God, what's the nature of... ?

The Hebrews (and other cultures) have indeed been called to abandon their pantheon of gods in order to worship the Creator. The Bible confirms that there are many other "gods"... spiritual beings that were created by God, then chose to rebel against Him. The most famous of these would be Satan. The Hebrews (and other cultures) have struggled with idolotry throughout history. God has called all of us to worship the Creator rather than creation, however.

Jeff(fake) is both correct and incorrect regarding the tetragrammaton. It is indeed meant to have no vowels, but this is because the Hebrew alphabet does not contain any vowels at all. None of their written words have vowels. The "vowel markings" that are inserted between the letters in modern Hebrew are a recent invention. Ancient Hebrew did not use such markings.

God created other Gods? I thought he created Angels, which then rebelled when led by Satan?

Last I checked, Angels were not deities, but then, if they aren't, then why doesn't God just wipe them out? If they *are* then why isn't it equally valid to worship them instead of God? They must surely be equal in power...

The word "god" can be used to refer to something powerful other than the true Creator. In John 10 the messiah uses it to refer to men, and in other places it is used to refer to angels (and other false gods).

You are correct about the angels (at least in english.) However, these fallen angels have been worshiped by humans, and when that happens it is correct to call them "gods." One can make a god of anything by worshiping it... money, yourself, or a fallen angel. "Angels" are not truly divine. They were created by God like you and me, and they are not equal to God in their power. It is wrong to worship them.

Why is it wrong? Good and evil are properly understood as obedience and disobedience to God. Thus, since God has said to worship only Him and not things that He has created, it is "wrong" to worship angels (whether fallen or not).

(btw, If anyone wants to get technical about it... I am in fact aware of what the word angel really means. I'm just using it as a generic word since that is the way most people use it).

Simply a term/name for a "greater being", a belief with no physical form.

Written Hebrew had no vowels, but the words were still prounced using vowels if you get me?

So, the word Rabbits would have been prounounced rabbits, but spelt, rbbts. So, written YHVH (Yud Hay Vav Hay) is correct, but if it were spoken, there would be vowel sounds. But its never spoken, so its not a problem...

Just so you know, there are supposedly two kinds of Angels (malakh). Those created by G-d do not have free will as they are always in His divine presence, and those who were humans who ascended to become Angels, who still have the human capacity of free will, and can choose and can be punished (Elijah, Matat).

OK - so I understand that the Hebrews fell from all other gods in the time they have been in Egypt... Lou: There is a theory (I stated it somewhere earlier) that Hebrews in fact have been ONE tribe OF/ IN Egypt, who were falling from the polytheistic to the monotheistic belief and therefore they "left" the ancient Egypt. That Mose in fact was a Pharao who led the people of Israel out of the duality, out of the polytheism and therefore (ideologically) out of Egypt... how does that sound to you?

I mean not many would disagree that todays "Palestinians" and Israelis share common heritage (are cousins so to speak) which makes the entire conflict so absurd...

Back to topic. Also in Christianity some worship rather to Mary than to Jesus, as he is "too perfect"... whatever that means. In this we have to differ between the creatures and people who are also created by "the one" (force)... In Hinduism every god is an emanation of the creator, if you worship Hanuman you will also get to the creator through him, as well as if you worship Shiva... God incarnates to earth (some believe) to teach and to help mankind to evolve. IMO this is a projection upon exceptional people with great skills and this can be observed throughout all the cultures.

But to understand the true nature of god (after Hebrew) you have to go through all stages, as shown in the tree of life... To experience all qualities that he/ it consists of...

As we had this in another thread: if we limit the nature of god to something that suits our projection (the ultimate good, the perfect...) are we not falling in the trap of duality? Therefore blindfolded to understand the true nature of god?

Yeh I saw that theory. Perhaps its true, but there isn't too much evidence to support it, and when you look into it a whole lot doesn't make sense..

Anywho, work now!

