discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[villain]

mams, i think the problem lies in the fact that nature is able to self regulate, while man has a hard time agreeing on many things. We have altered nature for our own whims but there is a cost which we have only begun to quantify.

If we learn to live in harmony with nature, as we used to, rather than our current use and abuse philosophy, then I will worry less about drawing distinct lines between man and nature.

[casekonly]

i find it funny that i think of

animals and insects as robots.

pre-programmed to react to situations.

 

worker bee's, ants, etc etc.

so, is god a programmer?

a robot builder?

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

I bet you could draw comparisons between nature overall and any specific species and come up with apparent discrepancies as well. Human beings may be a "disease" in nature, but that doesn't make it unnatural. Nature is able to self-regulate, and it will do so in our case as well.

 

I just think it's arrogant for us to asume that we are somehow separate from nature because we think we can "alter" its laws, or go "against" them. This "altering" is a perfectly natural part of the process. There is no standing above, below, beyond, or behind nature.

[villain]

Certainly nature will regulate us.... It's just the preposterous notion that we can do natures job for her that gets me. I find it better to live in balance the way things are now, in conditions that took thousands of years to make conducive to us, or millions in the case of life itself..... this entire process of evolution, of achieving ever greater levels of complexity, could all be dashed because of a monkey who thought he was god.

casek- funny analogy, robots. Instinctive automatons... From humans down to amino acids we have a desire to survive.... to feed, and to think that all of our human capacities could be based on that instinct? Nah, just seems to simple....

[casekonly]

villain: well, instinct is programming of sorts.

there are tons of different robots to 'do' different

'jobs'. (i like putting things in quotes, brackets and such.

makes me feel cool)

 

from the human who eats the cow, then shits out

the waste product, to the fly that regurgitates on it,

to the larva that infests it and breaks it down....etc.

it can go on forever.

 

it's odd to think of god as a master programmer

who set the program free, but i do.

 

don't get me wrong, i don't care anything about

the matrix movie, but i do relate this to a matrix

of sorts.

 

matrix

n 1: a rectangular array of elements (or entries) set out by rows

and columns

2: an enclosure within which something originates or develops

(from the Latin for womb)

3: the body substance in which tissue cells are embedded [syn:

intercellular substance, ground substance]

4: the formative tissue at the base of a nail

5: mold used in the production of phonograph records, type, or

other relief surface

[RumPuncher]

Originally posted by El Mamerro@Aug 8 2005, 05:41 PM

Human beings may be a "disease" in nature, but that doesn't make it unnatural....

 

you wanted to say 'virus' didn't you?

 

 

According to the Old Testament, it was human kind who ate from the

tree of knoledge and were forced out of paradise. Most people believe

that humans are the only sentient creatures on the planet. Certainly

we've been the only creature to 'out grow' our simple place in the world

and force dominion over other species.

 

I do see where you are coming from Mamerro, about all things being part

of nature, but humans certainly aren't in harmony with nature, and every

other living thing seems to be in some state of natural balance. A wolf

wont kill two deers in a row just because it can. A fox wont attack a cow

just because it's a meat eater and a cow is a choice cut of meat. People

WILL find ways to slaughter beyond what is necessary for survival and then

refuse to share our spoils with other humans who dont have as much.

 

Humans are not abiding by the 'law of the jungle' and to me that means 'out-of-step' with nature.

 

 

*I'll stop with the Lion King references.

[Dawood]

Wow, This thread has been popping off for sure. There is no way for me to respond to everone who directed comments to me (I do have a life too) I would like to clarify a few things that some people have accused me of. Mainly , attacking peoples religions. I went back to my posts and read them and I saw that 95% of what I wrote was completely concerning the attributes of God. The other 5% give or take was the rejection of all other false Gods. In order for a person to have certainty in beleif , they must have an absence of Doubt. And this absence of doubt would naturally cause them to reject worshipping Idols and created things.

The simple fact is that if something is a creation of God , then it is not a creator in the absolute sense and thus deserves no part of divinity or worship. So why would a person who beleives fully in something bend his beleif to please people? Everyone here has an opinion, and thats ok, I see that peoples wheels are spinning and thinking about God, In my book , thats a good thing. Hopefully, we will turn to God in more of our lives on a more regular basis.

