digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Rabbi believes he has unveiled a secret of God

lohud.com — This rabbi believes he has discovered a new way to read the unreadable Hebrew name of God, and it means the Creator is a dual-gendered entity. Whatever your faith or beliefs, it's a pretty interesting read.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BookmasterIce, on 07/21/2008, -5/+34so..He's.. i mean, uhh... im confused.
    • N00F, on 07/21/2008, -0/+25it's pronounced 'Sklee' or 'Sklur'
    • SuperWinner, on 07/21/2008, -8/+11It means he believes in things without any proof, sell him a bridge quick.
      • diadem2, on 07/21/2008, -5/+1Well, if there really is a divine being, mysticism is right, and he knows The Name, then he can easily get proof. Unfortunately, from my limited very knowledge, I believe doing so could be very blasphemous. It'd be akin to proving that gunpowder works by blowing your own brains out. If all three counts are right, that is.
    • RAGEdemon, on 07/21/2008, -24/+25You know... if you just assume there is no god, the whole world and universe make a whole lot more sense.

      Throughout history, people have thought themselves special... so special that they had to be made my a supreme being that every culture on earth has made up.

      Do not try and understand God. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth: There is no God.

      Simply put, we are a product of evolution.... a by-product of the universe - walking, talking, chemical reactions, with nothing specifically special or magical about us. By chance, some ind of order from chaos. When we die, the chemical reactions stop and you decompose: you once again become chaos... Entropy.
      • godfly, on 07/21/2008, -5/+5Try not to think about mysticism when you think of God. Throughout history, people have thought themselves special... so special that they thought that all the stars and other stellar bodies revolve around the earth. Fast forward into the future and man realizes that he is not so special after all. That the earth is just a microscopic speckle of dust amidst solar systems and galaxies. That our solar system is an infant compared to other solar systems. Having said that, there is always the possibility that life as we know it have been seeded by other beings whose civilization(s) is far more superior that ours. And like a young son looking up to his father, we look up to these beings like Gods (read: Cargo Cult). To deny the possibility that we have creators is the same as claiming that the earth is flat or that we are the only civilized beings in the entire universe.
      • ehrlich, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12>To deny the possibility that we have creators is the same as
        > claiming that the earth is flat or that we are the only civilized
        > beings in the entire universe.

        Not quite, as there is plenty of evidence for the earth being not flat, and our understanding of the universe suggests that there might be lots live in the universe.

        But we could not find a hint of an creation.


      • MrPeach, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5Why is this guy getting modded down? He is 100% correct (except if you believe in magical men and other unexplainable things).

        This whole "god" thing is just a big pile of hokum.
      • YoctoYotta, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2@godfly

        That is definitely a very valid argument for a source of the seeds of life on earth (some sort of purposeful transpermia), but if a highly intelligent mortal creator is a product of the universe no different than ourselves, would it not have been possible for life to manifest itself lonesome self here on earth or another nearby planetary body without a mortal creator involved?

        If neither of those is the case, then the only other theory we're left with is the hocus pocus of all of the mystic religions here on earth who's deity created the heavens and the earth and all that lives upon it.

        I know some would argue "God" talks to them, and again maybe some highly advanced mortal creator has a direct line into some of our brains, but I argue that that is a mental disability common in many people and diagnosable by science.

        www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 07/21/2008, -2/+4I'm just gonna say it up here. The idea that god is not one gender is definitely not new, however, the pronunciation thing might be as I have little knowledge on that.
      • daRoach, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3See: Futurama - The Beast With A Billion Backs
    • yharrow, on 07/21/2008, -4/+2Of course, the Sages already ruled against Rabbi Sameth.

      According to an orthodox Jewish source:
      "There is a discussion in the Mishna [(Book of Traditions)] about whether an androgynous is a male, a female, or, in effect, a third sex."

      "Rabbi Yose, I believe, takes the third sex route, but the rabbis are unsure. In practice, however, they ruled an androgynous is a male and must dress like a male and marry only a female. (Mishna Bikkurin 4:2 – but I'm citing this from memory so please check it out before taking this as ... gospel.)"

      "So, in reality [there may be a chance that] G-d may be a hermaphrodite, so to speak. But as far as our rabbis are concerned,[In the event that G-d is in fact a hermaphrodite] G-d will have [to] keep his kapote [(garment worn by orthodox males)] and fedora on, at least until the time comes that He-She comes out of His-Her closet."
      • oxymoron69, on 07/21/2008, -10/+2what the *****.... what is the deal with this g-d *****?
        Are you afraid of writing dog or god or what? Ugh, you ***** jews....
      • dkapuchino, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2His religous beliefs forbid him from writing down the name of his lord or speaking it when not in prayer.
        Your disrespect for his beliefs, together with your bigoted antisemitism, just got you reported. I can only hope others do so as well.
        Anyways, until digg bans you, I'm screenshotting this and linking to this one from now on.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/21/2008, -3/+10His big magic theory is reading it backwards.
      Well hmm, dog backwards is.. #@!!!
      OMG I've discovered somthing!

      An another note in Hebew:
      Anee =me
      Me=who
      Who=he
      He=she
      • dkapuchino, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3We must have known each other as kids, because clearly that was my discovery years ago.
  • Crazysticks, on 07/21/2008, -9/+110It's a trap.
    • pwnerofnoobs, on 07/21/2008, -16/+8It's a tranny
      • Eezyville, on 07/21/2008, -3/+2The gates won't open for you, sorry. :(
      • pwnerofnoobs, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2"Creator is a dual-gendered entity"
    • joshmoney, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2J-...


      Oh, *idiot*! In Latin Jehovah begins with an "I"!
  • akpwnz, on 07/21/2008, -11/+21Wow that is a trip!
    • j1ggy, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Is it really? If you take the word God and spell it backwards you get Dog. No one's ever freaked out about that before.
    • soapergem, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure why you or anyone else finds this to be so amazing. The idea of an androgynous God is by far nothing new; some religions have held it central to their beliefs for quite some time now.
  • BookmasterIce, on 07/21/2008, -8/+61People mistake God for being in human Form

    they say he created human in his own image.

    Which one ?
    • DontThinkSo, on 07/21/2008, -28/+19If you actually *read* the passage in genesis where God created man in his own image, it's pretty clear that it means man's image, not God's. It's the first book of genesis, and should be on the first page of any bible you pick up; the author is using parallel syntax, and talks about (paraphrasing) God creating the beasts in their image, the birds in their image, and man in his image. All of the previous possessive pronouns were reflexive; why should "his" be any different?

