"Word of God" v Opinion

C

CobblersApprentice

Guest
"Judge not lest ye be judged" NT Gospels.

The best way is not difficult
It only excludes picking and choosing
Once you stop loving and hating
It will enlighten itself.

(First lines of "Hsin Hsin Ming" or "Faith in Mind")

Some would see both of the above quotes as belonging to the same family tree. One, perhaps"personal", the second "philosophical".

One, the direct "Word of God", the second mere opinion (possibly)

I believe the two blend.

What do others think?
 
As I understood it, when identifying as a Christian (of sorts) I saw Grace as being fundamental. Others perhaps not.

Here we have the opinion of a couple of people of Faiths other than Christianity:-

"By God's grace alone is God to be grasped. All else is false, all else is vanity." (Guru Nanak of the Sikh Faith)

"They who have known God have known also this one certainty; that it was God's grace that led them to it, and framed them in readiness for it, and prepared their heart and mind for it; and it was God alone who lifted them to that embrace." (Swami Abhayananda of the Hindu faith)


Going back to Christianity, Thomas Merton was a committed Christian. His fidelity to Christ never wavered. He was extremely conversant with the various mystics of the Christian Church. Here, in a letter to D T Suzuki, he speaks of Grace.....

To my mind, the Christian doctrine of grace (however understood - I mean here the gift of God's life to us) seems to me to fulfilll a most important function in all this. The realisation, the finding of ourselves in Christ and hence in paradise, has a special character from the fact that this is all a free gift from God. With us, this stress on freedom, God's freedom, the indeterminateness of salvation, is the thing that corresponds to Zen in Christianity. The breakthrough that comes with the realisation of what the finger of a koan is pointing to is like the breakthrough of the realisation that a sacrament, for instance, is a finger pointing to the completely spontaneous Gift of Himself to us on the part of God - beyond and above images, outside of every idea, every law, every right or wrong, everything high or low, everything spiritual or material. Whether we are good or bad, wise or foolish, there is always this sudden irruption, this breakthrough of God's freedom into our life, turning the whole thing upside down so that it comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation, this is Christianity. And, so far as I can see, it is also very much like Zen.........

I have to wonder myself just where the "Word of God" ends, and where mere opinion begins.
 
A final opinion (!) and then I will await developments.

Our various "Words of God" - and I emphasise various - come down, ultimately, to opinion!

Many are then "verified" by those who recognise them as "authentic".......aka their opinion.

Thus Faith, not Sight.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
..Our various "Words of God" - and I emphasise various - come down, ultimately, to opinion!
Click to expand...

This is what wikipedia says about "word of God"..

Word of God or God's Word may refer to:
******** The Bible
******** The Qur'an
******** Logos - the divine word
******** Divine language - the concept of a mystical or divine proto-language

I would say that your take on "the word of G-d" refers to the latter.
 
muhammad_isa said:
This is what wikipedia says about "word of God"..

Word of God or God's Word may refer to:
******** The Bible
******** The Qur'an
******** Logos - the divine word
******** Divine language - the concept of a mystical or divine proto-language

I would say that your take on "the word of G-d" refers to the latter.
Click to expand...

No, thinking back on my own path, I would say "Logos".

The beginning of the Gospel of St John....." In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. "

Word = Logos (Greek)

Jesus was also the Word, as the NT makes very plain.

St John continues:- all things were made by him.

Thus, "opinion" may well arise from the Logos, as Divine Word. Anytime, anywhere, any place.

(A Catholic Convert, John Lu, in translating St John's Gospel, chose :- In the beginning was the Tao", which I find significant.)
 
To be honest, I barely understand the idea of a "proto language"


Definition:-

"A proto-language, in the tree model of historical linguistics, is a language, usually hypothetical or reconstructed, and usually unattested, from which a number of attested known languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family"

Adding "divine" to it, or "mystical" also does nothing for me. As I posted before, during my Liberal, Progressive Christian days I read through the NT many times and read various Commentaries, and if I remember right, more than one on St John. The prologue of St John I know had its effect. Now I find intimations of the very same mindset in Dogen.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
To be honest, I barely understand the idea of a "proto language"
Click to expand...

