Does Christian God have a name

[1pooh4u]

2 hours ago, SwimModSponges said:

Thank you, your input is invaluable in  this discussion.

You’re welcome. At least that’s my limited understanding of it. I’m not particularly religious. The things I do are from habit more than anything else.  Kudos to the Jews though for keeping the message pretty on point for as long as they did, amirite?  It took Gd over 3000 years to give up and send Jesus to get the people  back on message. The Christians fucked up in just a thousand years. (Give or take a couple hundred years) and Islam and Judaism have more in common with each other than Judaism to Christianity. 

[1pooh4u]

Just now, André Toulon said:

I was never arguing was he the same guy, but does he have a name...which I already told him I accepted his answer long ago....but sponges gotta soak and I spew like a spigot

That’s why I answered the question but added I couldn’t help the misunderstanding going on. 

[Vamped]

15 hours ago, Skiles said:

I've read the Bibble, and I'm like 95% sure it's Frank.

I've seen quite a few Christian music CD advertisements and I'm pretty sure it's Andy 

[scoobdog]

I was trying to figure out what Sponges is getting at as well, but I said fuck it and decide just to blow shit up, instead, with...

 

...all three iterations of the Abrahamic God are not, in fact, the same entity.

 

Whether one is a religious adherent, a deist or an atheist, the same basic rule applies: God is a concept, a framework used to connect a religion's various precepts and traditions into a cohesive ideology.

• The Jewish God is generally the template for all three, but He doesn't impart His morality on either the Christian or the Islamic God.  Instead, He represents a more general divine mandate that is meaningless in the absence of the other religious precepts put forth by the religion's true founders, namely the various prophets that shape and interpret the mandate into a practically applied faith system.  He also tends to be the most important of the three different entities because He represents a massive innovation in the religious practice - He's the first to represent the natural world as a unified presence as opposed to a group of competing forces.
• The Christian God was able to expand on the Jewish God concept, but his primary prophet isn't a primary mouthpiece as much as direct iteration.  The Christian God, then, is mandate that directly manifests in the individual of Jesus as opposed to being a separate ethereal being using a human mouthpiece.  This is best exemplified in the oft-noted curiosity of a seemingly vengeful OT God versus the loving and forgiving NT God, with the difference being that the Jewish prophets were less perfect mouthpieces for God than, well, God himself.  The reality, of course, is that Christians tend to play up the more violent aspects of the OT God to contrast that tradition from their own while the Jewish God isn't so much punishing as much as simply allowing bad behavior to have direct consequences.
• The Islamic God is, just as Pooh said, far closer to the Jewish God than the Christian God:  He express himself through mouthpieces rather than a manifesting in one of those prophets.  In perhaps an interesting comparison, the fact HIs chief prophet isn't visually depicted mimics similar Christian movements rejecting the use of idolatry that started around the same time but became prominent through Martin Luther during the Reformation.  

Each God is distinct in that the traditions that he contains are distinct.  None of these Gods are worshipped in the same way, as I presume the God first devised by Abraham himself was not.  The idea that one God worshipped by three different and widely varied groups can act as a bridge between the differences of each,  but it is fundamentally flawed in that it requires God to be an avatar for humanity and central to all commonality.  Even in a world where everyone believes in a singe deity of some sort, it's impossible to completely rectify the differences between each religious tradition into an all encompassing single tradition without rejecting parts of each religions' teachings.  Doing so would end up creating a fourth Abrahamic God rather then combing the three religions into one.

To answer the topic question, then:  there isn't a single name for God.  He's a concept, not an entity in His own right.  Like Vamped commented, whatever name is used as a pointer to this concept inevitably is a descriptor for what God does, not a unique name to attach an identity to.  In that respect, you could conceivably refer to God by whatever term best exemplifies His purpose in context.

[1pooh4u]

28 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

I was trying to figure out what Sponges is getting at as well, but I said fuck it and decide just to blow shit up, instead, with...

 

...all three iterations of the Abrahamic God are not, in fact, the same entity.

 

Whether one is a religious adherent, a deist or an atheist, the same basic rule applies: God is a concept, a framework used to connect a religion's various precepts and traditions into a cohesive ideology.

