God Is a Problem

[Colt]

Based on my own vague understanding of what the term "god" means and ignoring any cultural context, I probably would say that the Trinitarian godhead is three gods, and that Satan, angels and demons/jinn in the Christian and Muslim traditions are gods.

Both of these points get strong obections from believers, so you tell me: do I know what the term "god" means?

You are using concepts of God held among various Christians.

“The highest evidence of the reality and efficacy of religion consists in the fact of human experience;namely, that man, naturally fearful and suspicious, innately endowed with a strong instinct of self-preservation and craving survival after death, is willing fully to trust the deepest interests of his present and future to the keeping and direction of that power and person designated by his faith as God. That is the one central truth of all religion. As to what that power or person requires of man in return for this watchcare and final salvation, no two religions agree; in fact, they all more or less disagree.” UB 1955

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are using concepts of God held among various Christians.

No, I'm saying my instinct is to disagree with those concepts.

“The highest evidence of the reality and efficacy of religion consists in the fact of human experience;namely, that man, naturally fearful and suspicious, innately endowed with a strong instinct of self-preservation and craving survival after death, is willing fully to trust the deepest interests of his present and future to the keeping and direction of that power and person designated by his faith as God. That is the one central truth of all religion. As to what that power or person requires of man in return for this watchcare and final salvation, no two religions agree; in fact, they all more or less disagree.” UB 1955

Are you posting this because you agree with it?

 

[Heyo]

But you know what the term gods mean.

I don't, that's what it means when I say I'm an Agnostic. That and you don't know either.

 

[sun rise]

I don't, that's what it means when I say I'm an Agnostic. That and you don't know either.

A button merchant used to sell one that said "Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!"

 

[siti]

When you read the OT (Hebrew Scriptures), does it sound as if the Israelite writers of those books were confused?

Yes. For the most part, there is understandably more internal consistency within the writings purported to be Ezekiel's or Isaiah's (etc.) than there is overall in the Hebrew scriptures, but if you take the whole OT (which the originators would have had no conception of...as far as they knew they were just adding yet another scroll to the vast array of writings about such matters) it is very inconsistent. God is a God who "looked with favour" on Abel's animal sacrifice and a God who does not appreciate sacrifices... a God of war, a God of peace...a God who cannot lie and yet deceives prophets...etc. etc.

Siri, you said,”….the (obviously anglicized) "Jehovah" of Jehovah's Witnesses is a very different deity from the (unpronounceable) YHWH of Judaism…”
How so? I say he’s exactly the same; Christendom changed the understanding of Him, but the God of ancient Israel is the same One we worship.

With respect, that cannot be true can it? Otherwise why did Jesus (reportedly) completely reject the religious tradition of the Jews?

The name is not “unpronounceable,” all the Bible writers wrote it and ‘praised’ it (example: Isaiah 25:1); it was just forgotten how to say it. That’s on the ancient Jews.

For the Jews of Jesus' time and today, the Divine Name is unpronounceable out of fear of divine disfavor. For JWs in 20th and 21st century, it is uttered routinely with impunity. Can you really be worshipping the same "God" if one version forbids you to use the name and the other encourages it?

Anglicizing it isn’t wrong, otherwise saying “Jesus Christ” would be wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong - but for a Jew it is anathema.

FWIW, “el” & “elohim” are Hebrew words for “god” & “gods”. And elohim can be used to mean, not a plurality, but ‘excellence’ in the writer’s / speaker’s opinion, as seen in the Hebrew of Judges 16:23. Referencing the Philistine god Dagon.

Yes...sometimes, but it (elohim) is also used to indicate a plurality of "gods" (or angels, or apparitions of dead people) in other places (Genesis 20:13; Genesis 35:7; Psalm 8:6; 1 Samuel 28:13 for example). It depends on whether the word is used with a singular or plural form of the verb. Anyway, that's a bit of a side issue... the point about the El/Elohim and YHWH thing is that it seems pretty obvious that two different writers (or sets of writers) were involved in constructing the narratives of Genesis (etc.) - one that routinely used the specific Divine Name and one that routinely used the generic "Elohim". There is a school of thought that these originated from two different "deities" or at least two different concepts of deity. They may actually have been writing about two different Gods - even within the first few pages of the Bible.

 

[Heyo]

A button merchant used to sell one that said "Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!"

@Daemon Sophic has it in her signature.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, I'm certainly seeing why this term 'God' is a troublesome one. But I already knew that. This thread is further proof.

 

[siti]

A button merchant used to sell one that said "Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!"

Doesn't "agnostic" imply the belief that the nature or existence of God (if there is one) is "unknowable"...its not just a case of "I dunno" or "we dunno" - its a case of, it is and always will be impossible to know. Just saying we don't know doesn't really need a new word...there's a perfectly good one already - ignorance - and as far as anything to do with God is concerned, the same term will do for those who do "know". As far as I can see we're all absolutely pig ignorant...