      Then again, I don't go to any church, so my interpretation may be moot... I'm just an atheist that's read the bible.
      • ostracize, on 07/21/2008, -3/+21You might want to read it again because it doesn't say anything like that.
      • pockiez, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7I dugg you up... but I don't really know why.
      • Renolc, on 07/21/2008, -2/+34"So God created man in his own image,
        in the image of God he created him;
        male and female he created them."
        Genesis 1:27

        Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
      • RobotBuddha, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12There's never anything clear about something that's been translated from a dissimilar language. Most especially when the original text is many thousands of years old.
      • SuperWinner, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1And logical!
      • PeeEqualsNP, on 07/21/2008, -5/+0If I had an image in my mind of a car, how it would look, how it would run. Then I actually built the car according to how I had imagined it, wouldn't I have then created the car "in my own image"? Is this a misuse of the language? If not, then the passage would simply mean that God already knew how he wanted to create man and simply did it according to how he wanted. This would also apply to the beasts, birds, etc.
      • soloman747, on 07/21/2008, -3/+3Genesis 1:2 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

        You're wrong again Mr. Atheist.
      • gaijintendo, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2God decides he wants something and there it is, according to genesis. Then he decides to make man - and starts saying "Let us" in all versions of the bible I have read.
        It is just God, some light, mountains water, and a load of animals - so I take it he is talking to the animals.
        Maybe he used the monkeys to make humans.
      • XxtraLarGe, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2"Then he decides to make man - and starts saying "Let us" in all versions of the bible I have read."

        It's simple, the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
      • mistermaster, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3@PeeEqualsNP: So, that's God's way of saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature"?
      • PeeEqualsNP, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1@mister
        ha, as a programmer, that made me laugh.You could look at it that way. But, as a theist, I take a different outlook on it. The Bible speaks of creation, and says "it is good".... it doesn't say "it is perfect".

        There's a good post on this forum about complexity. Although it ends by saying "what created the creator?". This argument has gotten old. The same question can be asked to atheists, where did the matter come for the Big Bang? But they don't like that question, especially if they considered the idea that maybe the answer is God. The God that would exist would not be limited by our concepts of physics and time. He is what would be considered an infinite being... hard to grasp I know. But atheists who believe in steady state theories seem to manage.
    • Rippleeffect, on 07/21/2008, -4/+14The "image" wouldn't be a physical or visual one, but one based off of personality and the ability to reason. You have the capability for love because God has that capability.

      http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080.asp

      Some more reading along those lines.
    • SuperWinner, on 07/21/2008, -10/+15I'm depressed because it looks like humanity will not reach the age of reason in my lifetime, and will still be debating the existence of fairies for 2 thousand more years.....
      • sodoh, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7Fear not for the great noodley one will bring us into the future of pirates and beer volcanos.
      • kcap122, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Ewww warm beer
    • oldgal, on 07/21/2008, -4/+11Yet when I observe the different religions, it looks much more like man creates god in their image.
    • JoeCool1986, on 07/21/2008, -4/+6I never got why people get so hung up on this one (even knowledgeable Christians). It was taught to me pretty simply:

      image != physical image

      that's pretty much it. We are creative, like God, we have morals, like God, and many Christians believe we have freewill, like God. All of these are unique to humans as opposed to all other animals (or, at least you could argue so).
      • Zarokima, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2There are documented cases of other apes (and a few other types of animals) displaying morality, creativity, and free will.
      • askantik, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Zarokima,

        You can't argue that animals have these things because most religious people think that animals are lower than us and that any god there is only cares about us. Sadly, I don't think this is true, and also sadly, most atheists (of which I am not one), also share the feeling that animals are lower than us. And little do they know that most of that rhetoric comes from the traditional religious ideal that we dominate the earth.
    • aquireworth, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. Gen 1:27

      The capital H in He, His, or Him always refers to God. Lowercase h refers to man. Therefore, Genisis states pretty clearly that men and women are created in Gods image. God is neither male or female, but there are aspects of God that represent both genders. Overall we need to start thinking much bigger if we want to grasp who God is.
    • phphreak, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Wow, you are smart. Did you make it through high school or just elementary school.
  • LewP, on 07/21/2008, -15/+32I think this is an exciting theory and concept.
    • Myonosken, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10Still kind of weird its taken them two thousand years to try reversing it...
      • mistermaster, on 07/21/2008, -4/+11They were afraid of uncreating the world.
    • latrosicarius, on 07/21/2008, -3/+11Yeah, except for all the parts where Jesus calls him "Father"... oh wait... we're ignoring the New Testament?
      • Rowwen, on 07/21/2008, -3/+0Jesus calls him Father because he is like a father figure.
      • oxymoron69, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4Of course we ignore it, not a word of it is true, and who really wants to read stinky old fiction?
      • Myonosken, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3Well yeah given they're ***** Jewish and one of their core principals is that Jesus was not the son of god.
    • salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -0/+13It hasn't taken two thousand years, and this guy hasn't discovered anything new. This is the kind of thing that a slew of kids run into in Hebrew school early on.

      And on top of that, the tetragrammaton (the four letter name of god as is described in the article), spelled in latin YHVH and pronounced in Hebrew something close to "Yahweh" is not "unpronouncable" in the modern meaning of not having a mandible capable of making the noise it represents. It's un SPEAKABLE according to Jewish tradition, which holds that only the high priest of the true Temple in Jerusalem may ever utter it. Since there is no more true Temple in Jerusalem (only the western wall remains), there can be no high priest of it, and since there can be no high priest, the name can not be spoken "legally".

      Really guys, its ok to learn a little about Judaism before you go believing hacks like this guy and his retarded media following.
      • Yakubovich, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2Actually, you're wrong. Since it has been historically forbidden to pronounce the tetragrammaton, no one knows the vowels that go between the consonants. So, Yahweh is as good a guess as any, but no one knows the original pronounciation. This Rabbi's idea isn't that absurd considering that the Kabbalists often find meanings in reversed words, rearranged letters and even numerology. Moreover, the idea of God being the union of male and female forces is also old in the Kabbalah. Trying to find the original meaning of The Name is also a task Rabbis often engage in.

        While I don't agree with its approach, playing with words and concepts in this manner is what Jewish mystics have been doing since the middle ages.

        So... Perhaps you are the one who should learn a little about Judaism, or at least read the wikipedia article.
      • salomejones, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2I'm not wrong, and I'm not sure why you're making that claim. Your reply did not contain any information at all which contradicted anything in my post. I said "pronounced something close to Yahweh" because it is known what the consonants (eh, as good a word as any I guess) in the name are. I didn't say that Rabbi's idea was absurd, either. I said it wasn't new--which you seem to imply that you agree with.

        And, there's always more to learn about Judaism, which is pretty important to me, since, you know, I'm Jewish.
    • kalvinb, on 07/21/2008, -5/+1The Bible is pretty clear that God is a spirit. He's neither male nor female. He simply is.

