[Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah

[Nobody]

never. the simulated universe was proposed by some of the dumbest men that ever lived, it has no merit, just more distraction from those that lie for a living, they dont know shit and they dont want you to know shit either or you wont work for them

I am simply trying to add nuance and develop complementary perspectives. This hypothesis does not come from any consensus on the possibility that we live in a simulation.

Rather, it is a different reflection on what might explain the presence of an external element that @Lemongrass00 mentioned. If the creator (if there is one) exists, it could very well be outside of its creation so as to not interfere in any way and allow its subjects to experience the game/exercise or what can be called simply "life".

 

[killing raven sun]

overthinking, if the creator put us in this simulation for X reason, then we are screwed, just give up living, there is no truth or reason, just an everchanging landscape that means nothing, pure nihilism

of course that is poppycock, the universe has meaning, it is ordered, very well in fact, there is no mystery to how shit works, you just havent learned about the real universe yet, nobody is teaching truth, you find it on your own

 

[Nobody]

of course that is poppycock, the universe has meaning, it is ordered, very well in fact, there is no mystery to how shit works, you just havent learned about the real universe yet, nobody is teaching truth, you find it on your own

So you are exposing to me a form of reality, the one you experience about yourself - your own UPG. If it is not taught but discovered by oneself, it is perhaps also variable from one individual to another and therefore not necessarily uniform. In other words, it may not be standardized and several sub-truths co-exist. Couldn't this be the tricky element?

The common element that we all have is finally our intuition. Does it tell you that you have found, in your opinion, THE truth or YOUR truth? As long as intuition and questioning are still working, there are still other avenues to explore. Don't you think?

 

[killing raven sun]

all i am exposing you to is some words, your mind does the rest, or not, each path is different, yes, but they all lead to the same destination, even if it takes forever, there is very little truth, the universe is electric charge motivated by consciousness, there is your truth that we all share, in an infinite conscious universe everything will happen and you can never know it all unless you arrive at the destination, which is a future perfection you can never reach, life is the pursuit of perfection, just do it well

 

[Bo Hanson]

What do human beings here on Earth know about God? That’s the most basic question of theology, for what we can learn about God and whether we can know anything about Him determine the scope and content of this big question. Here we must consider the teaching of the greatest theologians in history, all of whom have affirmed the ‘incomprehensibility of God.’ By using the term incomprehensible, they are not referring to something we cannot comprehend or know. Theologically speaking, to say God is incomprehensible is not to say that God is utterly unknowable but instead, it is to say that none of us can comprehend God exhaustively.

Reformed Christians tend to take the Old Testament very seriously because it’s such a vivid revelation of the majesty of God. They self-consciously see the doctrine of God as informing the whole scope of Christian theology. That’s one of the reasons why Calvinists tend to focus so much on the Old Testament. We’re concerned about the character of God as defining everything—our understanding of Christ, our understanding of ourselves, our understanding of salvation. We turn to the Old Testament because it’s one of the most important sources that you find anywhere in the universe on the nature and character of God.

God operates according to the law of His own nature, which means God never acts in such a way that would contradict His own holiness, His own righteousness, His own justice, His own omnipotence, and so on. God never compromises the perfection of His own being or character in what He does. God is the ultimate Being. Before there was a universe, there was God. He exists independently of matter and the sequence of time. God transcends space and time. He is not limited by spatial considerations (He is everywhere in His fullness continually). Nor is He locked into the present in any way. It is not strictly accurate to say that before the universe was created there was ‘nothing,’ for this, too, is a spatial and temporal idea: before the created universe existed, there was God. Theologians speak of God’s immensity, infinity, and transcendence to describe this and our minds race at the thought of it, unable to take it in. All we can do is acquiesce and worship. /(Derek Thomas “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

”)

 

[SkullTraill]

Ever since I saw this flowchart/argument as a kid (or something similar to it) I stopped believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God.


(I think I found this particular image from someone on WF, sorry I can't remember or I'd credit).

 

[Lemongrass00]

Ever since I saw this flowchart/argument as a kid (or something similar to it) I stopped believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God.