...I don't suppose "militant pig ignorance" has quite the same ring to it and buttons proclaiming ones position as such would probably not sell well...

...but I suspect it does hold more explanatory power!

 

[Heyo]

Doesn't "agnostic" imply the belief that the nature or existence of God (if there is one) is "unknowable"...its not just a case of "I dunno" or "we dunno" - its a case of, it is and always be impossible to know. Just saying we don't know doesn't really need a new word...there's a perfectly good one already - ignorance - and as far as anything to do with God is concerned, the same term will do for those who do "know". As far as I can see we're all absolutely pig ignorant...

...I don't suppose "militant pig ignorance" has quite the same ring to it and buttons proclaiming ones position as such would probably not sell well...

...but I suspect it does hold more explanatory power!

There are "weak" and "strong" Agnostics. I'm a weak Agnostic as I haven't found a proof yet that says we can't know but I'm pretty sure we don't know, and we won't know as long as the believers aren't interested in knowing. So our ability to know is contingent upon the willingness of the believers. That's a solid ground to build an argument on but it isn't airtight.

 

[siti]

There are "weak" and "strong" Agnostics. I'm a weak Agnostic as I haven't found a proof yet that says we can't know but I'm pretty sure we don't know, and we won't know as long as the believers aren't interested in knowing. So our ability to know is contingent upon the willingness of the believers. That's a solid ground to build an argument on but it isn't airtight.

It doesn't sound like solid ground for anything to me...what you are really saying (it seems to me) is that you are ignorant (regarding the existence/nature of God) and will remain so as long as those who profess to believe in God are wilfully ignorant of any genuine facts that may exist about the existence/nature of God.

As far as I can tell, that means what you describe as "weak agnosticism" is exactly equal to ignorance.

What I think you really mean is something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so it is incumbent on believers in God (or at least those who would seek to convince the "ignorant" among us to join them in their belief) to provide sufficient extraordinary evidence to dispel our ignorance.

But I think "God" deserves a bit more than that..."God" needs to be challenged. "God" and his counterparts and sometime archrivals "gods" have moved among the human family from before we even learned to read and write. Something that it is so deeply entrenched in our collective "psyche", in our cultural and social traditions...even, for most of our history and at least a fair bit of our prehistory, profoundly touching and even leading our everyday lives and activities...

...I think something that has had such a profound impact on humanity over millennia must be actively investigated - whether it turns out to have been a great delusion or grand revelation of some overarching super-reality (or whatever it turns out to be), "God" (in its multifarious guises) has been, and remains, a very real part of human culture. For me, that makes it worth investigating personally and I have spent a lot of my life doing that...

...and yet I remain profoundly ignorant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Myself, I am an ignostic/igtheist as well. I don't think it is even sensible to talk of god without trying to establish what that would be first.

The word is about as empty of meaning as words can be.

 

[Vinayaka]

Myself, I am an ignostic/igtheist as well. I don't think it is even sensible to talk of god without trying to establish what that would be first.

The word is about as empty of meaning as words can be.

IOW, a lot of people aren't sensible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IOW, a lot of people aren't sensible.

I guess a more charitable way of looking at it would be that people like to connect to others and have things in common, so they use the same word to describe two different things in an effort to manufacture that feeling of connection.

 

[siti]

I don't think it is even sensible to talk of god without trying to establish what that would be first.

Do you know what "reality" or "nature" are? I'm pretty sure I don't - and I don't really know for certain that either actually exist outside the confines of my own mind...to use a militant ignorantist - oops I mean agnostic - phrase..."and neither do you!" So there!

 

[siti]

they use the same word to describe two different things in an effort to manufacture that feeling of connection.

I hope they have a plan B.

 

[LuisDantas]

But you know what the term gods mean.

Nope. I do not. Do you? Does anyone?

 

[Vinayaka]

I guess a more charitable way of looking at it would be that people like to connect to others and have things in common, so they use the same word to describe two different things in an effort to manufacture that feeling of connection.

That's very fair, although I would add 'some' before people.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess a more charitable way of looking at it would be that people like to connect to others and have things in common, so they use the same word to describe two different things in an effort to manufacture that feeling of connection.

I would go a bit further; much of the reason why the word "god" is popular is because it is vague and suitable to mutually exclusive concepts.

It helps in hiding significant differences of values and beliefs, thereby making superficial collective mutual acceptance somewhat easier.

 

[Colt]

Nope. I do not. Do you? Does anyone?

Yes, I do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you know what "reality" or "nature" are? I'm pretty sure I don't - and I don't really know for certain that either actually exist outside the confines of my own mind...to use a militant ignorantist - oops I mean agnostic - phrase..."and neither do you!" So there!

I would offer that "god", "deity", etc are a bit more explicitly human-created concepts for human purposes.

A bit ironic, yes, but so are the odds.