      This isn't ground breaking, it's simply mildly interesting word play that finds a "hidden" fact that was written in plain Hebrew.

      It's on par with a news headline reading "John Murders Bob" and then reorganizing the letters of the article and finding out that John murdered Bob.
    • monoa, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4It's neither a theory nor a concept. It's a game of make believe about his magical invisible friend.
  • fluidfoundation, on 07/21/2008, -25/+217The doesnt sound like the Great Noodly One to me. The secret's not in the name, its in the sauce.
    • ian.gaenssley, on 07/21/2008, -6/+59RAmen.
      • sogeshirts, on 07/21/2008, -11/+5lol well done.
      • AmyVernon, on 07/21/2008, -11/+2i was thinking the same thing. very well played, ian...
      • ElGanyan, on 07/21/2008, -6/+19Hai, I'm the internets. You guis must be new here. Welcome!
    • dracostimpy, on 07/21/2008, -10/+1Some people think it's amusing to mock religion through ridiculous figments like the FSM, but I know one person who disagrees: Heath Ledger. I bet if you saw him face to face right now, he'd reek of the same anguish he depicted so marvelously in The Dark Knight. Shame on you godless heathens!
      • gn0stik, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3disgusting
      • Zarokima, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Heath can't disagree. He's dead. Dead people don't do anything but rot and get eaten by worms, or get cremated.
      • cheeseron, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1jesus christ
      • kcap122, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1what is wrong with you?? respect the dead!
  • badbyte80, on 07/21/2008, -75/+112psst...there is no god.
    in short - waste of time.
    • Iztikeit, on 07/21/2008, -23/+4Might I suggest reading the Tao Te Ching.
    • hauntedchippy, on 07/21/2008, -2/+41Don't spoil the ending!
    • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -22/+10How exactly do you know this? Just your hunch? Just like believers? Or can you prove it?
      • mistermaster, on 07/21/2008, -8/+10Occam's razor
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -13/+6Uhhm, Occam's razor doesn't really apply to this, but if it did, the simplest explanation which makes the least amount of assumptions is that a creator created us. Any other hypothesis makes at least multiple assumptions and is astronomically complex (not simple).

        Either way, it doesn't prove *****. Just means it's a good guess.
      • hauntedchippy, on 07/21/2008, -2/+13Whilst you're right that occams razor isn't the best approach you are naive if you think "god did it" is the simplest explanation because it uses the fewest words. An omnipotent supreme intelligent being is much more complex than no omnipotent supreme intelligent being.
      • jdh24, on 07/21/2008, -4/+16you don't prove that something doesn't exist. you prove that something does exist. there's no proof that god exists, so therefore it must be logically concluded that there is likely no god.
      • FlamDukke, on 07/21/2008, -2/+4Well, [slap slap slap] that settles it. Let's go play outside.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -8/+3Jdh24, Ok, by your logic nothing exits until we see it or find it. As you know, many things actually did exist before you saw it. Did dinosaurs cease to exist until we dugg them up? No. So I'm gonna call logical fallacy on that, even though you are correct in that is how many people scientifically deduce things. That just means for now we're under that assumption, doesn't mean that it cant possibly exist.

        Haunted, I beg to differ. An all powerful creator may be complex, be remember we're comparing it to the other theories, in which are vastly more complex and need to make many more assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generatio ... .

        Although I admit I'm at an advantage in that an all all powerful creator can be as simple or complex as imaginable.

        Bottom line, we don't factually know if there is or is not a God. So, a reasonable position would be just that. I just find it irritating that the same people who rag on believers don't realize that they themselves have *faith* in their *beliefs* of the nonexistence of something greater. It also bugs me when you guys think you're scientifically superior and yet think evolution explains where life came from. We don't know the origins of life or the origins of the Universe and we certainly haven't explored much of the known universe. Until then, it would be a good idea to keep an open mind, which is what I thought science was suppose to be about.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12@masterm1nd
        Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated. Also, the scientific explanation only requires one assumption - that the universe is internally consistent. After that, everything is based on evidence, not assumptions.

        In any case, there's no evidence to support the idea that the supernatural exists, much less any particular flavor of it, so all forms of creationism, xtian and otherwise, even if they were explanatory, are based on many more assumptions (that the supernatural exists, that a particular flavor of it exists, that that the deity or deities of that flavor of mythology created us, etc).
      • hauntedchippy, on 07/21/2008, -3/+5Masterm1nd:

        The arguement for a god is just an extension of a more fundamental question, namely "where does complexity come from?"

        We see complexity all around us (e.g. cells, solar systems etc) and we must necessarily ask what gives rise to it. One answer is to postulate that complexity is an emergent property of simplicity i.e. give hydrogen atoms 13.7 billion years and they will arrange themselves in ever complex structures i.e. complexity is something that just happens. The other answer to this is to postulate that complexity begets complexity, i.e. a complex creator gave rise to all the complexity we see around us and he is necessarily more complex than us. Does that solve it? Where does our complex creator get his complexity from? Essentially who created the creator? And if the creator can create himself then why can't the universe?
      • malex, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6"Ok, by your logic nothing exits until we see it or find it."

        I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the argument. Things exist that we do not have evidence of, but arguing for what those things are without first having anything to support or imply that existence is illogical.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -9/+1Apokaplypse, you're just wrong about everything from what an explanation is to Occams razor eliminating the idea of a creator. I think Occams razor is quite subjective regarding this topic, which is why I feel it is not applicable (and yes, I believe it favors a creator if you do apply Occams razor). It's really not that complex. Either prove to me there is not a creator or leave it on the table until you can prove another theory correct. If you don't know, YOU DON'T KNOW. Now please, type some confusing mumbo jumbo that sounds smart and scientific so we can digg you because we're mostly atheists roun' herr.

        Malex, oh the irony. I'm not saying there is a creator. I'm saying you don't have any evidence to say there is not a creator. Do you see how your comment should be aimed the other way?
      • PeeEqualsNP, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1I agree with you that the burden of proof for God is rested on believers, but your logic is still a little flawed. If I stood in a room completely separated from you by all senses except sound and you had to prove to me that there was pizza in your room (which there actually was), how would you do it? There would be no way for you to provide me with any proof, so logically to me there would be no pizza. Or, I could believe you blindly and just agree that you must have pizza. Or, I might ask you several questions, and ask you to provide me with other things that I could count as evidence that would be sufficient evidence for myself. For instance, I could imagine what a pizza would sound like hitting the floor and then ask you to throw your pizza on the floor. Of course this would also be questionable and rely on me trusting that you actually threw whatever was in your room on the floor, seeing how close it was to my expectations and deciding if I actually believe you or not. This is the nature of faith based religion.

