Thread: God's Name

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I always thought that God’s son was named Jesus. Never heard God referred to as Jesus.

Depending on what your religion says. But in Christianity Jesus is a God.

Originally Posted by Will

Well , thank you for clearing that up . I just thought you were totally anti religion , so , I must say , I get sort of mad when I see stuff like those posters or bill boards which put down religion .

Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are wrong.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Using word "god" and all corresponding names in vain is quite normal in colloquial speech in Russian. According to Hollywood movies it is also quite normal in USA. And according to the text of "Arabian nights" it is also quite normal in Islamic tradition. Russian Jews use something like "Б-г" instead of "Бог", which looks funny.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Turning into a very interesting thread!

My Nana, the one who passed a way this year at 106 who was from Austria, she always used to write, “G-d willing” in her letters to me. Like, “G-d willing I will see you in November.” She was the only person I knew who did that!

There was an old or even ancient superstition in Russia about bears (of course we do obsessed with bears ): it is a bad omen to call a bear by "his name". Here "his name" stands for the word "bear" (медведь). If you will "call" the bear i.e. pronounce the word "bear" the bear can think that you are calling him and come to you. As a result there are only few possibilities: you can became the bear's breakfast, lunch or dinner. So there is a tradition to use nicknames for bears instead of the word "bear". There are plenty of them: Михайло Потапыч, Топтыгин, Косолапый etc. There is no any other animal in Russia which has so many nicknames.

Maybe using "G-d" is somewhat similar to this. People don't call the "God" without an extremely need.

Originally Posted by Hanna

For info: This should be capitalized in English, although lately here in England there is a quite aggressive atheistic campaign going on (they even advertise on the buses and in the Underground!! ) They make a big point of not capitalizing the word, contrary to normal spelling rules. Personally I dislike this campaign.

But in that image the word "GOD" IS capitalized, all the letters are capitalized.

The word "god" as such is not a name. It's a bit different for "Allah" because while today it is no different from the word "God" or "Lord" anymore, it used to be a personal name when this god was still one among many and had two female divine consorts, one of whom, by the way, was originally worshipped in the Kaaba. The three monotheistic religions all share the same roots and have added elements from pagan traditions to their respective views.

The name of the Biblical god is variously given as YHVH, from which is rendered Jehovah or Jahwe, which is also referred to as Tetragrammaton (i.e. the four letters, and I much enjoy the fact that god is a four-letter word), and as El or Elohim, which in the first case is very much a title like "Lord". Practically every city in the Fertile Crescent area used to have an individual city god prior to the monotheistic conversion, and that god was usually referred to as El or Baal. Yes, the Biblical name used in lots of places throughout the bible texts and Baal are just different renditions of the same title. This jealous god is jealous because of competition on equal terms. And Elohim happens to be a plural form of the same title, used for example in Genesis, so it's not even god but the gods who create heaven and earth. But of course a plural is not a plural in the eyes of the pious, because it can't be allowed.

A little historical research into religion goes a long way, really. It's a very interesting topic for rational discussion.

For that reason I do not dislike that campaign as shown in Hanna's photo, which by the way was not confined to Great Britain. After all, why should there be a religious monopoly on proselytism? We need a new enlightenment if you ask me.

I recommend the following thought:

"I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen L. Roberts

Originally Posted by Ramil

Depending on what your religion says. But in Christianity Jesus is a God.

Maybe in your branch of Christianity but not on this side of the world. If that were the case, does that mean that the God was crucified? I really am confused by this as I have never heard this God being referred to as Jesus or as them being one in the same.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Maybe in your branch of Christianity but not on this side of the world. If that were the case, does that mean that the God was crucified? I really am confused by this as I have never heard this God being referred to as Jesus or as them being one in the same.

Well, the Holy Trinity is divine, isn't it? So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. Christ is both man and god. As far as I know this is a farily standard concept in both Catholic and Orthodox confessions. I'm not so sure about the protestants though. Maybe for them it is different. Jeudaism does not recognize Christ as a god and neither does Islam (to them Isa was mere a phrophet, though an important one).

I think it is accepted that the Trinity is impossible to fully understand.
But as far as I have been taught it (Lutheranism, Church of Sweden) for a Christian believer it is NOT wrong to say that Jesus is God.
But Jesus is also Gods son and it's ok to find this confusing, as long as you believe in it (according to the creed).

However my church has gone increasingly insanely politically correct. Can't take them seriously anymore because they change their minds about everything all the time! Lately, anything that Paul or Jesus or any of the writers of the evangeliums say.... that is not "politically correct".... they simply dismiss as irrelevant, or a personal opinion of the writer. At the rate they are going, it won't be necessary to even believe in God, salvation etc, in about a decade from now! As they try to keep up with the times, they also undermine their own credibility.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

A little historical research into religion goes a long way, really. It's a very interesting topic for rational discussion.

Yo, man, good stuff!!

Well, here's a Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs

Everyone agrees that the Son is fully god, fully man.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, here's a Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs

Everyone agrees that the Son is fully god, fully man.

That is to simplify it extremely. Many people have died in the pursuit of settling this dispute. Arianism for example was a very strong school of thought within early Christianity, and it was violently stamped out in the wake of the Council of Nicaea, on which its ideas on the nature of Jesus was rejected. Various other Christian sects even today reject the notion of the trinity (keywords nontrinitarian and unitarian).

