DiscussMormonism.com

I recently attended quite a good, week long, lecture on the first few chapters of Genesis. The presenter was a Reverend PHD who introduced Genesis as the thinking of those who authored it. No mention of it being, "God's word" or "the word of God."

Personally, when reading the Bible I often easily replace "God" with what I think is an appropriate word that clarifies the passage. . .

As the word "God" means less and seems redundant/superfluous, being dropped with out injury, would the possibility of replacement, or omission be more reasonable?

Your thoughts??? Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:As the word "God" means less and seems redundant/superfluous, being dropped with out injury, would the possibility of replacement, or omission be more reasonable?

Bad logic here, Roger -
as in - of course it would be "reasonable" to anyone already assuming that the word "God" has "less meaning"

First, you must provide sufficient argument/evidence that the word "God" means less and/or seems redundant/superfluous.
I do not see that in your post....just that an academic dissection has, perhaps, created some confusion....much like when one sits in on a medical dissection. Seeing a human person dissected and analyzed can often confuse one's thoughts about whether that cadaver was actually a "person" at all.

G-d, when analyzed too much by the human mind, becomes anthropomorphized. Isn't it sufficient to say that the all-powerful Creator exists in mystery?

subgenius wrote:

Roger Morrison wrote:As the word "God" means less and seems redundant/superfluous, being dropped with out injury, would the possibility of replacement, or omission be more reasonable?

Bad logic here, Roger -
as in - of course it would be "reasonable" to anyone already assuming that the word "God" has "less meaning"

First, you must provide sufficient argument/evidence that the word "God" means less and/or seems redundant/superfluous.
I do not see that in your post....just that an academic dissection has, perhaps, created some confusion....much like when one sits in on a medical dissection. Seeing a human person dissected and analyzed can often confuse one's thoughts about whether that cadaver was actually a "person" at all.

Hi subgenious,

"Bad logic"? Could be?
However, it is my assumption, based on empirical evidence such as advocating against prayer, God usage in school texts, on memorials, statues etc. that God doesn't have the status he/she once had. Do You think that possible? This is a relatively recent phenomenon. Goes with taking 'Christ' out of Christmas. Something little imagined 60 years ago.
I might not have been clear. Assuming we were to do-something to appease modernity, would it be preferable to eliminate "God" or to modify it? I guess either way would serve the purpose of deflating the God mythology.
A myth that will eventually be archived along with relics of other ages. Do You agree?

MCB wrote:G-d, when analyzed too much by the human mind, becomes anthropomorphized. Isn't it sufficient to say that the all-powerful Creator exists in mystery?

Could be. . .
But that would still credit creation to an individual. I suppose some would prefer imagining an all-powerful entity rather than acknowledging the possibility of a process???
Will there ever be certainty?? Certainly, not in my/our time :-) Thanks for participating...

Sure, there is no certainty. But I still prefer to believe. Such a mysterious Being can Create as a process, being beyond the limits of time.

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi subgenious,

"Bad logic"? Could be?
However, it is my assumption, based on empirical evidence such as advocating against prayer, God usage in school texts, on memorials, statues etc. that God doesn't have the status he/she once had. Do You think that possible? This is a relatively recent phenomenon. Goes with taking 'Christ' out of Christmas. Something little imagined 60 years ago.

except that Christmas was not legal until the 19th century in America. Outlawed in Boston, illegal in Alabama, etc..
During the Civil War , the yankee scourge pretty much considered Christmas a "sin".
I think that most of your perceived "empirical" evidence is like the news story about "man bites dog", yes it sells papers but most of the time the dog bites the man.
That being said, there is a current wave of "anti-religious" culture making its presence known in these modern times, but those people have paid little attention to history...not just American history but the history of mankind. Religions have ultimately never let the "atheists" reach critical mass...those guys always end up tied to the same burning stake...not sure that is the right thing, but I definitely believe history favors religion.
Yes, God does not have the same "market" impact as He has had in recent decades, or even maybe a couple of centuries - and some may argue that this is exactly what has been prophesied - but perhaps it is simply a public discourse on the tolerance of all religions rather than an attempt of suppression.
Then again, maybe "God" has become diluted because of the apostasy and the Baptists and Catholics have had such great resources available to muddy the water...and the Asians having been so isolated, etc...
good thing the true church is back, and the seed has taken root....

I might not have been clear. Assuming we were to do-something to appease modernity, would it be preferable to eliminate "God" or to modify it? I guess either way would serve the purpose of deflating the God mythology.

render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

A myth that will eventually be archived along with relics of other ages. Do You agree?

not really, the unique quality of Christianity is ability to "roll with the punches". Its meekness may be its strongest attribute in contributing to its longevity.

MCB wrote:But I still prefer to believe.

And "I prefer to be a suicide bomber in God's name" isn't a particularly good justification to the innocent victims being blown to smithereens.

Man of Holiness. Moses 6:57

"Yes, God does not have the same "market" impact as He has had in recent decades, or even maybe a couple of centuries - and some may argue that this is exactly what has been prophesied - but perhaps it is simply a public discourse on the tolerance of all religions rather than an attempt of suppression.
Then again, maybe "God" has become diluted because of the apostasy and the Baptists and Catholics have had such great resources available to muddy the water...and the Asians having been so isolated, etc...
good thing the true church is back, and the seed has taken root...."

Above by Subgenious

"True church is back"?? What "true church"? Truth is: All churches teach some "truth". Just as all dictators do some good. What both do is exist to satisfy the needs of some people. As long as those needs continue, their supporting institutions -- religious or political -- will continue to exist, or give way to competing entities. The better-way evolving. . . Sort of inevitable. We see it by the moment in science, technological & social changes (advances?) taking place all around us.

So it is with religion/church/theology. Non of which are as they were 2,500 years ago. Churches will fast-track to keep pace with education which will influence social and human relations that will continue to civilize our world. Thereby belief in God will be replaced with belief in humans to solve, correct & heal problems that have challenged humanity since day one. Prayer & fasting will be replaced with faith in applied intelligence. . . Being freed by truth.

Churches will become social centres serving their communities, with no reference to God. Ya know what? I don't think "God" will care, cuz his/her sheep will be well fed and cared for! There will be no Armageddon! The war between good and evil will be won peacefully. . .