I'm sorry that you are so confused. Try researching the words of western religion as they were used in the original texts that were written in other languages long before any of the modern meanings had evolved and I imagine your confusion will clear up.
Who is your 'god'? A god is that which we obey; be it a mental construct, an overwhelming desire, a belief or a demand of the flesh or conscience. A god is that to which we humans obey. Like I said, 'god' is a title.
You will, naturally, percieve discordance if your harken to Ulfilas and neglect the evidence presented for all to see in several thousand years of human history.
I met a Satanist who made the same liguistic error when perceiving Satan as the Light Bearer.
The word 'God' is a title. The Creator names himself "Yahweh". The word 'Father' is also a title, not a name. It is given a capital letter because it identifies a 'persona'... ha ha ha. Einstein believed the idea of a personal god caused a great deal of trouble. He saw the mechanisms and could not know 'Beyond'.
Thank for watching and commenting but I must disagree with your post.
God is not a title, it is a Goth verb meaning invoked or begotten. There were no capitol letters in the Goth alphabet when Ulfilas first used this verb as a proper name.
Jehovah is also a verb, but it is Hebrew for existing. Like the Goths, the early Hebrew text did not have such a thing as capitol letter. The verb was used as a proper name.
Thank you very much for this video. I don't understand th(d)eists who say that God "by definition" is so-and-so or does so-and-so. But never give a definition. Easy for them, because, it saves them from a very difficult discussion. In fact it is reason that I, without a religious upbringing, became an agnostic believer. So I didn't know God existed or not. Later I became an atheist, when I read more. In fact the Bible is the first reason that I am an atheist.
I like the observation in 'The Kabalion' that THE ALL is. As He/She manifests himself, it results in the fact All exists within the mind of THE ALL. Everything...& I do mean everything...exists within him. This is pantheism, but without the worshipping of the individual entities of trees, etc, It is simply an awareness that "In Him, we live and move and have our being" . For me, the ALL is God, and the Elohim are but representatives.
Always enjoy your thoughtful, and in this case, poetic thoughts. Thanks for viewing.
Unfortunately, neither of us wrote the Old Testament, so our task is not to invent a meaning for the word 'elohiym but to discover what the author's intentions were.
Likewise, our task is not to invent a meaning for the word guda, later God, from the Goth, and later English, versions of the New Testament, but to discover the intended meaning of the word as used by Ulfilas and others at the time.
I'm also very picky with theists about fields of Science. When they try to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis, or worse, Evolution with the Big Bang, or even worse is Evolution with the formation of minerals, I will NOT let them get away with it.
Scientologists are just as bad. They confuse Psychiatry with Neurology, Chemistry, and, somehow, Eugenics. I see no reason to let them get away with that either.
Thanks for the negative complaints. But do you have anything of your own to add?
Psychiatry, for example, is the study of the brain rather than the mind (psychology) and neurology is, indeed, part of the physical world as is chemistry.
This debate needs to draw the lines that are present in all of human history and forego using the Satanic tool of confusion.
It may interest you to peek at the Vienna Circle, 1920, when the science of philosophy was bound from using metaphor or simile.
You get this when argueing with creationists about Evolution. The micro/macro evolution creationists are even worse actually. They'll say "Kind" but won't define "Kind". If they say "This dog evolved evolved from that dog but they're still dogs" and you actually press them to define when they'll stop being gods, and aparantly, they expect dogs to change class faster then we've changed Genus. They expect Gills or something.
Can you give me a biblical site to where the bible claims God is perfect? I see where his beauty, works, etc are perfect. But I don't think you can be perfect in the absence of context. The Bible always gives some context like perfect beauty or perfect works.
I don't think the American Heritage definition of God is neccessarily based on the Bible. If is really the modern, generic, definition that has evolved to include all supernatural supreme beings instead of the just the "only begotten son of the unbeggoten father" for which the word was invented in the thrid century. I persoanlly find the modern definitions, including the American Heritage definition that I read, to be out of contect with the original intention of Ulfilas.
I still find it impossible, even for a generic God, rather than one of the Bible, to be perfect in the abstract. Maybe a perfect Creator or a perfect deity, but if you claim he is perfect in all respects, that would mean he is the perfect village idiot, perfect loser and perfect evil.
I apologise for entering into a debate where confusion reigns.
Brasik1 3 years ago
I'm sorry that you are so confused. Try researching the words of western religion as they were used in the original texts that were written in other languages long before any of the modern meanings had evolved and I imagine your confusion will clear up.
zthustra 3 years ago
Who is your 'god'? A god is that which we obey; be it a mental construct, an overwhelming desire, a belief or a demand of the flesh or conscience. A god is that to which we humans obey. Like I said, 'god' is a title.