There isn't a single religious idea in existence which is common to all religions. Not even the existence of something divine. And schism is the direct and immediate result, as soon as the founder of the religion in question dies.

@ Hanna: as critical historical research (by theologians by the way, no need to look to atheists for that) shows, various parts of the New Testament, including passages within the gospels as well as whole letters of Paul and passages in others of those, are forgeries inserted at a later date to prove this or that point, especially in the attempt to stamp out the Gnostic scools of thought. So criticism is something any church even worth a little respect should show. It's not as if the Bible is a book that was written at a specific point in time. It is a changing collection of copies of material written over a span of hundreds of years, compiled from versions of texts which may exist in dozens of
different versions each. And compiled by different people in different times at that, so that not even the different versions of the Bible as used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches include the same set of books.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

There was an old or even ancient superstition in Russia about bears (of course we do obsessed with bears ): it is a bad omen to call a bear by "his name". Here "his name" stands for the word "bear" (медведь). If you will "call" the bear i.e. pronounce the word "bear" the bear can think that you are calling him and come to you. As a result there are only few possibilities: you can became the bear's breakfast, lunch or dinner. So there is a tradition to use nicknames for bears instead of the word "bear". There are plenty of them: Михайло Потапыч, Топтыгин, Косолапый etc. There is no any other animal in Russia which has so many nicknames.

Actually, "медведь" is not a real name of this beast. It is also a nickname, the real name is lost in time.

This kind of superstitions was very widespread everywhere.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Maybe using "G-d" is somewhat similar to this. People don't call the "God" without an extremely need.

No, AFAIK this is specifically Judaic tradition and it is related to Kabbalah somewhat. It was assumed that the essence of holy texts (Torah) are not to be understood by the human mind, and people should follow the instructions literally. So Torah says "Don't mention in vain the name of God". OK, but it says nothing about mentioning in vain some substitutes. Everything that is not prohibited, is allowed. A kind of pettifoggery, if you ask me.

I hope we haven't scared off Misha Tal (who started the thread) with all this talk about Christianity.
Feel free to participate Misha! This could be an interesting discussion, since all religions are represented.
I think probably one or two regular participants are Jewish - I have some Jewish relatives so I am more up to scratch on it than the average Christian.

I have 100% respect for Islam, partly thanks to a great friend of mine who is a moslem, and educated me a bit about it.
Everything she's told me about Islam is positive.
I've known her since I was a kid and she is one of the most decent people I know.
One of the things she's said is:

1) Islam recognises Jesus as a major prophet, but not (I think?) as the son of God.
2) Islam is the religion of the decendants of Hagar in the Old testament. (The woman who got kicked out into the desert by Jacob, together with her son She gets treated in a terrible way, in my opinion! ).



About Jews and the name of God: I have noticed that religious Jews say "Hashem" when they talk about God. That means "The Name" in Hebrew or Jiddish.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Actually, "медведь" is not a real name of this beast. It is also a nickname, the real name is lost in time.

You should have studied the calculus better. The tetragrammaton is МДВД (Медвед or Медведь, depending on the local dialects) and it's rather appalling you say it could be lost. The crocodiles remember. Also, you should capitalize Beast so as not to confuse between Beast and the various pagan beasts. You should also know that "the beast" with a serial number 666 is not the same as Beast. In addition, according to Получка (=the Kaballa of the ancients), there is a sacred 22-letter name which could only be revealed to those studying Poluchka for a long time. There are many pre-requisites to start studying Получка and one of them requires the medium to be able to enter the trance by means of the sacred potion named Водка. With time, the tradition of drinking Vodka attributed to Poluchka has transformed to the famous modern custom which makes the medium travel on his four as his soul connects to Beast and he experiences a sense of being part of something much greater than he is.

Originally Posted by Hanna

1) Islam recognises Jesus as a major prophet, but not (I think?) as the son of God.
2) Islam is the religion of the decendants of Hagar in the Old testament. (The woman who got kicked out into the desert by Jacob, together with her son She gets treated in a terrible way, in my opinion! ).

Point 1: absolutely, yes.
Point 2: that would be the descendancy legend but not the origin of Islam, as that traces back only to Mohammed.

@ Crocodile: all that text of yours needs is the right kind of scroll to be written on and hidden in a cave somewhere and in 2000 years' time someone will find it and believe it. And as the internet forgets nothing that may already be on its way to happen.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

@ Crocodile: all that text of yours needs is the right kind of scroll to be written on and hidden in a cave somewhere and in 2000 years' time someone will find it and believe it. And as the internet forgets nothing that may already be on its way to happen.

I think the history of religions would develop the other way. Have you heard about the Googlism? => » The Church of Google
That's just a start, I guess ...

Actually it's a good one and no less insane than the contenders.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

Actually it's a good one and no less insane than the contenders.

Right, but it's lacking that 'ancestor' polish, so it's no good for the traditionalists who 'deeply respect' each others' mature religions and scorn the new ones as the 'sects'.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You should have studied the calculus better.

И тут Остапа понесло, но не донесло. До получки было неплохо, но потом пошел Петросян.

Настоящая постмодерновая круть - это когда говоришь чистейшую правду так, что никто не верит.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think the history of religions would develop the other way. Have you heard about the Googlism? => » The Church of Google
That's just a start, I guess ...

Matrix loves you, Neo!