Rememberence of God benefits the beleiver.

 

 

Originally posted by El Mamerro+Aug 8 2005, 06:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (El Mamerro - Aug 8 2005, 06:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 7 2005, 09:55 PM

Ok lets talk about imperfection...since we can't use a peice of crap as an example, let's go a little further up the food chain and talk about humans. 

 

#1 If we dont drink-we die

#2 If we dont eat -we die

#3 If we dont sleep- well I'm not sure what happens after the too tired to think phase but i'm sure it isnt pretty.

#4 If we get sick we do all types of imperfect actions such as Puke,

get diarheaa, etc etc.

#5 We cant see the future

#6 we die

 

God doesnt need drink

God doesnt need food

God doesnt need to sleep

God doesnt get sick

God sees all and hears all

God doesnt die

 

Quoted post

 

Well, this discussion has moved ahead and I can see you're knee deep in it, but just to get back to this point... how is any of what you described imperfect? You seem to have a very narrow idea of what "perfect" is without having a proper context in which to evaluate it.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Perfection is the absolute completion of a thing.To be perfect is to be completely self sufficient (are any of us that?) to be completely free of needs and wants, (how long can you go without needing a drink)

perfection is complete knowledge of all things (humans can't even co exist without killing eachother) perfection is to never have any defect in any way (can any of us claim that for ourselves?)

 

Any way I understand the cyle of life and the value of crap to insects, and this is all part of God's GREATNESS but I can't accept that it is part of God. Again, God is perfect and free from defects. On the other hand, created things (as much value that they may have) eventually die and decompose

 

God does not die and decompose.

 

Do you understand this concept?

 

I don't want to talk about religion or Islamor Buddhism or which sect Osama Bin Laden belongs to. All I ever intended to talk about in this thread is God and everyone else dragged me into a religion discussion. Religion is secondary, Knowing about God is first.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by casekonly@Aug 8 2005, 09:38 PM

i find it funny that i think of

animals and insects as robots.

pre-programmed to react to situations.

 

worker bee's, ants, etc etc.

so, is god a programmer?

a robot builder?

Quoted post

thats a pretty good analogy casek...Animals and plants and insects and organisms and microcosms and molecules of sorts do all seem to be programmed to perform an array of different tasks and this all seems to fit perfect into the perfect plan of the God.

[RumPuncher]

how is decomposition a defect?

 

when a seed turns into an oak tree, that a manifestation of god.

When the leaves from that tree fall and rot under the snow,

how is that NOT a manifestation of god? When those leave decay,

they provide food for the next generation of seeds... and the cycle continues.

 

I dont think that we can say where God starts and stops, seing as it's infinate

and our brains are not capable of knowing the infinate. I honestly think

that any human description of God will be incomplete, and that has to be admitted by all faiths.

[bodice_ripper]

Originally posted by Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 10:46 PM

 

I don't want to talk about religion or Islamor Buddhism or which sect Osama Bin Laden belongs to. All I ever intended to talk about in this thread is God and everyone else dragged me into a religion discussion. Religion is secondary, Knowing about God is first.

Quoted post

 

 

One can only assume you mean you only want to talk about your particular god, and if so, why not call the thread My Views On God.

[Dawood]

Decomposition is not a defect in that it serves a purpose, but, the defect is when you attribute divinity to something that dies and insects feast upon. God is not part of his creation. Even pagan religions of the past used this argument to worship Wood Idols because they beleived that God was a part of everything. But in reality , this is a trick. To fool people into worshipping other than God.

 

I agree that any human description of God will be incomplete. For sure, Our brains were not even created to comprehend God. But, as far as our relation to God and what it takes for us to come closer to God , I think this is not something unknown to man.

[villain]

No harm meant Dawood. I only spoke in that manner because I was under the impression that you started this discussion only to criticize the beliefs of others and proselytize your own faith. I agree that any discussion of God in general is good. We should seek a commonality and not criticize each others differences.

