If Jeremy White’s friends are anything like mine, I’m guessing that he’ll be living with the consequences of his peculiarly phrased remark for quite some time.
“Hey, Jeremy, have you seen my cell phone? I can’t find the goddamned thing-- oh, sorry dude! I meant to say that I can’t find my cell phone, which has been damned by God, but I’d like to specify which god-- the god of Cingular, Verizon, and Motorola.”
I’m not knowledgable in matters of theology, so I didn’t even consider the points that *Oakminster ** and magellan01 are fighting about.
My initial reaction was simply “what a stupid, unnecessary thing to say”. It just seems petty and exclusionary to make sure everyone knows that it’s *this * god and not *that * one over there. If he feels gratitude in his heart and knows to whom that gratitude is directed, why is it even important how anyone else interprets it? I guess I’m of the opinion that one’s relationship with god comes from within and is unshakeable, thus no need grandstand about it.
*magellan01, forgive me for asking, but you seemed to get *really * steamed over this. Is there a history that I’m unaware of that makes you so angry about this?
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Did you get it from a burning bush?
[/QUOTE]
Hell of a symptom…
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I thought Allah was the God of Abraham, et al.
[/QUOTE]
I guess, if you’re specifying which God you’re proselytizing for, you should be more specific
I interpretted his comments to reference the Jewish deity. My mistake, maybe. (I thought the important phrase in Islam was,“There is no God but God”)
I guess I know where you stand, thank you.
Disingenuously?
I think that is more than a little presumptuous on your part.
I think taking the time to specify which god you’re shilling for is devisive at best and flies in the face of what I, personally (note: opinion) believe to be valuable in any faith.
It’s like starting a speech by saying, “I’d like to thank everyone for being here today to honor my Father, except for you and you and that stinky guy.”
[QUOTE=magellan01]
As I pointed out, the commandment itself acknowledges that others might believe in other gods. Do you really think that he is unaware of the commandment? Do you really believe that he believes in multiple Gods and just wanted to specify this one God this one day?
[/QUOTE]
But why did he feel a need to specify which God?
Does he think that God won’t know unless he says which God he’s thanking? Probably not- most believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob say that one of that god’s attributes is omniscience.
Does he think that other gods might steal his praise of God if he’s not specific? Again, unlikely- most believers in the Judeo-Christian God don’t believe in other gods.
Is he worried that other people won’t know which God he is praising? The Judeo-Christian God is sort of assumed to be the default in our culture, so that’s not it.
I think he was doing it to antagonize people with other ideas about God, at a time when that wasn’t necessary. In Judaism at least, stirring up senseless strife is a serious sin. The rabbis of the Talmud said that senseless hatred was why the Second Temple was destroyed, and the continued existence of senseless hatred is why it hasn’t been rebuilt. I find it distasteful when someone invokes the name of God for the purpose of doing something that I believe God considers to be evil. There’s one interpretation, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, that this sort of thing (invoking God for evil purposes) is what is forbidden by the Third Commandment.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
I think he was doing it to antagonize people with other ideas about God, at a time when that wasn’t necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I believe this is true. If you take this as true you see that his statement in no way acknowledges the existence of other gods, but only the concepts some people hold of other gods. I fail to see why Princhester and Oakminster feel that it does. It certainly could be interpreted their way, but there is no imperative that it must.
If we want to be really pedantic about it we can look at the capitalisation of god in “but I would like to specify which God.” The person who transcribed the speach chose an upper case G, but it is my impression that White intended a lower case G. One way of reading this speach is: “I want to thank God, not any of those stupid heathens’ ideas of their gods, but the one true God.” He just used somewhat less incitive words.
It seems Oakminster dislikes the guy’s use of religion and because of that is trying to make him look like an idiot in any way possible. I think White’s use was stupid too. I think it was divisive. I agree with the earlier thread that found hypocrisy in people thanking god in these sorts of situations. Even with all of that it would be idiotic to think that he did not know that his religion does not believe in the existence of other gods or to infer that he intended to state there were such other entities in existence. Not everything stupid people say is stupid.
Also. how does he now that God didn’t cast His votes for the Hall of Fame to other players entirely?
God does get to vote for HoF candidates, doesn’t He?
[QUOTE=flight]
I believe this is true. If you take this as true you see that his statement in no way acknowledges the existence of other gods, but only the concepts some people hold of other gods. I fail to see why Princhester and Oakminster feel that it does. It certainly could be interpreted their way, but there is no imperative that it must.
