I've been called on this a few times by religious types who think I'm either blaspheming or trying to show off my smarty-pants by referring to the Judeo-Christian god by its proper name, but there's a strategy to my usage, and I'd like to spell it out.
When we're talking about any other cultures' gods, we refer to them by their proper names--for example: Zeus, Shiva, Ganesh, Quetzacoatl, Eris. The same isn't generally true about the "default" god of American culture, Yahweh, who is usually referred to as "God" with a capital G. As someone who was once substantially brainwashed into a Christian mode of thinking and has since recovered (http://laughinjude.com/2011/01/the-inoculation-against-faith-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-praying-and-love-reality/), this strikes me as a nefarious, though likely mostly subconscious, way for evangelists to pull an end-run around the argument of which deity, if any, is the "correct" one to worship, and it represents a massive, mostly unchallenged bias in the American mind.
For example, take the question "Do you believe in God?" The capital letter there is important; it signifies that we're talking about a specific god, and that god is Yahweh (though many of those who worship him probably don't know that name; they may be more familiar with the old mistranslation "Jehovah"). The assumption inherent within that question becomes more apparent when one answers "no," for then the believer will often ask questions such as "Who do you think created the Universe?" The assumption (beyond "someone or something had to create the Universe," which is asinine for reasons I won't get into here) is that Yahweh, specifically, is the only possible supernatural cause for existence to, well, exist.
See the illogical shortcut we're taking here? It would be one thing to assume that
a god created the Universe, but no, by referring specifically to "God," which is understood to be the biblical deity, we're skipping a few steps and positing that it was Yahweh who made the Universe--not Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, not Apsu and Tiamat, not a cosmic turtle with a stomach flu--except we're still referring to Yahweh by the seemingly neutral term "God" to disguise the fact and avoid disputes over which deity gets the credit for creation. Americans seem receptive to the idea that a deity created existence; that's a matter to be addressed elsewhere, though I suspect it may be related to a problem with human thinking I mentioned in
This Won't End Well (http://laughinjude.com/the-plain-and-honest-truth/the-plain-and-honest-truth-this-wont-end-well/):
Quote"If you don't have any prior opinion or belief regarding a subject, you're likely to adopt the first one presented to you—do I have it right?"
"Well, I never thought about it," Sindy says, "but I guess so."
Using the name Yahweh when referring to the Judeo-Christian god is a way to prevent giving worshippers of that deity a default victory. It forces the conversation to return to a point where Yahweh can be examined on the same level as deities Americans are more comfortable admitting are fake, and it forces believers to make the arguments for why Yahweh, specifically, should be credited as the one true god instead of skipping over the issue and pretending he's the only option when it comes to godhood. In short, it exposes the false dilemma fallacy inherent in the way the Judeo-Christian mythos is presented in America.
You make some really good points, here. I wasn't raised Christian and I don't think I know any Christians, but I know quite a few ex-Christians. I'll have to run this by them.
I really like your reasoning. I had never thought about it that way before and I think the idea of making the Christian god "God" rather than "Yahweh" really does make the concept more all encompassing. I like the idea of keeping all the deity concepts on equal footing.
I use the term "god" with my kids, but I think it might confuse them a little that the general term is also the same as the nickname of the Christian god.
This brought up a lot of stuff to think about for me.
Great stuff! :)
I refer to yhwh in discussions with my family and friends, too, and have found that it really irritates Christians to do so. It does exactly as you say, but they are unable to request that you not use his proper name without drawing attention to the fact. it feels like getting away with an illegal wrestling move every time...
as an aside, there's other fun things to do in the context of family.
For instance, we pray before meals with the traditional 'god is great, god is good' deal, but my wife and i switch up the pronoun regularly. i tend to say 'it' and my wife says 'her'. my kiddos for some reason tend to say 'him' but the hesitation is there, and that's good enough for me. there have been a few times at family gatherings when one of my kiddos let's slip an unsanctioned pronoun and you can feel the tweak in the atmosphere but nobody says anything.
also, at the conclusion, we put our hands in the air and shout a charismatic 'hallelujah!'. it's fun and the kiddos like it. at all the family gatherings, my nuclear unit says it, but the others don't. at first my folks and my sister's nuclear unit thought it was cute, and were simply glad that i was carrying on any prayer tradition at all, but it has slowly morphed into this uncomfortable thing for them. we just smile.