 

Casek- yes you are right, there is a sort of divine order to this complexity. Birth, death, life, even eating shit.... lol It all has a place in the whole of the cycles of nature, which, functioning altogether is an approximation of perfection.... not an absolute perfection in the divine sense however.

There are some religious folks who have a hard time accepting the "negative" side of god. Realizing good and bad are both heads on the same coin. In most world religions, God is a threefold entity, a holy trinity, each of which representing the Creator, the Destroyer, and the Resurrected, or rebirth if you will. And these tripartite forces are also essential qualities of nature. In the most general humanistic terms they represent woman (creator), man(destroyer), and child(rebirth). (This is really well explained in Anacalypsis which I always like to plug... lol)

 

I suppose as dependent human beings we want to only see the good side of god. And I suppose it's more stoic and monklike to accept that god has both good and bad.... for why would an all powerful god allow evil to exist if it weren't part of her divine plan?

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by RumPuncher@Aug 8 2005, 05:41 PM

 

I do see where you are coming from Mamerro, about all things being part

of nature, but humans certainly aren't in harmony with nature, and every

other living thing seems to be in some state of natural balance. A wolf

wont kill two deers in a row just because it can. A fox wont attack a cow

just because it's a meat eater and a cow is a choice cut of meat. People

WILL find ways to slaughter beyond what is necessary for survival and then

refuse to share our spoils with other humans who dont have as much.

Quoted post

 

 

You sure about that? I picked up an old National Geographic magazine the other day with a cover article about arctic wolves. The writer, who observed them for about a month, describes in great detail a hunt in which the wolves killed all the cubs of a pack of oxen, even though only one or two were plenty to last them a while. They finished off an entire generation and possibly seriously disrupted the circle of survival. Animals do things that are "out-of-step" with nature all the time. They, like us, live in a self-absorbed world where short-term survival is king and and there isn't even a passing thought about preserving natural harmony. The harmony exists because nature works itself out. Humans may be doing a whole bunch of dumb things that may seriously compromise years of evolution, but so will a perfectly natural asteroid that just happens to have Earth in its way. The asteroid isn't out of step with nature, so why are we?

 

Humans are a tool of nature. If we are "doing nature's job for her", it's because nature has created us and given us the ability to do so. The notion that nature has a certain balance that must be kept pure and holy for eternity is a little shortsighted in my opinion. It is only a matter of time before a paradigm shift occurs where the rules of natural progress (such as evolution) change, and I feel like this is why we're here. Wether we destroy ourselves or take nature to the next level is up to us, but nature fully intends to try it out.

 

 

As for the programmer God idea, it's no coincidence that this entire universe is ruled by dualities (the most basic being "exists" and "does not exist") very much akin to the ones and zeros of digital language.

[ERIZENO]

Originally posted by bodice_ripper+Aug 8 2005, 11:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bodice_ripper - Aug 8 2005, 11:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 10:46 PM

 

I don't want to talk about religion or Islamor Buddhism or which sect Osama Bin Laden belongs to. All I ever intended to talk about in this thread is God and everyone else dragged me into a religion discussion. Religion is secondary, Knowing about God is first.

Quoted post

 

 

One can only assume you mean you only want to talk about your particular god, and if so, why not call the thread My Views On God.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

i agree with bodice .... You want to talk about your views of god. But with an absolute in your set of views it dosent allow for an open free flowing discussion. Your way of viewing God is not very forgiving to others, even removing religion from the mix.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by bodice_ripper+Aug 8 2005, 11:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bodice_ripper - Aug 8 2005, 11:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 10:46 PM

 

I don't want to talk about religion or Islamor Buddhism or which sect Osama Bin Laden belongs to. All I ever intended to talk about in this thread is God and everyone else dragged me into a religion discussion. Religion is secondary, Knowing about God is first.

