[Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah

[Nobody]

When I was at the University and until recently, I was often confronted with rather heated differences of opinion concerning the interpretation of the thoughts of different authors who were studied in class. We were faced, collectively, with the analysis of rather broad texts or currents of thought and it was very interesting. One thing that often struck me was that several individuals, reading the same text and trying to decipher the substance of the authors' thoughts, would sometimes come to radically different conclusions. The conclusions were sometimes the opposite from one student to another.

If this questioning was essentially about philosophical or political currents, it can also very well be transposed to religious currents. This leads to a deeper reflection that I would like to submit to the believers of the abrahamic religions:

Why did God/Allah/YHWH decide to communicate or let his communication (transcribed by the human hand) through a written transmission? Indeed, writing is an interesting way of transmitting information but it is also enormously subject to subjective interpretation of reality. Some people understand the written word literally, while others will interpret it in a second degree or metaphorically. We can see this through the various interpretations that have emerged over the years, notably through the creation of different sub-branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism,...). The same is true for the other two religions (and others, probably).

These sub-branches, whether they are linked to Christianity or not, share totally different interpretations of what seems to belong to common original texts. The very idea that God/Allah/YHWH gave us the word by which to live, then seems to indicate an intended meaning.

These elements then lead to questions about the nature of God/Allah/YHWH:

1) Is God really omnipotent? If so, why does he not seem to have taken into account the fact that there can be such a wide variety of interpretations of his word and that the conclusions reached by human beings can differ so substantially? Humans, by their very nature and meaning, seem to be the most subject to subjective interpretations and therefore, often unable to understand in a collectively objective way the real meaning of certain messages.

2) Is God omniscient? If so, why doesn't he seem to have taken into account that multiple interpretations would lead to as many conflicts and wars, as we know them today.

3) If he is omnipotent and omniscient, how could he be omni-benevolent, knowing that he knew in advance that both the means of communication and the interpretation would be subject to misleading or distorted interpretations because of the very nature of the people he was creating?

Curious to get your thoughts about this.

 

[Xingtian]

A lot of what you ask is an extension of the general questions that are addressed by the rather dubious discipline of theodicy. If you know the apologists’ answers to questions like, why doesn’t God communicate more clearly? Why does he allow bad things to happen? Etc, then you can probably guess how they would address these specific questions about scripture. I call theodicy dubious because it seems to work better as a comfort to believers (and then not reliably) rather than an intellectually satisfying solution to the problems it claims to address.

On the subject of scriptural interpretation, I’ve seen these arguments, in no particular order:

God made the scriptures perfectly clear! It’s man’s corruption and perversity that distorts them

God made the scriptures obscure to prevent the vulgar and unworthy from accessing the highest mysteries;

God gave people a perfectly clear set of scriptures but people kept tampering with them- but don’t worry, he gave his final revelation in [preferred book] and he’s not going to let that one go to shit;

Yes the scriptures are a mess because people are a mess and God does not reveal himself outside of human history so we get a messy tradition so deal with it (this is a more modern and not necessarily orthodox view)

 

[Bandaboy]

I think that the statement 'God/YHWH/Allah etc' assumes that all these beings are one and the same deity. Before we stand on an assumption as the foundation of solving other assumptions, we must prove the truth or falsity of that founding assumption.

Does one have the capability/capacity to prove the founding statement? Has one met God, Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Clark Kent, and has one verified that they are who they say they are?

Well, this is where it gets tricky

 

[Xingtian]

It can certainly be tricky but if we restrict ourselves to the “orthodox” currents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam prevalent today, we find the common inheritance of a late antique Platonic-Aristotelian theological synthesis nowadays called “classical theism” and on that basis I think it can be argued that the God of the three traditions is basically the same. (Also note that “Allah” is the name for God for Arabic speaking Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike).