• The Jewish God is generally the template for all three, but He doesn't impart His morality on either the Christian or the Islamic God.  Instead, He represents a more general divine mandate that is meaningless in the absence of the other religious precepts put forth by the religion's true founders, namely the various prophets that shape and interpret the mandate into a practically applied faith system.  He also tends to be the most important of the three different entities because He represents a massive innovation in the religious practice - He's the first to represent the natural world as a unified presence as opposed to a group of competing forces.
• The Christian God was able to expand on the Jewish God concept, but his primary prophet isn't a primary mouthpiece as much as direct iteration.  The Christian God, then, is mandate that directly manifests in the individual of Jesus as opposed to being a separate ethereal being using a human mouthpiece.  This is best exemplified in the oft-noted curiosity of a seemingly vengeful OT God versus the loving and forgiving NT God, with the difference being that the Jewish prophets were less perfect mouthpieces for God than, well, God himself.  The reality, of course, is that Christians tend to play up the more violent aspects of the OT God to contrast that tradition from their own while the Jewish God isn't so much punishing as much as simply allowing bad behavior to have direct consequences.
• The Islamic God is, just as Pooh said, far closer to the Jewish God than the Christian God:  He express himself through mouthpieces rather than a manifesting in one of those prophets.  In perhaps an interesting comparison, the fact HIs chief prophet isn't visually depicted mimics similar Christian movements rejecting the use of idolatry that started around the same time but became prominent through Martin Luther during the Reformation.  

Each God is distinct in that the traditions that he contains are distinct.  None of these Gods are worshipped in the same way, as I presume the God first devised by Abraham himself was not.  The idea that one God worshipped by three different and widely varied groups can act as a bridge between the differences of each,  but it is fundamentally flawed in that it requires God to be an avatar for humanity and central to all commonality.  Even in a world where everyone believes in a singe deity of some sort, it's impossible to completely rectify the differences between each religious tradition into an all encompassing single tradition without rejecting parts of each religions' teachings.  Doing so would end up creating a fourth Abrahamic God rather then combing the three religions into one.

To answer the topic question, then:  there isn't a single name for God.  He's a concept, not an entity in His own right.  Like Vamped commented, whatever name is used as a pointer to this concept inevitably is a descriptor for what God does, not a unique name to attach an identity to.  In that respect, you could conceivably refer to God by whatever term best exemplifies His purpose in context.

Where did you get this from because they are the same Gd. Yes they are and anyone saying otherwise is absolutely incorrect.  The Gd that created Abraham, created Jesus and created Mohammed.  The prophets are different the Gd is the same. 

[1pooh4u]

While some evangelical Christians might disagree cuz racism ask any Muslim or Jew if they worship the same Gd and I bet the majority will say “yes” 

[scoobdog]

11 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

While some evangelical Christians might disagree cuz racism ask any Muslim or Jew if they worship the same Gd and I bet the majority will say “yes” 

Well, that begs the question:  if there is one God, how did He allow three different religions to spring up in His name?

[1pooh4u]

9 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Well, that begs the question:  if there is one God, how did He allow three different religions to spring up in His name?

Because each message got tainted so he sent a new message. Religion is a ginormous game of telephone. One could argue separate religions were never the intention. We were all supposed to follow the new message and we obviously didn’t 

PS people created religion and wrote the books anyway so 🤷‍♀️

Edited August 6, 2021 by 1pooh4u

[scoobdog]

14 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Because each message got tainted so he sent a new message. Religion is a ginormous game of telephone. One could argue separate religions were never the intention. We were all supposed to follow the new message and we obviously didn’t 

PS people created religion and wrote the books anyway so 🤷‍♀️

So, that means each religion is not worshipping God, but an imperfect interpretation of God?

[1pooh4u]

14 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

So, that means each religion is not worshipping God, but an imperfect interpretation of God?

Sure, except that’s how you see it because you’re coming at it with a nonbeliever mindset.  You have to first, believe in Gd, and then convince yourself that Gd is perfect and that it is people, with their free will that believe and worship imperfectly. 
kinda like when you tell your partner that you’re breaking up, but it’s not you. It’s me. 

[discolé monade]

it's either bruce or breanna. depending on the mood. 

[scoobdog]

56 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Sure, except that’s how you see it because you’re coming at it with a nonbeliever mindset.  You have to first, believe in Gd, and then convince yourself that Gd is perfect and that it is people, with their free will that believe and worship imperfectly. 
kinda like when you tell your partner that you’re breaking up, but it’s not you. It’s me. 

Ok.  It makes sense that we can't see God in His perfection since we ourselves are imperfect.  So, does that mean some of the precepts that religions hold as the word could, in fact, not be the word of God?  For instance, I believe all three Abrahamic religions seem to agree that homosexuality is either sinful or, at the very least, outside the grace of God (the whole love the sinner not the sin is utter bullshit).  Does that mean that I, who believes homosexuality is normal and within the grace of God, have an imperfect belief or that the religions have imperfect beliefs?  If it's the former, why would God allow the homosexuality to exist?  If it's the latter, why would a religion call something that is within God's grace out of it?

