Curse of the Pendulum

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » Curse of the Pendulum

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:03 am
Hello Friends and Foes haha I mean friends and folks. Greetings and good tidings.

I just want to address something my brother in law mentioned the other day and something that has been addressed on this board...funademantalists christians, islamic radicals, jewish fanaticism, atheist extremists so we have all see the horrors of religion at it's worst but I am here to try and make sense of all the nonsense going on.

Some of you might agree that the Evil One's primary target is G-d's people and any pathway to the Almighty. He attacks religion at it's root. It turns people away from seeking G-d that could be potentials and defeats our moral in society. So I want to make sense of the "Curse of the Pendulum"

No I am not superstitous or anything this is just an allegorical way of describing a very serious issue in today's major religions.

To be wise one would have to learn something from everyone well taking that concept I think I have gathered an idea or philosophy of thought. Let's see how this pans out shall we? Taking what I have heard from Justin, Didymos, NeitherExtreme, Aedes, most of you here really, my brother in law, and some random bits and pieces this is what I have come up...here goes!

What sparked this thought was the other day me and my brother in law(he likes to debate) discussing viewpoints on religious principles. He said something that started this whole thing he said "My dad says the pendulum swings both ways. Either it's too far to the left or too far to the right."

Maybe you have heard of this before well he was talking about religion so of course we can delve deeper into this he didn't really describe it persay but I am developing on that idea, Now based on the idea that the Pendulum swings both ways with religion either too far to the right being an extremist, fundemental, legalist or radical or they are too far to the left as in conservative, passive, liberal or reform. now neither side of the pendulum is better and my brother in law didn't say this but this oberservation is why I see it as "the Curse of the Pendulum"

Justin you said G-d is all about Love and balance now when we apply that to this cycle of thought then that would mean we would have to be somewhere in the middle of the pendulum in order to be in G-d's will. Now of course G-d wouldn't want you to go around killing in his name or rather your religions name that's radical and breaks his commandments. Of course he wouldn't want you going around screaming hell fire and damnation thats fundamental and wouldn't be apart of his love. Of course he wouldn't want you walking around teaching G-d just loves you and he wants to be your best friend and won't ever punish you that's reform, reform is also like saying gays can be christian and women can be rabbis' or pastors'. Another G-d doesn't care what you do with your life as long as you believe this so sure you can ___ get tattoes, not keep sabbath, eat any animal (fill the blank) that's liberal and not keeping accordance to G-d's laws of torah. Still another says we must convert everyone or they are all doomed and conserve our school prayers and not teach evolution to kids as they will become G-d haters that's conservative. the list still goes on then we have the one who says for G-d to be loving he would send no one to hell and for G-d to be Almighty he would prevent any evil from existence that's extremists. The Haredi Jews in Israel have been known to curse and throw stones at those who breach the Jewish Sabbath by driving or working, this is fanaticism since not driving isn't a commandment and those who go beyond ones' religion could be seen a fanatic. See how this works?

Now most of you would agree that liberalism and all the other scenarios are bad religion. Now my point is not to say "only my religion is right" or even "my view of religion" because I don't think religion is the problem I think we people are the problem. We need a solution would you agree? Would the world be a lot better off if there wasn't all this icky stuff in our religions? yes.

Well here is a solution I picked but if you have one please speak up. Now before Didymos had spoken on the last thred this would probably be my chance to attack Christianity but I am not going to do that because as I have discussed here it's not the religion that's wrong it's the form. The form we take or obtain from our religion in a sense what is our religion in the real world or the lifestyles or lives we live? Sure we know what religion is on paper but what about on a dark alley or in a bar? thats' real you gotta be prepared for this stuff. That is difficult to some religious people as they are not open to criticism to their faith. Well neither was I but now I am.


So this is my alternative to the extremes you either have one extreme or another on the pendulum here's the balance for me....I describe the balance as...

The Way.
The way to live and the way to die.
The way to believe and the way to rely.
The way to obey and the way to play.
The way to heal and the way to feel.
The way to hope and the way to flow.
The way to love and the way to trust.
The way to G-d and the way to religion.
The way of Messiah is the way to be.

