The Name of God

[Neo Deist]

All of the holy texts that make up the world's dominant religions were written centuries ago, prior to the invention of telescopes, satellites, space shuttles, cosmic probes and planetary rovers. To those people, the sky was merely a canopy over the earth, and the stars were tiny dots glowing within. Little did they know that those stars are so far away that it takes light years to reach them, and that some of them are so massive that they would cover the distance from our sun to Mars. They had no concept of how enormous the universe really is. Many believed in geocentricity, or that the earth was the center of God's creation.

Which leads me to the next part of this topic; the name of God. Obviously the various earth bound cultures and religions have (or had) different names for their chief deity: Ra, Zeus, Odin, Bhagahan, Tawa, Tunkanshila, Akal Purakh, Adonai, Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Ahura Mazda, etc. Every single one of these is culture bound and reflects a certain area of the world and/or time period.

Let's stop and think outside of the box for a minute. Those names are all man made, based on the culture/language. But what would a being from the planet Neburius (random, made up name) call God? Obviously and most likely, they do not speak any earth bound language. It could be "Kre-a-kahz-phut" for all we know.

I say that because our tiny planet is one of hundreds of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in the universe. Just because we lack the technology to find life on other planets does not mean that life does not exist. It is only within the past 70 years that we have ventured out into space. We are mere infants when it comes to cosmic exploration, still attached to the umbilical cord called earth.

Getting back to the name of God, I think it is silly for religions to argue over who is right or wrong. Some go as far as to not say or spell out their version of the name. These idiosyncrasies are of human origin, not divine. Someone, at some point, said "you should not do this" and the concept stuck. Personally I don't think God really gives a crap what you refer to "Him" as. How finicky would it be for the Supreme Being and Creator of the universe to get hung up on whether or not someone on earth uses a dash, or draws a picture depicting "Him" in a comic strip. I think God has bigger things to be concerned with...you know, like asteroids on a collision course with planet Bada-wata-hata.

Furthermore, has anyone actually seen God? Does God have male anatomy? The answer is no, so why do we always refer to God as He or Him? Well, because the Judaism/Christian/Islamic culture from long ago was very male chauvinistic and God HAD to be a male, as women were seen as inferior (and still are in many parts of the world). I respectfully refer to God as It, and don't presume to know God's gender, if any.

So why do I call God, "God"? Because I speak English and grew up with that tradition. YMMV.

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm. Interesting.

I would like to say one thing Neo. Elohim means Powers. Plural of Power. Its not a name, its a description. Allah is THE GOD. Its not a name.

 

[Neo Deist]

Hmmm. Interesting.

I would like to say one thing Neo. Elohim means Powers. Plural of Power. Its not a name, its a description.

Not according to Mormons.

Allah is THE GOD. Its not a name.

In older times perhaps, especially if it is derived from al ilah. But in modern times, the world knows that when a Muslim says Allah, they mean "God."

 

[firedragon]

Not according to Mormons.



In older times perhaps, especially if it is derived from al ilah. But in modern times, the world knows that when a Muslim says Allah, they mean "God."

It is derived from AL ilah. It is God. Capital G. Literally it is The God like the mother.

Mormons. I didn't know they consider them names.

Cheers.

 

[Tumah]

That's an interesting theory on how religions work, but I don't see any convincing arguments there for theists to accept.
For me there is Ex. 20:18.

G-d is referred to as a He, because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronouns, verbs and adjectives. So there are only two choices: male or female. Since the archetypal male form is the giver and the archetypal female form is the receiver and G-d in general is gives us everything, the male pronoun is more appropriate. For times, when G-d seems to act in a more receiving capacity, the female pronoun is used.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Greetings,
Your post is quite thoughtfully written. "Name of God" rings my bells, you might say; you can see my firm stance on it in my tagline or whatever they call that.

