Is Jehovah Really

[William]

Is Jehovah really the Nazi King people image him to be?

You know - the OT idea of God as a male creator fixated on perfecting the human species through the process of the human evolution, and all the good bad and ugly associated with that.

I often think about the rise of the Nazi and see that the event had major consequences on the western mind-set (psyche) to which it is seldom spoken about in terms which help us understand ourselves and our ideas of GOD, even as displayed in the imagery of the OT God-concept.

Are we being a little hard on ourselves in relation to our general self/other-perceptions and is this hardness brought about because we are too afraid to see the ugly face to face and this consistent inherent lack of bravery only serves to increase our fearfulness, as a species?

Will our ongoing circumstances force us to face our self and its accompanying imagery of God in a way which neither dies out and both transform?

Is it the nature of sin to be stupid? Is to be stupid inevitably death? - A thing which science is attempting to breed out of us? Certainly such is on the table...

Perhaps the best course is to learn how to look at all things without the judgement of 'good' or 'evil' as seen through its hazy lens, and just face what is obvious with the same amount of focus as on what isn't.

In that way, perhaps the merging of the two can be accomplished and stupid can become more cleaver as a consequence.

Q: What if Jehovah was actually real but has not been portrayed as [he] actually really is?

The question of itself leads to many others, if one can hear it without the existing attachments to the character adding their bias.

Not for the fainthearted or the stupid.

Or:

Q: Is the character depicted, a true representation of what a GOD would actually BE like, given what we already now know about the universe we exist within?

Again, not for the fainthearted or the stupid.

[Divine Insight]

Q: What if Jehovah was actually real but has not been portrayed as [he] actually really is?

Then why call him Jehovah?

The name Jehovah is already in use as the name given to the God "portrayed" in the Bible. If the real God is not like Jehovah, then why continue to refer to God using that name?

I mean, isn't this like asking, "What if Zeus was actually real but isn't anything like he is portrayed in Greek mythology?"

Isn't this basically a silly question? What would Zeus be like then? And how could we know?

Q: Is the character depicted, a true representation of what a GOD would actually BE like, given what we already now know about the universe we exist within?

I personally don't see anything in what we now know about the universe that would justify the behavior attributed to the God depicted in the Bible.

If you do, then perhaps you could share an example of what you think would justify the behavior of the God depicted in the Bible.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Q: What if Jehovah was actually real but has not been portrayed as [he] actually really is?

Then why call him Jehovah?

So we know which GOD is being discussed.

The name Jehovah is already in use as the name given to the God "portrayed" in the Bible. If the real God is not like Jehovah, then why continue to refer to God using that name?

The idea being that the GOD does exist but is not anything like the one portrayed in the bible. That is the question being asked.

I mean, isn't this like asking, "What if Zeus was actually real but isn't anything like he is portrayed in Greek mythology?"

That is correct.

Isn't this basically a silly question? What would Zeus be like then? And how could we know?

That is the idea behind my adding the words "The question of itself leads to many others, if one can hear it without the existing attachments to the character adding their bias."

The question is specific to the biblical idea of God not the Greek idea. Adding that to your argument isn't helpful in context of the OP which speaks to the ongoing complaints and defenses of the biblical idea of GOD here on this forum.

The complaints often speak about genocide, which was also an aspect of Nazi agenda which is why I also made the comment in the OP blurb "the OT idea of God as a male creator fixated on perfecting the human species through the process of the human evolution, and all the good bad and ugly associated with that."

We know that genocide isn't just an element of Nazism because many cultures and races have done this to other cultures and races. Germany just brought science and technology into the practice. So it is a human trait.

Q: Is the character depicted, a true representation of what a GOD would actually BE like, given what we already now know about the universe we exist within?

I personally don't see anything in what we now know about the universe that would justify the behavior attributed to the God depicted in the Bible.

What about human behavior - as exampled in the activity of genocide?

If you do, then perhaps you could share an example of what you think would justify the behavior of the God depicted in the Bible.

I am undecided, which is why I created this thread. Neither side of the argument has convinced me of anything which makes my own idea of GOD go away.

