"Ignore the man behind the curtain"

[eumelia]

God has many names, in Judaism alone He is said to have 76 (77? Any other topological number really), in Christianity He also has many names, and more than one form, in Islam He is said to have 99!

The God of the Big Three and they are, despite having a different amount of followers. Christianity and Islam have a much bigger demographic, despite the fact that when one is talking about the Monotheistic religions and doctrines one says "Judeo-Christian" and not "Islamo-Christian" or "Chrsito-Islamic".

They are the Big Three, from Judaic scriptures and mythology these Three have formed a monopoly on God and what God wants his Children (Us, Humanity) wants us to do (in His name).
But Humans, being Humans, despite having the great gifts of Language, Imagination, Ingenuity and many others which evolved through our Natural History (or was designed into us as some *shakes head* say) we're pretty stupid.
It boggles my mind, really it does, that these Three, who all pray to essentially the same God could be the worst enemies on Earth.
Because our Father Avraham, Abraham and Ibrahim are all the same person.
So what if in one version he preferred Issac and in another Ishmael.
So what if one version already had their Messiah come and go and come back again.
So what?
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are probably looking down at us from their respective places in Heaven (most likely sitting next to each other and talking geo-politics) and shaking their heads at how fucking stupid all their followers are.

Ziporah, Miriam, The Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid and most likely many of the other influential women in those men's lives are also probably sitting with them and telling them how stupid they were and couldn't they have written things down clearly! Because the gist is none of what's written in the Tanach, the New Testament or the Koran were written by God Himself.
The Books may be divinely inspired, but written by God they are not, Human hand in fallible. The Human mind is capable of many things, but still, there are limits to what we can and cannot do.

Point is, these big Three are not as they are meant to be, because no Monotheistic God who is described as kind, merciful, gracious, long-suffering etc. etc. and etc. would be happy in what His followers, today and in yesteryear, were doing in His name.

Can we all say "Amen"? Or would that be pushing it?

Comments

[hagar-972.livejournal.com]

We've critiqued each other enough times for me to know when you're being constructive and when you're being personal.

Between 'constructive' and 'personal' there is also "I believe that the view you're presenting is utterly false."

Belief in an all encompassing God is supposed to be a unifying factor

Why should this be so? Why should a belief in any god - not neccesarily the monotheistic omnipotent one - be a unifying factor?

"My god(dess) is bigger than yours" had been the ubiquitous mentality throughout human history. Name one counter example.

Nationality, much more than religion, is a diversifying concept, one that, like religion, should be examined and re-examined through a modern outlook.

Oh, and 're-examined' means "twisting it into something it's not" how?

Just because you can teach a bear to dance, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can - grammaticaly speaking - say that "...Nationality ... is supposed to be a unifying force" doesn't mean that there is any truth at all in it. If you claim "All human people are esssentially of the same nation", that's Humanism and not Nationalism, and it's completely untrue to what Nationalism stands for.

Personally, I think creating contemporary religions is like creating contemporary slavery. For fuck's sake, leave the past's mistakes in the past and don't import them into the present!

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

You know very well that there isn't any counter examples, human beings are shits to each other. They don't really need a reason to be shits to each other, but they use religion/nationalism/racism etc. as excuses, because it's a form of creating an "Other".

Oh, and 're-examined' means "twisting it into something it's not" how?
If people didn't re-examine things, you and I would still be owned by our fathers. Just as an example of many "truths" that have been re-examined and "twisted".

Personally, I think creating contemporary religions is like creating contemporary slavery. For fuck's sake, leave the past's mistakes in the past and don't import them into the present!
What would you call Neo-Pagan religions?
And slavery is still in existence around the world, so... the past repeats itself, more to the point, the past never goes away.

[hagar-972.livejournal.com]

You know very well that there isn't any counter examples

If there is no counter example, please provide a reasoning for your claim.

If people didn't re-examine things, you and I would still be owned by our fathers. Just as an example of many "truths" that have been re-examined and "twisted".

So the perception of women as inferiors/property was re-examined. But it wasn't twisted - it was outright slaughtered and tossed out the window. Just like the re-examination of Nationality and some other concepts didn't lead to their redefinition, but rather to the birth of new concepts.

If you don't like what a certain ideology means, maybe creating something new is smarter than bending the old thing's arm. If you don't like religious separating people, maybe you don't need religion at all. (I'm using religion in the sense of דת, not in the sense of אמונה, which should be translated as Faith.)

...the past repeats itself, more to the point, the past never goes away.

Maybe it just didn't go away yet. As I know that you don't believe in cultural relativism of ethics, that's what you really believe in.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

You know it's when you say things like this:

If you don't like what a certain ideology means, maybe creating something new is smarter than bending the old thing's arm. If you don't like religious separating people, maybe you don't need religion at all. (I'm using religion in the sense of דת, not in the sense of אמונה, which should be translated as Faith.)

And write a post like this (http://hagar-972.livejournal.com/394307.html)

I don't understand why you pick arguments with me, when we essentially believe the same things (with a few exceptions), to me it just means you didn't get the spirit of my post, which was more about how humans are stupid when it comes to religions and not how religion is bad.

[hagar-972.livejournal.com]

...to me it just means you didn't get the spirit of my post, which was more about how humans are stupid when it comes to religions and not how religion is bad.

I understand that this was your point. I don't agree with it. I believe that religion, like Nationalism, is inherently seperatist.

I can defend my claim. Can you defend yours, or is your only defence whining about me disparaging you and not understanding you?

(Yeah, that was low. Intentionally. Because if you can't phrase an argument in favour of an opinion, why should other people be convinced to share it?)

That you think what i'm doing is "picking fights" proves, to me, that you quite obviously don't know me well enough to correctly interprete my actions.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yeah it was low.
More than low, it's insulting, and if there's something I really prefer not to receive from my friends it's insult, especially in an academic discussion.

No need to reply.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Not that it'd any of my business, but there are plenty of counter-examples; the Roman empire being an excellent example of Nationality/Religion being a unifying factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

Once a county entered the Roman empire (and no, it was not always conquest. Sometimes the country asked to join. In a few cases, the Romans inherited the country after a king's death ;) ) the culture of the country merged with the rest of the Roman empire.