        Some people don't believe at all, some people follow blindly, some accept it and try and squeeze science in, others accept both as they are. The main differences between those last three groups tend to be (but are not always) "doctrinal" differences. This shows how a single faith based religion works, believing you have a pizza is a slightly different argument that deciding what kind of pizza you have.
      • richbleak, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4Just because the simple people believe it does not mean it is the simplest explanation. In fact, it is far more complex if you really consider what it means. Not only are you just pushing "creation-from-nothing" back one step (universe couldn't have simply sprang from nothing-->must have been created-->the creator sprang from nothing-->wtf?) but you must also explain how this creator existed in "nothing" while it made "something". If religious people are comfortable saying God sprang from nothing or always existed then I am comfortable saying existence sprang from nothing or always existed.
      • mistermaster, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2@richbleak: My thoughts exactly. By adding God to any explanation, you must explain God. Since God is more complex than the universe, a universe with God is more complex than a universe without. Hence, Occam's razor.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6@masterm1nd
        Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary. Thus, since Creationism doesn't add anything to any argument (because it rules out nothing, as an omnipotent being could do anything), it is unnecessary, and should be eliminated.

        As for leaving Creationism on the table, why should we? What use is it? Unless we have some evidence that suggests such a proposition, then it is not worth considering. Alternatively, if you're going to insist that (presumably biblical) Creationism be left on the table, I am going to insist that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster be on the table as well.
      • revisrev, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6Masterm1nd, I will leave the idea that there is a creator on the table, but then you must also leave these theories on the table, as you have no way of disproving them.

        -FSM
        -My 5 year old son goes back in time 20 years from now to create everything
        -I am the second coming of Christ (I was pretty good up til about 12, and I'm not 30 yet, so we'll have to wait and see)
        -There is a tooth fairy, she just doesn't get around much anymore
        -The aforementioned tooth fairy created the universe... so she could get teeth

        I could go on and on. If something is absurd, but can't be disproved, there is no reason to consider it a viable explanation. If you want to leave those on the table as explanations of why everything is so complex then be my guest.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -5/+1Revise, I will leave all those theories on the table. However, if you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to. All of your theories fall under what I''m asking you to leave on the table. Of course, the more specific and far out you get, the less likely it actually is. Quite different than a generic idea of 'something else'. Your theories would be more comparable to religeon, and even then there aren't millions who believe that and feel they communicate with tooth fairy and are a major part of their life, and they aren't based off of documented events. I'm pretty open and accept the fact that I don't know and don't see why we couldn't even be generated on a computer like the sims. Would the sims know it and be able to figure it out? Just know that some things are beyond you . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falliblism .

        Nice poisoning of the well fallacy by BTW.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/22/2008, -2/+4"However, if you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to."
        The only difference is that some of these unevidenced propositions have had believers for some years - others were made up on the spot. That doesn't make them any less relevant if you are insisting that ideas without evidence stay on the table.
      • revisrev, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2masterm1nd, I understand and respect your position, and I've thought on it a great deal in my life. I realize that I don't know much of anything for sure, but I'm not going to delude myself with fairy tales unless it's purely recreational. I will take these ideas off the table for myself unless you can tell me a way in which someone could go about proving that there is a creator. There is nothing, as of yet, and I believe there never will be, that can be done to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator. However, I think we can pretty well demonstrate that the Jewish faith is a lie, the Christian faith is a lie, the Muslim faith is a lie, the Mayans, the Hindus, Buddhists, and anything else that claims to be the word, the light, or the way, is a lie created to control people.

        Sometimes it can be used for good, but it seems that the people who have done the most good either distanced themselves from these ideas, or suffered terrible inner conflict. I have enough inner conflict with things that are real, I don't need it from fairy tales also. Now if you'll excuse me, I have tooth fairy duty.
    • Zuggy, on 07/21/2008, -10/+18Not a waste of time. Much of the evil that religion perpetuates is based on the idea that the Judeo-Christian god is male therefore men are greater then women. If this were to become a mainstream ideal it would put women on equal footing as men religiously speaking.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -7/+6Are you ***** serious??? Do you know how women were historically treated in non christian parts of the world??? What do you think had the greatest pull in changing that???
      • SmpleJohn, on 07/21/2008, -5/+7And besides the fact that if you read the Bible it says man should be head of the household over and over.

        One of my favorite poems:

        Woman was made from the rib of man,
        She was not created from his head to top him,
        Nor from his feet to be stepped upon,
        She was made from his side to be close to him,
        From beneath his arm to be protected by him,
        Near his heart to be loved by him.
    • cusoman, on 07/21/2008, -4/+6Sure, if this were a video game write up or something related to a renowned work of fiction it would be ok (you know, like the massive library of blogs and FAQs dedicated to things like this), but just because it mentions God, you've got a bone to pick.
    • SuperWinner, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4in short, what people believe is worth nothing, what people can prove is worth something. Pretty simple math there...
      • ZenMojo, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Hey, SuperWinner, tell badbyte80 that you can't disprove the existence of God, hence the infinite metaphysical mystery of supernature that has lured people into its contemplation for millenia.
      • Hypersapien, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2What people believe isn't worth nothing. It determines how they will behave, ergo, what kind of society we will have.

        Granted, what people believe doesn't say anything about what is actually true.
    • blankman, on 07/21/2008, -11/+15Will you please shut the ***** up for once people. Can I ever read any comments on Digg about anything religious without all you retards trying to plop your atheist crap all over the place. No one cares what you believe or don't believe. You don't have to say it in every forum.
      • MoralThreat, on 07/21/2008, -5/+7But it's cool to be atheist!

      • Shoebox639, on 07/21/2008, -8/+9umm no you cannot. We atheists don't want to establish a norm that God exists, rather that there is huge disagreement among people.
      • Iztikeit, on 07/21/2008, -4/+8Thank God for a reasonable person. Athiests throw their beliefs in my face more than anyone else.
      • revisrev, on 07/21/2008, -5/+6It's important that we call absurdity out when we see it. This theory is no more important than some dork deciding that he has discovered the true intended pronunciation of Elvish words from Lord of the Rings. If that ***** got front-paged then there would be plenty of people stating that the discussion is pointless.

        Next topic: Tooth fairy... both male and female? Discuss.
      • Exact0, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1We should all know that what YOU have to say is important though.
      • sysop073, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1It's cool though, he whispered it
    • Whatsthetimecod, on 07/21/2008, -11/+5How is there no God? Where did you find this information?
      Is this what science told you? Why would it be a waste of time?

      I could be wrong but, what if we never traveled the ocean because someone argued the earth isn't round.
      Don't do it man, its a waste of time.