Which is specific to the other questions in the OP blurb;

Q: Are we being a little hard on ourselves in relation to our general self/other-perceptions and is this hardness brought about because we are too afraid to see the ugly face to face and this consistent inherent lack of bravery only serves to increase our fearfulness, as a species?

Q: Will our ongoing circumstances force us to face our self and its accompanying imagery of God in a way which neither dies out and both transform?

...and the other Q's put forward to do with this...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by William]

So we know which GOD is being discussed.

So the God of the Bible, of Christians...whom you have just said was not recorded about properly?
So you want us to talk about this God, all the while not referring to the Bible, to what Christians have recorded about him...?
I'm game. So what's left on the table? Literally? If you're sitting down at a table with the rest of us and asking to talk about Jehovah but wanting to not use the Bible or other Judaeo-Christian writings (not use Islamic writings too, I guess?)...what's on the table?

The idea being that the GOD does exist but is not anything like the one portrayed in the bible. That is the question being asked.

So the God being of the Bible does exist, but is not (at all?) like what the Bible portrays him to be...?
So is this God Jehovah? Is that his name? Is he a creator God? Did he create Adam and Eve, free the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery?

Oh wait...we're not using the Bible, so even asking those questions is out-of-bounds...

That is correct.

Then why call this blank slate God Zeus? Or Jehovah? Why not just say you want to talk about a blank slate God, one not tied to any religion's conception?

The question is specific to the biblical idea of God not the Greek idea.

But we're not using the Bible, so talking about the Bible God doesn't matter in this thread...?

I'm sorry, I'm like DI here. I'm left wondering just what your thought process is like.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

The main problem you and DI appear to be having is not taking the whole OP blurb into account and thus your responses become unrelated to the focus of the OP.

Then why call this blank slate God Zeus? Or Jehovah? Why not just say you want to talk about a blank slate God, one not tied to any religion's conception?

Because this would veer away from the full context of the OP blurb, which go a long way in explaining the why the questions are framed as they are.

I could extend the question to include all ideas of GOD, but the purpose of the thread is not to discuss any new idea of a GOD (blank slate as you wrote) but the idea that a GOD exists which could be responsible for why ideas of GOD (new or not) exist, and the focus is on the most popular idea of GOD which humans have, and whether the idea of that GOD aligns with those things which are commonly claimed about the GOD, from both camps and in relation to the reality of this universe specific to life on earth.

Of course, if neither you or DI are up for it, that is fair enough. As the blurb suggests, comfort zones are important to folk.

However, if you think you might be interesting in delving into the questions and concepts the OP introduces/opens the door to, perhaps it might turn out to be of some benefit?

So the God being of the Bible does exist, but is not (at all?) like what the Bible portrays him to be...?
So is this God Jehovah? Is that his name? Is he a creator God? Did he create Adam and Eve, free the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery?

Oh wait...we're not using the Bible, so even asking those questions is out-of-bounds...

The question;

"Q: What if Jehovah was actually real but has not been portrayed as [he] actually really is? "

... focuses on 'what is portrayed' - which, of course - is in the bible, so the question isn't implying that everything in the bible is portraying Jehovah incorrectly.

So it is not about the bible being 'out of bounds' (where did you get that idea from?) but whether - if the GOD is real, the bible can be shown where some of the false portrayals have obviously occurred. We are best to start with the more obvious, and see if any pattern can be established which might help us with the less obvious.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]
Of course, if neither you or DI are up for it, that is fair enough. As the blurb suggests, comfort zones are important to folk.

What in the world would this have to do with anyone's "comfort zones"?

Your proposed blurb in the OP simply makes no sense.

The question;

"Q: What if Jehovah was actually real but has not been portrayed as [he] actually really is? "

... focuses on 'what is portrayed' - which, of course - is in the bible, so the question isn't implying that everything in the bible is portraying Jehovah incorrectly.

So it is not about the bible being 'out of bounds' (where did you get that idea from?) but whether - if the GOD is real, the bible can be shown where some of the false portrayals have obviously occurred. We are best to start with the more obvious, and see if any pattern can be established which might help us with the less obvious.

