Define God

[DLH]

Hear, Israel! Being is your god, Being is one!--Deut. 6:4

Lord appears where the scribes removed the name Jehovah from the text and replaced it with the generic term adonai, LORD. Lord means someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler, God means an adored, admired, or influential person, is that what you are saying?

The word Jehovah literally means existence itself.

I think that is a bit wonky. It literally means he causes to become. I mean, I could see how that could be interpreted as existence itself, but well - a bit wonky. I would have to kick it around for a while. Poke it with a stick. Could be something to it, but I think probably too ambiguous.

 

[No Robots]

Hear, Israel! Being is your god, Being is one!--Deut. 6:4

Lord appears where the scribes removed the name Jehovah from the text and replaced it with the generic term adonai, LORD. Lord means someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler, God means an adored, admired, or influential person, is that what you are saying?

The word Jehovah literally means existence itself.

I think that is a bit wonky. It literally means he causes to become. I mean, I could see how that could be interpreted as existence itself, but well - a bit wonky. I would have to kick it around for a while. Poke it with a stick. Could be something to it, but I think probably too ambiguous.

Some scholarship to help you along:

Moses conceived the Deity as Being, that has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence.—Spinoza

It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence."—Maimonides

Let us call our religion YAHVISM. It is no new-fangled name, it is simply the name by which our faith was called and cherished by our forefathers, who designated it as YIRATH YAHVE, the religion of Yahve. It is the fittest of all possible names for our religion. It is the expression of our cardinal beliefs and the profoundest ideas of our faith. Under this name we adore God as Eternal and Infinite Existence, as the source of all being.—Adolf Moses

Jahveh ehad, cried Moses: "Hear O Israel, Being is our God, Being is One" (Deut. 6:4).... Yet this quotation provides precisely the historically monstrous example of how Israel hears and how the truth is straightway transformed into superstition in Israel's ears. For this magnificent saying is at once a hymn of exultation and a wrathful protest against idol worship of any kind; but despite this protest, it now signifies—in the conception of Israel, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Israel—the well-enough known, imbecilically wrong translation: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our god is the only God!" Moses said that thou shalt not make unto thee any image of this Jahveh, no imagination of it, i.e., it is that which cannot be thought as things are thought, as if it had the same sort of being as things—I am that I am (Ex. 3:14)! Jahveh, Being, is the term for the wholly abstract spiritual; it has no relation to the relative world. By Jahveh, the wholly great is meant. It means the same thing as Spinoza does in his greater—his absolutely great expression, Ens constans infinitis attributis [Absolute Being with infinite attributes]. And Jahveh Tsebaot, Jahveh of infinite powers, is nothing but the mystical expression of the same thing as is expressed philosophically by Ens constans infinitis attributis. The whole tremendous concern of Judaism lies in this phrase Jahveh ehad, in that single word Jahveh, which was ultimately forbidden even to be pronounced, and to pronounce which was a deadly sin. The mystical primordial character of Judaism—so naturally mystical that the Jews, in spite of their having made Jahvism into religion, never established a mythology, even while their Jahveh always remained exalted as God over every god of other religions, so that other ancient civilizations did not recognize him as a god, and said the Jews were without religion and atheistic—the mystical primordial character of Judaism expressed itself in this, its ineffable holy word.—Constantin Brunner


Jehovah-Adonai comprehends the whole infinite existence. Adonai is pertaining to the material world, and Jehovah reaches the Absolute.—Harry Waton

 

[TomC]

- a couple thousand years after nailing a man to a tree for saying how nice it would be if we could all just get along

What makes you think that happened?
I, for one, don't think it did.
Tom

Okay. You don't think it did, I do. Since I don't care whether you agree with me and you don't care if I agree with you, perhaps an amendment would save us the trouble of repeating a well-worn and pointless argument? I would change it to say a couple thousand years after a man was allegedly nailed to a tree for saying how nice it would be if we could all just get along? Assuming that NO man ANYWHERE in that vaguely specific time ABSOLUTELY couldn't have said such a thing given that he was expected to do so for roughly four thousand years prior to that SOMEBODY would have pulled it off but logic has no place in such speculative endeavors, does it.

Sorry I was unclear. I've posted this opinion so many times before, on IIDB I feel like I'm repeating myself again.

I have no real doubt that a guy named Jesus was condemned to crucifixion ~30ce. The name was common and violent anti-Roman activists were common. They got sentenced to a particularly brutal and public form of execution to make an example of them. I'm confident that a self described Messiah, who probably led a smash and grab raid on the Temple merchants, would have qualified for crucifixtion by Pilate's standards.
It's your premise that Jesus was sentenced for preaching the Golden Rule that is not credible. I'm confident that that part is later grifty lies, told by people with an agenda. People who found Christ very useful, but Jesus quite dispensable.
Tom

 

[pood]

Define God. Simple request. What is a god? Simple question, simple answers. Define what a god is. This should be pinned. to the top of this forum on Existence of God(s) IMHO.