Quoted post

 

 

One can only assume you mean you only want to talk about your particular god, and if so, why not call the thread My Views On God.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Bodice, Did I delete your posts or scramble your pc so that you can't post in here and talk about your idea of God. Go on, talk about God in any fashion you like. that won't stop me from saying what I want to say, I think the thread title is fine just the way it is. Haven't we been talking about the nature of God? And from what I see there have been many different views passed around, Hopefully, we will all learn something out of it.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by ERIZENO+Aug 8 2005, 11:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ERIZENO - Aug 8 2005, 11:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by bodice_ripper@Aug 8 2005, 11:08 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 10:46 PM

 

I don't want to talk about religion or Islamor Buddhism or which sect Osama Bin Laden belongs to. All I ever intended to talk about in this thread is God and everyone else dragged me into a religion discussion. Religion is secondary, Knowing about God is first.

Quoted post

 

 

One can only assume you mean you only want to talk about your particular god, and if so, why not call the thread My Views On God.

Quoted post

 

i agree with bodice .... You want to talk about your views of god. But with an absolute in your set of views it dosent allow for an open free flowing discussion. Your way of viewing God is not very forgiving to others, even removing religion from the mix.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Don't be scared... :shook: ha ha, So lets discuss, If you have something to say , just say it. You don't need my approval to post here. Don't blame me for your lack of argument.

[ERIZENO]

Since Dawood is asking views ... i will share more of mine instead of whining.

 

I feel god is energy. the energy that makes up the universe and all things inside it. No devine plan, no dismissing others, it just IS. Just the word God has been bothering me recently, its a concept bigger than that word allows it to be. We as humans alter and slander the concept to fit or justify anything we want to do under "gods plan", all I see when that goes down is a big scapegoat sitting on the couch.

[villain]

El Mammero- I agree that nature will regulate no matter what. I think the difference however is that we are consciously destroying our future by our own free will. What meteor is conscious of the effect it is having on the planet it has struck? We are denying that we developed memory in order to learn from our mistakes and ensure the survival of our children. Few times in the history of our earth have we been on the brinks of such a massive paradigm shift. The only other two I can think of is when primeval microorganismmicroorganisms fed on all of the energy rich substances slowly synthesized in the upper atmosphere and forced an evolutionary change that produced photosynthesis, and thus the production of energy from light, or when the dinosaurs were wiped out. But now we can see the change coming, we have the ability to stop it, it is in the nature of all living things to survive, yet we deny it. Perhaps George W. Bush thinks he is the next step in evolution? Either way, I don't think politicians and CEOs and cockroaches should be the sole survivors of a scorched earth. This is where morality comes to loggerheads with existentialism. We decide what is right and wrong. And given the momentum of evolution, right means survival and life.

 

This is our dilemma. That we are perfectly capable of changing our future. Even in religion this distinction is made, that we stepped outside of the perfection and innocence of Eden, and our obliviousness, and became more godlike in the ability to decide our fate.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by villain@Aug 8 2005, 11:17 PM

No harm meant Dawood. I only spoke in that manner because I was under the impression that you started this discussion only to criticize the beliefs of others and proselytize your own faith. I agree that any discussion of God in general is good. We should seek a commonality and not criticize each others differences.

 

Quoted post

 

No problem, i'm not here to criticize everybody, I do beleive that a healthy debate is good though. Arguments don't have to be disrespectful and matches of wit all the time. You will probably see me disagreeing with people at times , but that doesnt mean I am trying to degrade them in any manner. I do beleive that a lot of the things we are going through in this world are a punishment for our own misdoings and transgressions, However you want to look at it, Most people beleive that what goes around comes around, And whether you beleive God sent it around or not is another thing. But I truly beleive that people are wronging themselves all over the world and God is punishing them for their own actions...ex. tsunamis,hurricaines,muslides, wars etc. Why havent we woken up yet?

[villain]

Originally posted by ERIZENO@Aug 8 2005, 06:42 PM

Since Dawood is asking views ... i will share more of mine instead of whining.

 

I feel god is energy. the energy that makes up the universe and all things inside it. No devine plan, no dismissing others, it just IS. Just the word God has been bothering me recently, its a concept bigger than that word allows it to be. We as humans alter and slander the concept to fit or justify anything we want to do under "gods plan", all I see when that goes down is a big scapegoat sitting on the couch.

Quoted post

 

I am in agreement I would say. God just is, in the sense that it is both Good and Evil. As for a divine plan, I don't know for sure, but there is some tantalizing evidence of one. I like this idea of an energy because this could be the discovery in quantum physics that the exclusion principle tries to explain. Neither particle nor wave, but the product of our own expectations. I believe that is the closest to understanding god through science as we have come yet.

