Thread: The meaning of God.

How do you explain God? As in, the judeo-christian-islamic god?

It's gotta be explained within those limitations? That's no fun!!

EM

I find that my interpretation of God is compatible with all religious views. Basically what I think is that God is what it is and that all cultures have interpreted this entity in their own separate way. In the specific context of those cultures I think you have to break them into two separate groups as the cultural and historical events that shaped the beliefs are very different. For the Hebrews, and by extension Christians, you have a rather inexplicable offshoot from Sumerian belief possibly a heretical belief, in the form of Abraham. The interpretation of God they had was commensurate with their culture, which was nomadic and warlike by necessity. So you get a God that will rain destruction and turn people into salt and back you up in battle, which is a common theme in the Old Testament. The New Testament version is a reflection of Roman occupation. The Hebrew culture was still militant at its roots but, impotent. While some tried and failed to engage in military uprisings against the Romans others tried more passive means of subverting Roman authority and the Jewish higher ups that they saw as collaborators. So you get a God that will make sure that people get what's coming if they deserve it but, not really the fire and brimstone from the sky type anymore. It reflects both an attempt to distance itself from the old Hebrew priesthood and the Hebrew reality of patience in the face of occupation. Islam is an odd mixture of the two, combining interpretations of Old Testament prophecy with some New Testament teachings. It is also uniquely Arabic and some of the differences in the Islamic faith today, Shiite vs. Sunni, can be traced further back to old tribal differences. People interpret God differently in different times and in different cultures and that pretty much explains all the similarities and idiosyncrasies that you find between different faiths and God concepts.

Originally Posted by Vir Sapiens

I find that my interpretation of God is compatible with all religious views. Basically what I think is that God is what it is and that all cultures have interpreted this entity in their own separate way. In the specific context of those cultures I think you have to break them into two separate groups as the cultural and historical events that shaped the beliefs are very different. For the Hebrews, and by extension Christians, you have a rather inexplicable offshoot from Sumerian belief possibly a heretical belief, in the form of Abraham. The interpretation of God they had was commensurate with their culture, which was nomadic and warlike by necessity. So you get a God that will rain destruction and turn people into salt and back you up in battle, which is a common theme in the Old Testament. The New Testament version is a reflection of Roman occupation. The Hebrew culture was still militant at its roots but, impotent. While some tried and failed to engage in military uprisings against the Romans others tried more passive means of subverting Roman authority and the Jewish higher ups that they saw as collaborators. So you get a God that will make sure that people get what's coming if they deserve it but, not really the fire and brimstone from the sky type anymore. It reflects both an attempt to distance itself from the old Hebrew priesthood and the Hebrew reality of patience in the face of occupation. Islam is an odd mixture of the two, combining interpretations of Old Testament prophecy with some New Testament teachings. It is also uniquely Arabic and some of the differences in the Islamic faith today, Shiite vs. Sunni, can be traced further back to old tribal differences. People interpret God differently in different times and in different cultures and that pretty much explains all the similarities and idiosyncrasies that you find between different faiths and God concepts.

Vir Sapiens, your interpretation of this God is not compatible with the LHP's.

This 'God' thing that the Abrahamic faiths have personified is nothing more than the 'Ordered Universe'. The Golden Mean, Fibonacci, Phi. A non-conscious process that evolves the material/physical/objective Universe - the Egyptian word for god is Neter (nature?)


EM

I don't necessarily think it is incompatible with LHP philosophy. My view point espouses no single moral or ethical code, in fact I question the validity of all of them in so much as they are subjective manifestations of a particular group's interpretation of God. Also it espouses an understanding of God rather than a unity with God.

Granted I'm having a difficult time telling whether you mean Left Hand Paths as a plural or Left Hand Path's as in ownership of interpretation of the Abrahamic God interpretation in which case I would say that any LHP interpretation of the Abrahamic interpretation would likely be doubly flawed in that they are making a subjective observation of a subjective observation rather than examining the source material for themselves. To the point I see no particular point in analyzing another culture's interpretation of God beyond the societal reasons for that interpretation in a strictly scholarly context. It's like the trite old tale of the blind men and the elephant only this time you have another blind guy with numb fingers going behind the others and making whole new interpretations based solely off what the others had said.

Originally Posted by devakxes

How do you explain God? As in, the judeo-christian-islamic god?

The waters are a little muddied on that one. Over time the genisis of divinity went from storytelling to teach morality to a political agenda to hold ransom a person's most precious (albeit speculative) possession, the alleged immortal soul.

At the cusp of Hebrew polytheism and monotheism (the incomplete transcedence from Zoroastrianism and the abandoning and/or demonising of the Hebrew's pagan deities) they believed that Heaven was the dwelling of Yahweh and his angels alone, and that mortals had no business there - death was final until the appocalypse where the final battle between good and evil ensued... [narrative gets a little sloppy here] Blah blah blah... Yahweh pwned all teh evilz and cheezburgers fur eberywun...[and we're back on track]. Basically, the dead would then live forever in paradise in the aftermath of the appocalypse.

Christianity comes along and needs an edgier and more 'modern' sales pitch, so it promises instant paradise upon death for all would be faithful. Millions think this is awesome and the flock experiences a propagational boom. Of course there were those devout to the pagan faiths and so the next step was to either demonise them (horned ones were suddenly evil with the soul-munchies) or intergrate them (Yule is now Christmas, Oestara is now Easter, and anyone celebrating New years in April is consequently an April Fool). After this the Christians had quite the majority and it was simply easier to eliminate the competition than use the subtlety of past tactics.

Then there were the Crusades, which involved Christians versus Muslims. Basically the same at their Abrahamic heart but Latin Europe and the Holy Roman Empire fancied more land and resources. Oh, and Jesus wanted it too. Just ask them. They'll tell you.

Now, skip to the present and we've Muslims suicide bombing left, right and centre, Christians interferring with secular politics, and Israel assuming a license to kill on the grounds of how hard they had it back in the 1940s. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity; all came from a nomadic people's tribal folklore and take on foreign gnostic to rise to become the most powerful, weathy, and politcally influential superpower in this world.

After knowing this, how can one be sure they are explaining God (of Abraham) rather than explaining centuries old politics? And even if you believe that you have extracted the politics, how may people would say your explanation is inaccurate or even heretical?