Simple? Theology is simple now? Defund the seminaries?

IKR? Btw, I've been saying this a lot, but if you haven't yet, I strongly recommend Pantheon as a treatise on the subject of consciousness and "definitions of God". Or to tell me what you think about it.

Pantheon is too simplistic for me.

Ok. Onto the ignore list you go.

Excellent! Wise choice. 3 down, a few more to go. Shouldn't take long. Woke ideologues are extraordinarily fragile characters.

Here come the requisite right-wing attacks on “woke ideologues.” “Woke” is that all-purpose bogeyman that makes right-wing snowflakes cringe and seek a safe space.

 

[Politesse]

Well, this is actually a remarkable (and simple) statement in my opinion. One of the best I've seen in a long, long time. YES! Defund the seminaries. Take away all religious tax exemptions. Wait a minute. Are seminaries funded? I don't know, but if they are defund them.

I assume you mean, "funded by the government". The answer is yes and no. In some countries, there is an established state church funded in part by taxation, and it is free to invest that in training and education. Austria is an example. Other nations draw an absolute wall between church and state, and anyone suspected of violating it can be readily sued. France is an example. Most nations fall somewhere in the middle. In the United States, no direct federal support is provided for religious schools, but provided those schools are accredited through their state, their students can receive financial aid, and they may be eligible for other federal programs if they qualify for them. It is also legal to study religion as an academic topic from within the public education system. Luckily, for me.

Looking at the differential outcomes internationally, it does not seem to me that state support or lack thereof changes a lot about the schools or the common culture on its own, but it is indicative of general political attitudes within a given nation.

For example, science is funded almost entirely by taxpayers and much of science and politics (governments) are corrupted to the core because of money.

This is not true in any nation that I am aware of, scientific research is funded by a complex blend of government agencies, private grantors and bequest foundations, private companies, semiprivate governmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations. And, of course, volunteer labor.

While it is certainly true that research is compromised by capitalistic incentive, simply eliminating government funding would not change that situation. As to how it might change folk definitions of God, I don't see how it could. Unless they are themselves academics, no one learns the definition of God from a textbook.

 

[DLH]

Here come the requisite right-wing attacks on “woke ideologues.” “Woke” is that all-purpose bogeyman that makes right-wing snowflakes cringe and seek a safe space.

I'll say it again for those up in the balcony. APOLITICAL IRRELIGIOUS.

Don't like right wing. Don't like left wing. Don't like the center. I think they are all, including religion, for stupid people. I'm not that stupid.

 

[pood]

Here come the requisite right-wing attacks on “woke ideologues.” “Woke” is that all-purpose bogeyman that makes right-wing snowflakes cringe and seek a safe space.

I'll say it again for those up in the balcony. APOLITICAL IRRELIGIOUS.

Don't like right wing. Don't like left wing. Don't like the center. I think they are all, including religion, for stupid people. I'm not that stupid.

But here you are attacking “woke,” an attack that is wholly ideologically and deeply political. Says the guy who is also a biblical believer but loathes religion. Ho-hum. Maybe for once you could come clean about your real views instead of playing cat and mouse, which is thoroughly boring to most of us.

 

[DLH]

But here you are attacking “woke,” an attack that is wholly ideologically and deeply political. Says the guy who is also a biblical believer but loathes religion. Ho-hum. Maybe for once you could come clean about your real views instead of playing cat and mouse, which is thoroughly boring to most of us.

I'll say it again. I hate woke and I hate whatever else there is. Right wing. Hate. Have nothing to do with it. Any of it. It's stupid. I don't have to come clean about anything because it's none of your goddamn business. I don't owe or have to justify anything to anyone but God. If it's boring to most of you, most of you can change the channel. That is my objective here. Not to be bothered by most of you. Get it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What I saw was that you gave a simple definition of "god" like DLH/RIS asked for and then they agreed that that kind of god doesn't exist: "it vanishes in a puff of logic". Are we done, then?

It doesn't matter if a god exists or not. It's like a fictional or non-fictional character. Either way it's still a character.

Ok… so…?

 

[DLH]

What I saw was that you gave a simple definition of "god" like DLH/RIS asked for and then they agreed that that kind of god doesn't exist: "it vanishes in a puff of logic". Are we done, then?

It doesn't matter if a god exists or not. It's like a fictional or non-fictional character. Either way it's still a character.