      Argue religion, not God.

      He could be real.... What is he/she/it?
      • Shoebox639, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9First of all, there was ample EVIDENCE to suggest that earth was round. The powers in Europe at the time (RCC), claimed that the Earth was flat and since they got all their info from God himself, were infallible.

        What makes you so sure that you've got this religion thing right this time? Every civilization that ever existed believed in a different deity than what we have today. What makes Christian right over Scientology, Hinduism, Bhuddaism, Norse mythology, Greek mythology or the Flying Spaghetti Monser?

        And as to where do I find this information? I don't have to find this information. The burden of proof is always on the theists, who claim God exists. There's not a shred of proof you can offer that says that there in fact is a supreme deity out there. I don't have to prove that there is no God. Once you prove to me with EVIDENCE that there is a god, I'll happily believe you.
      • trutwin, on 07/21/2008, -6/+1As George Michael once mused: "you gotta have faith"...
      • Exact0, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1The ocean (universe) is tangible. We could travel it if anyone had the balls to try. Religion and God are not, and never will be tangible. Even if God (of any religion) himself could prove to us he was God, the question still remains: " Who created you Mr. God?".

        The fact that I love spaghetti is more proof of a god than a book written by religious politicians.
    • Whatsthetimecod, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2I was using the earth being flat as an example, and I never suggested christianity or any other religion was right or correct. I was simply stating the idea "God" isn't a waste of time. It's an Idea, an idea most cultures, including the ones you stated above have. God is just another word for it. In the end... They all believe in a creator, and its nice to believe in something with principle values like don't kill, rape, and be kind to everyone.

      I say argue religion, because religion twist that Idea into something less. I'm not arguing if "God" is real. Hell I don't know. I never met him/her/it.

      I'm arguing the Idea of a creator, that wants it's creation to get along, live, love, think, and become something greater then the blank canvas we are all born with. Is not a bad Idea, or waste of time.

      The more we understand the better, and If the "Idea God" turns out to be what keeps our feet perfectly on the ground with just the right gravity condition so we don't fly off into space, or crush into the soil, and he/she/it provided those elements to ensure our survival's , and is the reason why we are so fine tune to live on a planet surround by the most dangerous conditions we know of, and he/she/it just wants us to be good to one another....

      Then No... I don't think it should be called a waste of time.
      Believe what you will it's your right. I'm just saying I believe all ideas outside the world of self distruction, are never a waste of time.



    • askantik, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1I find it amusing that atheists want proof of a god(s), yet they fail to offer any proof that one (or many) doesn't exist.
      • kittnerrules, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Burden of proof is on the believers, not the non-believers. Sorry man.
      • jadrian, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Yeap Atheists suck. I mean, I can come up with ideas for a bunch of supernatural entities in a 5 min bathroom break, and they can't proof they don't exist even if they try their whole lives. How sad is that?
      • kittnerrules, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1@jadrian - that is one TERRIFIC bulletproof argument. Do some independent research.
    • Iztikeit, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Without that laugh, there is no Tao.
  • jcorn1, on 07/21/2008, -20/+21Definitely worth seeing, thanks!
  • Totz83, on 07/21/2008, -36/+28I believe God is a typo, it probably refers to the"good" in people. "Good" people create a world where everyone can be happy. It always amuses me when I hear about wars and conflicts that are supposedly in the name of God. If we could all see the good in each other we'd be alot better off. And if everyone believed in the same fundamental idea of what "God" is supposed to encompass, the world would be a far nicer place
    • TheMidnight, on 07/21/2008, -4/+31Yeah that would almost work if the Bible were written in Modern English between 4000 and 2000 years ago.
      • diggdiggerid, on 07/21/2008, -4/+5Why does God have to be "good"? There are a lot of badass and "evil" gods in many religions that are much older than Christianity. See: Loki, Kokopelli, etc.
      • Cenobite, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5And Eris. The sexiest psychotic goddess, and the nicest evil deity around!
      • Totz83, on 07/21/2008, -5/+1@TheMidnight

        I meant metaphorically. People generally try to associate good and bad with what their own experiences and ideas of what "good and bad" are, as societies are unable to deal with the simple fact that each and every person has their own ideas, they try to come up with ways of universally accepting and explaining all aspects of how we think, behave and live, that's called Religion.

        And it probably answers your question aswell, diggdiggerid.
      • cosmicr, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6Dont try to cover up your ignorance Totz83. You didnt mean metaphorically, you said you believed it to be a typo. Either you misunderstand the meaning of 'typo' or your off the cuff remark has backfired. Either way not only did you get it wrong in that it wasnt written in english, but typewriters hadnt even been invented at the time it was written!
      • blazes816, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1And also the Christian god of the old testament. Dude was a badass.
      • thepxc, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Whoosh!
    • Iztikeit, on 07/21/2008, -3/+3Lol
    • hwy9nightkid, on 07/21/2008, -5/+2Good is not great..sorry
    • Amadeus2490, on 07/21/2008, -2/+4I believe in Good.
    • MrSketch, on 07/21/2008, -5/+14"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
      - Mohandas Gandhi
      • masterm1nd, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1Relevancy? Oh, I see what you're doing there.
    • MacBigot, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4Thanks, Oprah.
    • Cenobite, on 07/21/2008, -3/+15"Thou shalt have no other Goods before me."

      God was first in line for both the iPhone and the Wii.
    • cyberwiz01, on 07/21/2008, -4/+4Except the Bible (and almost all other religious texts except for maybe the Book of Mormon) weren't written in English, so a multi-lingual typo is quite unlikely. When they wrote what is translated in English as "God" they meant "God"
    • slowbox, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1What?
    • Rowwen, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1It's sort of like how hello is a typo for hell...

      Let's say heaveno!
    • gyver, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1The two of you that wrote he was wrong because it was translated from another language:
      Are you really that stupid that you think Totz83 statement wasn't said in jest?
      Of course the original writers of the bible didn't mean to write good but that isn't the point of what hes saying. The point is that if people simply saw the good in others rather than how a made-up being would judge them the world would be a better place.

      Overall his was a good comment, I can only assume he was dugg down so many times because of idiots like you who take everything literally.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -18/+12it's cool that the associate minister of a NY church sees the significance of the Rabbi's studies and some form of harmony is already happening. Most of the scriptures are so vague that they can't be proved, but better yet -- disproved.
    • ak420, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4Wait, when you say most you really mean ALL, right?
    • siszam, on 07/21/2008, -7/+2No, the Bible is not vague. Check this out. If you take the time to look these up you will be amazed at house exact and true Gods word is.

