My name is Michael, and the meaning of my name in Hebrew is actually a question: "Who is like God?"
How can anyone even attempt an answer? To do so would be to say that one understands God, that one is equal to God. The question cannot be answered.
Since it is impossible to speak with knowledge of God, we are compelled to make assumptions. The first assumption to be made must be that God does or does not exist. Either way, the assumption is based on a belief in a knowledge that we can not possess. This is a conundrum.
We have suffered greatly over the past eight years, directly as a result of faith-based politics, and will continue to suffer the consequences for a long time to come.
The current administration, enabled by the religious neo-conservatives and right-wingers, have used faith simply as a marketing tool and as a result has delivered to the American people the worst government in the history of our country.
To summarize my thoughts on this topic:- There is a significant difference between faith (i.e. religion) and spirituality.
- Religion does sometimes lead to spirituality, but many times it does not.
- One does not require religion to become a spiritual person.
- One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person.
- Faith is divisive and separates us.
- Spirituality is universal and unites us.
- It is our sense of spirituality, not religion or faith, that compels us to moral and ethical behavior.
I believe one should keep their religion and faith within the privacy of the home and their chosen place of worship. But by all means, DO bring your spirituality to the Public Square.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Thank you for your response.
I accept your point: How would I know what all the Founding Fathers believed?
I hope you will take me to task in the future. We all benefit from such respectful and honest discourse!
I am glad to hear from you again, and I thank you for taking the time to contribute to the conversation.
You may be shocked to find that I disagree with your opening line. I feel there is no difference between us and animals! Humans are merely the predominant species. Your statement is bio-centric, a consequence of human consciousness.
The jury is still out on the free-will versus determinism argument, and may be forever deadlocked on the issue.
I agree with you on the point you make regarding the purity of good and evil. Jesus made mention of this when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I must strongly disagree with you about your comment on faith and religion. Let me expand on what I was trying to say in the article:
- There is a significant difference between faith (i.e. religion) and spirituality.
- Religion does sometimes lead to spirituality, but many times it does not.
- One does not require religion to become a spiritual person.
- One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person.
- Faith is divisive and separates us.
- Spirituality is universal and unites us.
- It is our sense of spirituality, not religion or faith, that compels us to moral and ethical behavior.
I believe one should keep their religion and faith within the privacy of the home and their chosen place of worship. But by all means, DO bring your spirituality to the Public Square.
I just wanted to pass out some links to some other writings, so I don't have to "take you to task" and repeat what I've already written. Feel free to do with them what you wish.
A Gather article responding to another post.
A blog post I wrote regarding America's founding.
What John
McCain says about America.
More political BS.
Thank you for commenting on this important issue.
Sometimes the Devil assumes the disguise of the Archangel!
Ignorance is easy. The truth is difficult and uncomfortable yet vital to the betterment of society.
The ugliness of Capitalism is often shrouded in the beautiful attire of Democracy, but one cannot avoid the stench.
Are not Greed and Ignorance the enemy of all mankind?
'And as a single leaf turns not yellow
but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree,
So the wrong-doer cannot do wrong
without the hidden will of you all.
Like a procession you walk together towards your god-self.
You are the way and the wayfarers.
And when one of you falls down
he falls for those behind him,
a caution against the stumbling stone.
and he falls for those ahead of him,
who though faster and surer of foot,
yet removed not the stumbling stone.'
maybe the louder the protest, the greater the guilt.. sometimes I do realize it to be so..
Thank you once again for your comment and for sharing the most excellent poetry of Gibran. I must go back and read more of his work as it has been too long since.
To your comment:
"maybe the louder the protest, the greater the guilt.. sometimes I do realize it to be so.. "
I agree.
There is a similar expression, "Those that speak the loudest have the least to say".
I agree with that as well, yet I can't help but feel that sometimes silence speaks the loudest.
And then there is this from Mark Twain (paraphrased):
It is better to remain silent and appear a fool than it is to speak and remove all doubt.
So I am humbled either way, to speak or remain silent.
My only comfort is knowing that when I do speak out that my intent is rooted in compassion and kindness toward all.
what I meant was a protest felt but never 'voiced'.. enough to make a difference..
Thank you for the clarification and for your kind words.
I now understand. And I agree with this statement. Injustice must be called to task, otherwise there becomes an implied acceptance of the injustice.