Ok… so…?

What? Ok so What? What?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What I saw was that you gave a simple definition of "god" like DLH/RIS asked for and then they agreed that that kind of god doesn't exist: "it vanishes in a puff of logic". Are we done, then?

It doesn't matter if a god exists or not. It's like a fictional or non-fictional character. Either way it's still a character.

Ok… so…?

What? Ok so What? What?

I guess I'm just trying to understand the thread. You asked for a definition of god and you got one. You'll likely get as many different definitions for the word as people you ask. Is there more to this thread?

Presumably, you think that a definitive answer is necessary prior to any discussion of "existence of god", yes? But, as there are many different definitions of the word there will necessarily be many different discussions about the existence or non-existence thereof.

You claim to want a simple answer, but as others have pointed out it's not a simple situation and simplifying it too much will necessarily reduce the utility of the discussion to nil.

 

[steve_bank]

That the Abrahamic bible god is ill defied is what makes Chrtianity.

God is whatever the believer imagines it to be. Same with Jesus.

Hence Christianity ranges from the lone self declared Christian to all the various sects in Christianity.

American Christianity allows an individual who feels powerless to feel powerful doing battle with the likes of us atheists.

 

[WAB]

I refuse to post to this stupid thread...

Oh bugger!!

 

[ideologyhunter]

I refuse to post to this stupid thread...

Oh bugger!!

Turn in your blue book. You just failed his course, Where You Went Wrong About God 101. If it's any consolation, I failed, too. Goddamn, this is a shitty community college. I just hope I can sell the textbook. What a crock: God Is a Mighty Crouton (DLH Ecclesiastical Press).

 

[DLH]

I guess I'm just trying to understand the thread.

In my humble opinion I think you understand it. It is, ironically, very simple.

You asked for a definition of god and you got one.

I got a couple, but mostly what I got was bullshit ideology. That isn't at all unusual. For any subject, especially controversial, religious or political.

You'll likely get as many different definitions for the word as people you ask. Is there more to this thread?

Nope. That's it.

Presumably, you think that a definitive answer is necessary prior to any discussion of "existence of god", yes?

[Sigh] Hmmm. Well, I think it a good idea to at least come to some agreement on the various definitions. Let's say you and I were discussing gods, and you thought we were talking about Shiva or Eric Clapton, and I thought we were talking about Amaterasu or Satan. You see where that would be a problem? It isn't that we have to agree with the definition, it's that we have to agree on which example of the definition we are talking about. So, if I'm talking about Satan: satan is a Hebrew word that means adversary, resister. It's applied to righteous angels of God and to mortal humans. So, it can be supernatural, but it doesn't have to be. When the Hebrew word satan is accompanied by the definite article ha, i.e. ha satan, it refers to the spirit being (cherub) who is considered THE satan. Satan. Like the Arabic Allah. Al (the) lah (god). Likewise, the word devil means liar, deceiver, god means mighty. So, when one of the Hebrew words for god appears (el, elohim, etc.) it is applied to mortal men, angels, idols, pagan gods, etc. But when it appears with the definite article ha (THE god, i.e. God) it refers to Jehovah. The same with the word lord. Thus, the importance of definitional distinctions. That's why Paul said there are many gods and many lords but to us there is only one of each, and he said their belly (love of food) is their god.

To an atheist God just means magic sky daddy of the Bible and gods means metaphorical applications of that, like "He thinks he's God." That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's Jehovah it means he thinks he's all powerful. Okay, what does that mean? Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent aren't concepts applied to Jehovah. At least not in the exaggerated sense that usually is presented by theists and consequently atheists. To demonstrate this, humans are omnivorous. That doesn't mean they can eat the space time continuum or chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

But, as there are many different definitions of the word there will necessarily be many different discussions about the existence or non-existence thereof.

But, you see, that isn't entirely accurate. There are many different examples or applications but there is only one meaning. There has only ever been one meaning throughout history in every language known to man. But there have been countless examples. The atheist doesn't understand the distinction because the Masoretes (scribes) removed the name of God for fear it would be abused by the people. That's the reason why atheists and many theists think that God is a name of a specific Biblical character or THE God concept. They think saying God damn it means taking the "Lord's" name in vain when what it actually means is God (any god) damn (curse; predict or forewarn of danger, harm) it (anything, contextually; whatever "it" is).

You claim to want a simple answer, but as others have pointed out it's not a simple situation and simplifying it too much will necessarily reduce the utility of the discussion to nil.

