GUNWOUNDS Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Found this interesting excerpt one day:There are those who insist that the true Christian church must use the Hebrew words Yahweh or Jehovah (different ways of pronouncing the same word) when talking about God. By doing this, such people are using God's holy and marvelous name to fuel a kind of spiritual elitism, whereby they despise other people merely over the pronunciation or use of one word. This is not to say that the use of God's name is wrong; it is especially suited to our personal prayers once we are properly baptized into the name. The New Testament, however, does not give us any indication that this is necessary or even desired by God. He overruled the inspiration of the New Testament so that it was written in Greek, using only one word for 'God' - 'theos', meaning 'a great one'. No distinction is made in it between 'God' and 'Yahweh', nor is there any specific command concerning what believers should call themselves as a community. Peter speaks of a believer as a "Christian" rather than a 'Jehovah-man' or something similar (1 Pet. 4:16). An over-emphasis on the use of the name 'Jehovah' leads to a devaluing of the work and place of the Lord Jesus, in a similar way to which many 'evangelical Christians' over-stress the name and office of Jesus to the neglecting of the mightier place of God. I have often thought about this.... how different parts of the trinity are emphasized by different people in prayer , etc .... Those of you who do pray what part of the Trinity do you address most often?
ordos45 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 I usually say "Jesus", or "Lord" when praying. Often enough just "God". I don't think I've ever addressed the Holy Spirit in prayers.
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 12, 2004 Author Posted May 12, 2004 I usually say "Jesus", or "Lord" when praying.
TMA_1 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 lol that was one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time nema, though you probably didnt mean for it to be so, just cracked me up.Also, the term "christian" was much later, in fact almost before paul and peter were executed. The early church called themselves "The Way". I think that is the perfect name for the church myself. They also called themselves the "wild branch", the branch mysteriously added to the tree of believers.I have studied prayer a bit and have learned something that goes for many christians, not really a denominational thing. You pray to the father in the name of the son jesus christ, being filled with the holy spirit, so you never really address the spirit. That make any sense?Yeah I just say Lord, it is the best term for me, simple and to the point.
Dante Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 lol that was one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time nema, though you probably didnt mean for it to be so, just cracked me up. Me too. :D
Anathema Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 As far as I know Jewish people try to avoid using the name of God anyway. Side note, "christ" is not a name at all, it's derived from christos, wich is Greek for messiah. Christian is a word invented to distinguish people who believe the jewish messiah has already arrived as far as I know.
Necroticon Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 Agnostics may prefer "To whom it may concern"...Well said! ;D
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 I know very many people think of God as a man.God is sometimes referred to as "He", or "Him"...Technically, God should have a fair chance of being a woman too.But in reality God would have no real sex, I know that. Because "He" is not a person...I should start a revolution right away calling God using "She" and "Her".
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 I know very many people think of God as a man.God is sometimes referred to as "He", or "Him"...Technically, God should have a fair chance of being a woman too.But in reality God would have no real sex, I know that. Because "He" is not a person...I should start a revolution right away calling God using "She" and "Her".i think the bible says.... God is the father.. and the church is referred to as female ... its mentioned as "she" and as "bride"i guess God is thought of as male because of adam being created first and as Eve being created from a part of Adam.
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 I actually think it's because of how they looked at things back then.A female would never be accepted as God...
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 I actually think it's because of how they looked at things back then.A female would never be accepted as God...It seems that many women have had more support roles than leadership roles throughout history..... but there is nothing wrong with a support role.... they are very important.A supportive wife is one of the greatest gifts from God IMO.Also i believe the Bible says a man's wife is a reward from God.I know i love mine.
Dante Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 "Behind every important man in history there is a woman.""Yeah, picking up after him!"Seriously though, I'm not sure if you meant to generalise, but women are more than capable of showing how important they are; and being a 'reward,' like some kind of medal or object would, I think, be an insult to them.History is filled with examples of women who managed to not only out-think and out-fight their male counterparts but also out-perform them in everything they turned their minds to.Marie Curie, Cleopatra Thea (and her sisters), Boudica, Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great, Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Mary Queen of Scots, to me tion but a few. And how many powerful men would have been toppled without their wifes or sisters. Appealing to the biologist: Rosalind Franklin... Not meaning to rant too much or anything but I see any attempt to reduce women to a "support role" as just being sexist (which you have admitted to before), and personally I find that just as bad as rascism or other discriminatory attitudes...