*necrobump*

just stumbled across this one

Is god willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god

-Epicurus

maybe "he" has no understanding of what it is that 'you' call evil ?

in which case "he" is ignorant,
Then he is not omnicogniscent,

i heard he was dead....


/shrug

well I do not know what "god" means to you... I can only go for what "he" means to me. and in this realm "good/evil" are simply limited angles of perception in time and space.

for me it's not about ignorance as much as it is about encompassing all that life holds and having the patience to wait for the final chapter.

the above interviews do reflect quite a lot of what I came to - after a life-long struggle with conditioned definitions and thus confusion over what that term actually means (to me). neither Christianity nor Buddhism came up with sufficient answers, except for

"don't rely on hearsay..."

I think there's an argument to be made that if you're not talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly benevolent (and metaphysically necessary and personal, I would argue) being, then whatever you're talking about isn't God.

How many of "God's" supposed properties can you tweak before you're talking about something else entirely? Surely if I said that "to me, God was an American president assassinated by John Wilkes Booth and not, as many people conceive, a supreme being at all" you would think there was something wrong with what I'm saying.

But whatevs. I personally think the entire complex of theological questions is tiresome and some of the least important questions one can ask (certainly less important than "did I remember to brush my teeth this morning").

I find it interesting that there is a fair amount of discussion on this topic that covers the 'christian' concept of God.

Intersting because I love it when people who dont believe in God, try to define Him; and tell me what He is or isnt. but if your not a religious person, where do you get the knowledge to define God from?

Surely if you dont believe in God; then you have no basis to describe His personality types....

(not a dig at anyone, or any particular post - just a universal and generalised thought)

As for my definition of God. read the bible

Or Aslan from the lion the witch and the wardrobe, that comes close

I think the references to the Christian God come mostly from the fact that it is one of the more popular cults with the largest and most organised churches. Also if your arguing religion it's easier to say god than name one in particular as it works as both a concept and gets automatically associated with the christian jehova or Jewish yahweh -

To be fair it doesn't really matter which godling is being discussed they all have equal merit (Zero IMO), either gods can or can't exist and specifying can become complicated and I suppose people are still a bit touchy about blasting religions they aren't too knowledgable on - christianity is fairly well documented in the western world so everyone can join the discussion - whereas other religions may not be fully understood by everyone.

I just view religions as slightly larger cults as I haven't really seen a good distinction between the 2 apart from Cults are supposed to have charasmatic leaders which is something the pope has never struck me as, both have fanatics, both believe in some unprovable faith structure designed to lead you to spread their beliefs for some moral reward, I just think Cults have more fun... until the inevitable gun battle and burning down of the compound.

It's why I find people laughing at scientology so funny it has exactly the same plausibility as catholiscism except it's clandestine and secretive about it's beliefs rather than trying to ram it down everyones throat - they just seem a little more selective about the people who join.

^^^Your right. I also have many bones to pick with religion. The trouble is when "you" define your version of God from the christian God for simplicity reasons, familiarity reasons etc; you are misrepresenting the Christian God.

After seening many discusssions on this topic I would say that most westerners do not have a good understanding of the christian God, they have assumptions based on a lot of misinformation.


Epicurus had a warped sense of who God is. By using this as an example of who God is is you are misrepresenting who God is; not only that you are now furthering the spread of misinformation.

and I know I am being picky, I could easily argue against what I just wrote myself - I just wanted to highlight a point of view that people might not actually be thinking about in discussions about God. When most people talk about God, they have a barrow to push, and the talk more revolves around their own agenda; not the actual topic at hand. Therefore the definition of God gets formed around peoples gripes.

Also, using the correct interpretation of the word 'cult' and its origins - Christianity is not a cult. Catholicism, Anglican, baptist etc. are all technically denominations. Scientology, Mormonism, and things like the solar temple are Cults.

the only thing i really have to say is perfect and he created us in his image why are we not pefect so what does that make him?