 

[killing raven sun]

you assume yahweh is a god, probably not, just another asshole that lived here during the "golden age", before armageddon, and is gone now and forever, all of the so called gods and your retarded demons were just regular assholes, and when the fighting started they all died or left

there is no "word of god" other than the intuition, all religious books are filled with lies and half truths and all of them were written by regular asshole humans, period

 

[Xingtian]

Whoa so edgy

 

[killing raven sun]

not really, its a scientifically derived conclusion based on study of religious texts, myths, archaeology and historical texts

the most obvious evidence for the theory is the world wide distrubution of megalithic ruins, many with empirical evidence of being destroyed by a powerful blast of fire, such as would happen if the earth was hit by a plasma burst from the sun

so at least my speculation relies on sharable data and not just feelers

 

[bleck]

I think even spoken words can be interpreted incorrectly by different people. written words and symbols even more.
I would agree that intuition can be more true,
god didn't write the scriptures a human did, I think the idea of god being an entity is the problem
god is a concept that a human can create or bring forth, we have it in us to be as responsible and correct in our actions as god in these given boundaries.
I see god as the substrate of all of us and a potential some of us can realize as part of our identity to gain peace of mind and greater understanding. order out of chaos is what we are and what we can be ,a part of more order or chaos.
the kingdom of god is at hand ,
i like to think god is good. and good is god, whenever i see the word good i also think about what is said replacing the word good with god, and the reverse when i see the word god, i replace it with good, try it out,
i think the truth of the true nature of god is to hard for many to grasp, so its easier to believe an entity is responsible for what happens.
only certain capable individuals learn or are told the real truth of who / what god is and his relation to the individuals

 

[bgshawn499]

Awesome questions, God is good, how good are you to God, Thats where things tend to get tricky. When one's opinions come into play on these topics there's always more question's then there are answers. I think God is generally a human construct made to try and control each and every one of us. It's just like Magick, I don't think you'll ever get two people to agree on one answer. More question inevitably breed more questions. Who's right, who's wrong IDK?

 

[bleck]

i agree but sometimes i think its not to control us unless by nefarious forces but originally to lead us.
i'm recently studying Taoism and I like how they say "the way" is unknowable and indescribable and changing etc..

 

[Nobody]

Does one have the capability/capacity to prove the founding statement? Has one met God, Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Clark Kent, and has one verified that they are who they say they are?

God, in the sense of religions, is considered to be all-powerful so - if he wants to do something, he does it. If he doesn't want to do something, he doesn't do it. Which is logical, so far.

If we follow the sacred texts, we can see that not all people will go to heaven and that some will go to hell. Let's put on the one hand the possibility that the concepts of Paradise and Hell can be states of mind and not places. Let's even assume that it goes beyond a place on another dimension.

Following this simple principle, we can already realize that he does not want all men to go to heaven. From there, we can already ask ourselves why?

One of the hypotheses put forward by believers, as well as the one evoked in the sacred books, is that he endows men with what is called free will, which translates into the ability to choose freely and knowingly between him (harmony) and the devil (Satan, adversity, chaos).

According to the sacred texts, the devil is portrayed as a devious and manipulative entity. This means that if we follow the devil, it is not necessarily because we choose him freely and knowingly but because he manipulates human beings. At this point, we can already legitimately question free will.

If the devil is able to deceive some men, it is because God did not make these men wise or intelligent enough to be able to discern the devil's deviousness. If this is the case, then he did not will it voluntarily because he is considered to be all-powerful. So he would have voluntarily chosen to make men too unwise or too unintelligent not to be deceived, which is to say that at the time he created them, these same men were already condemned to hell.

Can we think that this is unfair and cruel? If so, then it would contradict the fact that he is described as just and good.

think it can be argued that the God of the three traditions is basically the same.

Some argue that it is just not the same. Following the gnostic track, there is a distinction that is made. There are even differences between Jesus Christ and the Christ consciousness. I am on the path, I still have to learn.

I see god as the substrate of all of us and a potential some of us can realize as part of our identity to gain peace of mind and greater understanding

This is also my current thinking. A superior intelligence, governing but not necessarily within its creation. This unity has created segments of itself that can be found in humans as well as in angels and demons. A bit like when we take the trouble to observe the individuals contained in our societies: they are different from ourselves but are at the same time extensions or aspects of ourselves developed to different degrees - in vice as in virtue.

Another hypothesis would be that angels and demons are the creation of a false god and that they are there not to guide but to deceive.

i'm recently studying Taoism and I like how they say "the way" is unknowable and indescribable and changing etc..

