Comments on THE FIRST THREE PRECEPTS

Go to God as The Universe as an OrganismAdd a commentGo to THE FIRST THREE PRECEPTS

one more thing
the King James worships an idol.

posted by Xeno-x on August 4, 2005 at 11:30 AM | link to this | reply

I am taking this
not from the King James, which has basically clouded much of modern religous thinking, being derivative from the Medieval Church and its attitudes.

I am using a certain word here -- if you will notice, in these passages the word LORD is used.

This is from the tetragrammaton, YHVH, which, if you refer to a lexicon means, "to exist"

To me this is much more powerful.

It gets us away from the male anthropomorphic image (see? it's an image -- which is prosribed against in this passage) and into what God really is -- I say that unequivocably. My God is really the most real God there is.

posted by Xeno-x on August 4, 2005 at 11:29 AM | link to this | reply

xenox

Which Bible do you quote from here? God, what bland, pappy language! It's no wonder that Christian churches are losing their congregations ; if this Madison Avenue-speak rubbish is all they're offered!

Where is the power, the drama and the majesty of the King James version in any of this?

posted by ariel70 on August 4, 2005 at 9:44 AM | link to this | reply

I agree...

I don't like such common names, just because they are so common -- makes them boring.

I used to mind not having a common name, made me self-conscious, but I feel differently now that I have grown, with age, more sensitive to monotony and boredom.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on July 4, 2005 at 8:09 AM | link to this | reply

personally, Dylan
i'm glad you're not a Rory
Dylan is a strong name
although there is Rory Calhoun, who starred in western movies. But who remembers him.
but Dylan is more modern (yeah right) -- sort of "in".getes away from the Bobs and John's and Bills.
I hate the name John in a way -- seems an easy way out -- the lazy person's method of naming -- so many boys are named John.
too many Johns in this world.

posted by Xeno-x on July 2, 2005 at 1:15 PM | link to this | reply

I just now saw this comment. I actually like those other names, too. My dad wanted to name me Rory, but Mom talked him out of it. It's not that it's such a bad name, but it's hard to pronounce.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on July 2, 2005 at 9:54 AM | link to this | reply

yeah, Dylan -- that's a good name
although there are much more than you think.
maybe it's the town where you grew up.
goes in cycles -- I have some friends my age (60) who named their boys Dylan.
It's a good Irish name, a la Dylan Thomas the poet -- got great poetry.

Then of course there's Bob, who took Thomas' first name as his last and launched a whole new era of music and thinking.

But it looks like there's a return to such names.

Personally, I hate such names as Jason and Kevin and such -- they're overused and such "cutesy" names for a kids who will think nothing of them until they've seen Halloween.

posted by Xeno-x on June 1, 2005 at 12:09 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Good Name
Do you mean my name "Dylan"?  If so, thanks.  For my first 20 years I could count on one hand's fingers the number of other Dylans I met.  Now, substitute teaching in an elementary school, I have encountered several Dylans, and apparently it's among the more popular names now.  My parents were just 20 years ahead of the curve. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 1, 2005 at 8:19 AM | link to this | reply

thank you for your support, Dylan

good  name, by the way.

it is gratifying to know that there are others who question the standard explanations.

posted by Xeno-x on May 28, 2005 at 7:38 AM | link to this | reply

I had not considered that God may permit worship or admiration of lesser gods as long as we do not place them above Him.  Your post is very edifying (as is much of your writing).

Overall I like your interpretations of the Commandments.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 28, 2005 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply

Painter -
I really like this. It sums it up well. And I don't see it as impersonal either. In fact, seeing the sacred, seeing "God" in everything is about as personal as one can get. It is the ultimate relationship with "God".

posted by sannhet on May 19, 2005 at 3:25 PM | link to this | reply

THAT IS CERTAINLY INTERESTING ehP

posted by calmcantey75 on May 19, 2005 at 3:20 PM | link to this | reply

not impersonal

when you get down to it cantey

once you understand the essence of Existence -- the Grand Spark -- the total fusion of each moment, then you also become intimate with each moment as it comes to you.

the brilliance of each moment is the absolute Existence -- it is totally sacred and everything that is encountered in that moment

and yet stop and think

the moment

what is it?

it's gone

it's a flash that you can't catch.

you can't keep

so each one each encounter must be the most sacred thing in your existence

and all that you encounter in it.  people, things, all that lives and all that you touch.

this is that YHVH -- that Total Existence.  It is all each of has.  everything else is over and done or just a fantasy.

posted by Xeno-x on May 19, 2005 at 3:15 PM | link to this | reply

E.H.P. - The globe's grand designer must be upset at the fuss over which God is which, knowing that he/she's one and the same for everyone, managing the planet with cultural committees.

posted by reasons on May 19, 2005 at 2:53 PM | link to this | reply

your rendering does 1 thing

it takes out personal relationship.

it removes Jesus Christ

therefore it is antichrist.

but other than that it is fine.

( Im sorry, I know I just acted like a fundamentalist nut, sorry EHP)

posted by calmcantey75 on May 19, 2005 at 2:25 PM | link to this | reply