[mthor]

1 hour ago, discolé monade said:

it's either bruce or breanna. depending on the mood. 

No. It's Popeye. 

@SwimModSpongesNever mind time, the Church of Popeye is coming, just as soon as I can either cobble a theology together or receive a divine revelation. Whichever comes first.

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

1 minute ago, mthor said:

No. It's Popeye. 

@SwimModSpongesNever mind time, the Church of Popeye is coming, just as soon as I can either cobble a theology together or receive a divine revelation. Whichever comes first.

Commandment I: Thou shalt eat spinach.

Commandment II: Thou shalt not eat any other foods before spinach.

[mthor]

Just now, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

Commandment I: Thou shalt eat spinach.

Commandment II: Thou shalt not eat any other foods before spinach.

Commandment III: Thou may eat sandwiches, but only if they have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

[1pooh4u]

38 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Ok.  It makes sense that we can't see God in His perfection since we ourselves are imperfect.  So, does that mean some of the precepts that religions hold as the word could, in fact, not be the word of God?  For instance, I believe all three Abrahamic religions seem to agree that homosexuality is either sinful or, at the very least, outside the grace of God (the whole love the sinner not the sin is utter bullshit).  Does that mean that I, who believes homosexuality is normal and within the grace of God, have an imperfect belief or that the religions have imperfect beliefs?  If it's the former, why would God allow the homosexuality to exist?  If it's the latter, why would a religion call something that is within God's grace out of it?

I think homosexuality being a sin is an obvious human flaw of religious text.  I don’t think there was an opinion about it one way or the other. Romans and Greeks had no problem with it. Perhaps it was placed into the Bible because they ruled the known world and they fucked a lot. So people were like we’re gonna say homosexuality is wrong. Too much sex, period, is wrong. 
but let’s say for the sake of argument Gd said it’s a sin, then only you can decide if being ok with it anyway puts you outside of Gd’s graces. Gd gave us freewill and temptations. It’s up to us to use self control.  The answer is when it comes to these religions Gd is perfect we are not.  
For the record you can find groups within any religion that do not see homosexuality as a sin. There are temples. There’s an episcopal church nearby and they’re totally fine with it.  

[1pooh4u]

Also want to add there are Ten Commandments and none say don’t fuck the same same only different 

[1pooh4u]

Except no adultery 

[katt_goddess]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:00 PM, mthor said:

I think Popeye is better. Ditch the bread and wine and eat your damned spinach.

I'm not to argue with the Popeye. I've heard it's like dealing with Candyman only instead of bees, you sense the green moist of incoming pain.

[scoobdog]

47 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I think homosexuality being a sin is an obvious human flaw of religious text.  I don’t think there was an opinion about it one way or the other. Romans and Greeks had no problem with it. Perhaps it was placed into the Bible because they ruled the known world and they fucked a lot. So people were like we’re gonna say homosexuality is wrong. Too much sex, period, is wrong. 
but let’s say for the sake of argument Gd said it’s a sin, then only you can decide if being ok with it anyway puts you outside of Gd’s graces. Gd gave us freewill and temptations. It’s up to us to use self control.  The answer is when it comes to these religions Gd is perfect we are not.  
For the record you can find groups within any religion that do not see homosexuality as a sin. There are temples. There’s an episcopal church nearby and they’re totally fine with it.  

Historical homosexuality is typically linked to the established (but defunct since late antiquity) practice of pederasty, but that's not really the point.  Most rational and educated adults don't see homosexuality as a problem and it doesn't typically interfere with one's belief in God provided one adheres to the general spirit of religion.  However, that still means that those religions are explicitly adhering to a belief that is not shared by other faiths or even other adherents within those faiths.  When you asked "Where did you get this from?" in reference to me saying different faiths have different Gods, this is where I got it from.

The point of the exercise isn't necessarily to make the Abrahamic God several distinct entities, it's simply to say that even established religions can see the same God differently, and that, by definition, makes each version of God unique.  Furthermore, it's not particularly controversial unless your idea of free will is limited to absolute right and wrong choices.  Ultimately, because we are imperfect beings who are not fully capable of seeing the actual God, it's acceptable to worship a different God, or, rather, to worship a different imperfect version of God.  Doing so means we're not constrained to a rigid and imperfect set of beliefs nor are we predisposed to hate others who might believe in an Abrahamic God but have vastly different beliefs otherwise.

Another way to look at it is this:  Even with Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believing in the same Abrahamic God,  nobody can deny a fellow adherents claims as rightful or to invalidate a fellow religion's precepts solely on the basis that it does not agree with one's own beliefs.  