If we want to be really pedantic about it we can look at the capitalisation of god in “but I would like to specify which God.” The person who transcribed the speach chose an upper case G, but it is my impression that White intended a lower case G. One way of reading this speach is: “I want to thank God, not any of those stupid heathens’ ideas of their gods, but the one true God.” He just used somewhat less incitive words.
It seems Oakminster dislikes the guy’s use of religion and because of that is trying to make him look like an idiot in any way possible. I think White’s use was stupid too. I think it was divisive. I agree with the earlier thread that found hypocrisy in people thanking god in these sorts of situations. Even with all of that it would be idiotic to think that he did not know that his religion does not believe in the existence of other gods or to infer that he intended to state there were such other entities in existence. Not everything stupid people say is stupid.
[/QUOTE]
You actually said just about everything I wanted to say. Thanks.
Oakminster, while I agree with you that the guy is not too bright, I really don’t understand your insistence that his statement acknowledges the existence of other gods. Yes, I can see how it can be interpreted that way, but I certainly don’t think that’s the only possible interpretation.
I would like to say Fuck God, but first I would like to specify which God. Your God. Thank you.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
But why did he feel a need to specify which God?
Does he think that God won’t know unless he says which God he’s thanking? Probably not- most believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob say that one of that god’s attributes is omniscience.
Does he think that other gods might steal his praise of God if he’s not specific? Again, unlikely- most believers in the Judeo-Christian God don’t believe in other gods.
Is he worried that other people won’t know which God he is praising? The Judeo-Christian God is sort of assumed to be the default in our culture, so that’s not it.
I think he was doing it to antagonize people with other ideas about God, at a time when that wasn’t necessary. In Judaism at least, stirring up senseless strife is a serious sin. The rabbis of the Talmud said that senseless hatred was why the Second Temple was destroyed, and the continued existence of senseless hatred is why it hasn’t been rebuilt. I find it distasteful when someone invokes the name of God for the purpose of doing something that I believe God considers to be evil. There’s one interpretation, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, that this sort of thing (invoking God for evil purposes) is what is forbidden by the Third Commandment.
[/QUOTE]
I just took a quick peek in here before I go to a doctor’s appointment and noticed your post, which I will try to address quickly.
As I said, I am no fan of this thanking God in the public forum, but I think it is safe to say that these people are not addressing God—he is ommiscient, after all—but they want others to know to what (who) they think they are indebted to. As I also mentioned, I think there was little chance of people misinterpreting the God he had in mind. But I can see that when honoring his father, to whom the distinction was of great importance, he might want to be extra clear on the point.
As far as invoking God for evil purposes, you lose me there. I do not think that someone stating that he believes in a certain God is stirring up evil. I think it is rather benign. I think it gets construed as evil only if that God is equated with evil in the listeners mind. and that, quite frankly, is there problem, unless we want to quash any public affrimations of religiosity. I also think we have to keep in mind that this speech wasn’t made arbitrarily. It was at an event honoring the life accomplishments of someone, a preacher, to whom his faith was of paramount importance. Even more so than the career for which he was being honored.
[QUOTE=flight]
I believe this is true. If you take this as true you see that his statement in no way acknowledges the existence of other gods, but only the concepts some people hold of other gods. I fail to see why Princhester and Oakminster feel that it does. It certainly could be interpreted their way, but there is no imperative that it must.
[/QUOTE]
OK, so let’s take the heat out of it and use an alternate setting.
You overhear me say: “I’d like to buy some cheese, but I’d like to specify which cheese”
Your question, for $50: do I think there is more than one cheese?
There is an idea that is rapidly gaining ground in modern society, that “god” includes all ideas of and interpretations of the word. Or that it should, if properly used. That there is something wrong or exclusionary about being specific as to which body of belief you follow. That any mention of god in public, especially in a public speech, should be all-inclusive, no matter how the speaker feels about it. I would guess Mr. White feels it necessary to push back against that idea a bit. I do think that interpreting his remarks as meaning that there really are other gods requires intention to misconstue.
I understand you don’t like or agree with the statement, but c’mon, you know what he intended to say. I’d guess everything that comes out of your mouth isn’t always perfectly what you meant it to say. Give a guy a break. There’s enough there for you to disagree with, without making an effort to find something that wasn’t really there.
Give *me * a break. The guy didn’t mean to acknowledge that there were other gods. That’s just the necessary implication of what he said. What he really wanted to say was that there is only his god, but he didn’t have the balls to say that outright. So what he said was something weaselly, but he weaselled himself. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, I’m sure.