Coming from a religion that always used Jehovah, they had a similar view. Though in their case it was more a lack of understanding and respect on the part of other Christian religions. However, the main thrust of this goes back to the later Jewish traditions where YHVH was only used during the rituals of Atonement Day by the High Priest, because most of the people were sinners and couldn't be allowed to use Gods name. The KIng James version made the problem worse by replacing YHVH with LORD. The KJV left the original name in only 4 times out of hundreds. Yahweh, however, is still a guess at the pronunciation.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 15, 2011, 02:46:16 AM
I refer to yhwh in discussions with my family and friends, too, and have found that it really irritates Christians to do so. It does exactly as you say, but they are unable to request that you not use his proper name without drawing attention to the fact. it feels like getting away with an illegal wrestling move every time...
Hahahahaha, so true.
Good points. I recognized that they were making a huge leap in logic -- "All of this (waves arms around) had to come from somewhere, therefore you're going straight to Hell to burn forever if you don't fall down on your prayerbones right now and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior!" -- but I had not really thought about the linguistic trick they were using to make the leap seem so easy.
Sometimes if I'm feeling particularly snarky, I'll refer to the Christian god as "Jealous".
If anyone doesn't get the reference, see here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34:14&version=kjv).Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2011, 01:40:10 AM
You make some really good points, here. I wasn't raised Christian and I don't think I know any Christians, but I know quite a few ex-Christians. I'll have to run this by them.
Wow, the bolded would seem surreal to me. Here in meatspace, virtually everyone I know is a Christian.
Throw in the story at the end of Exodus 33 about the time Yahweh let Moses look at his ass. Just his ass, because Moses couln't have seen him from the front and lived. :D
Literal-minded Bible-believing Christians NEED these things. :lulz:
I do the same for the same reason.
The inverse of this trick is in the PD(p 00065), which I've actually gotten to use _once_.
QuoteA PRIMER FOR ERISIAN EVANGELISTS by Lord Omar
The SOCRATIC APPROACH is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask "Did you know that God's name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?" If he should answer "Yes." then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says "No." then quickly proceed to:
THE BLIND ASSERTION and say "Well, He Is a girl, and His name is ERIS!" Shrewedly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does not appear convinced, then proceed to:
THE FAITH BIT: "But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don't have Faith." And then add:
THE ARGUMENT BY FEAR and in an ominous voice ask "Do you know what happens to those who deny Goddess?" If he hesitates, don't tell him that he will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to:
THE FIRST CLAUSE PLOY wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim "Well who the hell do you think did all of this, wise guy?" If he says, "Nobody, just impersonal forces." then quickly respond with:
THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS and say that he is absolutely right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally resort to:
THE FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE and confide that sophisticated people like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not get hip. Then put him on your mailing list.
I started by replacing the gender terms, which was fairly easy as my family wasn't very church oriented so I mostly had to undo socially acquired habits.. Good thread.
Why is Jehova a "mistranslation" of Yahweh?
Hebrew doesn't has vowels, so they just wrote YHVH (they actually wrote it backwards, even). And the vowels are in between, to anybody's guess, and I bet each Hebrew dialect would fill them in slightly different.
Sometimes I also say Yod-He-Vau-He, if they need it spelled out for them.
And what about the other names of God, like Eheieh or Elohim? There's seven, ten or seventy-two of them, apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
---
BTW reading that article, Laughing Jude, I think you hit the nail on the motherfucking head as to the reason why a lot those beliefs FORBADE SPEAKING THE NAME OF GOD
Check the wikipedia article
they weren't allowed to say the name, so the priests mumbled YHVH as it was written
they weren't allowed to say the name so judaists say "adonai" instead.
they weren't allowed to say the name so that when they filled in the vowels, they used the vowels of "adonai", to remind people to say "adonai" instead (that's your mistranslation bit, I belief).
It makes a lot of sense, as a strong memetic weapon against different belief systems.
Not being allowed to say Yahweh's name automatically puts it separate from anything else to compare it with, since you cannot compare something that won't be named.
As an aside, funny how that's exactly the opposite of washing powder commercials comparing the superior Name Brand to the unnamed "Brand X".
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 11:52:19 AM
Why is Jehova a "mistranslation" of Yahweh?
Hebrew doesn't has vowels, so they just wrote YHVH (they actually wrote it backwards, even). And the vowels are in between, to anybody's guess, and I bet each Hebrew dialect would fill them in slightly different.
Sometimes I also say Yod-He-Vau-He, if they need it spelled out for them.
And what about the other names of God, like Eheieh or Elohim? There's seven, ten or seventy-two of them, apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
---
BTW reading that article, Laughing Jude, I think you hit the nail on the motherfucking head as to the reason why a lot those beliefs FORBADE SPEAKING THE NAME OF GOD
Check the wikipedia article
they weren't allowed to say the name, so the priests mumbled YHVH as it was written
they weren't allowed to say the name so judaists say "adonai" instead.
they weren't allowed to say the name so that when they filled in the vowels, they used the vowels of "adonai", to remind people to say "adonai" instead (that's your mistranslation bit, I belief).
