The God Label

What’s in a Label?
A designer label is meant to stand for something and often does.

What about the God Label?


Would anyone here like a Buddhist, Muslim, or Zoroastrian Label?
Does anyone here like LABELS?
What about an Atheist label?

Would any of you like the Christian Label?
What does it mean if you are labeled a Christian?

How many of you atheists consider the word Atheist a label?
Is it not a label that seeks to put you into a category?
Are people not trying to put you into a box, so to speak?

Christians, are you being labeled a Christian? Or ARE you one? What do you think is the difference?

There is a God Label that people want to stamp on everyone IMHO.

Where does that come from? Society, religion, culture, it comes from everywhere I would postulate.
But why does it have to be there? Why is it encouraged? Why doesn’t anyone frame it like this and ask what the point is? Well, I am apparently.
What are the personal reasons some of you have for wanting to know someone’s belief systems in terms of God?

Why is nobody defined by a belief in a dark entity?

Well, you could say members of the satanic church are defined by that belief, but they publicly proclaim to be atheists; which is something I never understood.

Why is it that people are so concerned about someone’s belief in a higher power?
Why is it people are curious to the point of being weird?

And Agnostics, do you dislike the label Agnostic?

reply to post by dragonsmusic

Where does that come from? Society, religion, culture, it comes from everywhere I would postulate.
But why does it have to be there? Why is it encouraged? Why doesn’t anyone frame it like this and ask what the point is? Well, I am apparently.
What are the personal reasons some of you have for wanting to know someone’s belief systems in terms of God?

What’s in a Label?

You ask a question that goes back as far as mankind has existed. But on the other hand, do you really want the answer, or are you making some political statement concerning the concept of God. No matter.

To find your answer you must look at the present application of the word "label", and what it denotes, what it does, and its limits. Label in its most simplistic term is applying a name to a group of "things" that have a commonality, or something in common with the group of "things". It is a way to distinguish and separate "Items" into a classification, and is very similar to the way time separates "things" in movement. Both in reality do not exist except in a mind that can comprehend concepts and create frames to hold such trains of thought.

Today, labels are used extensively not only in religious terms, but more so in the corporate world where "Labels" are used to denote product, and consumer. The labels are applied by what we commonly call the "Owner" of said product. Whether it be automobiles or fruits and vegetables, or as in the case of religions, human beings, the owner, or creator of said product gets to put the "Label" on it. It is not always the case where the owner is the same as the creator because of the sale of one label or interest, or that the label will remain the same as it was when it was created. So in essence, a product could come on to the market that previously had another label, another creator, another God.

Sometimes searching for answers to things that do not exist can be as simple or complicated as you like. "Labeling" is like anything else and can be traced back if you view it as an evolving train of thought. You can project the thought into the future, or you can trace it back backwards in time.

Where did it start? It must have started with the first sentient being that realized all things did not display the same properties and was able to classify them into groupings. For what reason? To a lion who is hunting it is not necessary for him to create labels to differentiate between one prey and another. The only thing important to him was that he could catch it and call it dinner. Much of the animal kingdom is the same in this respect, they have no use for labels and they would not aid in their survival or continuance.

Then one day someone or thing comes along and has a more advanced mind than that of other animal and can create trains of thought in the abstract. He sees things that are different, act differently, are colored differently than all the others, and can relate these differences to others of his kind by names, or labels, that would aid in its continued existence. In its most primeval context I'm sure "Friend" and "Foe" were some of the first labels.

As is noted in the bible the labels of "God", and "creators" are separated. The ownership of the label "god" is owned by the creator of the concept. And this will always be debated as in the same fashion as the chicken and the egg, which came first.

But in the end, all questions deeper into this subject should be directed to the creator, of the "Firmament" where all this drama takes place.

In today's world "Labels" are generally used to politically control the masses by dividing and conquering.

Imho.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


That was a brilliant reply to my thread.
Thanks.
The corporation part makes a lot of sense. The owner gets to choose the label. And then when you extended the metaphor to include religion it was awesome.
It IS an ancient question. I wrote this wanting the answer. It was not a political statement, not consciously at least.
Though I can see where you could get that from this.
People can be curious about others beliefs in God to the point where they are weird; as I wrote above.
Though they are far more than that. Several religions on our planet are making huge efforts to exterminate one another right this very minute. And anyone else who gets in the way is just that; somebody who gets in the way in their eyes.
And it's all over different perspectives of God.
That's mindblowing to me.
The label is about divide and conquer.
Perhaps as humans some part of our collective still wants to be labeled. It's primitive , but we are a primitive species.
And not to be too harsh on my fellow humans; we DO like labels and we NEED them in terms of science and numbers and building. People like to put labels on things in good ways, like with musical notes. Or when people labled the Periodic Table of Elements.
Labels are not All bad then.