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ZGq90PjcE
      • revisrev, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3You really must be kidding me... right? What the hell kind of circular logic. Wait... did I fall for sarcasm?
  • GetSmartGal, on 07/21/2008, -12/+15Not a new concept but interesting that is coming from a Rabbi.
  • angusm, on 07/21/2008, -17/+25Considering that this is a deity that allegedly likes to send messages to His creation by causing statues to weep blood or His mother's face to appear on bagels, merely flipping the syllables in His/Her name probably counts as a relatively direct and unambiguous approach.

    I guess we have to change the wording of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father or Mother ..."

    • malex, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Jewish people don't actually believe that God manifests in statues or bagels. You're thinking of Catholics.
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Oh Snap!
      • angusm, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Yes, I was stretching it slightly there - although given that Christians feel that their God is the same as the Jewish God, and the article even brought in a Presbyterian minister to endorse the good rabbi's discovery, I thought it was permissible.

        If memory serves me right, I think Jewish accounts of God's fondness for oblique communication tend to involve numerology or linguistic sleights such as the one that the rabbi describes. As far as I can tell, no religious scholar of any creed has yet offered a really convincing explanation as to why He uses these indirect forms of communication, rather than, say, using skywriting or taking out an ad in the New York Times.
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Because obviously the Jews control the NYTimes and he doesn't want to be biased.
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0see even i made the mistake. Shim doesn't want to be biased. My bad.
    • Dorment, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Christians say "Our Father" because they know him through the son, Jesus. It's actually theologically incorrect to think of god as some sort of father figure or even as a male. Even some of the earliest Christian works taught that Jesus should be thought of as having no gender in heaven.
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0But he was clearly a man in life. so how can he lose his sex? Did god cut off his balls and make him an angel? Not trying to offend, merely understand in my own way.
      • malex, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1@ hammelman:
        Bodies have genitals. Souls do not.
  • louiebaur, on 07/21/2008, -8/+10Interesting read it is controversial for sure!
  • 10stackz, on 07/21/2008, -31/+7IMHO i think all these ancient texts whether it be the Koran, Holy Bible, or any other holy text is all based off the same philosophy and in reality we are all god, we as a human race all create something in some form babies, technology, music, etc. and in the history of man somebody is always trying to take over the world even now, and seeing how these texts were written centuries ago before independent thought was common place and if you were found out about thinking against the establishment you were usually jailed or killed, I believe that back then the people went through the same struggles as we do today just we're more technologically advanced and the real purpose of those texts are to keep people in the same mind set to make them easier to control, after all the King James version of the bible is a government publication hence "King James" and if you think about the world and apply that thinking it all kinda comes together i dont think the anti-Christ is one person but could refer to an entity such as a country or anti-establishment group because dont forget when christ was killed rome burned shortly there after, and in revelations they say the world would end by fire, and seeing how america is mostly christians alot of them believe that all this war and killing is leading up to christ's return and Armageddon and because they live their lives by this they fail to want to do anything because they see it as the prophecy coming true. History does have a way of repeating it self. Not trying to say god doesnt exist cause i dont know if he does or not and nobody does they just believe he does. Look up Ian Xel Lungold on youtube and sit though the whole lecture that he gives about the Mayan Calender and you realize that its not really a calender but more of a timeline of conscious evolution thats scarily accurate and besides i refuse to believe in a religion that promotes violence or scare tactics to make me believe that thats the right way of thinking...
  • bstory, on 07/21/2008, -21/+7God is dead - long live nothing
  • Owwmykneecap, on 07/21/2008, -18/+10no he didn't and no it's not interesting.

    Its just someguys *****, you wouldn't listen to it on a street corner why listen to it here?
    • brettg102, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3This reminds me of the guy outside of the Bohan safehouse. I shoot him every time.
      • Owwmykneecap, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1thats exactly who i was talking about!
  • theskillwithin, on 07/21/2008, -14/+3Acid
  • str3ama, on 07/21/2008, -21/+10"a dual-gendered entity"
    God's a tranny...FTW! (or asexual)
    • BaudiIROCZ, on 07/21/2008, -3/+3That might explain how Jesus was a haploid.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 07/21/2008, -3/+10I think the word you are looking for is hermaphrodite.
      • str3ama, on 07/21/2008, -3/+2yea but I felt like using the words God and Tranny together..sounded funny (at least to me). Either diggers didn't find it funny or some religious people didn't like me calling God a tranny.
  • Sagags, on 07/21/2008, -9/+25For having such a large atheist community digg sure loves articles about god.
    • Hetman, on 07/21/2008, -7/+37Even if it is not true, religion is still fascinating.
    • Zuggy, on 07/21/2008, -4/+13Religion is still an interesting study. It gives those willing to step outside and look in a unique look at human nature.
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/21/2008, -3/+15I think the reason a lot of us became atheists in the first place was finding mythology interesting. I enjoy religion in the same way I enjoy, say, batman. It's a collection of interesting stories and morality plays. You don't have to actually believe any of it happened to enjoy the fictional universe either describes.
      • carpespasm, on 07/21/2008, -3/+6DING DING DING! I've been making the point that superheroes are the Greek gods of our time. We use them to convey different lots and roles in life, tell the morals of our time, and they're imbued with the power to do what normal people can't. We even have half-god like figures reminiscent of Heracles such as batman and Iron Man who wish to perform something super-human and press forward with everything they have and a will that makes them great, but also leaves them lonely in the end and consumed by their quest.
    • FlamDukke, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2"I love being ANGRY!" - Ren
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/21/2008, -2/+14Digg also loves Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. We (most of us) know it's not real, and are not likely to kill anyone else over something make believe.
    • MrTulip, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1the mere fact that people all over the world align their very lives to arbitrary, 'user-defined' mythologies and age old stories never ceases to amaze.
    • Kinsbane, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2Religion is the one story that, real or false, got people to believe in something more powerful than themselves, and thus, throw themselves blindly at it. I'd say that's a damn good story.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5And Charles Manson killed a bunch of people because he thought a Beatles song was telling him to. Apparently a Beatles song can be more powerful than yourself too. While this does not contradict the fact that ideas can effect people in a powerful way or that they make good stories, it does show I think that powerful ideas are not immune to still being completely retarded.
  • naterpoke, on 07/21/2008, -15/+12wrong, it means God transcends gender. /confusion
  • exipolar, on 07/21/2008, -18/+13So, god should be read "dog"?
  • alexra, on 07/21/2008, -16/+6oh I know the secret.....there is not god(s)
  • liuite, on 07/21/2008, -10/+5unification of the sometimes competing, sometimes complementing masculine and feminine energies that reside within each of us, regardless whether we are male or female...this sounds like Ying-Yang.
    "If this interpretation is correct, it says that the Torah is a mystical or esoteric text," he said. "The mystics have been saying all these years that the text conceals more than it reveals. It is structured with different levels of meaning and reveals itself over time." Christian Fundies in contrast believe only in literal interpretation.
    • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -1/+0this might be true, but we're not talking about Christians in this thread are we?
  • BaudiIROCZ, on 07/21/2008, -17/+27I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.
    -John Lennon
    • askantik, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Essentially, this is also what Gandhi said.
  • Amadeus2490, on 07/21/2008, -21/+9So. . .God's a tranny?

