• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

G-d instead of God

Do you think it matters whether one writes G-d or God from a religious point of view?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • No

    Votes: 19 76.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I would think that God is just a title and not a name, right?
Example is Buddha is only title of wht enlightenment level Buddha Sakyamuni reached, so i think God or Godhood is only the title of enlightenment level of this God we talk about. and if i am not mistaken the God we talk about here is Yahweh, maybe other spellings is used too.
So when we say God it is his title :)
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I guess they did not take on the Jewish tradition of not writing the title God either, so as to write G-d and not God. In other words, the Vatican decided Catholics should not say or sing the name Yahweh, but they can say or write God

You complicate the issue too much. The reason for the directive was simply out of respect to the Jewish people who believe the name too sacred to pronounce.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I would think that God is just a title and not a name, right?
Example is Buddha is only title of wht enlightenment level Buddha Sakyamuni reached, so i think God or Godhood is only the title of enlightenment level of this God we talk about. and if i am not mistaken the God we talk about here is Yahweh, maybe other spellings is used too.
So when we say God it is his title :)
Some people, of course, would say that God is "God's name." But the "God" that is spelled G-d by some people is really designating Yahweh. :) Yes, I believe God is a title.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
This substituting G-d in place of God has its roots in Judaism wherein they refused to 'pronounce' the name of god for fear of blasphemy.

This is not a virtue, but actually a form of degeneration.

If one meets another in passing and strikes up conversations, and they take liking to one another, what is the first thing often asked? "What is your name?"

And so if one wants to understand god, one has to understand the name. Protecting names and/or barring them from engagement and/or consideration is itself the blasphemy, not the other way around. And in this the Jews are idol worshipers: worshiping names. This set the precedent for all of the Abrahamic faiths: "protections" around names of their god.

The name of the creator god (according to Genesis) is "Elohim" though when actually chanted sounds "El(o)-ha'eem" and contains both male/female polarities that are Aba "father" and Ima "mother" El and 'eem respectively. Their most basic synthesis is the "towardness" in the sperm 'el' and the "sea" of the womb. It is thus Elohim is androgynous and their agency is responsible for creation.

This is why making names forbidden is a form of idol worship: if you don't understand the name, you won't understand the agency and/or characteristics behind the name. In the case of Elohim, it is both masculine and feminine, with an image and likeness of such, operating as one - in precisely the same manner a traditional stable family includes mother father and child. The parents each have unique characteristics but they are united in one to "produce" and/or "generate" - hence the book of Genesis; generations.

Now despite this, the Torah has at least 3 authors, if not 4. It is thus not the perfect word of any god, and the same is true for the OT/NT and Qur'an. These are all works of man, along with the idols they espouse to adherents.

So all of these "problems" started in Judaism and bled into the other Abrahamic faiths. There is not a single problem in Islam, for example, that doesn't also exist in Judaism. Islam is just a magnified form of such problems, and it is clear one of them is sexual degeneracy and pedophilia.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
If one meets another in passing and strikes up conversations, and they take liking to one another, what is the first thing often asked? "What is your name?"

I think you are assuming an equality that does not exist between the creature and the Creator. To acknowledge something as sacred is not idol worship, but setting apart.

So all of these "problems" started in Judaism and bled into the other Abrahamic faiths. There is not a single problem in Islam, for example, that doesn't also exist in Judaism. Islam is just a magnified form of such problems,

Problems for who?
 

9-18-1

Active Member
I think you are assuming an equality that does not exist between the creature and the Creator. To acknowledge something as sacred is not idol worship, but setting apart.

It's the equality (shared will) between man and woman which is what "creates". That is why the name Eve (Heb: Havah) means "mother of all the living". In other words, when man is united with woman as one flesh (precisely how Adam is made prior to the separation of sexes) this is whence "creature" and "Creator" are precisely united: the agency of the "Creator" happens when the two polarities operate as one entity. This is why Elohim, when referenced from an outside word, is treated as singular: it is the union and co-mutual agency of the two polarities.