No, I do want a simple answer and a simple answer is that the word god means, i.e. a god is, anything or anyone attributed might and/or venerated. That's how I would define it. Every god, metaphoric, supernatural, mortal, imaginary, real, fictional, non-fictional, past, present, future, etc. etc. is a god. Just like man is a man doesn't define each and every man, or lord, king, uncle, aunt, goddess, etc.

It only appears complicated because you don't understand the basic, simple concept or meaning.

The discussion of each man individually would be complex in the same sense that the discussion of each god individually might be but it's a simple concept. Construct. Word. Whatever you want to call it or apply.

 

[pood]

It’s amazing how someone can write so many words and say so little. The above was kind of a Teal Deer for me. In the old pre-net days they called it a MEGO, coined by William Safire; My Eyes Glazed Over.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No, I do want a simple answer and a simple answer is that the word god means, i.e. a god is, anything or anyone attributed might and/or venerated. That's how I would define it. Every god, metaphoric, supernatural, mortal, imaginary, real, fictional, non-fictional, past, present, future, etc. etc. is a god. Just like man is a man doesn't define each and every man, or lord, king, uncle, aunt, goddess, etc.

It only appears complicated because you don't understand the basic, simple concept or meaning.

But that’s your personal definition. Other people have other definitions and you are simply asserting yours is the only correct one.

The problem I see is that there is value in making a distinction between gods that exist and gods that don’t exist.

I generally dislike using language in a way that reduces or obfuscates shades of meaning. There’s more value in discussions when we have more terms available to isolate discrete characteristics of the concepts we are discussing.

Your overly broad definitions diminish our ability to effectively communicate.

 

[DLH]

But that’s your personal definition.

Not really. It is a definition that fits, that is, upholds the meaning as it has always and still is used. When you look at a dictionary definition of the word god you see various examples or applications of the same word by meaning or definition. Each of them is different examples with the same meaning. So, let's say you define God as Abrahamic sky daddy. Well, that's correct. But so is upper balcony in a theatre, or idol, or respected/influential person. Ruler. They are different examples of the same thing. Let's say you are employing a metaphorical application. It still means the same definition I'm using. But, you see, you can't use your own definition of Abrahamic sky daddy to each of them. You can my definition, but not yours. So, you argue it's metaphorical or something like that. It doesn't matter. It has to fit, whether it's metaphorical or anything else; Abrahamic sky daddy or supernatural or metaphorical are only different examples of the same simple thing. Might and veneration.

Put simply when I say God or god you think sky daddy.

Other people have other definitions and you are simply asserting yours is the only correct one.

No, I'm saying they are all correct, not just mine or your sky daddy.

The problem I see is that there is value in making a distinction between gods that exist and gods that don’t exist.

Sure. But whether they exist literally or in some other way doesn't change why they are called gods, deities, etc.

I generally dislike using language in a way that reduces or obfuscates shades of meaning. There’s more value in discussions when we have more terms available to isolate discrete characteristics of the concepts we are discussing.

It isn't any of those things. It isn't reducing or obfuscating. There is more value in discussions when we know what the meaning is in, if not a complete sense, then at least an agreed one. You're just balking due to an ideological presupposition based on a faulty premise. You just don't know it and it makes it difficult for you. You think that my definition limits your discussion or atheistic position, but you have that backwards.

Your overly broad definitions diminish our ability to effectively communicate.

No. Anyway. Show me how it allegedly does that. Give me an example.

 

[DLH]

It’s amazing how someone can write so many words and say so little. The above was kind of a Teal Deer for me. In the old pre-net days they called it a MEGO, coined by William Safire; My Eyes Glazed Over.

Oh, no! What should I do? Dumb it down? Expurgate it? Tell, me self-appointed god of all wisdom, how to appease your short attention span and tyranny of your superhighway of misinformation. Your worldwide wasteland, you scarred and weathered intrepid traveler thereon.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It isn't any of those things. It isn't reducing or obfuscating. There is more value in discussions when we know what the meaning is in, if not a complete sense, then at least an agreed one. You're just balking due to an ideological presupposition based on a faulty premise. You just don't know it and it makes it difficult for you. You think that my definition limits your discussion or atheistic position, but you have that backwards.

I’m not balking at all. I don’t use gods in my daily life so i simply don’t think about it or need a definition.

You assume you know my position but you don’t.

Your overly broad definitions diminish our ability to effectively communicate.

No. Anyway. Show me how it allegedly does that. Give me an example.

Jimi Hendrix and Jesus can both be called gods, yet they are quit dissimilar and so using the same word for both in a single conversation would diminish the distinction.

When you were last on here under a different name you wanted to define “god” to include things that do and do not exist so I agreed that based on that definition gods do exist. But it wasn’t a meaningful statement because “god” was defined so broadly.