View attachment 261
(I think I found this particular image from someone on WF, sorry I can't remember or I'd credit).

Good model, but assumes a utilitarian point of view for good and evil.

 

[KjEno186]

It's funny how nationalistic religious propaganda, aka the "Old Testament," informs such a significant percentage of the world's population today. This is, of course, pretty old magic that has roots in Egypt, Babylon, and Persia. During and after the Babylonian exile, the Jewish priesthood took the existing stories that had been written down at various times in the past, and they edited and redacted them in a way to put the Jewish nationality above all others. According to this new mythology, for example, Israelite magicians (Moses and Aaron) were better than the Egyptian magicians. (Egypt was known as the land of magic in the ancient world.) Solomon was the wisest man to ever live. (He was almost certainly a polytheistic "pagan" by post exile standards.)

Prophesies were invented to explain why the Jews were always subject to one empire or another. (The Jews were naughty at times and had to be punished. See the scripture below.) Ideas that appealed to the priests were borrowed and incorporated into their own teachings. Things which did not fit in were redacted, just not perfectly. The Bible had enough editing to make it infinitely confusing. An example of the former was a shift to monotheism. An example of the latter was reframing the fact that the pre-exile inhabitants of Canaan practiced fertility worship in various ways. Sex was bad, mmmkay? Pay the priest for the sin of having sex! (The Jews were the same as Canaanites, and there never was a large scale Exodus of freed slaves from Egypt. But for the sake of creating a new national unity and identity, this fact was obfuscated and impossible stories were invented.)

From Zoroastrianism, the idea of an omnipotent and good god was introduced. I guess we can blame the Persians for this nonsense.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Both "cosmic" and "ethical" dualism coexist in Zoroastrian thought throughout the long history of the faith; their history is not one of a "pristine" idea of ethical dualism which is supplanted or "corrupted" by the idea of cosmic dualism. And reflections of both types of dualism are found in Jewish thinking. The Biblical book of Deuteronomy, like the other early books of the Old Testament, was re-edited and possibly even re-written during and after the Exile. An important passage in Deuteronomy 30:15 shows a Jewish version of ethical dualism:​

​

"See, today I set before you life and prosperity, death and disaster. If you obey the commandments of YHVH your God that I enjoin on you today, if you love YHVH your God and follow His ways, if you keep His commandments, His laws, His customs, you will live and increase, and YHVH your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to make your own. But if your heart strays, if you refuse to listen, if you let yourself be drawn into worshipping other gods and serving them, I tell you today, you will most certainly perish....I set before you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may live...." (Deut. 31:15-19, Jerusalem Bible translation)​

 

[Viktor]

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.

To hide knowledge from wicked.
There is powerful wisdom within the bible which can be abused if in wrong hands.

Think of a bible as of a huge spell book, it contains powerful spells but to make sure wicked don't abuse it it's thus encrypted.

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.

I would say God is omniscient in this regard because in the gospel somewhere Jesus said there will be wars due to his name and written word.
So the actual question should be not whether God is omniscient because it was predicted, but rather why there must be wars.

 

[KjEno186]

To hide knowledge from wicked.
There is powerful wisdom within the bible which can be abused if in wrong hands.

There is indeed some magical wisdom in the Bible. There are times when I meditate on something profoundly magical that Jesus said, and it makes me wonder just how much of Christianity is actually the religion of Saul of Tarsus (Paul) instead of Jesus. Jesus didn't seem so keen on organizing a religion to me, but we'll never really know how many words were put into his mouth by the Gospel writers.

Then there are the parts of the Old Testament where the Israelites are told that after defeating the enemy, they must kill the men, boys, and women, sparing none but the virgin girls. Now, consider that there is no ancient law that I know of providing an age of consent, that slaves were property, and that it was commonplace for females to be married and pregnant by 14 even into modern times. Now define "wicked." That's right. What is considered "good" and "bad" depends very much on the culture one lives in, and time changes cultures.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men ... Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded ... Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children. According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." According to Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse." According to Rabbi Meir, "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse." - from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

God is omniscient in this regard because in the gospel somewhere Jesus said there will be wars due to his name and written word.
So the actual question should be not whether God is omniscient because it was predicted, but rather why there must be wars.

