Aristotle was not a priest or religious thinker. He was also very late in Ancient Greek culture. Not that the passage isn’t beautiful, and I do not know who wrote it.
Erstwhile, Greek religion did have stories for the provenances of both the Moon and the Sun.
You must also consider that even when an idea as beautiful as the Sun and Moon eternally crossing the heavens may not be strictly religious, it may also not strictly contradict religion. You must consider that creation, provenance, specially in religion, describes a special type of circumstance that is not necessarily bound by time. Or, in any case, by a time that can be reckoned by humans. So, for example, in the Jewish passage you quoted earlier, it is possible that “in the beginning” and “there was darkness” are for the benefit of humans, and that God himself is so unrelated to them that no words are used to link him to them. Indeed, the passage gives a kind of giant feeling, not so much making one feel puny but making God’s creation seem unthinkably immense. I believe all serious catholic boys, and I would guess then at least many Jewish boys, have spent some serious time meditating on this fact that God is not bound by space or time, and what does bind Him, and does anything, and then simply dwelling on the unflankability of such a great, terrible, and beautiful mystery. If such a term as “beautiful” can apply to God. That God would have to patronize us by setting a spacial and local context truly gives a sense of immensity. Elsewhere on this forum it is mentioned that it is not even God that is quoted in that passage, but some female entities called Eli. So even before creating time and space, God had already been creating. This, again, should give you a sense of the timelessness of religion.
Ok - I’m sorry - I was thinking in terms of cultural history - not “observing” that I switched to a religion forum.
Personally I think I have become a Jamesian where everything is very precisely defined (including “God”, time, universe, realms, and so on), where there are no mysteries (James was anything but a mystic) - an over-arching place where all of the religions, philosophies, and sciences meet, and the only thing left is the exercise of irrefutable wisdom (of course becoming good at is a challenge ).
Yes, sadly, religion has been largely wiped away in today’s society. People no longer know how to think in those terms, and the mention of them generally makes them uncomfortable.
As so many things, however, the anti-mysterious agenda of today was born as a religious idea. Talk to an Evangelist today, and he will be even more harshly against them than the most accomplished of “atheist” scientists.
Indeed, most people do not know what religion is.
By the way, I too would be very interested in knowing a more precise definition of “God.” I wrote about it in one of the above aphorisms. Sadly, Gothic languages are largely barbarian and have little to no memory.
And that reduces to “Your God” ≡ Your real situation - whatever that situation might be. And included in your situation is the controlling principle of creation and change = “The Creator” (as a ubiquitous concept principle - a “divine being/existence” - "The Fundamental Principle that creates all things - what the Hebrews - and those before - called “Elohim”). He even gets into exactly what that principle is - how it works - and even why it exists at all - along with why everything else exists at all - and for how long it has and how long it will - and why.
“Praying to God” ≡ very carefully and humbly seeking of your actual situation for answers to your quests.
He also lists quite a number of more normally accepted, and far less unambiguous, definitions of “God”. James didn’t justify anything by saying “God said it” - instead he just explained the necessary logic and rationale behind it (rarely mentioning God at all). He was explaining the irrefutable and what it implies in the way of advice (which is what most people accept as “God” and “God’s commands”).
In the Jamesian world if you want to change your situation - seek of the Fundamental Principle that actually causes change. - pretty simple.
It’s a long subject - didn’t mean to sidetrack. Everyone has to have their bubbles of belief.
Yes, but I am not so much interested in an arbitrary definition as I am in the provenance of the word. Repurposing existing words and phrases is in any case itself barbaric.
I don’t think you understood. He wasn’t “re-purposing”.
His claim was - as he put it - “If your god is not my God then your god is necessarily subservient to mine” - just due to the obvious logic (or words very close to that). But he also explained that the very origin of the word “God” implies exactly what his version of “God” originally meant. So he was explaining that there has been confusion about even the origins of the whole God concept. He wasn’t changing it but cleaning up the vernacular confusion - clarifying.
I’ll have to give you that merely as his theory of the actual etymology - I couldn’t fake check it at the time.
He started by explaining that the initial G came from the phonetic “glottal stop” sound similar to Ghe (such as in “go” and many other words starting with “go” or “ge” - such as “get-out” - so closer to the actual sound being spoken by those in Western Europe would be phonetically spelled closer to “Gheod” - and implying the beginning of a movement.
That Ghe sound was symbolic of the beginning of movement and breath (often referred to as “spirit”).
“Spirit” is just an older word for behavior or “the energy within” - a person’s spirit is their behavior (different from “soul”). So together so far we have - “the beginning of spirit/energy/movement” - the beginning of physicality (formed entirely of the affecting and changing - the physical universe).
Then the “od” comes in as meaning “the complete and entire” - “all of it” - “as one” - similar to “odd” - separate and distinct. The word “good” - originally pronounced more like “geud” referred to what comes from what aligns with the eternal and immutable God - the Principle itself of creating - the creator of all physicality - all spirit - all motion - all change.
At that point it is easy to see (assuming correct so far) that the word “God” referred to the definitive Principle causing all spirit. And “all spirit” together as a singular is what in English we say is “The Holy Spirit” - “holy” stemming from “whole, complete, entire, and pure”.
From similar logic but different languages it turns out that the words “Allah” and “Jehovah” and “Elohim” all actually referred to the exact same concept - “The Holy Spirit” - even though worshiped entirely differently. The Semites knew what they were referring to - just not the peasants (incapable of following the logic of creation).
As I said that was a theory that I couldn’t fact-check but it seemed reasonable and had nothing to do with his concepts concerning why the universe is the way it is (which I found tremendously fascinating). That theory is more about what people have done with language - a linguistics history issue.
At least that is what I remember of it.
He also explained that the word “Ahdam” never meant “human” - what it did mean and why. That part was easier to fact-check.
James was all into answering the “Why” behind everything - “why does light travel at that particular speed” - “why does matter form” - “why is there positive and negative particles” - “why do particles form at all” - why - why - why - and he had an answer for everyone one of them. What is interesting to me is that when it comes down to to - God IS the Why - and James was all over explaining it through pure logic. As far as I am concerned - James knew God. I wonder if “Jehovah’s Witnesses” knew him.
I am looking for a reference of the actual word being used to refer to something specific. This is not easy with Gothic languages since it is a very young language with little to no memory, no records, no oral tradition. Tracing it back to constitutive sounds that may or may not have meant different things, aside from the other several problems it poses, remains speculative as long as no instance of the actual complete form can be produced. For example, at what point did “God” start being used to refer to what civilized languages call ‘Theo?’ That would not provide us the final answer, but it might get us closer. Provide another link back to whatever meaning “God” has that it was found to be a suitable native alternative. It must not be arbitrary, since several Gothic dialects have the word, in German Gott, in Dutch God, in Icelandic Gud, in Russian and Bulgarian Bog, which begins to differ more significantly but packs the same punch, Gud, God, Gott, Bog. The Russian and Bulgarian case is interesting, because old Slavic separated from the other Gothic branches very early on.
Perhaps a reason no helpful research has been done is that Gothic natives tend not to have the inclination for actual study. I believe it is because, having such a young language, they simply do not and cannot have a sense for a long tradition of language, a history. Perhaps this is also a reason Plato took so well, it is easier to imagine that things exist in perfect a priori states when no actual history is known. But the history is there, it exists. Proof of this is that even such early split dialects as old Slavic use essencially the same word. But it is a barbaric toungue and, without the civilized regard for tradition, it will not be simple to find. I would very much like to see it found.
It sounds like you are interested in studying etymology. I am more into logical reasoning - and that “why” - so that is the part that I watched closely. It is obvious that the Goths had very little linguistic connection to the Greeks - so “Theo” and “God” have no reason to be associated except through their concept. We can determine their concept through abstracting concepts from other words using the same sounds. Obviously we got “theory” from “Theo” and a theory is a concept concerning why things are the way they are - attributed to God in modern English - but attributed to man in secular English - also given as the most fundamental cause (or theory - principle - cause) of why things are the way they are.
The differences in language seem irrelevant to me as long as the concepts play out in both languages as well as biblical reports concerning God’s behavior and affect. I’m sure the Japanese had their own language equivalent. The only way to know is through their concepts.
I don’t see how you would ever find a connection between Goth and Greek languages - only in concepts - but maybe if you investigate it enough - not my thing.
I would like to know what the word means. Not what someone speculates it might mean, but what it does mean. It means something specific.
Today it is used largely as a general equivalent for Zeus. But this is not what it means, it does not mean Zeus. The reason it is used for this is that all Goths came under the rule of Rome, which worships Zeus. And so God doesn’t mean Zeus, but it must mean something similar enough that the Goths were satisfied to use it as an equivalent. It is not a novel thing to occur, Catholic churches were, for example, routinely built on the old sacred places of conquered territories. They did this in England, in Mexico, and basically anywhere except for some select places in Greece. But we know that what was previously worshiped there was not Zeus. It was something else, specific.
When Goths today say “God,” whether they know it or not, they mean something specific. I would like to know what that is.
I understand that frustration but I think the fact is that only logic can prove anything. Being very much into politics it is very clear that what we read as history is something we have to take with a grain of salt. If we want to know something for sure - we have to use a great deal of logical scrutiny and when it comes to historical things - that is limited as to what we can know for sure.
Just last week I found myself interested in why pi is an irrational number. I was thinking it was a geometric problem but quickly found myself buried in number theory - primes - modulos - complex functions - that kind of stuff. I realized that I didn’t want to know so badly as to pick up a whole new field of study.
James’ explanation seems certainly plausible to me - and I did do a little research into the etymology as far as that can be trusted but I wasn’t really that concerned. I believe that James has stated what it means - and has always actually meant. But it takes an analytical reductionist to follow it with confidence. I don’t think there is any other way to know. And those who are not of that kind of mind will simply never know. That is probably why they emphasize having faith.
But seriously good luck with it - if you find anything provable certainly let us know.
Theo is the modern Greek rendition of Zeus. Deus is the Latin transliteration. In Italian Dio, in French Dieux, in Spanish Dios, in Lithuanian Dieve, in Romanian Zeu.
No salt is required here.
Only history, a little bit of study of tradition. Sadly Gothic doesn’t have it. At least not yet. But, as I said, it promises to be hard. In any case, I would dearly like to know.
I don’t really doubt any of that - but how would you actually prove it to be FACT?
“There is another one born every minute.” - That is why politics is the way it is - it is all about the science of getting people to believe something - whether actual fact or not. The concern overwhelming everything is the pursuit of social power (we can thank Moses for much of that). The Catholic Church proved that the victor gets to write the history - nothing comes without bias or corruption. All there is outside logic is educated guesses.
You never will - but as long as you believe it sufficiently you can get on with what life is really about.
Since you’re into etymology, you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus, and then figure out where the name Jupiter came from and how it is associated with Zeus. That the two gods Zeus and Jupiter came to be considered as one, as you apparently did, must also have history too.
Why should Romans be restricted to worship only Zeus or only Jupiter?
I am not saying anything controvertial. Go to your nearest Roman church that offers a Latin service or a service in any Roman dialect, and see what word they use for what they worship there.
As for why worship of Jupiter has declined, and others, I have been writing about it. You might find it interesting. It is a true tragedy. On the other hand, not to be obscene, it did give Rome the gift of Jewish religious tradition (obscene because the Jewish religion is originally extremely selective). Also, if you look at actual Roman religious ceremony practiced today, you may find that worship of others has not perhaps entirely disappeared, including Jupiter.
No not at all. As I said - the only way to truly prove anything is with logic. There are extremely few people who use logic to a sufficient level to prove things (not counting maths). And if you or anyone just doesn’t do that sort of thing - then you don’t. That is about like 99.999 percent of the population. Blokes don’t have time or the inclination for that sort of thing - just like your concern over etymology.
I’m not the slightest offended - (other than your summery judgement without debate). And I hope you actually find what you have stated. I would like to know - I am just not so interested as to seek it out.
And also when looking into the origins of words - you have to look at WHO is using them and WHEN - because they mean different hings to different people - even early in the usage - just look at all of the thoughts people had about relativity by the peasantry. Back then they didn’t have public schooling - most peasants couldn’t even read. We can see that going on today.
It is the peasantry that mostly determines the final meaning and use of words - rarely the Aristocracy.
).