reply to post by dragonsmusic

My main view of labels stems from the structuralist, semiotic question of sign/signifier, or dichotomies.
So we have the dichotomies of good/evil implied amongst the religious theories, with nary a real clarification. The sad truth however is that even scientists cannot come up with a crucial standardized definition of clinical death, or "life/death".
Nowadays we must distinguish between the human/and inhuman (trans-human) world of technology.
So following people like Lyotard, Dawkins and Susan Blackmore we try to differentiate between "meme" and "gene".
The "meme" is an infectious idea that spreads to one mind to another. Just like genes, memes are in competition, and some become extinct (eg. religions that are no longer practised) while others combine in a new "memeplex".
The fantastical fear is that memes invent new ways to spread themselves, and the mobile genetic human may soon be obsolete.
This is then very difficult for me: are our brains triumphs of evolution and "genetic" evolution. Or are we just a label of the "meme" that shall surpass us?

reply to post by halfoldman




Halfoldman, thanks. You said some interesting things. I can see needing labels from the perspective of living in this dichotomy that we are in. They HAVE to exist to make sense out of a world with light/night , wake/sleep, spirit/body, hammer and nails/broadband connection

I am intrigued with the "meme"
I'm glad you wrote about that. I have come across it a few times but I have never stopped to look at the word until now. It reminds me of Karl Jung's collective.
I gathered it's basic meaning from what you wrote and then as I was looking it up I started thinking of it in terms of music. Then I saw this "Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, beliefs (notably religious beliefs), clothing fashion, and the technology of building arches.[4]" en.wikipedia.org...

So whoa! That's a lot of connections for one LITTLE word with ONE syllable. The music thing is there and a lot more too with this word.
I like Dawkins, he's cool. I will look into Lyotard and S Blackmore. Their names are not ringing bells right now.

reply to post by dragonsmusic

Would any of you like the Christian Label? What does it mean if you are labeled a Christian? How many of you atheists consider the word Atheist a label? Is it not a label that seeks to put you into a category? Are people not trying to put you into a box, so to speak? Christians, are you being labeled a Christian? Or ARE you one? What do you think is the difference?

Personally, I don't care to wear my faith on my sleeve. It isn't anything I am ashamed of, I just really don't care to make it a set of clothes.

And I really don't give a flying rat's butt what anybody thinks, either.

As for labels, stereotypes and scarlet letters? They are as cheap and worthless as any form of prejudice. I am quite happy with my beliefs and faith... and if that don't suit someone special? That's a drag.

Peace

Can you give evidence of a satanist that says their an atheist.

or are you just severly misinformed.

reply to post by dragonsmusic

Thanks for the feedback,
the meme has infected you. (I'd like to say Lol, but its true and factual.)
Glad you get my connection to labels and how they too infect us or reflect our cultural submission.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Can you give evidence of a satanist that says their an atheist.

or are you just severly misinformed.

I never met one who says that, but,


"Modern Satanist groups (those which appeared after the 1960s) are widely diverse, but two major trends which can be seen are Theistic Satanism and Atheistic Satanism. Theistic Satanists venerate Satan as a supernatural deity. In contrast, Atheistic Satanists[2] consider themselves atheists"

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by redoubt



I hear what you're saying and I respect that.
Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by dragonsmusic

 

Thanks for the feedback,
the meme has infected you. (I'd like to say Lol, but its true and factual.)
Glad you get my connection to labels and how they too infect us or reflect our cultural submission.

I think you are right. Though , if you had used lol then I would still have understood
You just didn't want to make a joke out of it because it's true . The meme HAS me.
What's gonna happen to me now , man ?

Seriously though I should probably read Dawkins book, right ?

[edit on 19-1-2010 by dragonsmusic]

Reply to post by dragonsmusic

I dislike any labels or at least letting a label supercede your sense of individuality and ability for critical thought. They're a crutch, used for simplicity at first that eventually becomes debilitating to one's ability for critical thinking. Me turns we all to often when labels are taken far too seriously.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I think that the label of Christian is as much about saying this is ME as it is as saying I am not YOU (if YOU are not a Christian). This is based out of fear of difference along with a need to belong. It is also a way to silence a minority group (let's say atheists) ---I look at people who feel they must claim to be something as aggressive or passive aggressive, sort of like saying either you are with me or against me. As far as "God" as a label... "God" is a social construct and a product of the need to worship something. It's almost as if some people cannot attribute and appreciate positive experiences without feeling the need to say "thanks". Maybe it's just overactive good manners.

reply to post by mkultraangel





What would God want with a label? When you mentioned "construct" it felt to me like you would get this question and might have something excellent to say about it.
God would be the label/construct. God as a religious god. God as a construct is like a god that is in everyone's collective. Non religious; the impossible one I will call it/him/her. There could be some creator , I postulate, though it's non religous in my mind. Sort of like an artist creator. And impossible for the human brain to comprehend it. And like , impossible for the human conscious mind to get it.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by dragonsmusic]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Agreed.
They can completely f&%k people up.

reply to post by dragonsmusic


Maybe "God" is both a construct and a constructionist if you will and there is no way for the human mind to comprehend that they are deconstructing this being by putting a simple label upon "it". It would be like me trying to make chaos theory simple just by making a graph to simplify it to others without using the math to justify the answer. But let's say I am an total wonder of math and quantum physics (and I am because I do not fully understand how it works) so since I have "faith" in it because I have faith that other people know how to make the equations work then physics is "God" to me, it could be.

reply to post by mkultraangel



That's cool, MK.
Makes sense to me.
I told you I had a feeling you would say something excellent and you did just that