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
There is an idea that is rapidly gaining ground in modern society, that “god” includes all ideas of and interpretations of the word. Or that it should, if properly used.
[/quote]
cite?
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
That there is something wrong or exclusionary about being specific as to which body of belief you follow. That any mention of god in public, especially in a public speech, should be all-inclusive, no matter how the speaker feels about it. I would guess Mr. White feels it necessary to push back against that idea a bit.
[/QUOTE]
I really think you are pulling this out of thin air. Maybe attributing to society the general theme of this thread?
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
.. c’mon, you know what he intended to say. I’d guess everything that comes out of your mouth isn’t always perfectly what you meant it to say. Give a guy a break.
[/QUOTE]
The event was Reggie White’s induction into the Football HoF, my guess is that the speakers had advance notice that there would be some amount of media coverage.
My usual problem with speeches that start out with a thanks to God is that it comes off as an attempt to mitigate an inherently vain moment.
“This moment is not all about me. It’s all about God. I’d like to thank God… for creating me and all ya all fucksticks can kiss my butt!
Thank You.
Oh wait, strike that last bit.”
My issue with specifying which god is not one of religious expression, it’s one of arrogance and posturing.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
But if everyone has to start specifying which god they’re thanking and which one is being called on to bless you after you cough or sneeze or fart or whatever then… then, well God damn it, they can all just go to hell!
[/QUOTE]
“You’re sooo good-looking.”
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
cite?
I really think you are pulling this out of thin air. Maybe attributing to society the general theme of this thread?
[/QUOTE]
No, actually I’m pulling this mostly out of about seven years experience with the SDMB. And maybe I’m attributing to society what I see here. But I am hearing more examples lately of objections being raised to what used to be a general assumption that “God” meant the one referred to in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I can’t give you a specific cite, since it all seems to be an accumulation of small things.
I didn’t mean that to sound as if he was speaking off-the-cuff. Just that what sounds okay to me, or maybe to you, sometimes doesn’t sound quite the same way to people who hear it. I know I’ve said things, even with planning, that didn’t come across the way I meant them. And of course, every hearer brings things to it of their own.
Not having read the whole speech I couldn’t begin to tell which it might be. I know how hard real humility is, and how rare. I’d guess Mr. White is somewhere in the middle. Most people seem to be. I’d also venture a guess that you might be just a little bit leaning toward seeing this badly, just because of the person and subject.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
Give *me * a break. The guy didn’t mean to acknowledge that there were other gods. That’s just the necessary implication of what he said. What he really wanted to say was that there is only his god, but he didn’t have the balls to say that outright. So what he said was something weaselly, but he weaselled himself. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, I’m sure.
[/QUOTE]
I’m just as sure as you are that he didn’t mean to acknowledge that there were other gods. He doesn’t believe there are. And no, it’s not the necessary implication of what he said. Because it’s just as possible that the implication of what he said was more like, “I know people believe that there are others, so I want to be specific.” As I said, less that perfectly articulated, and you only really want to see it in the worst possible light. I don’t think we’re going to agree on this one.
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
Because it’s** just as possible** that the implication of what he said was more like, “I know people believe that there are others, so I want to be specific.” As I said, less that perfectly articulated, and you only really want to see it in the worst possible light.
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
I think you are being way overly generous here. An interpretation that JW was actually claiming that he believes there is more than one god is completely absurd. This is just a bunch of childish posters hostile to religion or religious expression playing a semantic game of gotcha.
As I noted earlier, this semantic problem is also inherent in the corresponding commandment:
“I am the Lord thy God, You shall not have any other Gods before me.”
Of course the latter “God” is intended to mean “false gods or idols”, but I noticed that no one here wanted to be associated with the idiocy of claiming, “Ohmygosh, look at that, the word of God (who claims to be the only true God) acknowledges that there are other gods!”. But the claims that have been made require the same sophmoric semantic gaming and suspension of logic.
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
.. I’d also venture a guess that you might be just a little bit leaning toward seeing this badly, just because of the person and subject.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure how to take that…
Anecdotally, I was flipping channels and had gone three stations down the line before I realized what I had heard. When I flipped back, the segment was over.
I Googled the text to find a link for my post.
I have to admire the logic of your post.
However, I am not hostile to religion or religious expression. And I think you make the point by your own statements that Mr. White-the-younger is at least implying that his god is superior to those he tacitly rejects by specifying which god he is thanking.
He would have been better off not specifying which god, because his god specifically recommends against that sort of thing:
*Matthew 6
Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven…
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men… But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.*