This is does not work on paper of course this has to be real world I am talking. It's a journey not just a code. It's not my doing but the Holy Spirit of truth as G-d reveals himself more and more. The way to live apart from sin or apart from G-d. Die to sin or die to self. Believe in G-d or believe in the world. Rely on eternal G-d or rely on the temporal world. Obey G-d's law of love the Torah or Obey the world's lawlessness and state of rebellion. The way to play the part or play G-d. The way to heal our heart or the way to break it. The way to feel for G-d and others or the way to hurt G-d and others. The way to hope for eternity or the way to fear death. the way to feel more than fine or the way to get high. The way to flow through life or the way to flow through enticed. The way to Love G-d and others or the way to love self before others. the way to trust YHWH or the way to trust yourself. The way to G-d's kingdom or the way to build your own. The way to order in religion or the way to disorder in religion and choas in the world. The way the Messiah lived or the way others live. The way to be is free in Yahshua you see.


This is not a religion just a viewpoint. Again I embrace both Christianity and Judaism so forgive for my bitterness or animosity. I don't practice both Christianity and Judaism but live according to what I've learned. This is my dilema and this is the solution. I can't be a full blown christian because they don't believe what I believe. I can't be a fully observant jew because they don't accept me because of Messiah. So I am neither and I am new. I am Messianic. Maybe you have heard? Some call it Messianic Judaism and it fits because it's a cross between christianity and judaism and this is why I support them both because they both have something to do with my faith. I highlight cross because who knows maybe it's as simple as that right? Yahshua died on a cross which maybe symbolizes these in harmony?

What do you think friends?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:48 am
@Israelite007,
Messianic Jews do not believe in Jesus -- if they do they are generally called Christians. There are many messianic figures other than Jesus, of course.

I just wonder how it is that you have confidence in any of your beliefs if you're making this kind of selective amalgamation out of two largely unrelated traditions (Christianity and Judaism parted ways a LONG time ago -- to call them related religions is basically an anthropological statement by this point).
 
Israelite007
 
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 12:21 pm
@Israelite007,
http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (měs'ē-ān'ĭk) Pronunciation Key

adj.
  1. <LI minmax_bound="true">Of or relating to a messiah: messianic hopes.
  2. Of or characterized by messianism: messianic nationalism.
Aedes yes Christianity did split but they are the most closely related religions than any other religious system or beliefs. They even split that tells me they are very closely related, you say they are unrelated in tradition. Well yes true but Messianic Judaism is similar to Judaism in practice and Christianity in belief this is why they are a cross. The jews reject Yahshua The messianics and christians accept him this is the cross between the two. The jews accept torah and do the messianics, but not the christians this is the split. What do you think?
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 08:22 pm
@Israelite007,
Israelite007 wrote:
The messianics and christians accept him this is the cross between the two. The jews accept torah and do the messianics, but not the christians this is the split. What do you think?


I think you should forget religion completely and read the bible. Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 09:54 pm
@Israelite007,
The thing that a Jew theologically can never understand about Christianity is how the messiah could have actually come to earth, revealed himself, died, and the world went on just as shitty as it had been before. The first coming of the messiah is part of Jewish eschatology; not so in Christianity, as the messiah already came once. So the Christian tradition requires a "second coming" in order to preserve an eschatologic tradition -- and that's pretty different than the messianic tradition in actual Judaism. So from the vantage point of a Jew, if a first appearance of a messiah isn't at the end of time, then how do you really know it's the messiah? How do you know he't not a false messiah? I mean why not follow Sabbatai Zevi or any other number of Jewish messianic claimants instead of Jesus? How do you decide?

By the way, Judaism and Islam are MUCH more closely related in practice and in belief than Judaism and Christianity. Islam, of course, was not a branch of Judaism but it was an independent religion that arose among Arabs and identified very closely with Judaism (and to a lesser degree with Christianity); but the upshot is that Muslim culture and religion resemble that of Judaism much more so than either resembles Christianity.

Part of the reason for this is historic -- Jews thrived in Muslim lands from the rise of Islam all the way up through the late 19th and early 20th century when Zionism and the fall of the Ottomans created great stress between them. There was a lot of mutual development and imitation. Christians treated Jews much worse, and in general European Jews were more covert. In other words Islam and Judaism have informed one another over centuries in a way that never happened with Christianity.
 
Israelite007
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:16 am
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
I think you should forget religion completely and read the bible. Smile


What's wrong with religion?