Again, the way is something that seems extremely subjective and subject to a moral code arbitrarily established by a moral entity that is not infallible. Normality for the spider is chaos for the butterfly.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: [Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah
SUBTOPIC: God Powers
et al,

In any discussion of the Supreme Being (The First Cause) one must start out understanding that any reference to the "scope, nature, and characteristics" is pure conjecture. Unless you are engaged in a dialog with the Supreme Being, the absolute best you can have in which you might base your speculations • is the personal knowledge of a witness (maybe the prophet Moses).

Now, humans have defined the "scope, nature, and characteristics" of The First Cause. And over time, the famous Three Powers (Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence) were associated with the monotheistic "God of Abraham" and the Trinity (being The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost).

All this leads to an unsolvable "paradox" in so many different ways with each of these powers. That is because these descriptions are assigned by a human (if you believe, then you understand that you are a construct of the Creator).

The debate on this compound paradox (the three principle supernatural powers) is more than 2000 years old. There are many such paradox in the way humankind attempts to describe the mysteries of the universe. So, don't get entangled in that which has no solution.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[killing raven sun]

seems like the main problem with a "supreme being" is there isnt one to be found

seems like if the being was so supreme we would have empirical evidence of its existence

 

[Lemongrass00]

seems like the main problem with a "supreme being" is there isnt one to be found

seems like if the being was so supreme we would have empirical evidence of its existence

Empirical evidence is widely subjective, who's to say we haven't experienced it? Maybe your hostility towards a supreme being is blinding that possibility, just as overly materialistic people often feel about the spiritual world.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: [Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah
SUBTOPIC: God Powers
killing raven sun, et al,

seems like the main problem with a "supreme being" is there isnt one to be found

seems like if the being was so supreme we would have empirical evidence of its existence

(COMMENT)

How would you know if the Supreme Being is anywhere near? Would you be able to detect and recognize a Supreme Being?

What makes you so sure that monotheist concepts are the right ideas?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[killing raven sun]

Empirical evidence is widely subjective, who's to say we haven't experienced it? Maybe your hostility towards a supreme being is blinding that possibility, just as overly materialistic people often feel about the spiritual world.

if my hostility towards a being makes that being irrelevant then they are not supreme

Post automatically merged: Apr 14, 2023

RE: [Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah
SUBTOPIC: God Powers
killing raven sun, et al,


(COMMENT)

How would you know if the Supreme Being is anywhere near? Would you be able to detect and recognize a Supreme Being?

yes, by definition this supreme being must be known, an unknown being can not be supreme

 

[Vandheer]

Thats some supreme logic you have Raven. Supremely dumb that is.

 

[killing raven sun]

lulz, you sure schooled me with that in depth rebuttal

 

[Vandheer]

not really, its a scientifically derived conclusion based on study of religious texts, myths, archaeology and historical texts

the most obvious evidence for the theory is the world wide distrubution of megalithic ruins, many with empirical evidence of being destroyed by a powerful blast of fire, such as would happen if the earth was hit by a plasma burst from the sun

so at least my speculation relies on sharable data and not just feelers

You write this

lucifer is the light bringer, the sun, not to be confused with satan, the adversary

at the end of the golden age the superior sun, saturn, was violently subjugated by sol, our current sun

before then the earth was dimly lit continuously by the glow of the saturnian brown dwarf, the earth resided within the plasma discharge making the sky a constant purple glow, these conditions allowed the flora and fauna to grow much larger than now, but it was impossible to see the stars in space, when lucifer came and took saturns charge away, the system reordered around the new sun, the solar system had night and day unlike before, night was easy to adjust to since the people lived in near darkness before, but the day time light was fucking terrifying, you could not see and it felt like fire on your skin, everyone was in fear, but over time man adapted, the whole environment adapted, and here we are

And then you write this.... When its about some JCI concept you seem to get agitated, but when its daddy Lucifer you seem to be all over the place. Even Fraternitas Saturni has better myth than that LARP bullshit you have.

You want me to give you a conversation with depth? You are not a clown, you are the entire circus.

 

[killing raven sun]

wow, you really have your stuff down, how could i argue with such substance?

what exactly is your problem? are you not familiar with earth history? the quotes you provide complement each other very nicely, do see some conflict?