It makes a lot of sense, as a strong memetic weapon against different belief systems.
Not being allowed to say Yahweh's name automatically puts it separate from anything else to compare it with, since you cannot compare something that won't be named.
As an aside, funny how that's exactly the opposite of washing powder commercials comparing the superior Name Brand to the unnamed "Brand X".
This!
Another thing I can't resist pointing out to any faithfool who makes the mistake of engaging me on the subject is that roughly half of the original names of god were female (with one or two even being considered hermaphroditic)
What the cannibal zombie cult did was to build misogyny in, from the ground up, by replacing all these aspects or personalities with one man and, lets face it, that is explicitly what the christian god is - a man. He's not even really a god, as such, he's the fucking Homer Simpson of theology.
Still, I prefer to avoid engaging believers in discussions that they're not really psychologically equipped to deal with or comprehend. I much prefer to just laugh at them with anyone else who has the intellectual capacity to get the joke.
Christianity is a viral form of retardeness. It's maybe not completely incurable but who the fuck am I, the Marie Curie of philosophy? Fuck no, I'm much more a Lenny Bruce or Bill Hicks - I'd much rather laugh at them than try to cure the stupid bastards :lulz:
Quote from: Laughin Jude on May 15, 2011, 01:07:03 AM
I've been called on this a few times by religious types who think I'm either blaspheming or trying to show off my smarty-pants by referring to the Judeo-Christian god by its proper name, but there's a strategy to my usage, and I'd like to spell it out.
When we're talking about any other cultures' gods, we refer to them by their proper names--for example: Zeus, Shiva, Ganesh, Quetzacoatl, Eris. The same isn't generally true about the "default" god of American culture, Yahweh, who is usually referred to as "God" with a capital G. As someone who was once substantially brainwashed into a Christian mode of thinking and has since recovered (http://laughinjude.com/2011/01/the-inoculation-against-faith-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-praying-and-love-reality/), this strikes me as a nefarious, though likely mostly subconscious, way for evangelists to pull an end-run around the argument of which deity, if any, is the "correct" one to worship, and it represents a massive, mostly unchallenged bias in the American mind.
For example, take the question "Do you believe in God?" The capital letter there is important; it signifies that we're talking about a specific god, and that god is Yahweh (though many of those who worship him probably don't know that name; they may be more familiar with the old mistranslation "Jehovah"). The assumption inherent within that question becomes more apparent when one answers "no," for then the believer will often ask questions such as "Who do you think created the Universe?" The assumption (beyond "someone or something had to create the Universe," which is asinine for reasons I won't get into here) is that Yahweh, specifically, is the only possible supernatural cause for existence to, well, exist.
See the illogical shortcut we're taking here? It would be one thing to assume that a god created the Universe, but no, by referring specifically to "God," which is understood to be the biblical deity, we're skipping a few steps and positing that it was Yahweh who made the Universe--not Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, not Apsu and Tiamat, not a cosmic turtle with a stomach flu--except we're still referring to Yahweh by the seemingly neutral term "God" to disguise the fact and avoid disputes over which deity gets the credit for creation. Americans seem receptive to the idea that a deity created existence; that's a matter to be addressed elsewhere, though I suspect it may be related to a problem with human thinking I mentioned in This Won't End Well (http://laughinjude.com/the-plain-and-honest-truth/the-plain-and-honest-truth-this-wont-end-well/):
Quote"If you don't have any prior opinion or belief regarding a subject, you're likely to adopt the first one presented to you—do I have it right?"
"Well, I never thought about it," Sindy says, "but I guess so."
Using the name Yahweh when referring to the Judeo-Christian god is a way to prevent giving worshippers of that deity a default victory. It forces the conversation to return to a point where Yahweh can be examined on the same level as deities Americans are more comfortable admitting are fake, and it forces believers to make the arguments for why Yahweh, specifically, should be credited as the one true god instead of skipping over the issue and pretending he's the only option when it comes to godhood. In short, it exposes the false dilemma fallacy inherent in the way the Judeo-Christian mythos is presented in America.
My parents attended an evangelical christian church for awhile when I was a kid that insisted on saying Yahweh instead of "God" and used this as their method of condemning all other evangelical christian churches as pagans because they weren't specifying that they were worshiping the proper biblical god.