And very good point about the concept of God being far to big for the word and the way people throw the word around to suit their purposes.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by ERIZENO@Aug 8 2005, 11:42 PM

Since Dawood is asking views ... i will share more of mine instead of whining.

 

I feel god is energy. the energy that makes up the universe and all things inside it. No devine plan, no dismissing others,  it just IS. Just the word God has been bothering me recently, its a concept bigger than that word allows it to be. We as humans alter and slander the concept to fit or justify anything we want to do under "gods plan", all I see when that goes down is a big scapegoat sitting on the couch.

Quoted post

 

I don't really like to use the word God either (probably for different reasons than you) But I use it for lack of a better english term that people will readily understand without having to explain Arabic grammar. I usually ask christians (and this is not a slam on christians, Just a question to spark a thought process) I ask them , Who is God? because God is an english word and Jesus spoke aramaic so what did Jesus call God? They always stare at me blankly and then say something like well, I speak english, So I ask , well then, who changed God's name? and who gave them that authority?

Of course if you don't beleive in scripture this example is irrelevent to you.

 

Just a thought.

 

Oh, and explain the scapegoat on the couch statement...that one slipped by me.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by villain@Aug 8 2005, 06:46 PM

This is our dilemma. That we are perfectly capable of changing our future. Even in religion this distinction is made, that we stepped outside of the perfection and innocence of Eden, and our obliviousness, and became more godlike in the ability to decide our fate.

Quoted post

 

 

Villain, I am in total agreement with you. All I'm saying is that I feel it's incorrect to label what humans do as "unnatural". Wrong, stupid, shortsighted, yes, but all within the confines of nature. The destruction of the Amazon forest is not all that far removed from what is "natural" than, say, a fungal parasite taking over the only bush in the backyard. To me, the way we are behaving makes perfect sense in the scheme of nature.

 

Standing back and realizing the wrong we do is an easy thing to do as an individual, and a nearly impossible thing to do as a population.

 

As a population, we don't look ahead in long terms. We are just as shortsighted as the pack of arctic wolves who killed the whole litter of oxen, or the fungus that killed the only bush available, and thus we behave the same way they do: naturally. The combination of all different sets of shortsighted behaviors is what provides the checks and balances that gives nature its sense of harmony, and platforms for progress to occur. Our possible self-destruction and that of a great deal of the planet can be a jumping point to the next evolutionary age, just as the meteors that killed off the dinosaurs (and unleashed devastation that we can't even come close to rivaling) led to the age of the mammal. In hindsight, whatever sentient being studies us will think it was all a perfectly natural thing that we behaved the way we did, the same way we think meteor impacts are perfectly natural. I'm sure the dinosaurs, if they had the capacity to think like we do, would very much disagree.

[Stereotype V.001]

Why is it that people are only offended that "Dawood" is trying to stuff his religious views down everyones' throats here, yet he has been doing the same with almost every other post he has made with very little complaints?

 

And, to add to the actual topic at hand, religion becomes flawed when using man as a intermediary, who is inherently flawed (ie organized religion). This brings along literal interpretations with it, that have resulted in the deaths of countless people and decimation of various native people's cultures in the name of "God." Even today, it's a major recruiting tool for getting people to blow themselves up.

 

I agree with what alot of people have said on here, God is everything around us. Even doo doo.

[Dick Quickwood]

i guess what this thread has been leading up to, is this: could allah microwave a burrito so hot, that not even he could eat it?

 

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php...topic=57181&hl=

[ERIZENO]

Originally posted by Dawood+Aug 9 2005, 12:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Aug 9 2005, 12:06 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ERIZENO@Aug 8 2005, 11:42 PM

Since Dawood is asking views ... i will share more of mine instead of whining.

 

I feel god is energy. the energy that makes up the universe and all things inside it. No devine plan, no dismissing others,  it just IS. Just the word God has been bothering me recently, its a concept bigger than that word allows it to be. We as humans alter and slander the concept to fit or justify anything we want to do under "gods plan", all I see when that goes down is a big scapegoat sitting on the couch.