It seems to me that all you are doing here is suggesting that the Bible is grossly flawed and apparently mostly incorrect or false.

So apparently you want to discuss which parts of the Bible are most likely false, and which parts might be true?

Is that what you are trying to discuss here? If so, why didn't you just say so?

~~~~


1. First we would need to decide what we would like for God to be like.

After all, if we have no idea what God is like then how do we go about deciding which descriptions of God might be true or false?

Most people start with the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-loving, trustworthy, totally righteous and just, merciful (<-which already contradicts being totally righteous and just), all-loving, and even offers "unconditional love".

Of course, we all know that the Biblical God most certainly doesn't offer unconditional love since there are more conditions on his love than we can even keep track of. So if we're going to assume that God offers unconditional love then there's no sense in even picking up a Bible in the first place. We may as well go off looking for another potential religion to start with.

2. Only after we have decided what we would like for God to be like could we begin to look to see which traits match up with what we would like for God to be like, and which traits don't.

Given the traits I suggested in #1, there's very little in the Bible that would conform to those character traits. We'd need to toss out the bulk of the Old Testament, and especially the first 5 books commonly known as the Torah as they contain absolutely ignorant, unwise, and self-contradictory behaviors of this God. The Old Testament books even have their God contradicting character traits that they had previously assigned to it.

When we get to the New Testament they have Jesus contradicting himself by renouncing many of the things that Yahweh of the Old Testament had commanded men to do, and simultaneously proclaiming that not one jot or tittle of those laws shall pass till heaven and earth pass. So once again we end up with self-contradictory claims about Yahweh and Jesus.

But I suppose that your idea is to just accept the things we like about God and reject those things that we don't?

I could certainly go through the Bible with you explaining what I reject about the Biblical God, and what I might embrace.

Is that what you want to do?

If so, I suggest that we start with Genesis and go through the whole Bible chapter by chapter. I can tell you already that by the time we get to Chapter 3 of genesis I will have pretty much rejected the bulk of what the Bible attributes to "God".

I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with the Egyptian Pharaoh
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with the Canaanites
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with sinners in the Great Flood
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with having his followers commit genocide
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with commanding men to judge and stone sinners to death
I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with humanity through Christ.

In short, I would reject so much of the Bible that by the time I'm done my question, "Why call God Jehovah?" Would indeed be a quite valid question.

If there is a God I see nothing to be gained by reading the Bible if we want to learn more about God.

Why go to the Bible in the first place?

There are far better religions to look at if we want to imagine the possible existence of a God. Various forms of Buddhism, for example. Or even Taoism, or Animism.

Or there may not even be any God, perhaps secularism is true? Why rule secularism out when it appears to make the most sense of all?

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

What in the world would this have to do with anyone's "comfort zones"?

Are you comfortable expressing your contempt for the biblical idea of GOD DI? If so, then that is a 'comfort zone'.

"a situation where one feels safe or at ease.
"the trip is an attempt to take the students out of their comfort zone"
a settled method of working that requires little effort and yields only barely acceptable results.
"if you stay within your comfort zone you will never improve""

Your proposed blurb in the OP simply makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense DI. It is even written in English.

That said, it appears to make no sense to you. That seems an unreasonable position for one so intelligent to assume, so hopefully if you persist it shall become more apparent.

It seems to me that all you are doing here is suggesting that the Bible is grossly flawed and apparently mostly incorrect or false.

Your are grasping it correctly, yes. I don't know what your own position on that would be, although your arguments with Christians seem to reflect a similar understanding regarding the bible.

So apparently you want to discuss which parts of the Bible are most likely false, and which parts might be true?

Is that what you are trying to discuss here? If so, why didn't you just say so?

What I wrote in the OP blurb is what I would like to discuss with any who are interested.

1. First we would need to decide what we would like for God to be like.

After all, if we have no idea what God is like then how do we go about deciding which descriptions of God might be true or false?