:lulz:
Quote from: Aloe on May 15, 2011, 04:37:06 PMMy parents attended an evangelical christian church for awhile when I was a kid that insisted on saying Yahweh instead of "God" and used this as their method of condemning all other evangelical christian churches as pagans because they weren't specifying that they were worshiping the proper biblical god.
:lulz:
The irony being that any Jewish scholar worth his salt will tell you that the OT is crap, you have to study the Tanakh in the original Hebrew along with the commentaries. They will also say things that would horrify Christians, like not being sure that Moses actually existed and reading the stories as allegorical.
I've yet to find a Jew who thinks dinosaurs existed a few hundred years ago.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 15, 2011, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: Aloe on May 15, 2011, 04:37:06 PMMy parents attended an evangelical christian church for awhile when I was a kid that insisted on saying Yahweh instead of "God" and used this as their method of condemning all other evangelical christian churches as pagans because they weren't specifying that they were worshiping the proper biblical god.
:lulz:
The irony being that any Jewish scholar worth his salt will tell you that the OT is crap, you have to study the Tanakh in the original Hebrew along with the commentaries. They will also say things that would horrify Christians, like not being sure that Moses actually existed and reading the stories as allegorical.
I've yet to find a Jew who thinks dinosaurs existed a few hundred years ago.
And then of course the most basic irony that evangelical christians consider jews 'unsaved' although their idea of what 'saved' is, is based on a jewish text about jewish characters and the salvation they claim supposedly comes through a jewish 'messiah'.
Quote from: Aloe on May 15, 2011, 04:48:27 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 15, 2011, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: Aloe on May 15, 2011, 04:37:06 PMMy parents attended an evangelical christian church for awhile when I was a kid that insisted on saying Yahweh instead of "God" and used this as their method of condemning all other evangelical christian churches as pagans because they weren't specifying that they were worshiping the proper biblical god.
:lulz:
The irony being that any Jewish scholar worth his salt will tell you that the OT is crap, you have to study the Tanakh in the original Hebrew along with the commentaries. They will also say things that would horrify Christians, like not being sure that Moses actually existed and reading the stories as allegorical.
I've yet to find a Jew who thinks dinosaurs existed a few hundred years ago.
And then of course the most basic irony that evangelical christians consider jews 'unsaved' although their idea of what 'saved' is, is based on a jewish text about jewish characters and the salvation they claim supposedly comes through a jewish 'messiah'.
Who they force-fitted to a bunch of OT prophecies and who any self-respecting Jew will tell you is total bullshit. Then the evangelicals get their panties in a knot and go "HOW DARE YUO SAY JEWS FOR JESUS AREN'T JEWS!" Which they aren't, because worshipping a man is a form of idolatry. Big no-no in Judaism.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 15, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
Still, I prefer to avoid engaging believers in discussions that they're not really psychologically equipped to deal with or comprehend. I much prefer to just laugh at them with anyone else who has the intellectual capacity to get the joke.
Christianity is a viral form of retardeness. It's maybe not completely incurable but who the fuck am I, the Marie Curie of philosophy? Fuck no, I'm much more a Lenny Bruce or Bill Hicks - I'd much rather laugh at them than try to cure the stupid bastards :lulz:
True, I prefer to poke fun at them over trying to convert them as well*.
That's why I like this "cheat code" realization of using the name of their god Yahweh. It's the name of their god, after all. But it also puts their god to the same scrutiny as any other thing that can be named.
Using the term "the Christian God" has a similar effect, but I think saying Yahweh is stronger (anyone got an idea why?)
I remember playing around with the name "Yahweh" years ago, and I thought it was funny, it tickled something. But it took until this thread to realize that it might be a very powerful "memetic weapon" indeed.
* nearly impossible to do, anyway. In the rare instances that it does happen, it's a process that takes years, and they gotta do it themselves. They need to be in a situation where their current belief doesn't work anymore, some kind of discomfort, disappointment perhaps. Something profound must happen or be realized. Right then, at that moment they'll jump at
anything to fill that vacuum, like maniacal zealot sharks, be it atheism, Discordianism, environmentalism, international politics, conspiracy theories, whatever. I suppose a lot of fun can be had by appearing at the right moment with the right kind of reading material :evil:
(BTW, "that moment"--I just pretty much described Chapel Perilous again, didn't I? Heh, "it becomes more apparent, the harder I look" :lol:)
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 07:16:07 PM
* nearly impossible to do, anyway. In the rare instances that it does happen, it's a process that takes years, and they gotta do it themselves. They need to be in a situation where their current belief doesn't work anymore, some kind of discomfort, disappointment perhaps. Something profound must happen or be realized. Right then, at that moment they'll jump at anything to fill that vacuum, like maniacal zealot sharks, be it atheism, Discordianism, environmentalism, international politics, conspiracy theories, whatever. I suppose a lot of fun can be had by appearing at the right moment with the right kind of reading material :evil:
(BTW, "that moment"--I just pretty much described Chapel Perilous again, didn't I? Heh, "it becomes more apparent, the harder I look" :lol:)
Theoretically, it should be easy, then, since they say that ANYTHING a xtain asks in Jesus' name gets done.
