Where the Word “God” Comes From
We’ve been exploring the roots of Christianity and the top 3 religions Judeo / Christian / Muslim and how they are actually rooted and derived from the very pagan and heathen religions they allegedly denounce vehemently. In the end the conclusion is always that Judaism / Christianity / Muslim are all simply variations on pagan religions and are simply popular pagan religions. The fact they try to call themselves non-pagan is laughable when over and over, every major event these religions celebrate are directly stolen from pagan religions. In the end, they are simply religions and not derived from any god they pretend to be from.
Speaking of god, how can you have a discussion on modern religions without knowing where the very word god came from? You cannot. So if we wish to discuss these religions let’s begin with the heart of all of these religions, the very being which they pretend to worship, god. Just as before, the word god comes from… you guessed it… another pagan religion, the Hindu. Unlike most other Americans, I have never considered Asian beliefs to ascend to the point of them being called religions. They are more, Eastern Philosophies. They are a way of thinking and living than they are, worshiping some obscure being that you have no control over and who in turns secretly controls your life.
Although the top three religions vehemently denounce these pagan religions, the very essence of their religion, god, the word, comes directly from these religions. In fact, the top three religions did not have a word for god, until they heard it from these pagan religions. Not only that, but the word, god, is a very recent invention and was not around when the three religions were formed and their “holy scriptures” were supposedly written.
On a huge side note, the word god, when it is brought over into the top three religions, takes on a very masculine form and the being is seen as a man. The original idea of the word god, was a gender neutral being. Why do we think this matters? Because it points out that man formulated the word god and the concept of god. Because these societies are patriarchal, man centric, they then formulate the idea that god is a man. They could not conceive of a being that is gender neutral. The most important being in their entire society then, has to be a man, because it then means that men, the gender, are in command and always right.
Oxford English Dictionary:
“god (gρd). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guđom neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ρss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.
The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *glheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. yéotan YETE v.). Hence *glhutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’.
Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *glheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. χυγόν), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.
Barnhart, Robert K (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words, page 323.
The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either “to call” or “to invoke”. The Germanic words for god were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the word became a masculine syntactic form.
The capitalized form God was first used in Ulfilas’s Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic “God” and “gods” in polytheism. In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá’í Faith, and Judaism, the term “God” remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.
When used in English within a community with a common monotheistic background, “God” always refers to the deity they share. Those with a background in different Abrahamic religions will usually agree on the deity they share, while still differing on details of belief and doctrine—they will disagree about attributes of [the] God, rather than thinking in terms of “my God” and “your (different) God”.
So we can see quite a few things from just studying the origins of the word god. First, that it is derived from pagan religions. If your being of worship and the center of your religion is derived from a pagan concept, what does that make your religion? If your being of worship is directly derived from idol worship, what does that make your religion?
I know these are heavy concepts to accept and probably, for some of you, grasp, but noone else talks about it, and you know us, we talk about things people are afraid to talk about.
Are we afraid god is going to strike us dead for talking “bad” about “him”? Not in the least bit. We think the modern religions got the teachings of their religion wrong. It’s wrong in practice, and the concept was never embraced. You cannot have a religion both teach about love, which all 3 do, and yet through the “religion” endorse slavery, murder, war, genocide. That’s where the practice of the religion diverges or goes away from the teachings of the religion.
There is a saying, “Man is fallible, but God’s Word is infallible.” Obviously whoever said that, did not scream that loud enough. The religions have twisted the very ideas that they are pretending to worship. They have used a message of hope and love to torture people with and render brilliant people dumb and killing themselves. Millions of Africans were taught, worlwide that they must bow to the white man and discard all of their former names, beliefs, heritage, because “god” told them so and that “god” wants them to be slaves to white men. And, what’s worse, the Africans did discard their own beliefs, heritage, names, history and lineage to bow down to the very “god” they were taught, put them in slavery, and they never went back to their own ways.
The top 3 religions are nothing more than religions. They are nothing different than Voodoo, Hindu, Shinto, Osirian Worship etc. They are simply religions.