• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If Gods Could Talk

wolfgirl

Graduate Poster
wolfgirl
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
1,375
Reading and posting in a few of the current threads that have to do with why people in different parts of the world believe in different gods got me to thinking about this:

We hear religious people all the time talking about how their god talks to them. But why is the god that does all the talking always coincidentally the same god that that person happened to be taught to believe in?

For example, a xian in the US says that his god talks to him, and it is the xian god. But why does the xian god not talk to a hindu? "Hey, quit praying to that elephant; I'm the real god."

Or better yet, why does the xian god never talk to someone who's never even heard of him? "Psst, hey, I'm God. I created the world in six days. I had this son named Jesus who died on the cross a while back. Tell everyone in the village about me."

No, instead the xians have to send missionaries all over the darn place to tell people about their god. He talks to these missionaries and tells them to do this rather than just talking to the people himself.

Handy that gods only talk to the people who were taught to believe in them in the first place.
 
Theist do a horrible job of defending themselves. I sometimes consider playing the devils advocate and defending theism (stating up front what I'm doing). If I did the xians would probably argue the loudest as most of the "born again", "hell", etc can't even be justified from the Biblical Hebrew the bible was written in. Assuming Jesus was what he claimed doesn't even help the xians case. Of course ultimately theism is indefensible except by faith. It would be just as easy to defend the idea that an alien race is setting us up to be willingly dominated by their king. I just find it amazing that people can be so smug in their beliefs without even looking at how that same theism has morphed through the centuries. The major morphs has occurred during spreads into other cultures and translations to different languages. Of course it's not so strange when you watch people eat the words of people like Silvia Brown.
 
I play devil's advocate at times as well.

I think there is a deeper issue if you examine it critically. Language is inherently ambiguous. As a symbol system based not on the concrete "stuff", but on metaphor (words themselves are a sort of metaphor for the things they stand in for), multiple potential meanings are a necessary result of virtually all communication. Am I being serious? Do I, perhaps, mean this to be read somewhat ironically? What is the context?

I think the idea that God, if such a being existed, would communicate through language a message that was meant to be passed down from one generation to the next is ludicrous. The author of the universe doesn't understand what Plato has Socrates clearly state as the problem with writing? One of the reasons that Plato is still read is that he played with the very conventions he created. He revelled in irony and ambiguity. He wrote dialogues.

I think the mathematicians and physicists are correct. If God talks, he talks in mathspeak. And just to play Paul's advocate, the real issue is "what do you mean by God?".

ETA
I suppose I should add, that another possibility is that God means the ambiguity to be a central core of the ideas rendered, which would obviate absolutist thinking.

After all, he did create Bill and Ted.
 
The biblical god. Take the concept of hell for instance and read this;
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

Few samples;
Hell (Sheol) is death. The wages of sin is death.
Born again - When you die you die and must be resurrected to enter heaven.
Heaven - The space between the waters and the stars.
Spirit - Like the air, not possessing solid form. Nonsolid, not nonphysical.
God - Truth. Never claimed to have created truth as that would mean he created himself. (Actually some xians say he did in Jesus LOL)
Valley of the shadow of death - where you live right now. The dead knows no death wether because they are dead or immortal. The living only knows the shadow of death.

Just some of the definition that has morphed through the years. Probably should have never posted this crap because I sure don't want to defend it.
 
But just as surely as the wind blows, the water flows, and the sun shines someone will come along and begin speaking of another conception of God to muddy the waters.

I find the very idea of a personal God silly. Lonewulf mentioned in another thread that any mention of God smiting represents a limitation on him. Actually any anthropomorphization (is that even a word?) of God is a limitation. I understand its genesis in people's need to represent God in particular ways for them to feel a personal relationship with him, but most folks reify the concept and promote their own concretization of God as the monolith for all to worship.