Said another way: all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Your friend Sveta ("Light" in Russian) ;-))
You have a fitting name, bringing light to the darkness of ignorance and into my life as well. Thank you!
Once again, our thoughts are as one thought. I agree with all that you have said.
If you read the artilce I recently edited and reposted about my book, I included the forward from the book there. The forward provides a hint of what the book is about, but just a small hint. I carried this book into a reality like no one has ever in history written of, to my knowledge, although, even the Bible provides hints of the divulgence of what I have written.
What you have written about "religion (faith) and spirituality," I would like to add that faith requires the spirituality existance of the God of worship. So it is the spirit of Jesus that is worshipped. But there seems to be confusion in contemplation as to God being spirit or having a spirit. I'll just have to leave it at that now though. I don't want to give away what my book has to offer concerning defining this matter. But I will say, as I'm sure you know, the Bible itself says repeatedly that God is Spirit. So if God is the spirit then there is no "spirit of God" except by diffusion.
My book thoroughly explains that about a one world religion, a one world government, and one "God." Emphatically, in fact. But it is not one of those confusing, misleading explanations that we commonly hear preached about.
Sorry I took so long to read your article, I got caught up in a lot of reading and writing and had to come back to read your comment to my article again to find it.
The book is, same as the title to the article mentioned above: I, The Electric, The Spirit. ISBN # 1-4241-7929-7. It is a philosophy genre.
Thanks for the imput to my articles.
I have to disagree on your interpretation of your name. It is not a question rather a statement. who is like God.
How can anyone even attempt an answer?" Look in the mirror and be honest. If you believe the Bible you must believe that you were created in His likeness/image right?
Micky
"This is a nation of religious freedom-not a nation of freedom from religion."
This is not so. Morals and religion aren't the same. In my experience there were far less morals and proper discipline in the religious schools I attended than any public schools. And as for faith based charitable organizations not too many of them really help. The Bible says somewhere to give to each according their own need. They give according to whatever they have or want to give and not according to needs. The Bible also says give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to me that is mine. Why do they all fel entitled to tax exempt status? Many faith based organizations (i.e. The Red Cross) are nothing more than a tax front and a show of hands the assistance they provide based upon the resources they have are minimal. 501(c)(3) Using tax dollars to give to faith based organizations should end and never should have been started in the first place as it is unconstitutional. You can give if you choose but I am being forced to.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Freedom from religion.
Thanks for responding and sharing your views. I appreciate it.
Concerning my name, the translation that I had read did have a question mark at the end. But I see your point in regards to biblical perspective. The Bible clearly states that man was created in the image or likeness of God.
Please don't take offense, but I do not consider the Bible the unaltered Word of God. I do not believe that man was created in the likeness of God but that it is the other way around, that man has created God in his image.
These differences on religion or God cannot be proven or disproved, only believed or not believed. Such is the nature of faith.
I'll leave it at that, unless you invite me to discuss the reasons for the beliefs I have expressed.
So it follows that I prefer an interpretation of my name that is interrogative and not declarative. Again, no offense, as it is a personal matter for each to decide for themselves.
I agree with all your comments to Micky, although I would expand on the intent of the Founding Fathers that the freedom from religion was in regards to public concerns and was not concerned with private thoughts, belief or worship.
Some new information that may lead you to a new decision about the meaning of your name though.
The definition you are getting has a word added in parenthesis that is changing the definition. More appropriately it should be "Who, like God" Translated further to "who resembles God".
Like: having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to
[Hebrew mîk'l, who (is) like God? : mî, who; see my1 in Semitic roots + k, like + 'l, God; see l in Semitic roots.]
(is) is a superfluous word that doesn't belong and the question mark only makes sense when the (is) is added and does not show in any part of the original text. mîk'l does not represent a question.
Usually in Hebrew, Greek, etc.. translations you will see words in italics like. (He) who (is) like God which would be more appropriate.. Even the language of Native Americans has been somewhat misconstrued the same way.
I'm not to easily offended so you're good. I'm not too religious either but have studied and read every version of the Bible front to back. I think I can understand what you're saying about who created what but would have to contemplate that for a bit. Many believe that the book of Genesis is a first hand account and not stories passed down. The question is wether or not Adam wrote as there are references to this possibility throughout.
Genesis 1:26,27 and Genesis 3:5
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Freedom of religion is protected in the second part.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Freedom of religion.
Thanks for the clarification. You certainly know more about these things than I do.