In the Golden Age words where the subtile version of the gross object.

Q. How many present day world languages use the word homonym 'Mum or Mom' [for mother]?

Q. How many present day world languages share the same "onomatopoeia(s) [aka
Sound Words]
"?

Q. How many present day world languages share the onomatopoeia word "buzz" [for the sound of a bee] [sheep “Baa"] ["beep" "plunk" "hiss"]?

The proto-language was holistically organic using the "order of the articulators of the mouth" ---as is used in IPA [International Phonetic Alphabet; and also in the Sanskrit Alphabet. [gutterals: Kha, ga; bi-linguals: pa, ba; Lingual-dentals: ta, da, na...etal]


The proto-language lends itself to a common world empire that pre-dates latter epochs.
 
muhammad_isa said:
This is what wikipedia says about "word of God"..

Word of God or God's Word may refer to:
******** The Bible
******** The Qur'an
******** Logos - the divine word
******** Divine language - the concept of a mystical or divine proto-language

I would say that your take on "the word of G-d" refers to the latter.
Click to expand...

Nam.

Om, also written as Aum, is the most sacred syllable symbol and mantra of Brahman,
the Almighty God in Hinduism. Brahman is Supreme Self, Ultimate Reality,
Creator of all Existence. The syllable is often chanted either independently or before a mantra;
it signifies the essence of the ultimate reality, consciousness or Atma.
The Om sound is the primordial sound and is called the Shabda-Brahman (Brahman as sound).

Om is part of the iconography found in ancient and medieval era manuscripts,
temples, monasteries and spiritual retreats in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
The symbol has a spiritual meaning in all Indian dharmas,
but the meaning and connotations of Om vary between the diverse schools
within and across the various traditions.

In Hinduism, Om is one of the most important spiritual sounds.
It refers to Atman (soul, self within) and Brahman
(ultimate reality, entirety of the universe, truth, divine, supreme spirit,
cosmic principles, knowledge).

The syllable is often found at the beginning and the end of chapters in the Vedas,
the Upanishads, and other Hindu texts.[14] It is a sacred spiritual incantation
made before and during the recitation of spiritual texts, during puja and private
prayers, in ceremonies of rites of passages (sanskara) such as weddings, and
sometimes during meditative and spiritual activities such as Yoga.
It is also used in other Dharmic religions, such as Buddhism,Jainism and Sikhism.

The syllable Om is also referred to as onkara (ओङ्कार, oṅkāra),
omkara (ओंकार, oṃkāra) and pranava (प्रणव, praṇava).

It has variously been associated with concepts of "cosmic sound"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Om = the 'hum' sound that the Universe makes as it swirls.
 
BTW, your OP is great. Good on you mate.

CobblersApprentice said:
To be honest, I barely understand the idea of a "proto language"
Click to expand...

I will say it fast:

Find a family tree of Indo-European languages

The Indo-European languages are a language family of several
hundred related languages and dialects.
There are about 445 living Indo-European languages

indoeuro02c.jpg



Now hear me out and verify later:
The word Indu is Sanskrit (dah!)
... and ....
the word European is Sanskrit.

"uru" means vast, wide, expansive;
pean means person. [person in Sanskrit is "purusha"]

uru-purusha

Both Indu and European are Sanskrit based word roots
 
Peon | Definition of Peon at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/peon
1820–30; < Spanish peón peasant, day laborer < Vulgar Latin *pedōn- (stem of *pedō) walker
(whence Medieval Latin pedōnēs infantry, Old French peon pawn) ...