  • Draculecom, on 07/21/2008, -8/+3And I have a waffle with the image of Santa Claus on it.
  • barstegry, on 07/21/2008, -9/+4A rabbi and a priest walk into a bar.....
  • BradOFarrell, on 07/21/2008, -9/+2I was more interested to find out that Birdo was actually a male.
  • WMGoBuffs, on 07/21/2008, -8/+2When I clicked on this there were 42 comments. There's your answer.
  • leladax, on 07/21/2008, -12/+5religious lunatics.
  • ruddy, on 07/21/2008, -13/+10no banana involved in this one, right?
    • FlamDukke, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Ah, don't feel bad, Ruddy. I got it.
      Atheist's nightmare...
      • ruddy, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1lol thanks man. i think diggs out of it today...
  • nickert0n, on 07/21/2008, -13/+11Wrong! This is what god looks like:

    http://onwhoseauthority.files.wordpress.com/2007/1 ...
  • DukeMojo, on 07/21/2008, -12/+11This just in:

    Ghost hunter believes he has unveiled a secret of Ghosts. They have brown eyes and wear sandals.
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6That cold you're feeling right now....that's 'ghost coldness'.
  • YancyFryJr, on 07/21/2008, -8/+16"God thus becomes a dual-gendered deity, bringing together all the male and female energy in the universe, the yin and the yang that have divided the sexes from Adam and Eve to Homer and Marge."

    I'm agnostic, but bonus points for the Simpsons reference.
  • gweedo767, on 07/21/2008, -11/+15Oh, so I just have to read the Hebrew backwards to figure this out! So in English it turns out that God is actually just a dog. And my cat is really just tac (from tic-tac-toe of course)! Man...I feel so enlightened. All I have to do is read backwards to find some great new meaning...wonder if I should try this with my music?
    • fantasticjon, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2looks like digg momentum is taking you down. oh well. For what its worth, I thought it was funny.
  • h0ser, on 07/21/2008, -6/+18the problem is that the word was still created by man. It's not like god came down and wrote that four letter word. It was something that a human designated to be the name of god. Trying to decipher it and somehow prove god's true name is silly.
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2I might be misremembering, but isn't hebrew traditionally thought to have come directly from god?
      • sodariot, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3So that's why God hasn't answered my prayers...I haven't addressed God in he/she's native tongue.
      • shermanthetank, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Yes, that's one of the traditions.
    • rearlgrant, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2As a writer, I can't miss an opportunity to repeat my favorite line from an ok piece of human literature -- John 1:1.

      "In the beginning, there was the word. And the word was God."
  • iddybiddy, on 07/21/2008, -8/+3wow gods a hermaphrodite, who knew
    • rearlgrant, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1You are getting dugg down...
      All those Christians apparently believe that hermaphrodites aren't one of god's creations.
      The best part of Digg is how it reaffirms my belief that when given a chance, Christians will prove they are not.
  • rivethaus, on 07/21/2008, -5/+14Retsnom Ittehgaps Gniylf - not getting it
    How do you tell the sex of a spaghetti?
  • whaught, on 07/21/2008, -5/+39The idea that god is male, female, or in this articles case, both is absurd. Why would 'god' have any notion of sex at all. That doesn't even make sense.
    That said it seems we created god in our image rather than the reverse.
    • Diggnabbit, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Isn't that sort of the point of the article, though? It seems to me that if there's anything interesting about this idea it is that one of the earliest ideas of what it meant to be God was that it meant to be beyond (or both) genders. I.e. God doesn't have any notion of sex.

      Obviously, this does nothing to prove or disprove God's existence, but it has interesting implications for the largely patriarchal organization of many major religions.

  • woxidu, on 07/21/2008, -3/+69America prays for god to defeat our enemies. Our enemies pray for god to defeat us... Someone's gonna be disappointed; Could it be... everyone?

    ~George Carlin
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4I keep praying to win the stupid tax but he never bloody listens. I think he is ignoring me intentionally...
  • gotrootdude, on 07/21/2008, -7/+2Say it three times in a darkened mirror and a holy vengeful spirit appears.

    Take the Bloody Mary.
  • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -11/+9Uh hi... Muslims have been saying this for centuries... Thanks.
    • hafwacked, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1There goes the theory that women would have equal footing...
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -3/+4Not at all.. The sexes are not equal, look in your pants to establish this. All this is saying is that God(swt) is neither male, nor female... He(we use masculine singular because there is no 'it' in Arabic) is beyond sex.
    • yehudasf, on 07/21/2008, -5/+3Exactly which sect of Islam, or what school of Sunna proclaims this? Bukhari, Muslim, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi'i all reject this in toto. No Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Alawite, Imam has ever asserted such. Perhaps you should get your sources in order before you lie about the religious teachings of 1.5 billion people.
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7I'm a Muslim...
        I am a part of Ahl ul-Sunnah wal jammat insha'Allah t'ala.
        Maybe I didn't read the article all the way through but as Muslims we believe that Allah(swt) has no sex... No male... no Female... I know they say 'both' in this article but both can be seen as neither. God is beyond gender.

        Also, what is a 'School of Sunnah'? Its school of Fiqh, and Shi'a and Druze and all these sects are not part of it. My source is the Qur'an al Kareem and the Sunnah of Rasul'Allah salalahu alayhi wa salaam.
      • IPublius, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2@Slotimus - I am not sure if you understand that much of Kabbalah then. He meant both, not neither. I understand what you are saying, but the rabbi is looking at it from a universal yin/yang sort of perspective with both male and female very much there.
      • Vade218, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2@slotimus
        Both is definitely not neither -.-
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Aren't Druse a Christian sect?
      • yehudasf, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1No ***hammelbinzona*** the Druze are a "heretical" sect of Islam, with the majority of adherents native to the Chouf mountain region of the Lebanon. Hint: this sect gave rise to the term Hashhisheen, (in English Assassin).
      • ansatsu29, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1@ slotimus: I find it confusing that somebody is telling everybody that God is neither a He or a She (somewhat promoting the equal man/woman footing) but treats women as second class citizens and nothing more than wet pile of house rags and sex slaves.
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Who treats women like what? I treat my wife like a queen like the Qur'an tells us to treat our women.

        يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمۡ أَن تَرِثُواْ ٱلنِّسَآءَ كَرۡهً۬ا‌ۖ وَلَا تَعۡضُلُوهُنَّ لِتَذۡهَبُواْ بِبَعۡضِ مَآ ءَاتَيۡتُمُوهُنَّ إِلَّآ أَن يَأۡتِينَ بِفَـٰحِشَةٍ۬ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ۬‌ۚ وَعَاشِرُوهُنَّ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ‌ۚ فَإِن كَرِهۡتُمُوهُنَّ فَعَسَىٰٓ أَن تَكۡرَهُواْ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا وَيَجۡعَلَ ٱللَّهُ فِيهِ خَيۡرً۬ا ڪَثِيرً۬ا

        O ye who believe! It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the women (of your deceased kinsmen), nor (that) ye should put constraint upon them that ye may take away a part of that which ye have given them, unless they be guilty of flagrant lewdness. But consort with them in kindness, for if ye hate them it may happen that ye hate a thing wherein Allah hath placed much good. (Surat an-Nisa : 19)

        "Once Mu'awiyah asked the Prophet, peace be upon him: "What are the rights that a wife has over her husband?" The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied: "Feed her when you take your food, give her clothes to wear when you wear clothes, refrain from giving her a slap on the face or abusing her, and do not separate from your wife, except within the house." Once a woman came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, with a complaint against her husband. He told her: "There is no woman who removes something to replace it in its proper place, with a view to tidying her husband's house, but that God sets it down as a virtue for her. Nor is there a man who walks with his wife hand-in-hand, but that God sets it down as a virtue for him; and if he puts his arm round her shoulder in love, his virtue is increased tenfold." Once he was heard praising the women of the tribe of Quraish, saying: " . . . because they are the kindest to their children while they are infants and because they keep a careful watch over the belongings of their husbands." "

        Don't believe everything you read on Fox News.
    • Cuchanu, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2I'm not religious but it seems to make more sense that God would not be man or woman. Anyways assalamu alaikum.
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1wa alaikum asalaam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.
    • kavutu, on 07/21/2008, -9/+1Islam is a FAKE religion. It is FALSE and all who believe it are assholes.
      • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2actually you're the *****.
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2"If you don't believe my lack of religion you are an a**hole"

        And you call us the extremists.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1That is a very well articulated argument. You are obviously a well informed religious scholar that is able to look at all religions with an open mind.
  • siszam, on 07/21/2008, -16/+15If God can be the 3 in 1 Trinity then that means He is not bound by the same rules of being that anyone or anything else is. So this really a new thing. God is God. The Alpha and Omega. He is not limited in any way. Praise God.
    • tykwondingo, on 07/21/2008, -1/+12::throws up::
    • cloak419, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4Source?
    • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1That trinity stuff has always kind of scared me. Whats this all about a Holy Ghost?
  • macweirdo42, on 07/21/2008, -5/+8Wow, it appears over 6,000 times in the Bible, and no one noticed that God is "He/She" spelled backwards?
    • IPublius, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5With the disclaimer that I am not a Hebrew scholar, I would venture to say that the vowelization of the letters would make a lot of difference in whether it spells he/she. It is not that straightforward in Hebrew. Sort of like spelling it HBRW. The vowels would make a big difference, whichever side you started from.

      Also, to devout Jews, God's name in Hebrew YHWH is extremely sacred to them (which is why they do not speak it) and it is unlikely that they would have attempted to sound it out backwards as that might have felt blasphemous to them.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3Actually, vowels weren't written down in ancient Hebrew, so it actually wouldn't matter. "He" in Hebrew is simply written as HV (well, the Hebrew equivalents), and "she" is written as HY. HVHY, YHVH - I actually did take a little Hebrew, and I'm kinda surprised I had never noticed it before.
      • oxymoron69, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1So, they won't say it. Do they find other people saying/typing it offensive?
        Ala scientology and Xenu?
    • salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3"YHVH" does not appear 6,000 times in the bible. In its place are "holder" terms, like "Adonai"..which are titles, not names. 6,000 titles for god maybe.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2No, YHVH does, in fact, appear in the Bible. It is true that when you come across it in the Bible, you're supposed to substitute terms like Adonai, but it is still written as YHVH.
      • salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Which bible?
      • dkapuchino, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2The hebrew bible. duh.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1We're talking about the original Hebrew here. I guess you're referring to translations?
      • salomejones, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1The original Hebrew "bible", if it is the Tanakh to which you refer, does indeed mention YHVH more than six thousand times. But this "bible" contains 24 books, of which only a few are included in Jerome's original transcription/translation, which is where we eventually got the RSV and the KJV. I asked "which bible", because I was in fact referring to the Christian lexicon specifically.
  • sindex, on 07/21/2008, -7/+10It's a Shemalé.
  • ReDBuLLCuRT, on 07/21/2008, -6/+33I quote Bill Hicks; "How ***** scientific."
  • IphtashuFitz, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6Last thing in the world I expected to see in an article about religion, rabbis, and the pronunciation of "god" was a reference to Homer & Marge...
  • chaosgroove, on 07/21/2008, -7/+4Godevilivedog
  • yehudasf, on 07/21/2008, -16/+5This fool is no more a rabbi than the local Shaman, Unitarian "minister", or Houngan. He belongs to an alien religion known as "reform". Basically folks who wanted to be "culturally" Jewish, but without any of those pesky commandments. His words are as the night wind, noisome & unwanted; in the end signifying naught.
    • malex, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6I'm sorry, I don't see why this is a problem.
    • xedd, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5So, tell us what you really think...
    • hammelman, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5What i think we as Jews should do is split like Sunnis' and Shia and kill each other in the streets to figure out who's interpretation of the same thing is right. I mean its all the rage in the world right now. Right? Yehuda, there's more of us then there are of you, you are the minority, go back to the Stone Age where you belong. Furthermore, why the hell are you using electricity, god didn't create it, hypocrite.
    • yehudasf, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1***hammelbinzona*** There may be more of "you", doesn't matter, your children or at best grandchildren will be goyim. Reform/Conservative are as mayflies, they may swarm in large numbers, but will be extinct at the end of the season. Like the hellenists, those who practice the alien religions of "reform/conservative" will be nothing more than another failed "baal pe'or-like" cult that authentic Jews learn about in cheder.
  • Draculecom, on 07/21/2008, -6/+9Finally, *proof* god exists!
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Fw3wZouM
    • TreatsTheBear, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I'm convinced.
      And hungry.
      • Cloud7654, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1This is less proof god exists than it is that we evolved from monkeys. Bananas, the missing link!
    • theskillwithin, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1This is actually a better example of the efficiency of evolution.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.