I was talking about meaning, not definition.
Your first comment ended with "freedom from religion" which I used when responding to your comment.
Your second comment uses "freedom of religion".
Fine distinctions, no doubt, and I do not know if it really makes any difference in our discussion. The point being that all is open to interpretation, yours being as valid as mine.
I realize we have different interpretations, and I clearly understand the way you are interpreting the meaning of my name and how that would support the contention that man is created in God's image.
Can you please summarize for me the point you are making?
My overall point is that I agree with your understanding of the "natural" separation of religion, spirituality and morals. My experiences through life have taught me well on this. Many churches are no different from the gen population or the govt. and the goals and morals of the leaders and congregation are sometimes not in line with the religious beliefs they profess. The reverse is also true I know many respectable, kind, giving people that are not religious and only some of them will express a spiritually with a higher power.
We have not suffered due to "faith-based" as the name of God is used in vain. Irreverent and blasphemous. Statements like "I answer to a higher power", "I am The Son of God" indicated GB has no clue of what his "faith" is to represent. This was a direct violation of the first amendment rights of every American in his commission of treason. Somewhere (I think in Proverbs) it is declared that only a fool would believe that a nation could be built by war.
James 2 Would be a good place to read about some of the topic discussed including your name.
My point on the meaning or definition of your name is that it was lost in the translation. I am not interpreting the meaning but translating the word without adding any. The meaning or definition is what it is until you start adding words and punctuation changing it's meaning. Translation would have been a better word for me to use in my last post. The strict translation is Who like God. If the meaning is a question it has no meaning.
definition :1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.• an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something
question:1 inquiry, query; interrogation. 2 doubt, dispute, argument, debate, uncertainty, dubiousness, reservation. 3 issue, matter, business, problem, concern, topic, theme, case; debate, argument, dispute, controversy.
meaning: what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action• implied or explicit significance • important or worthwhile quality; purpose
Who: 1 what or which person or people 2 used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned (Michael, who like God)
is: third person singular present of be . (Who be like God) inflected forms: are, were, been, being, am.
Like: having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to
Most Michaels' in the Bible were leaders highly esteemed by God and others. Names were of great importance in the Bible.
Micky stated:
This is a nation of religious freedom-not a nation of freedom from religion
The constitution says otherwise. Only the first part of this statement is true.
Freedom from religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Which can be translated to: Congress shall make no law in view of or to have reference to or esteem worthy of high regard making any religion a national or state institution.
And freedom of religion: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Which can be translated to:
Congress shall make no law to forbid, enjoin, preclude or otherwise prevent the the legal and political right of a citizen to engage in religious activities according to their belief.
You have a right to privately or publicly worship and profess your faith provided you are not infringing on the rights of others to refrain. If you are a govt official your faith can be what leads you to decisions and actions and you are free so speak about your faith but cannot establish laws in reference to it. The 10 commandments can be used to fashion laws but cannot be laws.
Simply put, the first amendment is neutral preventing the govt from requiring someone to adhere to a religious belief through the enforcement of laws or preventing such activities by the same.
The translations above are based upon the Random House and Webster dictionaries and are not my opinion of what they should mean but the recognized definitions of the words used in the first amendment.
The idea than everything is up to individual interpretation makes our constitution, this country and the "Word of God", the Bible and everything ever written or spoken, including dictionaries, worth nothing and is saying that your original post is irrelevant because George Bush's interpretation is just as valid as yours or mine and therefore because he says he's moral and just he is because that's the way he interprets it.
I just read a little bit, kinda busy now.
You raise some very interesting points and I want to give the kind of reply that such a well-thought comment deserves. I hope I can get back to you tonight. I am getting a clearer picture where you are coming from, and this kind of dialog, back and forth, back and forth, is crucial to bringing such nebulous issues into some focus.
Folks give up too soon in the debate, me included sometimes. Thanks for sticking with it and showing the folks how it is done!
Regards!
Thanks for the opportunity. Usually my posts are the abrupt end to discussions. I am still contemplating how man created God and just can't articulate my understanding of what you're saying because I really do understand what you're saying. It happens every day.
Thanks again I'm looking forward to hearing back from you.
DBD
You are completely correct to say "We have not suffered due to "faith-based" as the name of God is used in vain".
I maintain that we have suffered due to faith-based politics, but I see this in a new light, now that your arguments are finally taking hold in my tiny brain. Let me explain it this way:
The recent administration has used religion (i.e. faith) as a marketing tool. This is the "name of God in vain" statement you made, to which I fully agree.
However, people of religious conviction bought into this cynical ploy and elected the highest government officials based on this over any other concern. I consider this a mistake, and I think that many who voted for this administration now feel that way as well, that they were sold a false bill of goods. This is clearly evident in the President's extremely low approval ratings.
It was the unintended consequences of these well-meaning folks that have resulted in this travesty of political corruption for which we now suffer and for which we will continue to suffer for some time to come.
So I stand behind my statement concerning faith-based politics and that it is time for us to give reality-based politics a try. Indeed, faith-based politics was not directly responsible for our predicament as my statement would imply (and this is how I originally thought of the statement myself), but I feel strongly now that it was indirectly yet significantly responsible.
Thank you for enabling me to reach this internal clarification! I could not have done this without your willingness to express your point of view.
As to the translation or meaning of my name, which I concede is the same thing, your point still hinges on the meaning of the word "is", much like Bill Clinton's defense during his impeachment. You suggested that the word "is" was extraneous and could be ignored, my position is that it is not. Why is there the word "is" in the first place if there IS no use for it?
As far as the first amendment and freedom of religion, I think we are in agreement. We shall not be forced into adhering to a particular religious belief. That would be theocracy, not democracy.
And, yes, a politician may be driven by his religious beliefs in making political decisions. There is no law that could or should be made as concerns this, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing at all, in fact I do not think it prudent for a diverse and secular society.
Jimmy Carter made political decisions according to his religious beliefs (as much as he was able), and his presidency is often derided for being weak and ineffectual.
He has found redemption in his good works since he left office, and has been driven by his religious beliefs within the private sector to the benefit of society at large. He is a hero of mine.
It would be a great comfort in life if things were black and white, and that we all knew what the word "is" or "God" really means, but that is not the world I live in.
Words are only an approximation and are often inadequate in reaching decisive understanding, particularly in regards to philosophy, religion and politics. They are often adequate when discussing such things as car repair or gardening.
That is why we have debates and discussions such as this one, and why respectful argument among the people is a necessary and vital component of our democracy, something we seriously lack in this country these days.
Interpretation is something that we'll have to live with, and that's the reason the Founding Fathers purposefully constructed a method to change or amend our Constitution. That is also the purpose of the courts, specifically the Supreme Court as regards our nation's laws.
This interpretation is warranted because the environment in which we live will change from time to time. People once thought that the world was flat, or that Europe and Asia comprised the entire world, or that people of color were less than human, or that women were not capable or destined to decide things for themselves. Our laws have changed due to the changes in our world view, and I hope we will continue to adapt to such changes.
As far as George Bush is concerned, I don't think he is a spiritual person at all, and I would take his profession of faith as nothing more than a self-delusional justification for egregious behavior.
Action speaks louder than words, and those that speak the loudest often have the least to say.
your point still hinges on the meaning of the word "is",
With Bill Clinton the original words that led to this was "sexual relations" which had any one looked in the dictionary it never would have gotten to the point it did. When he asked what their meaning of "is" is they should have responded within moments with this.
is: third person singular present of be . inflected forms: are, were, been, being, am.
Why do we even have these or make reference to them if everything would be up up to interpretation? This actually violate the constitution because changing the definitions of words leads to ex-post facto laws meaning that the person did or did not commit a crime but because the courts decided to change the definition of the words it changes the law and in essence the person is being tried for a law that did not exist at the time of the event in question occured.
What I am saying about the inclusion in your name is that it is not part of the literal translation. (is) is a word that is added after the translation and the question mark is completely erroneous and not represented or even assumed in the hebrew text at all. If you read a KJ Bible look at all the italic words. These are words that are added to make it easier to read. Sometime it's a simple word like is and sometimes it's a word or phrase that was taken from another passage of the Bible and would have a small letter or figure next to them so you can see where the translator got it from and why it was added.
Interpretation is something that we'll have to live with, and that's the reason the Founding Fathers purposefully constructed a method to change or amend our Constitution. That is also the purpose of the courts, specifically the Supreme Court as regards our nation's laws.