The word peon is derived from spanish language and related to peonage!
In basic english a peon is an office boy or an attendent In addition to the
meaning of forced laborer, a peon may also be a person with little authority.
From where did the word peon origin? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/From-where-did-the-word-peon-origin

Old French peon, earlier pehon, from Medieval Latin pedonem "foot soldier," from Late Latin pedonem (nominative pedo) "one going on foot," from Latin pes (genitive pedis) "foot," from PIE root *ped- "foot."

peon (plural peons)
  1. A lowly person; a peasant or serf; a labourer who is obliged to do menial work.
  2. (figuratively) A person of low rank or importance.
  3. (India, historical) A messenger, foot soldier, or native policeman.
From Latin paeōnia (“peony”), from Ancient Greek παιωνία (paiōnía, “peony”).

Hellenistic Ancient Greekπαιωνία(paiōnía), from Ancient GreekΠαιών(Paiṓn, “Paean, physician of the gods”)/παιών(paiṓn, “a physician”).

peon m (definite singular peonen, indefinite plural peonar, definite plural peonane)

  1. a peony (genus Paeonia)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bhaktajan II said:
BTW, your OP is great. Good on you mate.
Click to expand...

I'll take it, can we leave it there........:cool: ?


But thanks for the lowdown on the genesis of language. I do find the subject fascinating, the art of translation, the morphing of words.

I once read a biography of John Dee, who was in the Court intrigues of Elizabeth 1. He drifted about Europe at times, a bit of a magician. Apparently he believed in some sort of "original" language, that if recovered, would unveil great secrets. Myself, I think he was just a bit of a nutter.

Thinking back, my preference for, and interest, in a Person as Word, Logos, was fundamental. I saw it as bringing us back to our humanity, which - as I understood it - was often sold out and betrayed by "Religion" and many of its Creeds.

Anyway, thanks for taking an interest.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
No, thinking back on my own path, I would say "Logos".
The beginning of the Gospel of St John....." In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. "

Word = Logos (Greek)
Click to expand...

Oh, I see..
I think that I stated in another thread that Jesus, peace be with him, was not Greek or Roman :)
Nevertheless, one could take what John says as "Gospel", but why is it so different from the other 3?
It is not even clear who John actually is, and wiki states that the majority of scholars do not believe that it could have been the apostle John.

It also states:

The prologue informs readers of the true identity of Jesus: he is the Word of God through whom the world was created and who took on human form

I have also said before, that I'm more interested what Jesus is reported to have said.
I therefore take this prologue as "sectarian dogma" from an unknown author.
As you are a non-theist, you shouldn't have any trouble in understanding why I came to that conclusion :)

It seems that this Christian belief has rubbed off on you, and you have moved to Buddhism, which has similar philosophical concepts.
In Islam, I judge what is innovation and what is divine truth from ... ... ...

I think you know by now ;)
 
Last edited:
CobblersApprentice said:
..I saw it as bringing us back to our humanity, which - as I understood it - was often sold out and betrayed by "Religion" and many of its Creeds.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to like "religion" :)
It seems to me that instead of blaming mankind, you blame religion for "the selling out".
To me, that implies that G-d is somehow to blame. Why doesn't He show us all the correct path to tread?

I think He can, but not everybody will agree .. we are weak, and believe all sorts of things for a variety of reasons.
We have been given a choice. Some people aren't even interested in thinking about G-d, and don't want to talk about it.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
"A proto-language, in the tree model of historical linguistics, is a language, usually hypothetical or reconstructed, and usually unattested, from which a number of attested known languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family"
Click to expand...
When I looked up this myself a while back I was disappointed by just how hypothetical it all seemed. Very natural of course since language wasn't as formalized and the selection of texts are limited.

I'm definitely suspicious of the sort of reasoning Bhaktajan uses to explain the origin of European. Causation and correlation and all that.
 
muhammad_isa said:
You don't seem to like "religion" :)
It seems to me that instead of blaming mankind, you blame religion for "the selling out".
To me, that implies that G-d is somehow to blame. Why doesn't He show us all the correct path to tread?