This is why the institution of marriage should be treated as sacred: but not the name which describes this union. This "setting apart" is precisely why man is separated from god, rather than united with.

Problems for who?

All of humanity: that is the nature of fascist (socialist) states. They suffer themselves, and endeavor to have all others suffer along with them.

The vary nature of Islam is testament to this: forcible use of suppression of opposition voices. Those who do not accept that Muhammad was anything more than a sexually degenerated pedophile warlord that turned women into a form of currency are hunted down - and this reveals the idol worship of (and that is) Islam: this reverence (protection) of Muhammad and his infidelity - no doubt a reflection of an infidelity the Muhammadans themselves carry, hence their "taking offense" to criticisms of Muhammad. This is pure idol worship which, incidentally, began in Judaism.

The entire M/E conflict is based on it - now the entire world is dragged into it. And you ask "problems for who?"

Problems for all of humanity. Islam (and more broadly: the Abrahamic pantheon) is a humanitarian crisis, and those who are emotionally attached to their books and/or their idols will exhaust every possible avenue to deflect the focus off of them: this is precisely what Jews did with "antisemitism" and Muslims likewise do with "Islamophobia". These are both words designed to limit/prevent criticisms of their idolatrous doctrines that imbues man-made books with divine authority that "grants" them power over the so-called "unbelievers" that don't "believe" the nonsense they do, which brings us full circle back to socialism (loserism) and fascism - Islam is essentially this.

That's how/why all of the left parties have adopted racism, division, "us" vs. "them" attitudes and overall degeneracy because they are adopting such worldviews by Islam which has penetrated such parties. The principle division Islam employs is "believer" vs. "unbeliever" which manifests via proxy in the left parties.

The "believing" idol worshiping religious adherents can't see any of this because they are still asleep worshiping their idols - not the least of which is general attachment to their own emotions (another disease plaguing the left) and basing worldviews on these instead of what the reality is (using ones own 'conscience'). This is the entire basis of the degeneracy of the left, because it is the same general degeneracy that Islam (and undoubtedly Muhammad) has/had. These people literally see the world backwards and upside-down, "believing" peace can be attained through warfare.

Such problems have, and continue to, affect all of humanity. Now are you really going to stick with the question "problems for who?" If so: I don't know what planet you are living on.
 

Remté

Active Member
This substituting G-d in place of God has its roots in Judaism wherein they refused to 'pronounce' the name of god for fear of blasphemy.

This is not a virtue, but actually a form of degeneration.

If one meets another in passing and strikes up conversations, and they take liking to one another, what is the first thing often asked? "What is your name?"

And so if one wants to understand god, one has to understand the name. Protecting names and/or barring them from engagement and/or consideration is itself the blasphemy, not the other way around.
Jews are accused of exclusiveness in their religion. Accused of that they want to keep their God to themselves.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The issue of writing letters which might be construed as a divine label (as distinct from prohibitions surrounding speaking those labels aloud) are also related to the erasing/disposal of the written form. Even if writing the label is acceptable (that is, in a context where it makes sense) Jews are not allowed to destroy or erase the label (except in particular exceptional cases). So by not writing the complete word, anyone who sees the English label as having the same or a similar level of legal standing in terms of this injunction can avoid the problem. Rabbinic authorities have studied and debated whether the nature of a CRT (or another digital equivalent) creates a similar problem or not.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Jews are accused of exclusiveness in their religion. Accused of that they want to keep their God to themselves.

Yes - this is the nature of such a tribal theocracy: that there is even the notion of "other" (as in the case of Jews and Gentiles) begs exclusivity. Only the righteous/upright (Heb. tzaddik'eem) can be a Jew. Similarly in Islam, only the righteous/upright are "believers". Here is one particular allusion which speaks to my having earlier stated: there is not a single problem in Islam that does not first find expression in Judaism. Essentially Islam employs the same tribal theocracy - that it is hostile to Jews already sets the stage for perpetual conflict until either one or the other are eradicated.