Quoted post

 

I don't really like to use the word God either (probably for different reasons than you) But I use it for lack of a better english term that people will readily understand without having to explain Arabic grammar. I usually ask christians (and this is not a slam on christians, Just a question to spark a thought process) I ask them , Who is God? because God is an english word and Jesus spoke aramaic so what did Jesus call God? They always stare at me blankly and then say something like well, I speak english, So I ask , well then, who changed God's name? and who gave them that authority?

Of course if you don't beleive in scripture this example is irrelevent to you.

 

Just a thought.

 

Oh, and explain the scapegoat on the couch statement...that one slipped by me.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Any human word of any origin cant label God, so i would agree diffrent reasons for surre !!!

 

With the way things in US pop culture have been rolling on since 9/11, being in touch with God has been more of a cool thing to do.

I know this doesn’t apply to all people of faith, but too many people abuse their own faith in God when things don’t go right for them. Weak people abuse this the most, when something difficult comes their way it’s the fault of "Gods Plan" ... when they could take responsibility for their bad actions or decide to view things with a stronger sense control then go on to grow and learn from them.

Some one said to me the other day “A Jewish carpenter is my boss” to be a smart ass I came back with “Jesus is your scapegoat, take some responsibility for yourself”

 

The “scapegoat on the couch” was just a play on the elephant in the living room that is being ignored.

[RumPuncher]

Originally posted by Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 08:06 PM

Who is God? because God is an english word and Jesus spoke aramaic so what did Jesus call God?

 

'Dad'?

 

short answer: 'Yaweh'

 

long answer:

• The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Heh), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Heh-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").
  

source

Even the Rastas with their (very) loose ties to Judean roots refer to God as Jah.

I'm Sure somewhere there is a tie between 'Yahweh' and 'Allah'.

 

(by 'tie' I mean a linguistic link between different dialects)

[casekonly]

Originally posted by RumPuncher+Aug 9 2005, 12:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RumPuncher - Aug 9 2005, 12:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 08:06 PM

Who is God? because God is an english word and Jesus spoke aramaic so what did Jesus call God?

 

'Dad'?

 

short answer: 'Yaweh'

 

long answer:

• The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Heh), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Heh-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").
  

source

Even the Rastas with their (very) loose ties to Judean roots refer to God as Jah.

I'm Sure somewhere there is a tie between 'Yahweh' and 'Allah'.

 

(by 'tie' I mean a linguistic link between different dialects)

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

go sit in your hammock, smartguy.

 

 

nah, very concise post.

 

props.

[RumPuncher]

please believe the hammock makes me closer to God.

(not in a mid 90's NIN kind of way either)

 

* As far as the WWJCD (What would Jesus call Dad?) thing....

 

I might be mistaken here, as the info is far from clear,

but didn't Jesus live the first 30 years of his life oblivious

to the fact that he was the son of God? I could be wrong there

but chances are he would have just called 'God' whatever the

the other followers of the Abrahamic monotheistic religion would

have called him. That's why I figured the ancient Hebrew term

for God (Yaweh etc.) would make the most sence.

 

 

 

--------------------------------

Here's another thing to ponder:

 

When you look at the outfits (habits) of modern day religions,

I feel bad for the Christians. Looks at the diversity of clothing

you see in Jerusalem. The Hebrews have a very traditional outfit,

as do the muslims, and so to the Orthodox and Coptic Christans,

but the average Evangelical American looks like a WalMart shopper.

I know God doesn't care how you dress, but maybe showing some

class wouldn't hurt the overall image of your religious community.

 

But then again.... find me an evangelical who really cares about other religions.

I swear they're just as bad as Dawood. (haha... just making sure you were reading this)

[villain]

Originally posted by El Mamerro@Aug 8 2005, 08:06 PM

Standing back and realizing the wrong we do is an easy thing to do as an individual, and a nearly impossible thing to do as a population.