I still find the idea that God would communicate to us in words and not continue the conversation ludicrous. I always wish that fundies could move beyond their childish-projections-become-statue of God (and realize that their very conception of God is a graven image), but I think I wait in vain.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
But just as surely as the wind blows, the water flows, and the sun shines someone will come along and begin speaking of another conception of God to muddy the waters.
Click to expand...
Of course. That is what the nature of the religious morphing I spoke of is all about. That is why I hesitated to even post it.

Ichneumonwasp said:
I find the very idea of a personal God silly. Lonewulf mentioned in another thread that any mention of God smiting represents a limitation on him. Actually any anthropomorphization (is that even a word?) of God is a limitation. I understand its genesis in people's need to represent God in particular ways for them to feel a personal relationship with him, but most folks reify the concept and promote their own concretization of God as the monolith for all to worship.
Click to expand...
I would agree. However it is mentioned biblically that our free will is godlike. Also mentioned was that we had the power to change the biblical prophesies but that we would not.

Ichneumonwasp said:
I still find the idea that God would communicate to us in words and not continue the conversation ludicrous. I always wish that fundies could move beyond their childish-projections-become-statue of God (and realize that their very conception of God is a graven image), but I think I wait in vain.
Click to expand...
It is also biblically mentioned that god would not always be with us. In fact the very conception of faith was at one time as much for the power of faith itself as it was requested that we have faith in god. The general conception seemed to be that by planting the godlike power of faith in us he remains with us that way. Yes a graven image indeed.. LOL

It does have potency in human relations. Sociologist call it "The Definition of the Situation". Physically it's bunk. To think that the bible is an unspoiled word of god is absurd, but then you can interpret it such that that must be the case to. All basis are covered.. :rolleyes:
 
Hokulele said:
How about the religions with no gods at all? How come gods do not start talking to them? I don't believe Buddha ever claimed the information he passed on came from any god.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. If those religions are true, then who the hell is talking to all the Christians?

Oh my god. :eye-poppi
 
edge said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

That depends a lot on how you translate the Biblical Hebrew and what meaning you give that translation. I used a broad definition of possible translations which is why I don't have any intention of defending this. Biblical Hebrew doesn't even have past present or future tenses in the language. The mix between metaphor and statements of facts and intentions makes it possible to do a lot of morphing. Only some very broad indicators of how things have actually morphed historically can be identified. Hell from Sheol first identifiable morphed was with the Greeks and their concept of Hadees. Many of the biblical stories goes all the way back to Sumerian epics. Compare the changes there and it shows major problems with the accuracy the bible maintained many stories.

Major morphs;
Sumerian to Hebrew
Hebrew to Greek
Romans taking possession of the religion
Protestant success and concessions

Then there was slower morphs;
Cultural and language evolution
Sectarian differences in interpretation

It didn't become multiple sects as it is today just recently. Even if we assume the more ancient stories are embellished and the truth began with the Jewish liberation from Egypt there is so much convolution as to be unrecoverable. That is assuming it wasn't all metaphor to begin with. So no I will not crawl into that mess with a defense.
 
wolfgirl said:
Reading and posting in a few of the current threads that have to do with why people in different parts of the world believe in different gods got me to thinking about this:

We hear religious people all the time talking about how their god talks to them. But why is the god that does all the talking always coincidentally the same god that that person happened to be taught to believe in?

For example, a xian in the US says that his god talks to him, and it is the xian god. But why does the xian god not talk to a hindu? "Hey, quit praying to that elephant; I'm the real god."

Or better yet, why does the xian god never talk to someone who's never even heard of him? "Psst, hey, I'm God. I created the world in six days. I had this son named Jesus who died on the cross a while back. Tell everyone in the village about me."

No, instead the xians have to send missionaries all over the darn place to tell people about their god. He talks to these missionaries and tells them to do this rather than just talking to the people himself.

Handy that gods only talk to the people who were taught to believe in them in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yep. God is funny that way. He always picks a favorite group and ignores the rest. He used to talk to the Jews because they are his favorite people. I guess they still are but now he talks to Christians.

There is something incredibly arrogant in assuming that god picked your geographical region to bless with his communication.

Great Post wolfgirl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom