God / Onkaar

[Harkiran Kaur]

The following is a google image search for God, the results, I feel speak for themselves

god - Google Search



I feel you are correct in that, however I also feel you are in a minority, to most it is personable, rather than a descriptor.


haha, ok, I knew you would bring this up, so I chose a quote that was pretty definitive in every translation I could find,

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Although fundamentally, Harkiranji, I am in complete agreement with your philosophies and your points, my own issue is that most do not see it as you do.


nope, supreme beings perfect in power and wisdom, and goodness, probably don't get jealous

ok let's look at that quote you posted:


Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

This is not a personal name. Rather it's saying I am the Lord your 'creator of the universe' am a 'jealous creator of the universe'. The use of the words 'the' and 'a' denote it IS a descriptor and not proper name. Now substitute in Jehovah and it does not work with the and a. I am a jealous Jehovah?? I am a jealous Harkiran...?? Doesn't work. It's using God as merely a word to describe 'creator'.

In the Bible the personal proper name for God is YHWH (Yod Hey Vah Hey) or Jehovah (also related to Adonai in Greek). The Bible very much does use God as a descriptor and most Christians even though they may picture God in their own way, are not using the descriptor word God as a proper name.

Just because one of the most populous religions in the world sees God as an entity with form, doesn't mean they own the descriptor word God. Should they also own the word Creator too? Then what descriptor do we have left that can be applied across ALL cultures and religions where people would automatically know what we were speaking about? If I talk about Waheguru to most of my English friends, they wouldn't know what / who I was speaking of. And trying to explain, there is no way to get around the use of either Creator of the Universe and / or God. In other religions, the translated word for God, means other things, not necessarily a bearded man sitting on a cloud. Pagans use the word (along with the feminine word Goddess) to describe aspects of nature / Mother Earth. I think they would also agree that God does not have to mean bearded guy sitting on a cloud.

 

[Harry]

[

This is not a personal name. Rather it's saying I am the Lord your 'creator of the universe' am a 'jealous creator of the universe'. The use of the words 'the' and 'a' denote it IS a descriptor and not proper name. Now substitute in Jehovah and it does not work with the and a. I am a jealous Jehovah?? I am a jealous Harkiran...?? Doesn't work. It's using God as merely a word to describe 'creator'.

your argument is flawless, but it also works against the point you are making, surely therefore to call God, God, is incorrect grammatically?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

[


your argument is flawless, but it also works against the point you are making, surely therefore to call God, God, is incorrect grammatically?

Not at all! Because there is only ONE Creator of the Universe. No matter how many cultures ideas of that ONE there are, they are all referring to the same ONE God. Therefore you CAN say God to denote THE God. To say A God is more wrong in sense that it implies more than one - which goes against even Christianity - therefore I am inclined to think some of this is lost in translation.

 

[Dalvinder Singh Grewal]

The following is a google image search for God, the results, I feel speak for themselves

god - Google Search



I feel you are correct in that, however I also feel you are in a minority, to most it is personable, rather than a descriptor.


haha, ok, I knew you would bring this up, so I chose a quote that was pretty definitive in every translation I could find,

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Although fundamentally, Harkiranji, I am in complete agreement with your philosophies and your points, my own issue is that most do not see it as you do.


nope, supreme beings perfect in power and wisdom, and goodness, probably don't get jealous

On whom should the God feel jealous, enmity or any fear since he is above all His creation.

 

[Harry]

On whom should the God feel jealous, enmity or any fear since he is above all His creation.

well it does depend on which God you are talking about, but I think he was jealous of other Gods and idols

 

[Harry]

Not at all! Because there is only ONE Creator of the Universe.

accepted, fully

No matter how many cultures ideas of that ONE there are, they are all referring to the same ONE God.

but they are not, as each individual God, Allah, Jehovah, Ram etc have very individual facets.

Therefore you CAN say God to denote THE God. To say A God is more wrong in sense that it implies more than one - which goes against even Christianity - therefore I am inclined to think some of this is lost in translation.

Is that not like calling your dog, dog?, bearing in mind God is a descriptive word, as you pointed out above? Even if it were theologically correct, it remains grammatically incorrect, no?

 

[Sikhilove]

Humans love to procrastinate.They find silly things to waste time on instead of finding balance.

The language doesn't matter, we know who God Is deep down, the name doesnt matter, its the Truth recognition that matters.

And the time to recognise it is Now. Tomorrow may not come.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

accepted, fully



but they are not, as each individual God, Allah, Jehovah, Ram etc have very individual facets.


Is that not like calling your dog, dog?, bearing in mind God is a descriptive word, as you pointed out above? Even if it were theologically correct, it remains grammatically incorrect, no?

They don't actually HAVE individual facets. What is written about is just how humans have tried to understand what is not able to be understood.

 

[Harry]

They don't actually HAVE individual facets. What is written about is just how humans have tried to understand what is not able to be understood.

but then this debate was never going to be about what facets they actually HAVE because we could not possibly know, so unfortunately we are only left with the labels that humans have given and the descriptors in these labels, my points are simple.

1. the use of the word God to call God is grammatically incorrect
2. The attributes to each individual name as given by humans, in order to understand what is not able to be understood, means that each individual name given to God has connotations and personality, and the fact is they all differ depending on which name you pick. Therefore the personality that we have named Ek Onkar has different qualities to Jehovah, given Ek Onkar did not build the world in 7 days.

How can we stop this confusion if they are all God, yet display different characteristics?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

but then this debate was never going to be about what facets they actually HAVE because we could not possibly know, so unfortunately we are only left with the labels that humans have given and the descriptors in these labels, my points are simple.

1. the use of the word God to call God is grammatically incorrect
2. The attributes to each individual name as given by humans, in order to understand what is not able to be understood, means that each individual name given to God has connotations and personality, and the fact is they all differ depending on which name you pick. Therefore the personality that we have named Ek Onkar has different qualities to Jehovah, given Ek Onkar did not build the world in 7 days.

How can we stop this confusion if they are all God, yet display different characteristics?

Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use?? Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?

 

[Harry]

Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use?? Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?

I don't know.. I am not really here to provide explanations or even propagate my own opinion, but what I do know is that Waheguru is very different to Jehovah, quite similar to Brahma, and shares a few qualities with Allah, are they all really the same one? have people corrupted the qualities over the years so that there are marked differences? what do you think?

 

[sukhsingh]

Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use?? Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?

are would argue that they are not really all the same, or atleast unless we all adopted a common definition within this forum we will continue to speak cross purposes? the fact that we are have this discussion only highlights the issue.

maybe thee should be a common glossay

inaddition vaheguru, ongkar, akaal, ram do not mean the same things conextually so we should be aware of the richness of expresson

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I don't know.. I am not really here to provide explanations or even propagate my own opinion, but what I do know is that Waheguru is very different to Jehovah, quite similar to Brahma, and shares a few qualities with Allah, are they all really the same one? have people corrupted the qualities over the years so that there are marked differences? what do you think?

What I am saying is that the qualities do not exist. They are just ideas created by humans to try to understand something not able to be understood. So to say there exists a white bearded guy with sandals sitting on a cloud - that doesn't exist. Even Christians don't believe so. It's become an 'idea' a way for them to vision something not able to be visioned, but no Christian actually believes there is a humanoid looking being with white hair and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds!

Rather, try to look PAST the literal aspects of these different ideas attributed to the ONE Creator. You don't seem to have a problem with labelling everything as Metaphor in other cases, why would it be so hard to draw metaphor out of the descriptions, the personas attributed to the creator of the Universe by different cultures etc (as a means to try to understand in their own way through their own culture's eyes)? I think once you get the idea that NOBODY actually believes in literal beings with different PHYSICAL literal attributes, but instead ALL of them are metaphorical ideas to get the point across, you will see that they are all actually referring to the same ONE Creator.

For example, the ideas presented by the Christian Jehovah (Yahwey) are Omnipresent, Omniscient, Male, like a Father figure etc) - Take this metaphorically instead of literal: Male, compare this to Gurbani where it says Waheguru is the only Male while rest of us are feminine (soul brides) and even then it's not specific gender in a literal sense but it's comparing the relationship of us to our Creator in sense of marriage because that's the closest we can get to merging with another entity. Father figure.... one who cares for, is aware of his 'children' I don't think this disagrees with Gurbani. Omnipresent (present everywhere all the time), Omniscient (all knowing - aware of creation). None of this disagrees with Gurbani. Christians have just taken metaphor to try to assemble these things into a figure they can actually visualize in their minds - the logical conclusion of that is an older male, father figure. The idea of jealousy, I also don't think is literal but rather to emphasize that there is only ONE. The stories in the Bible also delve deep into metaphor and can't be taken literally. Once you break down the deeper meanings of all the major religions (monotheistic / panentheistic anyway) you will see the similarities and realize the differences are just metaphor / parable.

 

[chazSingh]

I remember once i was meditating durinng Amrit vela..was going through a bit of a difficult time in life...and i couldn;t really focus single mindedly on my Simran...
i remember thinking in my mind "Dude!, i could really do with your support...can;t do this alone!"
Even calling Waheguru 'Dude' in that moment didn't matter...my minds direction was focused into my heart...
Behind any word i was using that night was a whole host of feelings, thoughts and emotions...but they all pointed to one, 'Ik' 'within'..

i don;t know if what i'm saying makes any sense...but we can talk over and over about which word should or shouldn;t be used for the one creator...

really in the end just like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...words are also personal to an individual...two people using the words Waheguru or God could have totally different ideas within their mind...

So why Fret...

 

[Harry]

What I am saying is that the qualities do not exist.

Do you think that leading lights from each of the religions would agree with you? Your basically saying that the personalities and traits for each individual name do not exist, which means that in effect the personality behind the name also does not exist, again, I actually agree with you, but don't you think we will find ourselves in a minority? The object of this thread is to show how the word God cannot be used to describe Ek Onkar, cannot be used by who? people of course, and will people follow the truth, or whatever is palatable? So the fact that you and I are both in agreement over this is irrelevant, the world is not made of Harry's and Harkiran's, our opinions are irrelevant.

They are just ideas created by humans to try to understand something not able to be understood

Unfortunately those ideas have progressed over the years into personalities

So to say there exists a white bearded guy with sandals sitting on a cloud - that doesn't exist. Even Christians don't believe so. It's become an 'idea' a way for them to vision something not able to be visioned, but no Christian actually believes there is a humanoid looking being with white hair and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds!

christian god - Google Search

to say "no christian believes there is a humanoid looking being with white and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds"

is quite a brave thing to say, again, let us look at the populist view, from the link above, at least a few people have this vision enough to replicate it for others to see.

Rather, try to look PAST the literal aspects of these different ideas attributed to the ONE Creator.

I am with you 100%, its not me that you have to convince, its everyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with labelling everything as Metaphor in other cases, why would it be so hard to draw metaphor out of the descriptions, the personas attributed to the creator of the Universe by different cultures etc (as a means to try to understand in their own way through their own culture's eyes)? I think once you get the idea that NOBODY actually believes in literal beings with different PHYSICAL literal attributes, but instead ALL of them are metaphorical ideas to get the point across, you will see that they are all actually referring to the same ONE Creator.

well yes and no, they may well be referring to the same one Creator, but these different facets are what makes Creator unique to each religion, and those religions, darn them, are quite keen and eager to keep their individual facets, so yes, you are correct, all you have to do now is inform each religion of this and hope they see it our way! which they probably will not, and that is the issue at hand, regardless of what is true and right, how do we stop Ek Onkar being hurled into the common pool that has become God.

For example, the ideas presented by the Christian Jehovah (Yahwey) are Omnipresent, Omniscient, Male, like a Father figure etc) - Take this metaphorically instead of literal: Male, compare this to Gurbani where it says Waheguru is the only Male while rest of us are feminine (soul brides) and even then it's not specific gender in a literal sense but it's comparing the relationship of us to our Creator in sense of marriage because that's the closest we can get to merging with another entity. Father figure.... one who cares for, is aware of his 'children' I don't think this disagrees with Gurbani. Omnipresent (present everywhere all the time), Omniscient (all knowing - aware of creation). None of this disagrees with Gurbani. Christians have just taken metaphor to try to assemble these things into a figure they can actually visualize in their minds - the logical conclusion of that is an older male, father figure. The idea of jealousy, I also don't think is literal but rather to emphasize that there is only ONE. The stories in the Bible also delve deep into metaphor and can't be taken literally. Once you break down the deeper meanings of all the major religions (monotheistic / panentheistic anyway) you will see the similarities and realize the differences are just metaphor / parable.

haha, once again, absolutely yes, full agreement,

idealistically you have an excellent argument, you just have to allow for the people factor!
I would say allowing for the people factor is what makes idealism different to realism.

 

[sukhsingh]

i think were going a bit off point. the issue i was trying to raise was in distinguishing academically or intellectually. i think the use of a particular discriptor in a context is important. I once saw a video from basics of sikhi where in the oral translation jagtar singh translated everything into english except when it came to the word ram which he chose to translate to vaheguru. personally i didn't see the point of swapping 'ram' with vaheguru. when in bani guru sahibs use ram, rahim, akal, are we doing the text justice by simply translating to vahegure/god. surely the use by guru sahib of a particular articulation is important?

 

[RD1]

i think were going a bit off point. the issue i was trying to raise was in distinguishing academically or intellectually. i think the use of a particular discriptor in a context is important. I once saw a video from basics of sikhi where in the oral translation jagtar singh translated everything into english except when it came to the word ram which he chose to translate to vaheguru. personally i didn't see the point of swapping 'ram' with vaheguru. when in bani guru sahibs use ram, rahim, akal, are we doing the text justice by simply translating to vahegure/god. surely the use by guru sahib of a particular articulation is important?

I think that the openness to using various terms to refer to the One is excellent. It reinforces inclusiveness - which is key in Sikhism. It indicates that there is not one label that is better than any other, that there is not one label that more adequately defines the One. Us humans are not capable of understanding and comprehending the entire scope of the One. And we should embrace and accept the various labels SGGS uses.

I agree though, as has been pointed out in this thread, that different terms for the One, can have different connotations. Personally, I resonate most with using Ik Onkar, as I feel this is the most broadest term for the One, and therefore encapsulates so much more. It also beautifully accentuates the abstractness of the One.