. I relish any rhetoric, well written, from either side. I read copiously accounts from both sides and I am not beyond "redemption". From time to time I defend the Christian side when I see it is wrongly assailed.

When I present a topic I am as interested in the rejection of the proposition as I am in its acceptance. So in one of my ruminations, after reading some author, the question of God's name came into my head, and the word was made print, if not flesh. Go well.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 29 by marco]

I suppose my problem with your style of rhetoric, is that it often either implicitly excludes Christians, or forces them to implicitly accept something they do not believe.

For instance, you write,

A boy, a girl, a young man were brought to life from the dead, witnessed by crowds. Do these clearly fictitious events destroy Christ's credibility?

How is a Christian to enter this discussion. Obviously if they didn't happen, they destroy his credibility!