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 "Behind every important man in history there is a woman.""Yeah, picking up after him!"Seriously though, I'm not sure if you meant to generalise, but women are more than capable of showing how important they are; and being a 'reward,' like some kind of medal or object would, I think, be an insult to them.History is filled with examples of women who managed to not only out-think and out-fight their male counterparts but also out-perform them in everything they turned their minds to.Marie Curie, Cleopatra Thea (and her sisters), Boudica, Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great, Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Mary Queen of Scots, to me tion but a few. And how many powerful men would have been toppled without their wifes or sisters. Appealing to the biologist: Rosalind Franklin... Not meaning to rant too much or anything but I see any attempt to reduce women to a "support role" as just being sexist (which you have admitted to before), and personally I find that just as bad as rascism or other discriminatory attitudes... LOL dustscout please dont pull a "Dan" on me lolthere was nothing wrong in my above post...1.) i said "many" not "all" women have had support roles in history2.) i said there is nothing wrong with support roles.. they are very important3.) calling a woman a "gift" or a "reward from God" is very flattering and romantic i think.. (my wife thinks so too )4.) yes women can have leadership roles and be good at them (altho all the women you mentioned were famous icons which are far less numerous than their male counter parts) however i was simply making a historical observation to support Cyborgs' statement.LOL not counter-ranting on you dusty .. i just didnt want you to make a "Dan" mistake..... of putting words in my mouth or saying i was overgeneralizing when i wasnt. ;)
Dante Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 1.) i said "many" not "all" women have had support roles in history Semantics.2.) i said there is nothing wrong with support roles.. they are very important You can't say it sounds flattering.3.) calling a woman a "gift" or a "reward from God" is very flattering and romantic i think.. (my wife thinks so too ) I don't.4.) yes women can have leadership roles and be good at them (altho all the women you mentioned were famous icons which are far less numerous than their male counter parts) however i was simply making a historical observation to support Cyborgs' statement. Just because women haven't been in the limelight so much doesn't mean they are incapable. I blame sexist churches personally...LOL not counter-ranting on you dusty .. i just did want you to make a "Dan" mistake..... of putting words in my mouth or saying i was overgeneralizing when i wasnt. I think you're being very careful to insert those 'mostlys' and similar words into your posts now, just so that you can argue that you're not generalising. You certainly don't provide any examples to contradict a point when not generalising.
Wolf Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 1.) Let's avoid semantics.2.) A support role is still a support role. And they're not as important as the... what do we call them? Oh, yes. Important roles.3.) Well, Dust, you ain't the man's wife!4.) I think that religious influences play a part, but, playing just as great a role is the societal customs that were created around the biological differences. Customs that soon led to men taking control of business and government. If one is to blame sexist religions, he must also blame the sexist businesses and governments that supported them.5.) I think Dust hit it right on the head. We need more empirical evidence, data, and citations to back up what it is that we say.
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 1.) Semantics.2.) You can't say it sounds flattering.3.) I don't.4.)
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 1.) Let's avoid semantics.2.) A support role is still a support role. And they're not as important as the... what do we call them? Oh, yes. Important roles.3.) Well, Dust, you ain't the man's wife!4.) I think that religious influences play a part, but, playing just as great a role is the societal customs that were created around the biological differences. Customs that soon led to men taking control of business and government. If one is to blame sexist religions, he must also blame the sexist businesses and governments that supported them.5.) I think Dust hit it right on the head. We need more empirical evidence, data, and citations to back up what it is that we say.1.) Agreed2.) Agreed3.) True..... altho considering his orientation..... and my striking good looks he might want to be.... but i am taken
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 5.) Its nice... but definately not always needed.... if i say the sky is blue i dont need colorimetric charts, graphs, crystal ray refraction indices and 40 signed affidavits to back it up.Simply because we don't ask you for it. ;)
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 Simply because we don't ask you for it. ;)heheh oh so if you ask me for all that i got to show it huh? eek!!
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 It would be enough showing me a picture taken from the sky. I could take an RGB sample of it.
DukeLeto Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 3.) True..... altho considering his orientation..... and my striking good looks he might want to be.... but i am taken ;) :DTalk about rude remarks...I usually address your god as "fictional being created by rich, straight, white, consevative male elitists in order to maintain their rediculously high place in the societal ladder"
GUNWOUNDS Posted May 13, 2004 Author Posted May 13, 2004 I usually address your god as "fictional being created by rich, straight, white, consevative male elitists in order to maintain their rediculously high place in the societal ladder"Abraham was none of those (well he was a male and straight)..... hehe .... you feel
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 You shouldn't base your arguments on offences, Gunwounds.It makes you a much poorer debatant than you really are.
Recommended Posts