That is why the OP blurb also includes this;

Q: Is the character depicted, a true representation of what a GOD would actually BE like, given what we already now know about the universe we exist within?

Thus we at least have a template in which to place the foundation upon.

If GOD exists, and if this universe reflects the nature of that GOD, what would the nature of that GOD be?

Most people start with the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-loving, trustworthy, totally righteous and just, merciful (<-which already contradicts being totally righteous and just), all-loving, and even offers "unconditional love".

Then the question can be asked regarding the nature of the creation as to whether all or any of these attributes might be applicable.

We already understand that the biblical rendition of GOD tells us in the stories that the GOD is supposed to be - for example - omnipotent. The biblical stories often indicate otherwise.

Then there is the idea that we should regard any GOD as having all those attributes or else such an entity cannot be regarded as a GOD.

So we have to seriously question whether this is a good position to have as a starting point. Is it a realistic expectation? or is it a false image humans have developed in their demand for what they would or would not consider to be a GOD?

Of course, we all know that the Biblical God most certainly doesn't offer unconditional love since there are more conditions on his love than we can even keep track of. So if we're going to assume that God offers unconditional love then there's no sense in even picking up a Bible in the first place. We may as well go off looking for another potential religion to start with.

Then there is the idea that knowledge of GOD can only be acquired through religion, which itself might be false.
But when it comes to this thing called 'unconditional love' this is what exactly?

For example, are we able to think of our present experience in this universe as a product of unconditional love, and if so, why? Or if not, why not?

2. Only after we have decided what we would like for God to be like could we begin to look to see which traits match up with what we would like for God to be like, and which traits don't.

Of course the idea which the OP blurb speaks to is to move away from ideals placed upon the nature of GOD and focus on the idea that if a Creator GOD exists, what in nature do we have which can give us clues as to the nature of the GOD. We can take the overall nature of the universe in general and the overall nature of life on earth specifically.

Therefore, it is not about 'what we like or do not like' which the OP blurb is asking us to hold as a position. Which is why these words were written;

Perhaps the best course is to learn how to look at all things without the judgement of 'good' or 'evil' as seen through its hazy lens, and just face what is obvious with the same amount of focus as on what isn't.

What we each may 'like' or 'dislike' falls under the category of judgement as to what is 'good' or 'evil' and will only serve to muddy the waters.

When we get to the New Testament they have Jesus contradicting himself by renouncing many of the things that Yahweh of the Old Testament had commanded men to do, and simultaneously proclaiming that not one jot or tittle of those laws shall pass till heaven and earth pass.

I made mention of this in post #9 in the "Is the Bible equal to GOD?" thread.

For one, supporting written inspiration is not the same as having a personal relationship with GOD - what the verse you use is supports that which supports having a personal relationship with GOD - not with the written law.

In that, we know 'The Law' Yeshua spoke to were two particular items which themselves could be seen as one and the same.

Matthew 22;
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

For the other, such testament could be either placed in the mouth of Jesus (made up by the early rulers of Christendom) for the purpose of linking HaTorah in that manner to redirect to the laws of the Hebrews in relation to the way the Hebrews had a relationship with GOD (through the law of the prophets and covenant) or the misinterpretation in conflating the old with the new, in that Yeshua was referring to the way he summed up the law, not the whole Hebrew law re HaTorah. A new covenant with its focus on specific law to which not one jot or one tittle shall in no manner pass from said summarized law, until that law was manifested throughout the human population of the earth.

But I suppose that your idea is to just accept the things we like about God and reject those things that we don't?

On the contrary. The OP blurb is specific about not using such judgement. Mine or any others preferences are not important in relation to that.

Why go to the Bible in the first place?

There are far better religions to look at if we want to imagine the possible existence of a God. Various forms of Buddhism, for example. Or even Taoism, or Animism.

I could extend the question to include all ideas of GOD, but the purpose of the thread is not to discuss any new idea of a GOD or another religions idea of GOD but the idea that a GOD exists which could be responsible for why ideas of GOD (new or not, Christian or otherwise) exist, and the focus is on the most popular idea of GOD which humans have, and whether the idea of that GOD aligns with those things which are commonly claimed about the GOD, from both camps and in relation to the reality of this universe specific to life on earth.