I think He can, but not everybody will agree .. we are weak, and believe all sorts of things for a variety of reasons.
We have been given a choice. Some people aren't even interested in thinking about G-d, and don't want to talk about it.
Click to expand...

I think, looking back through this thread, that it is in fact you that is more into the blame game. Try to "own" your words and see the significance of them.

I would think it very silly indeed to "blame" God/Reality-as-is/ the Divine for anything! Someone once exclaimed, "I accept this Universe!" which was met with " You had better! "

What I would "blame" are certain concepts and ideas of God (whatever), ideas that many use to justify themselves.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It seems that this Christian belief has rubbed off on you, and you have moved to Buddhism, which has similar philosophical concepts.
In Islam, I judge what is innovation and what is divine truth from ... ... ...
Click to expand...

Well, as I see it, many things have "rubbed off" on all of us. Which is why I have emphasised a few times before that we are often "saved" in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them. Why, again, I look to Grace and not my own opinions. That grace that Merton spoke of as "free gift", as "God's freedom", "beyond.....every law", so that "it all comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation."
 
muhammad_isa said:
Nevertheless, one could take what John says as "Gospel", but why is it so different from the other 3?

what is innovation and what is divine truth from ... ... ...

I think you know by now ;)
Click to expand...

Let us stay with this as it is very relevant to this thread.

If God is radical freedom and wholly other, one who need not act towards us at all, why should He not speak/communicate to us in any way He chooses? Why should He not sometimes use a different "tone"?

In my own reading of the Koran I observe that it would seem to maintain the same "tone" throughout, but surely God is not constrained to maintain such "tone" at all times? Just so long as He does not contradict Himself. Maybe you see such "contradiction"? Yet such would only be your opinion, having given a "passmark" to your own understanding of another text.

Yes, I am now fully aware now of your own opinions......:)
 
CobblersApprentice said:
..I would think it very silly indeed to "blame" God
...
What I would "blame" are certain concepts and ideas of God (whatever), ideas that many use to justify themselves.
Click to expand...

I would agree that many concepts of G-d are not particularly sane, but I wouldn't blame that as such.
It is more about tribal loyalty, which boils down to mankind's weaknesses

eg. Catholic/Protestant or Sunni/Shia

Division over politics and Royals and so on.. :rolleyes:
 
CobblersApprentice said:
Well, as I see it, many things have "rubbed off" on all of us. Which is why I have emphasised a few times before that we are often "saved" in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them..
Click to expand...

Absolutely .. we are all a product of our experiences and environment :)

..but I wouldn't say that salvation comes "in spite of our beliefs" .. it depends why we hold those beliefs.
In spite of our shortcomings, maybe .. we are sinners i.e. we are not all saints

Salvation is more to do with sincerity and intention than intelligence or creed, in my understanding
 
Last edited:
CobblersApprentice said:
..In my own reading of the Koran I observe that it would seem to maintain the same "tone" throughout, but surely God is not constrained to maintain such "tone" at all times? Just so long as He does not contradict Himself. Maybe you see such "contradiction"? Yet such would only be your opinion, having given a "passmark" to your own understanding of another text..
Click to expand...

Naturally, if G-d contradicts himself, we can't understand which path to tread.
There are 99 names (attributes) of G-d in the Qur'an.

They seem to contradict themselves at times, but G-d is Subtle.
eg. He is oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful but strict in punishment etc.

As you know, Jews and Muslims do not view G-d as a person.
Mankind being created "in His likeness" is a spiritual concept.

Consider G-d's punishment, for example. It does not equate to an earthly King inflicting torment on his subjects.
"hell-fire" is a synonym for disaster/destruction, and a consequence of our own actions.
I think that both you and I have experienced a taste of "hell" in this life. I know I certainly have :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top