Edited August 7, 2021 by scoobdog

[1pooh4u]

43 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Historical homosexuality is typically linked to the established (but defunct since late antiquity) practice of pederasty, but that's not really the point.  Most rational and educated adults don't see homosexuality as a problem and it doesn't typically interfere with one's belief in God provided one adheres to the general spirit of religion.  However, that still means that those religions are explicitly adhering to a belief that is not shared by other faiths or even other adherents within those faiths.  When you asked "Where did you get this from?" in reference to me saying different faiths have different Gods, this is where I got it from.

The point of the exercise isn't necessarily to make the Abrahamic God several distinct entities, it's simply to say that even established religions can see the same God differently, and that, by definition, makes each version of God unique.  Furthermore, it's not particularly controversial unless your idea of free will is limited to absolute right and wrong choices.  Ultimately, because we are imperfect beings who are not fully capable of seeing the actual God, it's acceptable to worship a different God, or, rather, to worship a different imperfect version of God.  Doing so means we're not constrained to a rigid and imperfect set of beliefs nor are we predisposed to hate others who might believe in an Abrahamic God but have vastly different beliefs otherwise.

Another way to look at it is this:  Even with Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believing in the same Abrahamic God,  nobody can deny a fellow adherents claims as rightful or to invalidate a fellow religion's precepts solely on the basis that it does not agree with one's own beliefs.  

But we weren’t talking about different faiths. Sponges specifically asked me about 3 religions.  All three religions share the same Gd and none of our philosophical musings will change that.  I also said it’s for you personally to decide what that means for you and your faith. You’re trying to answer religious questions using non belief logic and you can’t.   You mentioned homosexuality specifically. I told you where I think that comes from. To say “that’s besides the point” is not only rude, but incorrect because the origin of this supposed sin,  is exactly the point because I’m saying Gd didn’t speak on it.  There are Ten Commandments that call for death. Being gay isn’t one of those. 
you seem to want to be right about the Gds not being the same. Sorry dude. They are and none of the mental gymnastics we do will change that. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by 1pooh4u

[scoobdog]

8 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

But we weren’t talking about different faiths. Sponges specifically asked me about 3 religions.  All three religions share the same Gd and none of our philosophical musings will change that.  I also said it’s for you personally to decide what that means for you and your faith. You’re tryouts to answer religious questions using non belief logic and you can’t.   You mentioned homosexuality specifically. I told you where I think that comes from. To say “that’s besides the point” is not only rude, but incorrect because the origin of this supposed sin,  is exactly the point because I’m saying Gd didn’t speak in it.  There are Ten Commandments that call for death. Being gay isn’t one of those. 
you seem to want to be right about the Gds not being the same. Sorry dude. They are and none of the mental gymnastics we do will change that. 

I was just stirring shit up.  Other than your interpretation of my intent behind the "beside the point" comment, I don't disagree with anything you said.

[SwimModSponges]

 

[SwimModSponges]

Oh shit, something else I wanted to add to the argument about different interpretations of the lord being different gods, or something like that.

Say there's this dude named Doug.

The folks Doug works with think he's a fucking asshole. His family thinks he's a decent fellow, and to paraphrase the offspring, in his head he's the dopest trip.

Different interpretations by different groups of people, same dude.

[rpgamer]

Sorta like, Judaism is the Original Trilogy. Christianity came along with some expanded universe nonsense that everyone agreed was pretty dumb but hey, some people like Jar Jar. And Islam sez "Yeah, we're gonna pretend none of that ever happened." and used their own EU.

[//>wagz./]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:09 PM, Vamped said:

Not sure if this is what you're talking about but there are stories where people are like ... how will we know God sent you? Or how do we know its you God?

The reply is always like ... I am what I am 

And everybody is like

//> never liked that answer part of why I stopped going to church also when your 8 and learn about what happens in churches you tend not to trust anyone working for the church./

[GuyBeardmane]

4 hours ago, mthor said:

Commandment III: Thou may eat sandwiches, but only if they have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Commandment IV: Thou shalt not pay someone on Tuesday for a hamburger today.

[Clownhova]

I just call Him, "Dad."

[BlackNoir]

42 minutes ago, Clownhova said:

I just call Him, "Dad."

Dad it is then.

[scoobdog]

58 minutes ago, Clownhova said:

I just call Him, "Dad."

LOL

[Clownhova]

1 minute ago, scoobdog said:

LOL

Good thread, good times.

[scoobdog]

1 minute ago, Clownhova said:

Good thread, good times.

Truly a labor of love.