"An then the preacher laid hands on him and said "BE THOU HEALED IN THE NAME-O-JESUS!" And my brother threw his crutches away."
"And did he walk?"
"No, he fell on his ass...he's crippled, y'know." :lulz:
Relevant: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Relevant: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Facebooked.
I will probably get disowned. :lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Relevant: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
This is awesome.
QuoteWhat we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 15, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 11:52:19 AM
Why is Jehova a "mistranslation" of Yahweh?
Hebrew doesn't has vowels, so they just wrote YHVH (they actually wrote it backwards, even). And the vowels are in between, to anybody's guess, and I bet each Hebrew dialect would fill them in slightly different.
Sometimes I also say Yod-He-Vau-He, if they need it spelled out for them.
And what about the other names of God, like Eheieh or Elohim? There's seven, ten or seventy-two of them, apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
---
BTW reading that article, Laughing Jude, I think you hit the nail on the motherfucking head as to the reason why a lot those beliefs FORBADE SPEAKING THE NAME OF GOD
Check the wikipedia article
they weren't allowed to say the name, so the priests mumbled YHVH as it was written
they weren't allowed to say the name so judaists say "adonai" instead.
they weren't allowed to say the name so that when they filled in the vowels, they used the vowels of "adonai", to remind people to say "adonai" instead (that's your mistranslation bit, I belief).
It makes a lot of sense, as a strong memetic weapon against different belief systems.
Not being allowed to say Yahweh's name automatically puts it separate from anything else to compare it with, since you cannot compare something that won't be named.
As an aside, funny how that's exactly the opposite of washing powder commercials comparing the superior Name Brand to the unnamed "Brand X".
This!
Another thing I can't resist pointing out to any faithfool who makes the mistake of engaging me on the subject is that roughly half of the original names of god were female (with one or two even being considered hermaphroditic)
What the cannibal zombie cult did was to build misogyny in, from the ground up, by replacing all these aspects or personalities with one man and, lets face it, that is explicitly what the christian god is - a man. He's not even really a god, as such, he's the fucking Homer Simpson of theology.
Still, I prefer to avoid engaging believers in discussions that they're not really psychologically equipped to deal with or comprehend. I much prefer to just laugh at them with anyone else who has the intellectual capacity to get the joke.
Christianity is a viral form of retardeness. It's maybe not completely incurable but who the fuck am I, the Marie Curie of philosophy? Fuck no, I'm much more a Lenny Bruce or Bill Hicks - I'd much rather laugh at them than try to cure the stupid bastards :lulz:
Excellent points! I am swinging more and more toward referring to the Christian God as Yahweh, although not in front of my Jewish best friend (out of respect).
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Relevant: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
UNNNNG the problem I have with that site is summed up in the opening statements:
QuoteIs God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.
If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.
On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion.
It completely discounts the option "If God is real, then is that evidence that all the other Gods are real, as is indicated in the Bible? In that case, how do I choose which God to worship?"
Also, that's why I hate Atheists.
QuoteWhy is Jehova a "mistranslation" of Yahweh?
"Jehovah" being a mistranslation was just my understanding from way back when I went to school for this shit. That was a decade ago, though, so I could be wrong. But if memory serves, it's similar to how "Jesus" is incorrect; the name used in the original text is "Yeshua," which translates to "Joshua." AFAIK, "Jehova" and "Jesus" are just ancient fuck-ups by scribes translating the bible into new languages that have survived due to tradition.
QuoteUNNNNG the problem I have with that site is summed up in the opening statements:
And you're right, that is one big problem with that site now that I look at it again: it falls into the capital G "God" trap in the first sentence. That last sentence even more or less hands the battle to the Christians by conflating Yahweh with all gods.
Yahwehdammit. :lulz:
Can't YHVH, if we're replacain the V with a W, mean "Yeah, What-evs."?
Yeah, Vat eVaH.
New York Yiddish accent? Almost works. :p
From my understanding, Jehova comes from interlacing the vowel sounds from "adonai" within the consonants of YHWH translated into greek (JHVH). Something like that.
Here's a mind-fuck to bring up to the next faithfool you speak with (thanks for that term).