As you are rightfully saying, it isn't really that God is different, it's that the Name used by His/Her/Its devotees to designate That differs. There is only OneGod. Whether you call it wasser or jal or agua, water will still slake your thirst. Have you heard a Christian sing say, "Amazing Grace" with full devotional knowledge and gratitude as the recipient of God's grace? Have you seen and heard the ecstatic song and dance of a Hindu in rapture singing his chosen Lord's Holy Name? And OMG, have you ever heard a devout Muslim call his brothers and sisters to prayer? Ohhhh, when that Holy Name Allah is sung from his heart... I swoon, and I'm a "Hindu" swami! Letting go of bias means that OneGod (who is always present in one's heart) can then gladly give an awareness of bliss, the same "He" gets when He hears His Name sung with love in another language. It's an exquisite experience to sip the nectar of another devotee's devotion. When you get that taste, it simply won't matter to you what Name that devotee is calling his or her God, I assure you. And maybe that's one of the lessons. God certainly seems to love variety, no? Why not take delight in all of it? (The His, Her and It thing is a whole 'nother topic.)

As an aside, it is not true that obtaining correct knowledge of the starry heavens required the scientific instruments (of somewhat more recent origin) such as you named. It's quite possible I misunderstood what you were saying, though.

 

[atanu]

All of the holy texts that make up the world's dominant religions were written centuries ago, prior to the invention of telescopes, satellites, space shuttles, cosmic probes and planetary rovers. To those people, the sky was merely a canopy over the earth, and the stars were tiny dots glowing within. Little did they know that those stars are so far away that it takes light years to reach them, and that some of them are so massive that they would cover the distance from our sun to Mars. They had no concept of how enormous the universe really is. Many believed in geocentricity, or that the earth was the center of God's creation.

Which leads me to the next part of this topic; the name of God. Obviously the various earth bound cultures and religions have (or had) different names for their chief deity: Ra, Zeus, Odin, Bhagahan, Tawa, Tunkanshila, Akal Purakh, Adonai, Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Ahura Mazda, etc. Every single one of these is culture bound and reflects a certain area of the world and/or time period.

Let's stop and think outside of the box for a minute. Those names are all man made, based on the culture/language. But what would a being from the planet Neburius (random, made up name) call God? Obviously and most likely, they do not speak any earth bound language. It could be "Kre-a-kahz-phut" for all we know.

I say that because our tiny planet is one of hundreds of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in the universe. Just because we lack the technology to find life on other planets does not mean that life does not exist. It is only within the past 70 years that we have ventured out into space. We are mere infants when it comes to cosmic exploration, still attached to the umbilical cord called earth.

Getting back to the name of God, I think it is silly for religions to argue over who is right or wrong. Some go as far as to not say or spell out their version of the name. These idiosyncrasies are of human origin, not divine. Someone, at some point, said "you should not do this" and the concept stuck. Personally I don't think God really gives a crap what you refer to "Him" as. How finicky would it be for the Supreme Being and Creator of the universe to get hung up on whether or not someone on earth uses a dash, or draws a picture depicting "Him" in a comic strip. I think God has bigger things to be concerned with...you know, like asteroids on a collision course with planet Bada-wata-hata.

Furthermore, has anyone actually seen God? Does God have male anatomy? The answer is no, so why do we always refer to God as He or Him? Well, because the Judaism/Christian/Islamic culture from long ago was very male chauvinistic and God HAD to be a male, as women were seen as inferior (and still are in many parts of the world). I respectfully refer to God as It, and don't presume to know God's gender, if any.

So why do I call God, "God"? Because I speak English and grew up with that tradition. YMMV.

First. The 'Word' itself is not man-made.
Second. Not the mere sound of the Word, but the meaning it evokes is important.

Your beloved's name may be 'Clara', someone else's 'Lara', etc., but meaning of 'beloved' does not change.

 

[Neo Deist]

First. The 'Word' itself is not man-made.

Yes, actually...it is. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk with ink and quill and wrote anything. It is ALWAYS people that said God spoke to them and they write stuff down. Every holy book on the planet is man made.

A survey of the OT will quickly let you know that humans came up with that stuff, from a culture and era long removed from a modern, civilized world.

 

[atanu]

Yes, actually...it is. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk with ink and quill and wrote anything. It is ALWAYS people that said God spoke to them and they write stuff down. Every holy book on the planet is man made.

A survey of the OT will quickly let you know that humans came up with that stuff, from a culture and era long removed from a modern, civilized world.

Can you identify the one who has the opinions and voices them?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's an interesting theory on how religions work, but I don't see any convincing arguments there for theists to accept.
For me there is Ex. 20:18.