Jesus' prophesy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Divination has been commonplace for all of recorded history, so perhaps Jesus really did utter this prophesy. Or it could have been written after the fact by 'true believers.' Sometimes prophesy is invented because the average person is too trusting. Modern scholarship on the 1st and 2nd Centuries C.E. presents a very different view of the early stages of what eventually became the Church than what we learn from the Gospels and selected letters in the New Testament. Faith need not be based on literal interpretations, however.

Why must there be wars? I cannot provide a succinct answer to such a broad question, but I would posit that an Omniscient and Omnipotent God could have found some other means to provide a promised land for his chosen people than war, pillaging, and rape. Unless, of course, the "Israelites" never conquered the land of Canaan and these largely fictional accounts were assembled by a priesthood in Babylonian captivity (or soon after). They knew that one of the keys to power was deception, and the average person to this day accepts the traditions handed down by his parents. All you really need is one generation at the right time and place. The rest is, as they say, history.

Ezra and his cohorts were probably the liars who invented much of what we now know as the Old Testament. Excerpts from Nehemiah chapter 8:

Ezra Reads the Law

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood.
...
9And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, “This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn or weep.” For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law.
...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in the booths, for from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so. And there was very great rejoicing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read from the Book of the Law of God. They kept the feast seven days, and on the eighth day there was a solemn assembly, according to the rule.

Ezra and Nehemiah probably invented the nation of Israel right then and there. Carefully note that the people had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of anything they were being told.

 

[Konsciencia]

Why don't we accept, that we don't know?

 

[Viktor]

@KjEno186,
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm not going to debate scriptures or individual passages,
I've debating scriptures so many times with people and this is really boring and no longer entertaining for me.

Now define "wicked."

Wicked are those who learn the magic and then abuse it, ex. by making the secrets widely known so that the magic no longer has an effect.

I said the bible is one huge spell book and there is even manifestation in real world it's just that not everybody is able to see it,
but I'm going to reveal a portion to you so that you can see.

Manifestation is that for more than 3 thousand years there are believers who believe in God and countless people had died in the name and for the name of God.

Isn't that real magic?

Aren't we supposed to be powerful mages? able to influence the world around us.
What magic do you have at your disposal to make people follow you and die if necessary as a result of your magic?

Now, do you really believe the rape and slavery and killing of people and abuse of women makes up the bible or is there some other essence in the bible that drives this long living powerful white magic?

Now imagine some jackass learning the secret and abusing it? wouldn't that person be wicked?
Since we're talking about magic that has been influencing the world and people for thousands of years.

 

[KjEno186]

Video by ESOTERICA. It's got a million views on YouTube. Most liked comment is a quote from the video: "When we allow our faith to dictate history, we betray both."

Who is Yahweh - How a Warrior-Storm God became the God of the Israelites and World Monotheism​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

Video by ESOTERICA. It's got a million views on YouTube. Most liked comment is a quote from the video: "When we allow our faith to dictate history, we betray both."

Who is Yahweh - How a Warrior-Storm God became the God of the Israelites and World Monotheism​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yeah, wasn't Canaan cursed by El Shaddai?

 

[Viktor]

Video by ESOTERICA. It's got a million views on YouTube. Most liked comment is a quote from the video: "When we allow our faith to dictate history, we betray both."

Who is Yahweh - How a Warrior-Storm God became the God of the Israelites and World Monotheism​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I've watched the entire video, he's talking about the "evolution" of Yahweh, in a historical context,
or how tribal God - Yahweh a God of storm, evolved to a world wide God or just "God"

What he's saying reminds me of footnotes and introductions contained within the "Jerusalem Bible"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Feel free to read only footnotes and introductions and ignore the entire bible itself and you'll essentially get an even wider historical grasp of who Yahweh really is.