Aedes are you sure about Islam? Think about it maybe they're practices are more similar but I think Christianity is more compatable. Think about it. Christianity uses mainly the new testament scripture Islam has the Quran. Christianity teaches loving G-d and others (although they fail practicing this through history) Islam teaches to hate Christians and Jews and to kill them whereas Chrsitianity says love your nieghbor Judaism says the same thing. Islam does not believe Yahshua is the Son of G-d so this is in common with Judaism, with that said I think Christianity and Judaism should be in harmony. And the reason why they differ so much in belief is because Christianity is based on belief so of course that being their main focus their beliefs are going to a lot more developed or scewed depending on the group of adherants. Judaism is based on practices not strictly beliefs but they both share the same text and universally no other religion does that. Does Islam share the same text? Now sure the two you mentioned are more closely related in practice and belief that's for sure no doubt. But the two I mentioned are more easily pliable since they split at one point with those who believed in Torah and those that didn't those who believed in the Son of G-d and those that didn't that separated Jew from Christian they is even such a thing as a Jewish-Christian or a Messianic Jew (pretty much same thing). So yes they are not the most closely related in practice and belief but if these two factors listed changed (Torah and Yahshua) if all the christians and jews agreed on these two points then they would all be in the same religion my point was to say this that the differences are close to none and Christianity and Judaism may be a far cry from each other in practice and belief but if they both agreed on these two points then it would all be apart of the same faith. that is why these two for me are the most closely related faiths because of the switch. The switch is if you are a Jew you believe in torah and not in Yahshua as Messiah and christianity you accept JC who's name is really Yahshua as messiah and deny torah. No matter how you look at it these two key componenants are what make the switch constant.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
@Israelite007,
Israelite007 wrote:
Aedes are you sure about Islam?
Yes, I am sure. I've travelled widely in Muslim countries, I've had many Muslim friends, and I've studied the subject outside a vantage point of assumed religious superiority -- I wholeheartedly believe that a religion is as good or as bad as someone makes it, and I don't believe my religion is morally or practically superior to anyone else's. I'm not sure you'd be willing to say that.

Quote:
Think about it maybe they're practices are more similar but I think Christianity is more compatable.
Compatible? From AD 622 (the year of Mohammed) up until 1947, Jews had FAR more to fear from Christians, suffered far more at their hands, and suffered repeated pogroms, forced conversions, expulsions, ghettoizations, and a genocide. Nothing like this has EVER happened to Jews living in Muslim lands, and to be sure the Jewish people lived in great numbers in Muslim Spain, Egypt, and the Middle East. In fact when the First Crusade finally reached Jerusalem, the Crusaders slaughtered the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem -- a population that had lived quite peaceably with the Muslim majority there.

Quote:
Christianity uses mainly the new testament scripture Islam has the Quran. Christianity teaches loving G-d and others (although they fail practicing this through history) Islam teaches to hate Christians and Jews and to kill them
Islam does not say this. In fact it allows very explicitly Christians to live as Christians and Jews to live as Jews, because they are venerated as descendents of the tradition of Abraham. The ONLY restrictions on Christians and Jews living (through history) in Muslim lands were government and juridicial restrictions, and they had to pay a special tax for non-Muslims. Oh, and they couldn't go out and convert people. But otherwise they were tolerated. This is not true for non-Abrahamic peoples, like the Zoroastrians and like various pagan groups, who were terribly persecuted by Muslims. So if some Imam somewhere preaches hatred and violence, he's not a reflection of Muslim teaching anymore than a hate-preaching Christian is a reflection of the New Testament.

Quote:
Judaism is based on practices not strictly beliefs
You're completely wrong about this. In Judaism the beliefs and the practice are synonymous. Read the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides for further info.

Quote:
but they both share the same text
No, they do NOT share the same text. They share vastly different translations of the same root text, but they communicate different things, are read entirely differently, and come with exigetical commentaries that are completely different.

Quote:
Christianity and Judaism may be a far cry from each other in practice and belief but if they both agreed on these two points then it would all be apart of the same faith.
If we could only get beyond the tiny divide by which Jews think your "son of God" is the epitome of idolatry and blasphemy, and by which Christians think Jews rejected, betrayed, and killed their God -- that's not some trivial misunderstanding here. Not to mention the 2000 years that have passed since then in which the religions not only diverged but the Jews repeatedly suffered at the hands of Christians. There's more separating Jews and Christians than theological questions. There is history and there is bitterness and on the part of Jews there is a great mistrust.

I know I'm mixing theology with history here, but it's important because we are here and now, and we got here somehow. So answer me this -- if these religions are so compatible and so close together, then why has one of the consistent and repeated projects in Christian lands, from late antiquity all the way up through Hitler, been to destroy the Jews?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 02:27 pm
@Israelite007,
Quote:
I know I'm mixing theology with history here, but it's important because we are here and now, and we got here somehow. So answer me this -- if these religions are so compatible and so close together, then why has one of the consistent and repeated projects in Christian lands, from late antiquity all the way up through Hitler, been to destroy the Jews?