Here I would ardently disagree. This is why our country is in the state it's in. Our founders intention was to prevent the govt from imposing their person desires and wishes on the people securing personal independence and liberty for all. The supreme courts job is soley to determine the constitutionality of a law as it is written not interpret words or the dictionary as those are the tools that they are to use to do so. In order to truely understand the importance of the words that were used in the documents created to limit the powers of the governing people one would have to read the letters and notes. Their intentions were clear. The foremost purpose of the constitution was to govern the people in office. The Bill of Right was to provide an absolute clarity the rights that the govt could not infringe upon. They used the word inalienable so that even we could not allow them to be taken form us even if we wanted to.
Noah Webster owns the unique distinction of having single-handedly rescued the English Language from the corrupting political and social influences of the European Nations of his day. He preserved the language with a pure connection to the original roots in other languages, and provided a necessary tool for our new nation (and all later generations) to understand the writings of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.
The majority of the general public is unaware that Dictionaries today follow the practice of "description" as opposed to "prescription," -- the idea that the popular (mis)use of language should be allowed to alter the established meanings of words, to suit the wants and habits of each successive generation. The danger of this practice is the removal of vast bodies of knowledge and wisdom from public access.
Noah Webster understood the connection between physical liberty and liberty of thought. He further understood that the meanings of words played a key role in a person's ability to develop a sound system of knowledge and principles based on unchanging absolutes. He also recognized the necessity of preserving the connection to our heritage of Liberty, as well as the failures of former systems of government and philosophy before the founding of our Constitutional Republic
Noah Webster claimed to have coined only one word - demoralize, which he defined: "To corrupt or undermine the morals of; to destroy or lessen the effect of moral principles on; to render corrupt in morals."
Based upon my self proclaimed keen ability to properly interpret what you are saying I'm all for a Buddhist, Islamic, Pagan or even a Muslim based govt as well.
Myself I would prefer a Michael, "who, like God" stands firm on a foundation of principals, with a constitution that is as solid as a rock bases upon fair and just weights and measures. Adhering to the promise of his word.
http://www.lexrex.com/catalog/webster1828.htm
http://www.lexrex.com/articles/lawspeak/vol1iss3.htm
Wow! Thanks for all the references and your exactitude concerning our lexicon. Where is George Carlin when you need him? I miss him already!
I can accept your argument. Like I said, you know more about this than I do.
Yet even so I must maintain that some human constructs are nuanced, such as law and religion, and these nuanced constructs are subject to interpretation. Interpretation may at times be faulty, but I do not think that is a reason to say that refinement based on a changing mindset or environment is necessarily a bad thing, or that the Founding Fathers were unwise in providing for this in the Constitution. I’m not sure how applicable this is to the Bill of Rights, which I think was one of the most revolutionary innovations in the ways of government.
Okay, so we have the meaning of my name as "Who, like God". At first I thought: does this definition necessitate the removal of my article, based as it was on the interpretation of Michael as "Who is like God?".
I do not think it does, for the rest of the article goes on to suggest that to even talk about God in any way requires a definition of the term “God”, which I believe is still evades a universal or absolute definition. Since this is term is subject to interpretation, than should we even think it so important to discuss this among ourselves? I don’t think so, as “God” is a concept that does not all a rational absolute truth, only a personal interpretation.
And it is for this reason that I feel that religion should play no part in the political and public debate.
One does not require religion to be moral or ethical, and morals and ethics may often be compromised by a faith-based approach to politics, let alone compromising one’s religious beliefs when public interest and personal conviction are in conflict with one another.
First, thanks again for a lively conversation. I really have enjoyed this.
One other thought I wanted to share with you is that even if words in and of themselves have definite meaning and are not subject to interpretation, when combined with other words to express concepts, it is these concepts that often are subject to interpretation!
Philosophy would not exist if this were not true.
Thank you. Looking forward to your next article.
when combined with other words to express concepts, it is these concepts that often are subject to interpretation!
This was the intention of our founders and the job of the Supreme Court.
The constitution was written with carefully chosen words that sometimes make it appear vague but it really has one function and that is to protect your rights and individual freedoms. It can be applied in numerous ways. Interpreted. The 5th amendment is just one example that has been applied to numerous different types of cases from criminal to civil from police interrogations to seemingly harmless doctors asking children ambiguous questions. The Supreme Court has even indicated that they feel it has yet to be applied in cases that it should be. That is where the interpretation comes in. How does the individual definition of the words combine to protect the rights of BOTH parties when applied to the facts of the case.
Thanks again
DBD.
I look forward to hearing from you again!