Here is a link to that bible which I have verified with my own physical copy, because there appears to be copies online which lack a huge chunk of footnotes for some reason:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here is a sample quote taken from "Introduction to the Pentateuch"

How the Pentateuch came to be written At least from the beginning of the Christian era Moses has been credited with the composition of this considerable body of literature; nor did Jesus or his apostles question this, Jn 1:45; 545-47; Rm 105. Nevertheless, the most ancient available traditions never expressly claimed that the whole of the Pentateuch came from Moses’ hand. Even when the Pentateuch itself uses the expression ‘Moses wrote’ (as it very rarely does) it is referring only to particular passages. Now modern Pentateuchal study has revealed a variety of style, lack of sequence, and repetitions in narrative which make it impossible to ascribe the whole work to a single author. At the end of the 19th century, after years of laborious effort, one hypothesis succeeded in rallying the critics, thanks especially to the works of Graf and of Wellhausen. According to this theory the Pentateuch is an amalgam of four documents issuing from different places and times but all much later than Moses. Initially there were, it was held, two narrative sources: the Yahwistic (J) which, from the story of Creation onwards, uses the divine name Yahweh that was revealed to Moses, and the Elohistic (E) which uses Elohim, the common noun for God. The Yahwistic source was committed to writing in Judah in the 9th century, the Elohistic in Israel a little later. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom these two documents were combined (JE). After the time of Josiah the Deuteronomic source (D) was added (JED). The Priestly Code (P), made up for the most part of laws, though with a certain amount of narrative matter, was after the Exile joined to the existing compilation which it served to weld and bind together (JEDP). It should be noted that the literary analysis behind this hypothesis was allied with an evolutionary theory of the religious development of Israel.

Just from this sample quote it's evident that what Justin Sledge is saying is certainly true, which is that there indeed was historical evolution and attempted syncretisms with tribes of Kaanan.
But it's impossible to notice this by reading the bible itself, that's why footnotes contained within the Jerusalem Bible are so illuminating and useful because those footnotes present historical and literary context.

 

[Roma]

In the OT, the Most High allocates the humans, giving Yahweh only the people of Jacob - and he reacts by being a jealous lord god. Lord means he has authority over that group. To other groups Yahweh is just another god.

In the Sumerian writing, the Most High sends his two sons to Earth - the Prince of Darkness (son by wife) and the Prince of Peace (first born but by concubine).

He sends them to Earth to avoid a palace revolt which is how the Most High came to power.

The gods do not stop growing as they age so the oldest god is the tallest - the most high.

Lets move on from alien gods.

 

[stalkinghyena]

With regards to Sledge's Yahweh video, I thought this doc might be helpful as a background. It's not until about halfway that it discusses the possible origins of YHVH as part of the development of the Israelite peoples, but it's a good overview of the studies of the origins of them and Semitic monotheism.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also, there's a good deal of relevant info in Sledge's Intro to Jewish Mysticism - particularly the nature of prophecy in both its theophanic and apocalyptic phases in the first couple of episodes. It's funny to note Sledge's pride in that the Hebrew God has six pack abs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SizoLord]

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.

Unfortunately, I don't have much information about pre-Judaism or pre-Christianity, however, about pre-Islam I know that Allah was a deity with 3 daughters (demigods) which were Al-lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. However, in the process of pre-Islam, they adapted a few things from the Shamsi religion and other local religions. Allah which means 'The God' now in Arabic, used to be 'illah' which was the real name of the God, and he was worshipped in many ways. According to Muslims in the age of ignorance, Arabs used to grow their hair and shave their facial hair and the person who was eligible to do the rituals or prayers was usually a woman or women chief. Once Islam was established, most of these things were changed except the main God 'illah' which is still worshipped. I do not know his powers or what he can do, however, I believe he is worshiped incorrectly and that is why he isn't summoned. After all Gods and Demons are similar. Finally, there are many Quranic verses that can be used for magic, like love magic which you take a part of a verse in the Quran and write it on a candle with the name of your love, and she/he will immediately fall in love! So I hope this gives you more clarification about illah and his powers.

 

[Roma]

For me the first question is:

- Do you know that Life has meaning or do you believe ?

The believers generally like a God concept.

Knowers are more exploratory - learning by doing to discover their functionality in the Cosmos

 

[Xenophon]

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.

God? Since when is there just the one?