Power corrupts, and religion is often used to such corruptible ends. A terrible shame to say the least.

Religions are compatible in that they teach fundamentally the same thing - love. They are incompatible the moment this is lost, in any tradition, in any time.
 
NeitherExtreme
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 06:33 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes, you got me thinking again... I have always seen Judaism and Christianity as very related, and from a Christian perspective that makes a lot of sense because we believe we are building on the foundation of Judaism. BUT, from a Jewish perspective I can see how the two don't seem closely related at all, as Christianity essentially discontinued following almost all of Jewish tradition very early on. I guess I can see both points on this one, and it seems to me to be a matter of perspective... Personally I would see all of the Abrahamic faiths as related, some more closely than others of course. And I would tend to agree with Aedes that Islam and Judaism have more in common in modern times than Christianity has with either of them. (I would see this both in the practical traditions, and also somewhat in theological understandings.)

And back to the begining of the thread: I understand Aedes rejection of the term, but "messianic Jews" is a commonly used expression, and I think Israelite007 was using it approprietly. I could find a better source if you want me to, but here's the first thing that popped up from Wikipedia: "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call by the Hebrew name Yeshua, is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and their divinesavior." It also mentions that not everyone accepts the implications of the term...

Aedes wrote:
The thing that a Jew theologically can never understand about Christianity is how the messiah could have actually come to earth, revealed himself, died, and the world went on just as 'poor' as it had been before.

Not to downplay the difficulties a Jew might have with the idea of Jesus as the messiah, I personally can't agree that He left the world the same as it was.

I once read that, as you could judge the size of a boat that has passed out of sight by the size of it's wake, you can judge a person by their impact on history. Certainly his instant impact was limited due to His being one person in one place, and He never established the authoratative rule that we would expect. But, if you look at the broad strokes of history, He would certainly be in an elite class of individuals who had the biggest impacts. (And the fact that Jesus did this without political power is even more amazing.) I think it would be very hard to imagine the last 1500 years of western history without Him- including many of the shaping values and morals we so easily take for granted. Messiah or not, I don't think Jesus left the world as pathetic a place as it was before.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:09 pm
@Israelite007,
If you want to be practical about it, Jesus would probably have been completely lost to history were it not for Paul and for Constantine. I know that a presupposition of his divinity will argue against that, but I don't make that presupposition. And let's be honest, without Paul allowing all pagans direct access to Christianity, and without Constantine making Christianity the official religion of Rome, Christianity might never have made it anywhere. So who really had the bigger impact? Jesus himself? Or the people in power who institutionalized his tradition?

You can similarly argue that Moses and Abraham exerted an even greater influence on history than Jesus. On the other hand, it's not clear that either one of them ever existed as historical figures. Homer was one of the most influential of all authors, and yet it's clear that he never existed as a single individual. The same controversy goes for Lao Tzu, who may not have actually ever lived. So are these towering influential figures of antiquity influential in their own right? Or is it more accurately the tradition that others carry forth in their name that one can call influential? There have certainly been many messianic figures in the history of Judaism. From the mainstream Jewish perspective they're all theologically irrelevant, and from the Christian perspective all but one of them are irrelevant.

Secondly, the world did change after Jesus death, but it's hard to argue that it was saved in any sense in some eschatalogic, messianic way. Consider for a moment what happened to Rome after its conversion to Christianity -- in fact just within a couple centuries. It completely disintegrated and collapsed, it suffered a massive plague and population drop, it crumbled at its borders, and it went through a succession of inept, corrupt, short-lived rulers during a truly meteoric collapse. It's no wonder that Gibbons (author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the first great historian of the period) attributed its fall in large part to the influence of Christianity (though this view has been criticized).
 
NeitherExtreme
 
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 06:54 am
@Aedes,
Aedes, your point of view makes sense to me, and I think it is compatable with what I said as well. We might place a little more importance on one person or another, which would be a subjective issue, but don't think that anyone could argue that Jesus didn't have a huge impact which would place him in a relatively small group of world-influencers.

Aedes wrote:

It's no wonder that Gibbons (author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the first great historian of the period) attributed its fall in large part to the influence of Christianity (though this view has been criticized).

