Replies

The article is intellectually bankrupt.

Thanks. It assumes God doesn't want his name used for evil, thus the Blasphemy of Dogma. However such an idea about God must also be a Dogma.

For one thing, 'God' is a term we finite beings coined for the Infinite. Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap. And the point I was making in the article was that for us to have the temerity to act/speak in the Almighty's name or with blessing is as absurd and blasphemous as it seems.

Further the history in that article is wrong concerning the Reformation. Reformation initiated years of religious wars. No one, not protestant or Catholic thought at the time that they couldn't salve the disagreement by force.

The essence of this 'disagreement' was that some are Chosen by the Almighty to speak/act/rule on His behalf and whether it is possible to connect with the Infinite w/o going through a self-appointed human intermediary [clergy] who are supposedly Divinely Chosen.

You better believe there was bloodshed. Those who purported that they held political power under a Divine rubrick were not going to let such a huge advantage slip with out a fight. Indeed, this is what the likes of OBL hope to impose. Islam has not undergone such a Reformation, thus Muslims routinely present their own political goals [such as slaughtering those who would deny their authority] as Divine ones.

In any case the religious wars did leave everyone with a cynical attitude, which paved the way for the Enlightenment and the irreligiousness of the last few centuries.

Indeed, one of these cynical attitudes was that we are all equal in the eyes of the Almighty and no one rules by Divine Right. Instead, leadership should rule with consent of the governed. The Reformation the establishment of the first truly limited representative government. That in turn led to the Industrial Revolution, advances in medicine, etc.

Some would have us believe that the only choice is between man-made dogma or range-of-the-moment hedonism. The former choice is infantile while the latter is juvenile. No, the alternative is to recognize that we do not make the rules and are each one of us compelled to learn what they are. And to accept the consequences when we fail.

For one thing, 'God' is a term we finite beings coined for the Infinite.

'God' is merely a word that evolved from use in one language, and spread to others.

Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap.

I disagree, what if God doesn't care? After all, if God doesn't talk to individual humans reveling Himself and giving them instructions from time to time it's fair to assume He is indifferent to what we do; in His name or otherwise.

Indeed, one of these cynical attitudes was that we are all equal in the eyes of the Almighty and no one rules by Divine Right. Instead, leadership should rule with consent of the governed.

No, protestants by and large also believed in the idea of Divine Right. Thats why they had Kings and Princes too. Your understanding of history is crippled by an anachronistic ideology. BTW arguing a teleological development of modern democracy also has dogmatic undertones since it would have to be dictated by nature/God.