Unfortunately the alternative of humanity waking up and realizing neither the Torah nor Qur'an came from any god doesn't seem within the realm of immediacy - at least not until another "holy war" is fought.

How can "war" be "holy"? This is another backwards idea of the Abrahamic system(s) of thought.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Jews are accused of exclusiveness in their religion. Accused of that they want to keep their God to themselves.
I'm not sure where this accusation comes from. Not only does (most of) Judaism accept converts, but it assumes a single God for all people, Jew and non-Jew alike.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
The issue of writing letters which might be construed as a divine label (as distinct from prohibitions surrounding speaking those labels aloud) are also related to the erasing/disposal of the written form. Even if writing the label is acceptable (that is, in a context where it makes sense) Jews are not allowed to destroy or erase the label (except in particular exceptional cases). So by not writing the complete word, anyone who sees the English label as having the same or a similar level of legal standing in terms of this injunction can avoid the problem. Rabbinic authorities have studied and debated whether the nature of a CRT (or another digital equivalent) creates a similar problem or not.

This interestingly relates to the Egyptian way of thinking: that if something it spoken and/or written, that is what manifests it. No doubt the Hyksos who would later become the wandering Israelites (before establishing a state) adopted such a way of thinking. This is inherited from Egypt, as is essentially most of the Biblical content - it all derives from Egypt, including the 10 commandments.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What's disrespectful in writing about someone using their customary title?

Do you address your letters to
'Dear S-r' or
'Dear M-d-m' or
'Dear C-ll-ct-r of T-x-s'?​
Good point. It would seem strange, if not disrespectful.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes - this is the nature of such a tribal theocracy: that there is even the notion of "other" (as in the case of Jews and Gentiles) begs exclusivity. Only the righteous/upright (Heb. tzaddik'eem) can be a Jew. Similarly in Islam, only the righteous/upright are "believers". Here is one particular allusion which speaks to my having earlier stated: there is not a single problem in Islam that does not first find expression in Judaism. Essentially Islam employs the same tribal theocracy - that it is hostile to Jews already sets the stage for perpetual conflict until either one or the other are eradicated.

Unfortunately the alternative of humanity waking up and realizing neither the Torah nor Qur'an came from any god doesn't seem within the realm of immediacy - at least not until another "holy war" is fought.

How can "war" be "holy"? This is another backwards idea of the Abrahamic system(s) of thought.
Interesting,and of course the thought has to be coped with. So at what time do you think the following would come into effect? Micah 4:3 - He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Since you bring up about Abrahamic warfare...)
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Aha - now we are seeing it.

There is nothing disrespectful in using a name - the problem only arises when others try to sanctify the name by setting restrictions that allow/disallow the use of them.

This is actually fascism - it is the seed of it, and it is present in Judaism.

In fact the Jews, which I argue are among the greatest idol worshipers (giving birth to the Muhammadan idol worshipers) which stemmed from the "worship" of such name, have bred this kind of fascism into their own religion.

This is done from a place a fear - and there can not be fear in the known, for if it is known, there is none to fear. It is precisely that Jews *don't* understand the names that they fear using them. This is the birth of idol worship and fascism - control over who can say what when and why.

It all relates back to the Abrahamic cults. Jews turned an Egyptian Akhunatun into a Jewish Moses (idol worship / falsifying history), a Greek messiah idol Jesus is born of/as the Jewish messiah (???) and the Muhammadans have their idol Muhammad. The Jews and Muslims both "believe" they are solely the inheritors of divine revelation(s) and in possession of divine books, when in fact both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. This *giant* problem is at the root of essentially all M/E conflict.