Or there may not even be any God, perhaps secularism is true? Why rule secularism out when it appears to make the most sense of all?

The thread topic is not about arguing whether secularism is true or makes the most sense of all. It is specific to the idea that IF there is a Creator GOD, does the biblical idea of GOD fit with the nature of this universe in general and with life on earth specifically and in that, what ideas about that GOD might fit and which might not.

As an example;

The story of the flood (in relation to the OP blurb re the practice of genocide).

Did it happen?

According to scientific studies, no it did not.

Therefore, if there is a GOD, the GOD did not flood the earth, therefore this is one example of the misrepresentation of GOD through Abrahamism.

On the subject of the name of GOD, there are many names attached to the OT idea of GOD (and the Abrahamic ideas of GOD) so it is a matter of convenience that I chose to use the name 'Jehovah' as per the OP blurb. Are the names appropriate or misrepresentation?

What would be an appropriate name?

What about gender? Is 'he' acceptable? Why not 'she' or 'it'?

This can apply to all your objections which start with the phrase "I reject the way the Biblical God dealt with..."

Although to be more on point with the OP blurb, I would have worded it "I reject the way the biblical idea of GOD is said to have dealt with..."

[1213]

Is Jehovah really the Nazi King people image him to be?

Nazi means national socialist. Socialism is evil, I don’t think God is a socialist.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by 1213]

A one line statement really doesn't convey anything from which one can get a handle on your argument 1213. If you want to participate in the thread discussion you will have to do better that that.

[Divine Insight]

On the subject of the name of GOD, there are many names attached to the OT idea of GOD (and the Abrahamic ideas of GOD) so it is a matter of convenience that I chose to use the name 'Jehovah' as per the OP blurb. Are the names appropriate or misrepresentation?

What would be an appropriate name?

What about gender? Is 'he' acceptable? Why not 'she' or 'it'?

If a God exists that created our entire universe and it is "monotheistic" (i.e. all alone prior to having created anything else), then it would definitely be an 'it' as far as any human concept is concerned. Male and female are definitely human traits whether we're talking about physical biology or gender identity. It would be meaningless for a God to have a "gender identity" if it is a monotheistic entity.

If God is "polytheistic" then perhaps the Gods might have sex and gender. Perhaps they even procreate. Who could guess?

Surely you can see where your thread title suggesting that the name of God is "Jehovah" would cause anyone to think that you already have a specific God in mind.

If I asked you, "Is Zeus really,..." you would no doubt conclude that I must be talking about the God referenced in Greek mythology.

As to your apparent main question:

If GOD exists, and if this universe reflects the nature of that GOD, what would the nature of that GOD be?

I would suggest that Buddhism has already modeled a God concept based on this approach. I would even suggest that they did a fairly decent job of creating a plausible idea of what a God would need to be like.

This of course doesn't provide us with any useful information beyond that guess.

There really isn't even any good reason to think that our universe would reflect the nature of a God if it did exist. The creator God could be quite different from the universe it actually creates. So while that might seem like a good place to start, there's really no sound reason to think that this would be any better than just sitting back and imagining a God from scratch in pure imagination.

Maybe God is "pure imagination". In that case this universe could be just one fleeting aspect of what this God can possibly imagine.

In fact, the Eastern Mystical belief is that the world is but a dream in the mind of God. And the dream may not tell us anything at all about the dreamer because the dreamer may be able to dream infinitely many different types of dreams where our universe is merely one of them.

The thread topic is not about arguing whether secularism is true or makes the most sense of all.

Perhaps not, but if we're going to philosophize why not cover all the bases?

It is specific to the idea that IF there is a Creator GOD, does the biblical idea of GOD fit with the nature of this universe in general and with life on earth specifically and in that, what ideas about that GOD might fit and which might not.

Well, my position on this is pretty well-known. If the Creator God fits in with the Biblical idea of God then our Creator God has about the same mentality as ancient barbaric male-chauvinist men who seem to think that punishing people is the only way to teach anyone anything, and that enslaving or committing genocide on other cultures is cool.

Do you think that's a good representation of what "GOD" would be like?

What about all the more civilized and intelligent humans then? How did they come to be if our creator is a low-life barbarian? Most modern day humans would be superior to our creator in that case. That doesn't seem right.