You will, naturally, percieve discordance if your harken to Ulfilas and neglect the evidence presented for all to see in several thousand years of human history.
I met a Satanist who made the same liguistic error when perceiving Satan as the Light Bearer.
Good luck.
Brasik1 3 years ago
The word 'God' is a title. The Creator names himself "Yahweh". The word 'Father' is also a title, not a name. It is given a capital letter because it identifies a 'persona'... ha ha ha. Einstein believed the idea of a personal god caused a great deal of trouble. He saw the mechanisms and could not know 'Beyond'.
Brasik1 3 years ago
Thank for watching and commenting but I must disagree with your post.
God is not a title, it is a Goth verb meaning invoked or begotten. There were no capitol letters in the Goth alphabet when Ulfilas first used this verb as a proper name.
Jehovah is also a verb, but it is Hebrew for existing. Like the Goths, the early Hebrew text did not have such a thing as capitol letter. The verb was used as a proper name.
The word creator is not capitolized in the Bible.
zthustra 3 years ago
Thank you very much for this video. I don't understand th(d)eists who say that God "by definition" is so-and-so or does so-and-so. But never give a definition. Easy for them, because, it saves them from a very difficult discussion. In fact it is reason that I, without a religious upbringing, became an agnostic believer. So I didn't know God existed or not. Later I became an atheist, when I read more. In fact the Bible is the first reason that I am an atheist.
drdalet 3 years ago
I like the observation in 'The Kabalion' that THE ALL is. As He/She manifests himself, it results in the fact All exists within the mind of THE ALL. Everything...& I do mean everything...exists within him. This is pantheism, but without the worshipping of the individual entities of trees, etc, It is simply an awareness that "In Him, we live and move and have our being" . For me, the ALL is God, and the Elohim are but representatives.
dovad16 3 years ago
Always enjoy your thoughtful, and in this case, poetic thoughts. Thanks for viewing.
Unfortunately, neither of us wrote the Old Testament, so our task is not to invent a meaning for the word 'elohiym but to discover what the author's intentions were.
Likewise, our task is not to invent a meaning for the word guda, later God, from the Goth, and later English, versions of the New Testament, but to discover the intended meaning of the word as used by Ulfilas and others at the time.
zthustra 3 years ago
Do you perceive the Elohim as the angelic host of whom some are the fallen Nephilim?
Brasik1 3 years ago
I'm also very picky with theists about fields of Science. When they try to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis, or worse, Evolution with the Big Bang, or even worse is Evolution with the formation of minerals, I will NOT let them get away with it.
Scientologists are just as bad. They confuse Psychiatry with Neurology, Chemistry, and, somehow, Eugenics. I see no reason to let them get away with that either.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Thanks for the negative complaints. But do you have anything of your own to add?
Psychiatry, for example, is the study of the brain rather than the mind (psychology) and neurology is, indeed, part of the physical world as is chemistry.
This debate needs to draw the lines that are present in all of human history and forego using the Satanic tool of confusion.
It may interest you to peek at the Vienna Circle, 1920, when the science of philosophy was bound from using metaphor or simile.
Brasik1 3 years ago
You get this when argueing with creationists about Evolution. The micro/macro evolution creationists are even worse actually. They'll say "Kind" but won't define "Kind". If they say "This dog evolved evolved from that dog but they're still dogs" and you actually press them to define when they'll stop being gods, and aparantly, they expect dogs to change class faster then we've changed Genus. They expect Gills or something.
dechha1981 3 years ago
wow.... I can't wait for episode 2. I haven't looked at the history of theism through linguistics... absolutely interesting!
eddygoombah 3 years ago
Can you give me a biblical site to where the bible claims God is perfect? I see where his beauty, works, etc are perfect. But I don't think you can be perfect in the absence of context. The Bible always gives some context like perfect beauty or perfect works.
FaithfullDog 3 years ago
I don't think the American Heritage definition of God is neccessarily based on the Bible. If is really the modern, generic, definition that has evolved to include all supernatural supreme beings instead of the just the "only begotten son of the unbeggoten father" for which the word was invented in the thrid century. I persoanlly find the modern definitions, including the American Heritage definition that I read, to be out of contect with the original intention of Ulfilas.
zthustra 3 years ago
I still find it impossible, even for a generic God, rather than one of the Bible, to be perfect in the abstract. Maybe a perfect Creator or a perfect deity, but if you claim he is perfect in all respects, that would mean he is the perfect village idiot, perfect loser and perfect evil.
FaithfullDog 3 years ago