The pathology began with the Jews and their role in collapsing Egypt, eradicating all other gods and installing their own as "the one true one". Muslims are essentially further (de)generated "generations" of these people and have been at war *with themselves* for 1400 years.

Meanwhile, people are still looking up, pointing to their holy books and making completely stupid arguments that have been made by people long dead. There is nothing new to be had in any of this religious bickering: the problem(s) is(are) in the institution of "BELIEF" itself. When people learn that "belief" is not a virtue, only then will the Exodus of women begin away from patriarchal and misogynist men such as what Muhammad represents.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Interesting,and of course the thought has to be coped with. So at what time do you think the following would come into effect? Micah 4:3 - He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Since you bring up about Abrahamic warfare...)

So um, first I don't attach any particular significance to the book(s) of the Bible. As such the question when I think such and such will come into effect has no meaning to me.

However if we can say instead when I think war will end, it requires a few things:
1. Judaism and Islam need to renounce certain untrue assertions regarding the so-called "divinity" of their respective books. The problem here is both are making an identical claim; one thinks one is right and the other is wrong (and vice versa) meanwhile never contemplating the *possibility* that they are *both* wrong. Christianity must concede that this "Jesus" myth is nothing but idol worship.
2. Women need to be restored as equal to man, and man need to renounce trying to own/dominate women. This kind of patriarchy is what leads to war, and it starts with coveting of women.
3. The institution of marriage: when two become one, must be held as the most sacred and sanctimonious event. Such an event should be recognized globally - not under any particular religious institution (which must be collapsed) but as something wholly Sacred.

Before any of this happens, Jews/Christians/Muslims need to understand what idol worship *actually* is and how that is essentially what they themselves are: adopting male patriarchal figures and using them as a basis for a theocratic state. What then should take its place?

Precisely what is in point 3: ruler(s) of any state must necessarily involve a Matriarchy and Patriarchy ruling as One. When such a system(s) of rule is established - which restores the woman in her creative role - because the polarities are equally expressed/balanced there will be no war. There is only war because (right now) patriarchy is essentially preying on women. This needs to stop, and Islam is the embodiment of it.

So if/until these things are addressed, humanity will continue to wage wars and kill each other over one simple misunderstanding: that the status of "god" is a shared co-mutual relationship between masculine and feminine.

To putter this matter *into* the context of the Abrahamic writings - by doing so even temporarily granting to the adherents of such that *their own* writings are true...

...all of this is in the first few chapters of the first book of Moses - whom Jews and Muslims hypocritically claim is a prophet. If Moses used the name 'Elohim' to name the creator god - the god that creates - both polarities are in that name, which is precisely why Elohim has an image (masculine) *and* a likeness (feminine); that is, male and female. That's in the book of Moses too - and it is actually true: you can not have life/creation without both polarities uniting in some way.

The perfect unification of man and woman as one - this is essentially the reversal of original sin(s) and restoration of the Edenic state both within and without - the latter actually being a manifested form of the former. I say this because, it seems to be, if Eve is derived from Adam's own rib, and Adam eventually forgot the reality that Eve *is* a *part* of Adam, despite them being "apart", this is the sin. That man and woman are two things rather than expressions of one thing. To reattain this understanding of creation is to likewise reattain the knowledge of (not "belief" in) what one refers to as "god": the Elohim who *know* good and evil. This must be true: they *know* both polarities because the polarities work with one another ad infinitum and create whatever the will of the creator(s) is/are. That is what "god" is: they who have the ability to create using the two polarities as one.

However the Abrahamic religions, and Islam especially, are actually a waged war *against* women and their status as co-creator. In such cults, the man exerts himself over the woman. In a sexual context, this is rape. This is how sexual degeneracy and the eating of the forbidden fruits are related - more mysteries that are *inside* the very books these hypocritical institutions flaunt about - the hypocrisy is nauseating.
 
Last edited:

Remté

Active Member
So um, first I don't attach any particular significance to the book(s) of the Bible. As such the question when I think such and such will come into effect has no meaning to me.