I would be one who would critisize this view. The apathy, self-centeredness, and corruption that caused their eventual demise had their roots established well before the influence of Christianity.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 10:58 am
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
don't think that anyone could argue that Jesus didn't have a huge impact which would place him in a relatively small group of world-influencers.
I can easily argue that if the question is framed correctly. Entertain for the sake of argument that Jesus never actually existed -- there was never any real person, and the story is just an allegory that people have interpreted somewhat literally. Yet the influence would be EXACTLY the same even if Jesus had never lived at all. Why? Because in his lifetime Jesus met / touched very few people, his posthumous following was small, and it was thanks only to other individuals that he was influential at all. And honestly Constantine did more to change history than did Jesus himself -- and I'd count him as among the most influential people in history. So is Jesus himself influential? Or was it really the early Christians who were the influential ones, and what we interpret as Jesus' influence was really the result of their agency and not his?

Quote:
I would be one who would critisize this view. The apathy, self-centeredness, and corruption that caused their eventual demise had their roots established well before the influence of Christianity.
Well, true or not Gibbons' argument was extremely elaborate and based on exhaustive study of the subject -- it's not a one-liner on his part. As for my own understanding of the period, I think there are other factors unrelated to corruption that better explain the collapse of Rome. But that notwithstanding, when you look at the life span of the Roman empire, it did decline after the life of Jesus, and it declined further after the mass conversion of Rome to Christianity, which to me argues against any thesis that the world somehow miraculously changed.

Furthermore, the real issue is eschatologic, and you have to address that. What does it mean for a messiah to come, to preach, to perform miracles, and to die, and yet time marches on and on and on. Seems more like a prophet than a messiah in terms of archetypes if his context is an as of yet unfulfilled promise of saving the whole world at the end of time.
 
NeitherExtreme
 
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 09:22 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
I can easily argue that if the question is framed correctly.

I think I understand your argument, but respectfully disagree. Taking your view, one could argue that no individual has ever had a significant impact, since it is only through people following them that anything significant is achieved. I can't really agree with that position though, as I think individuals have had very significant impacts on history. And, even if Jesus were only a myth, then that myth has certainly had a huge impact on history.

Aedes wrote:

Well, true or not Gibbons' argument was extremely elaborate and based on exhaustive study of the subject -- it's not a one-liner on his part. As for my own understanding of the period, I think there are other factors unrelated to corruption that better explain the collapse of Rome. But that notwithstanding, when you look at the life span of the Roman empire, it did decline after the life of Jesus, and it declined further after the mass conversion of Rome to Christianity, which to me argues against any thesis that the world somehow miraculously changed.

I have not read Gibbons, but I will assume that he has done a thourough study and presented reasonable arguments.

If you're interested in a different take on western history, you could check out Francis Shaffer's "How Should We Then Live". It is also not a one-liner, and is based on exhaustive study. I think from his book the argument could be made that Christianity's acceptance and absorption by the Romans was the biggest setback in Christians' history. Politically it led to the lethal and corrupting combination of power and religion, whereby many of the virtues of Christianity were ignored or undermined by the later "Church". Theologically, it led to a hybrid of humanist philosophy (in the line of Aristotle, etc.) with the inspiration based (at least so we believe) understandings of Christianity. When we look back at European history, many of the ugly and stupid parts that we tend to blame on Christianity might be better traced back to those Roman/Greek philosphies that too much of Christendom had embraced rather than their own historical theological ideals, and to the political power struggles that had little to do with Christianity other than to use it as a tool for control.

Aedes wrote:

Furthermore, the real issue is eschatologic, and you have to address that. What does it mean for a messiah to come, to preach, to perform miracles, and to die, and yet time marches on and on and on. Seems more like a prophet than a messiah in terms of archetypes if his context is an as of yet unfulfilled promise of saving the whole world at the end of time.


I totally agree that Jesus does not fit the archetype that we would expect from a messiah. That was plenty clear in his own lifetime... But sometimes what we expect turns out to be different from what we find, and if we feel that we have reason to believe that what we found was real, then what we expected must take a back seat. (I think you agree with that in principle, like how you say that reason is not authoritative if science has contridicted it.) Christians feel that Jesus gave us good reason to believe that He was/is the Messiah, even though He didn't fit the archetype. Part of Jesus whole message was that we have our ideas of greatness all backwards, and His life was a living example of that.

And for eschetology... What I personally find important in Christian eschetology essentially revolves around the idea of redemption and that all things will be made right, and that the key to this happening will be Jesus.