G-d is referred to as a He, because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronouns, verbs and adjectives. So there are only two choices: male or female. Since the archetypal male form is the giver and the archetypal female form is the receiver and G-d in general is gives us everything, the male pronoun is more appropriate. For times, when G-d seems to act in a more receiving capacity, the female pronoun is used.

Interesting, Tumah! Thanks.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

God is everything present in the cosmos n also the sensually absent.
God is neither male nor female. Only living beings with ego and ignorance holds gender as valid.
Durga is a female God, Ardhanarishvara is the transgender form of Shiva n Shakti.
I guess God is beyond any description possible, hence we use such words

 

[Katzpur]

Not according to Mormons.

Actually, according to Mormons, it's both.

 

[Neo Deist]

That's an interesting theory on how religions work, but I don't see any convincing arguments there for theists to accept.
For me there is Ex. 20:18.

G-d is referred to as a He, because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronouns, verbs and adjectives. So there are only two choices: male or female. Since the archetypal male form is the giver and the archetypal female form is the receiver and G-d in general is gives us everything, the male pronoun is more appropriate. For times, when G-d seems to act in a more receiving capacity, the female pronoun is used.

God is referred to as He because in ancient Judaism, women were seen as inferior to men, and the men that wrote the scrolls that would become the Bible were not about to make God a female. Regardless of a modern spin, that society was very male chauvinistic.

 

[Katzpur]

God is referred to as He because in ancient Judaism, women were seen as inferior to men, and the men that wrote the scrolls that would become the Bible were not about to make God a female. Regardless of a modern spin, that society was very male chauvinistic.

So did Jesus refer to God as His "Father," because He (Jesus) was a chauvinist, or because that's what He (God) actually was? In other words, since when are fathers female?

 

[Thief]

Yes, actually...it is. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk with ink and quill and wrote anything. It is ALWAYS people that said God spoke to them and they write stuff down. Every holy book on the planet is man made.

A survey of the OT will quickly let you know that humans came up with that stuff, from a culture and era long removed from a modern, civilized world.

yeah....and as Moses took the tablets in hand to go back to his people....
he did ask of God....
the people will want to know your Name....whose law this is.....

and he was told....
Tell the people ....I AM!....and they with understanding will know Whose Word this is....

 

[Shaul]

So did Jesus refer to God as His "Father," because He (Jesus) was a chauvinist, or because that's what He (God) actually was? In other words, since when are fathers female?

It's called an anthropomorphism. G-d doesn't have a gender. G-d is just using gender terms so we can relate to G-d in some way. In Torah G-d also has feminine names. In the Christian New Testament we also read that Jesus longs to gather people up "like a mother hen gathers her chicks". That doesn't make Jesus a hermaphrodite. I repeat, these are just anthropomorphisms.

 

[Thief]

and welcome to the forum

 

[Katzpur]

It's called an anthropomorphism. G-d doesn't have a gender. G-d is just using gender terms so we can relate to G-d in some way. In Torah G-d also has feminine names. In the Christian New Testament we also read that Jesus longs to gather people up "like a mother hen gathers her chicks". That doesn't make Jesus a hermaphrodite. I repeat, these are just anthropomorphisms.

I disagree. Jesus refers to God as His Father. He refers to Mary as His mother. My belief is that they were His parents. I don't see God as without gender; I know you do, and that's fine with me.

"Like a mother hen" is a simile. A man could be "like a mother men" with respect to how he cares for his people. I do agree, though, that having this quality wouldn't make Jesus (or any man, for that matter) a hermaphrodite.

 

[Neo Deist]

I disagree. Jesus refers to God as His Father. He refers to Mary as His mother. My belief is that they were His parents. I don't see God as without gender; I know you do, and that's fine with me.

"Like a mother hen" is a simile. A man could be "like a mother men" with respect to how he cares for his people. I do agree, though, that having this quality wouldn't make Jesus (or any man, for that matter) a hermaphrodite.

Actually, Jesus never wrote anything and was most likely illiterate. The anonymous authors of the Gospels stated that Jesus said "God the Father."

 

[Neo Deist]

So did Jesus refer to God as His "Father," because He (Jesus) was a chauvinist, or because that's what He (God) actually was? In other words, since when are fathers female?

It went over your head.