However if we can say instead when I think war will end, it requires a few things:
1. Judaism and Islam need to renounce certain untrue assertions regarding the so-called "divinity" of their respective books. The problem here is both are making an identical claim; one thinks one is right and the other is wrong (and vice versa) meanwhile never contemplating the *possibility* that they are *both* wrong. Christianity must concede that this "Jesus" myth is nothing but idol worship.
2. Women need to be restored as equal to man, and man need to renounce trying to own/dominate women. This kind of patriarchy is what leads to war, and it starts with coveting of women.
3. The institution of marriage: when two become one, must be held as the most sacred and sanctimonious event. Such an event should be recognized globally - not under any particular religious institution (which must be collapsed) but as something wholly Sacred.

Before any of this happens, Jews/Christians/Muslims need to understand what idol worship *actually* is and how that is essentially what they themselves are: adopting male patriarchal figures and using them as a basis for a theocratic state. What then should take its .
With your definition of idol worship there is nothing that isn't idol worship. Which means you're guilty of it as well. It isn't something only to do with God.

Where do you all these ideas?
 

9-18-1

Active Member
With your definition of idol worship...

Stop there... what exactly do you propose is my own "definition" of idol worship? I'm interested.

there is nothing that isn't idol worship.

There is plenty that is not idol worship - still with anticipation of your answer to the above, I will offer the loose association of idol worship to "taking offense". If someone is offended by criticisms of something that they are attached to, such as a religious figure/idol, this reveals that they are worshiping said figure/idol. In the context of the Abrahamic cults, Moses (who was actually the Egyptian Akhunatun) Jesus and Muhammad are all idols that govern the minds/hearts/actions of adherents.

Not regarding such patriarchal figures as having an infallible status and must be protected from scrutiny would be the opposite of idol worship: the absence of which is the "plenty" that is not idol worship - it is anything/everything beyond it.

Which means you're guilty of it as well. It isn't something only to do with God

I don't worship dead men - or living ones. I don't imbue man-made books with an authority they don't actually possess outside of the idol worshipers that imbue them with such. I also don't accept "belief" as anything of virtue - I see "belief" as precisely the opposite: a bind which necessarily never reflects the true reality.

As such I am not bound to the various systems of control (ie. fear, belief) employed by religious institutions who are eternally petrified of the idea of death and that, one day, they too will die. Suppose death is actually a process of (re)birth? What is there to fear then, only that one be born from (and into) the same nonsense they helped create and/or destroy? This is where the key of liberation lies: full sovereignty over ones own being and never yielding to an outside authority as is the case in idol worship.

Where do you all these ideas?

My conscience - I listen to claims being made by religious institutions, test them, and see if they are true or untrue. That's what "science" is - method of inquiry. And "con" pertains to the self - hence ones own "conscience" is ones own ability to inquire.

"Belief" does not require conscience. In fact, "belief" neglects this most fundamental faculty which, once again, why I say "belief" is far from being a virtue - it is a stagnation. If one does not use their own conscience, they are betraying what it means to be human. As such "belief" reduces one back into animal nature, which is precisely what makes Islam a degenerative illness, and I don't *care* if people are offended by that. That people are offended by such things reveals their own insecurity.

If you want to know what one worships, discover what they are offended by. One who is not offended by anything is completely liberated as he/she is in full control over all faculties at all times and can not be provoked into animal-like behavior, as is the case of the idol worshiping religionists that spill blood over criticisms of their idols.

So my ideas come from asking questions and seeking their answers. Once the answer(s) is(are) known, I go on to the next one and continue to learn more. This process is something "believers" don't do - at least not consciously. If they did, they wouldn't be "believers" but rather "knowers" which is the basis of gnosis - to know. "Belief" is therefor not a virtue, it is a blatant display of ignorance and is wholly a-gnostic - without knowledge.
 
Top