 

 

 

This is a very good point which is touched upon in The Symbiotic Man. There is actually a subchapter titled "Humanity: Individual Genius, Collective Idiocy". He calls ants individual idiots and collective geniuses, and humans individual geniuses and collective idiots. Fortunately this chapter is followed by one titled "Participatory Democracy and Social Feedback". Hope is still alive, lol. The greater interconnectedness of our world is making more and more real time feedback loops possible, so hopefully we will begin to act more intelligently as groups.

 

This "self-assembly" of human groups is something I have noticed too. Hakim Bey says that when the Soviet Union fell, Anarchy became the opposition by default. (Of course many things could fall under "anarchy".) He states that the first major example of this with the Zapatista uprising. When they started defending their homeland against the Mexican state, the Zapatistas found solidarity all over the world. All of a sudden we saw mass movements of solidarity for many causes all over the world. Protests against globalization found themselves as a patchwork of citizens from diverse backgrounds, all united for the same cause (anarchy being used as a catch all phrase). Just as people as extreme as Al Queda can find sometimes even widespread support among muslims from across the globe when addressing the grievances of the Palestinians, or the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, or for example the sanctions on Iraq that starved millions of children. These are grievances that all muslims have shared, regardless of nationality, or religious sect.

 

The world is a lot smaller thanks to technology. But still there are many barriers to overcome. The power and influence of the establishment will wane over time and we will become a pure democracy.... but these barriers, such as language, are still divisive. Not only does the alliance of the US and the UK in Iraq make it look like an Anglo-Saxon invasion, but it also helps exemplify the language barrier. I'm sure there are people on this site that can tell you that the media in Europe (and even the UK to an extent) is vastly different than the media here in the US. There they actually cover the deaths of innocent civilians, whereas here, we have hardly at all touched on the matter. We even stopped counting civilian casualties. I knew we were in trouble then. This causes more division. Even to the point of a potential "clash of civilizations". We cannot act as if our lives are more valuble than theirs and expect them to cooperate with us. Also our insistence of a war of "good vs evil" and blaming the violence on their way of life, these are also things to cause division... which may be what the Bush administration wants but this old colonial tactic of divide and conquer doesn't work so well in the modern world. Sure you can keep half the population of this country blind for a while... it's just too damn hard to keep secrets now.

 

This administration seems to want a clash of civilizations, and while it was Samuel Huntington who has recently popularized this idea, but this idea has been kicked around by Princeton historian Bernard Lewis long before Huntingtons book came out. Lewis was brought out of retirement for this war on terror to serve as a consultant on the Middle East for the US government (Information courtesy of "Bin Laden, Islam, and America's New 'War on Terrorism'" by As 'ad AbuKhalil). Scary. There are actually people who believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy now, even though the most populated muslim state in the world (Indonesia) is democratic. So obviously propaganda still has its functions, but it is weakening.

 

Whoa this is a huge digression from discussion of God. My apologies. Perhaps by learning to live with our fellow man we can grow closer to God.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by RumPuncher+Aug 9 2005, 04:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RumPuncher - Aug 9 2005, 04:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Aug 8 2005, 08:06 PM

Who is God? because God is an english word and Jesus spoke aramaic so what did Jesus call God?

 

'Dad'?

 

short answer: 'Yaweh'

 

long answer:

• The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Heh), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Heh-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").
  

source

Even the Rastas with their (very) loose ties to Judean roots refer to God as Jah.

I'm Sure somewhere there is a tie between 'Yahweh' and 'Allah'.

 

(by 'tie' I mean a linguistic link between different dialects)

Quoted post

[/b]

 

You said that Jesus spoke aramaic and then said that He called God Yahweh (a hebrew word) Jesus didn't speak hebrew, He spoke Aramaic ( the closest thing to Arabic) and Allah is an Arabic word meaning loosely "the God" . The word elah in arabic means God but when you add the suffix "A" to a word in arabic , It makes that thing singular and unique. Also grammatically , If one were to try to pluralize the word Allah , It wouldnt work. Therefore indicating the Oneness and Uniqueness of God (Allah) When I say unique, I mean Unique in all aspects. And God can never be unique if he IS everything, because everything is everything and God is seperate and distinct from all of that. Also , Jesus was not God, He was a prophet and a messenger. Does God Die?