Beyond that though, I personally grew weary of eschetology (except for the barest essentials) a long time ago. My general take on it, assuming the Bible is true... Those who thought they understood the best what the Messiah would look like were the ones who ended up the most surprised when He came, so I assume that today the ones who think they know the most about the "end times" will be the most surprised when they happen (or don't happen).
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 07:57 am
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
Taking your view, one could argue that no individual has ever had a significant impact, since it is only through people following them that anything significant is achieved.
I thought about this issue after posting my response. Take someone like Aristotle, who was extraordinarily (and excessively) influential up until the Enlightenment, and whose influence was transmitted through people like Avicenna and Aquinas and Maimonides, etc, there remains a big difference for him. That is his actual works and writings are available. So I can sit down and read (a translation of) Aristotle's actual words and be influenced directly by him. Or I can listen to an opera by Mozart and be influenced directly by him, because I know that what I'm listening to is his direct communication (yes, again somewhat translated by the performers). With Jesus there is no direct access to him -- so his historical influence is forever the consequence of people like Constantine, and his ongoing influence forever stems out of gospels written by other people.

Quote:
even if Jesus were only a myth, then that myth has certainly had a huge impact on history.
No doubt. And having been a live human being, it's still his myth that's had a huge impact on history. And by myth I mean a story that's clearly above and beyond normal human experience, and now a story that defines peoples and cultures.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 11:42 am
@Israelite007,
Absolutely. Anything we know about Jesus is from others. And those reports do vary and contradict one another - Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain, same sermon. If we do not consider the Gospels, our historical knowledge of Jesus would not fill the back side of a business card in large script.

This is the importance of studying the origin of our source material - when they were written, by who, and in what social/political context. This is also why quoting scripture will not always be a sufficient response, even when scripture provides what seem to be clear responses to particular questions.
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 12:42 pm
@Israelite007,
Israelite, can I ask why you hyphenate G-d rather than just spelling it out? If someone is searching for topics related to God, they won't be able to find them and I really don't feel like going back and editing all your posts so please offer a reason for not spelling God out.

Thank you!
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:36 pm
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
Israelite, can I ask why you hyphenate G-d rather than just spelling it out? If someone is searching for topics related to God, they won't be able to find them and I really don't feel like going back and editing all your posts so please offer a reason for not spelling God out.

Thank you!
Justin, this is a Jewish tradition, actually. In the prayer books that we use in synagogue, "God" is always written as "G-d", and technically we're always supposed to write it like that. It is derived from the commandment against idolatry, which is interpreted in Judaism (and in Islam) that the name of God should never be pronounced or defaced. In the Torah the name of God is spelled (in Hebrew) using two letters and two vowels (usually transliterated YHWH), but it's never pronounced -- the word "adonai" (Lord) or "elohim" (its original meaning is unclear) is always substituted. In speech he's often referred to as "ha shem", which simply means "the name".

Israelite, as he has mentioned, feels some identification with certain Jewish traditions. This is one of them. It's certainly not (to my knowledge) practiced by Christians in general, because the dictate against representing God is not nearly so important in Christianity as in Islam or Judaism. In fact if you ever go to Russia and spend time in an Orthodox church, you'll see icon worship that would probably be considered outright idolatry in Judaism.

Tetragrammaton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 03:37 pm
@Israelite007,
Thanks Aedes for the explanation. Although, it still doesn't fit when it comes to searches being done on God. People aren't searching for G-d, they search for God.

Israelite, do you not see how Religions have divided man? Religions have nearly destroyed humanity and they continue to destroy. One doesn't have to be labeled in religion to live life as a human. Religion has been defined by man, not by God.
 
Israelite007
 
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:27 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
Israelite, can I ask why you hyphenate G-d rather than just spelling it out? If someone is searching for topics related to God, they won't be able to find them and I really don't feel like going back and editing all your posts so please offer a reason for not spelling God out.

Thank you!

as the explanation was already given I can adjust so okay so I will use alternatives or just use the word sparingly as to best please the Most High.
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:51 am
@Israelite007,
Thank you Israelite. This makes it possible for those searching Google or searching the forum to find these topics of interest.

As far as pleasing the most high, you and I are on two totally different wave lengths on this. You describe an entity separate from yourself that maybe sits up in a chair high in the sky with Jesus sitting next to him. A super being or something that is out of reach.

Before you go on preaching anymore, I would encourage you to first identify and find what God really is. Locate God. This takes time in prayer and meditation not time spent in a church or following doctrines. Jesus taught his disciples how to pray.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » Curse of the Pendulum
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 11:19:02