- YHWH is obviously not a trinity, because in kabalistic values, Y = Father, H = Mother, W = Son, H = Daughter... Which is why you have the feminine Names of God... This also lines up with certain interesting things on the tree of life, and the 4 suits of Tarot.
- The two female aspects were hidden under the term "holy spirit" and the veneration of Mary as a Saint.
Have fun with those.
U WarShip with the ELectron Just Like eveyone else so get on with iTQuote from: Nigel on May 16, 2011, 04:27:49 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 15, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Relevant: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
UNNNNG the problem I have with that site is summed up in the opening statements:
QuoteIs God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.
If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.
On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion.
It completely discounts the option "If God is real, then is that evidence that all the other Gods are real, as is indicated in the Bible? In that case, how do I choose which God to worship?"
Quote from: Telarus on May 16, 2011, 08:13:36 AM
From my understanding, Jehova comes from interlacing the vowel sounds from "adonai" within the consonants of YHWH translated into greek (JHVH). Something like that.
Here's a mind-fuck to bring up to the next faithfool you speak with (thanks for that term).
- YHWH is obviously not a trinity, because in kabalistic values, Y = Father, H = Mother, W = Son, H = Daughter... Which is why you have the feminine Names of God... This also lines up with certain interesting things on the tree of life, and the 4 suits of Tarot.
- The two female aspects were hidden under the term "holy spirit" and the veneration of Mary as a Saint.
Have fun with those.
This is the correct motorcycle. We have no idea which vowels should be involved, nor can we know for sure how the consonants were pronounced. Yahweh is an acceptable translation, Jehohav is an acceptable English translation (akin to Ya'kov = James or Jacob in English and Diego in Spanish).
I think I made this point to my mother decades ago, when being taught in Sunday School and Wednesday night Bible study about the many names of "God" in the Christian dogma (back then I knew it as "faith"). It's always amazing how few answers those who have purportedly "studied" the Bible actually have for this kind of thing. But since the book itself has gone through so many translations over the centuries, there's just very little that is known amongst those who DON'T go to seminary what the nomeclature has gone through over the millenia.
I remember being taught that the Jews couldn't say YHVH's name because it was so holy according to the OT, but that Christ himself in ripping that veil when he died for our sins made not only access to him easier but also access to God the Father as well. So being a Gentile, I was afforded VIP access since I accepted Christ as my savior, etc.
It is interesting what is considered "sacred" when it comes to "names" and how they translate into English for believers. You know that when Muslims speak of "Allah" in English they sometimes translate it to "God"? They don't always use "Allah." Which is also why "Allah-hu-akbar" translates into NOT "Allah is great" but instead "God is great."
...anyway, great thread, great points, as everyone's already said.
Quote from: Jenne on May 16, 2011, 05:23:41 PM
I think I made this point to my mother decades ago, when being taught in Sunday School and Wednesday night Bible study about the many names of "God" in the Christian dogma (back then I knew it as "faith"). It's always amazing how few answers those who have purportedly "studied" the Bible actually have for this kind of thing. But since the book itself has gone through so many translations over the centuries, there's just very little that is known amongst those who DON'T go to seminary what the nomeclature has gone through over the millenia.
I remember being taught that the Jews couldn't say YHVH's name because it was so holy according to the OT, but that Christ himself in ripping that veil when he died for our sins made not only access to him easier but also access to God the Father as well. So being a Gentile, I was afforded VIP access since I accepted Christ as my savior, etc.
It is interesting what is considered "sacred" when it comes to "names" and how they translate into English for believers. You know that when Muslims speak of "Allah" in English they sometimes translate it to "God"? They don't always use "Allah." Which is also why "Allah-hu-akbar" translates into NOT "Allah is great" but instead "God is great."
...anyway, great thread, great points, as everyone's already said.
I've seen Vishnu and Shiva referred to as "God" in books for westerners.
"Faithfool"?
Well, it's a good thing we're all immune to that sort of thing.
If you change the pronunciation a little bit, it sounds like "Yeahwat"? (Question mark optional)
Quote from: Laughin Jude on May 16, 2011, 05:14:29 AM
QuoteWhy is Jehova a "mistranslation" of Yahweh?
"Jehovah" being a mistranslation was just my understanding from way back when I went to school for this shit. That was a decade ago, though, so I could be wrong. But if memory serves, it's similar to how "Jesus" is incorrect; the name used in the original text is "Yeshua," which translates to "Joshua." AFAIK, "Jehova" and "Jesus" are just ancient fuck-ups by scribes translating the bible into new languages that have survived due to tradition.
Two things. Jesus is "Iesu" in Greek, which, unless you are talking about something else, would be the original language of the text that we have, no?
Quote from: Telarus on May 16, 2011, 08:13:36 AM
From my understanding, Jehova comes from interlacing the vowel sounds from "adonai" within the consonants of YHWH translated into greek (JHVH). Something like that.
Here's a mind-fuck to bring up to the next faithfool you speak with (thanks for that term).
- YHWH is obviously not a trinity, because in kabalistic values, Y = Father, H = Mother, W = Son, H = Daughter... Which is why you have the feminine Names of God... This also lines up with certain interesting things on the tree of life, and the 4 suits of Tarot.
- The two female aspects were hidden under the term "holy spirit" and the veneration of Mary as a Saint.
Have fun with those.
Correct. Jehova is not a mistranslation so much as a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 16, 2011, 10:14:29 PM
Two things. Jesus is "Iesu" in Greek, which, unless you are talking about something else, would be the original language of the text that we have, no?
Iesu is Yeshua transliterated into Greek AFAIK. Going the long route from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, the scribes' multicultural game of telephone ended with "Jesus," but if you go straight from Hebrew to the accepted modern English equivalent, it's "Joshua."
Quote from: Laughin Jude on May 16, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 16, 2011, 10:14:29 PM
Two things. Jesus is "Iesu" in Greek, which, unless you are talking about something else, would be the original language of the text that we have, no?
Iesu is Yeshua transliterated into Greek AFAIK. Going the long route from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, the scribes' multicultural game of telephone ended with "Jesus," but if you go straight from Hebrew to the accepted modern English equivalent, it's "Joshua."
What, precisely, are you talking about? Transliteration of names has nothing to do with "translation". To say it's a mistranslation is... well, incorrect. Yes, the Hebrew form transliterated is Yeshua. What is your point? The referencs to Jesus in the New Testament were not in Hebrew, were they? Do you know something I don't? My point is that it's not incorrect, because we are working from the text which is in Greek, and lists the name as Ἰησοῦ, not שׁוּעַ. Transliterating it to Latin results in Iesus. Consonantal "i" turns into "j". "Jesus".
And Jesus/Ieshua/JebusHChrist spoke aramic. So who the fuck knows what he actually said, if he even existed.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 17, 2011, 12:32:54 AM
And Jesus/Ieshua/JebusHChrist spoke aramic. So who the fuck knows what he actually said, if he even existed.
Yeah. There has been speculation (I dunno how credible it is) that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and transliterated into Greek, but we have so little evidence for such documents its moot. My personal take on that is that the gospels are fucking weird and inconsistent in the level of "skill" in Greek. That is there are things going on that are contrary to the normal conventions of Koine Greek, and some are more correct than others. You would think, if composed in Aramaic, the consistency of the Greek would be much higher, because there would more than likely be multiple translations around and someone at some point would have done all four, and that likely would have been made the "official" version, yeah? But I'm speculating just as much, so I'll leave off there.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 17, 2011, 12:43:27 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 17, 2011, 12:32:54 AM
And Jesus/Ieshua/JebusHChrist spoke aramic. So who the fuck knows what he actually said, if he even existed.
Yeah. There has been speculation (I dunno how credible it is) that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and transliterated into Greek, but we have so little evidence for such documents its moot. My personal take on that is that the gospels are fucking weird and inconsistent in the level of "skill" in Greek. That is there are things going on that are contrary to the normal conventions of Koine Greek, and some are more correct than others. You would think, if composed in Aramaic, the consistency of the Greek would be much higher, because there would more than likely be multiple translations around and someone at some point would have done all four, and that likely would have been made the "official" version, yeah? But I'm speculating just as much, so I'll leave off there.
And thats the least of the problems with the Gospels :lulz:
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 15, 2011, 05:56:09 AM
Throw in the story at the end of Exodus 33 about the time Yahweh let Moses look at his ass. Just his ass, because Moses couln't have seen him from the front and lived. :D
Literal-minded Bible-believing Christians NEED these things. :lulz:
Proof that Yahweh was trolling the hell out of everyone. He mooned some dude and made him thank him for it.
God-tse.
(http://www.nicefunnyjokes.com/images/visual-jokes/whatever/the-goatse-cloud-formation-cefjgijngijnbdgi.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 17, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
God-tse.
NEEDS WOMP :lulz:
ETA: Didn't see what Pent did when I posted that.
SUBLIME, dood! :mittens:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 17, 2011, 05:19:05 PM
(http://www.nicefunnyjokes.com/images/visual-jokes/whatever/the-goatse-cloud-formation-cefjgijngijnbdgi.jpg)
Damn, Pent
:mittens:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
wan't me unfortunately - I just found the fucking thing :oops:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 17, 2011, 08:23:19 PM
wan't me unfortunately - I just found the fucking thing :oops:
Still, perfect.
I know...I first saw it at a Sylvia Browne forum a few years ago, the poster thought it was really Gawd and didn't know about Goatse. :lulz:
But you thought to put it here, I didn't, so still WIN.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 17, 2011, 08:58:02 PM
I know...I first saw it at a Sylvia Browne forum a few years ago, the poster thought it was really Gawd and didn't know about Goatse. :lulz:
But you thought to put it here, I didn't, so still WIN.
Those people are the entire reason goatse exists in the first place :evil:
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 12:47:23 AM
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
I saw something where that was addressed once:
Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout? (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=19113)
QuoteI'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on May 18, 2011, 01:47:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 12:47:23 AM
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
I saw something where that was addressed once:
Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout? (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=19113)
QuoteI'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.
lololol
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on May 18, 2011, 01:47:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 12:47:23 AM
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
I saw something where that was addressed once:
Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout? (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=19113)
QuoteI'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.
Hahahaha that's genius!
To the OP:
I got into this at work last year and lost a client over it. I didn't intentionally get into the discussion either but being the person I am, answered the question honestly and opened a whole can o' worms.
Basically, the client (a fairly superstitious Catholic senior citizen) was complaining about political correctness in schools that prevented children having 'Christmas Trees' etc in the schools.
And it was a fair point because, too many people have bought into the notion that a Tree or Menorah etc is 'offensive'. I've never been offended by a Menorah or any other holiday decoration for that matter. I simply don't care.
I explained that I wasn't offended by anyone's religious symbols because I wasn't especially interested in any of them. Then someone asked me if I believed in God and I said:
"Depends what you mean by God. If you're asking me if I believe in a monotheistic God as laid down by the Judeo-Christian faith(s) and related scriptures then, the answer is an absolute, unequivocal NO. I do not believe in that at all. That would therefore, make me an 'atheist' in your point of view."
[record scratch, pin drop, lonely dog barking in distance, cricket sound-effects]
Superstitious Catholic lady then says "WHO do you think created everything?"
Me: "Why does it have to be a WHO?"
Every since then, whenever I see her at the office, she keeps asking me weird questions, like I'm some theological special-needs case. "What did you do for Easter? Do you celebrate Easter? etc" (She's probably like a lot of the Italian Catholics that step-Mang#2 has to put up with. When she was asked if she was Catholic, she said 'no' and they replied 'Then you must be a Buddhist'. No amount of effort could change the discussion. Apparently, non-Catholic=Buddhist in parts of Italy.)
Quote from: Mangrove on May 24, 2011, 05:10:45 PM
To the OP:
I got into this at work last year and lost a client over it. I didn't intentionally get into the discussion either but being the person I am, answered the question honestly and opened a whole can o' worms.
Basically, the client (a fairly superstitious Catholic senior citizen) was complaining about political correctness in schools that prevented children having 'Christmas Trees' etc in the schools.
And it was a fair point because, too many people have bought into the notion that a Tree or Menorah etc is 'offensive'. I've never been offended by a Menorah or any other holiday decoration for that matter. I simply don't care.
I explained that I wasn't offended by anyone's religious symbols because I wasn't especially interested in any of them. Then someone asked me if I believed in God and I said:
"Depends what you mean by God. If you're asking me if I believe in a monotheistic God as laid down by the Judeo-Christian faith(s) and related scriptures then, the answer is an absolute, unequivocal NO. I do not believe in that at all. That would therefore, make me an 'atheist' in your point of view."
[record scratch, pin drop, lonely dog barking in distance, cricket sound-effects]
Superstitious Catholic lady then says "WHO do you think created everything?"
Me: "Why does it have to be a WHO?"
Every since then, whenever I see her at the office, she keeps asking me weird questions, like I'm some theological special-needs case. "What did you do for Easter? Do you celebrate Easter? etc" (She's probably like a lot of the Italian Catholics that step-Mang#2 has to put up with. When she was asked if she was Catholic, she said 'no' and they replied 'Then you must be a Buddhist'. No amount of effort could change the discussion. Apparently, non-Catholic=Buddhist in parts of Italy.)
That's weird, but not unusual in this day and age. Scientific rationality rubbing elbows with old time religious superstition and all that.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 18, 2011, 12:47:23 AM
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2011, 01:22:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 18, 2011, 12:47:23 AM
I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.
Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.
If you expand that to the one that does the most horrible things to those around you... Well, TGRR in his Holy Office as Rain God done blew the windows out of Suu's apartment, so...
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2011, 01:22:30 AM
Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.
And thus,
Hail Eris. QED.