There is an error in your argument.

Post #44,049 by static 7/1/02 1:25:42 AM Reply	There is an error in your argument. Times change. That was over 2000 years ago. Now, the worshippers do not remember the original name. Now the name is just "God". And this thread is the proof of that. It's taken days and a ton of posts to get to ONE post that can reference the original name. The hour I posted my reply was the hour I read any part of this thread for the first time. Yes, within an hour. Come to think of it, I don't recall even reading the original post; perhaps I should go do that... FWIW, I could have taken a quite different tack and pointed out that He has many names and is called many things. That would have involved quotes from Isaiah, for starters. However, we are inured to thinking people have One Name, so my post. But even here that is not so! I am known as "Static", as has been pointed out, but my given name is actually "Wade". There: I have two names! I believe you, too, have another name by which you were once known. Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? Wade. PS. I am well aware that Christian Mythology (such that it is) does not incorporate Jewish Mythology. PPS. And if I remember on Thursday night, I'll do a straw poll at my Bible Study to see if anyone else knows the same thing I do about God's name. It's not as though the Exodus passage in question is even obscure or anything - it's right in the middle of the well-known story about the Burning Bush. :-) "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,058 by Ashton 7/1/02 2:31:30 AM Reply	You'll note that your reference refers to "He has many names". (!) Whoever decides amidst He/She/It/null - has already Chosen a comfortable, ever-personal 'Belief Delivery System'. Sorry but, electing the Bible as reference merely underscores the local main point: The words "Under God" is ever a gratuitous and inflammatory addendum within any Government-sponsored material. In case at hand, the action: A) Evokes the (coincidence! honest.. gosh) of the majority-religion's fav word-symbol. Omits countless others' fav word-symbols. B) Ignores the citizens who profess none of the above and pay taxes precisely as do all. C) 'Democracy' is largely about Government assisting in.. protecting the rights of the (many) minorities from the tyranny of the majority - and the homogenization and coercion which would result from allowing that tyranny to flourish. Periodically, more people have to die in order to remind of why certain matters were covered in the founding documents. This is necessary especially in times of decreasing attention span and increasing noise level. Ashton
Post #44,060 by static 7/1/02 2:38:42 AM Reply	I had to chose something. Besides, it is consistent with my posts so far in this thread. :-) I'm a bit bemused by the whole fiasco, actually, with the PoA. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the offending clause per se, but I also know you can't effectively legislate religion (for a variety of reaons, including the one prevalent in this thread) so I think the US should just elide the two "offending" words and move on. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,090 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:55:05 AM Reply	You don't live over here, do you? :) There is a HUGE fight over this. Which is strange as it is only recently added. And it is obviously in contradiction of separation of church and state. But the religious amongst us will fight to keep it in. Camel Nose Tent The fight is really about whether religious references will be completely banned from government. There are still those here who hope for a theocracy in their lifetime. The problem is exasperated because we have an idiot for a President.
Post #44,092 by ChrisR 7/1/02 11:17:43 AM Reply	Recent? Which is strange as it is only recently added. Either you're (a) really old or (b) don't understand the time scale for "recent" in American politics. 45 to 50 years is ancient history - much like Watergate, Vietnam, McCarthy, Korea, etc...
Post #44,099 by Brandioch 7/1/02 12:29:45 PM Reply	In my day, people respected their elders! Wait. They didn't back then, either. :) Dragging a friend's 14 year old niece to the movies. "Wow, you're older than CD's." "Wow, you're older than MTV." "Wow, you're older than computers." "Wow, you're older than microwaves." And so on and so forth........ :) I think it is more the attention span that makes it seem so long ago than the actual passage of time. We are the nation of short attention oh look, something new.
Post #44,171 by static 7/1/02 10:33:32 PM Reply	Church vs State. So long as people with a religious opinion and/or outlook are involved in government, there will be arguments about how much of the former the latter has. There is always going to be a problem about where to draw that line - and I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know! My full, unfettered opinion about it is that I think it is wrong to leave "under God" in the official PoA because any attempt to enforce a religious POV is doomed to failure. Instead, I think a religious society should build up from the bottom: e.g. a country is Christian because that's how the people willingly live, not because the laws have that slant. The un-religious and a-religious should not be targets for religious enforcement. I also don't think you can ever fully separate church and state: even the abscence of religion can be regarded as a religion. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,230 by Brandioch 7/2/02 10:57:27 AM Reply	How about a diode? Since we can't (and, IMO, should not) keep people with religious beliefs out of government..... We can still restrict any and all mention of religion from government. Aside from the "you are free to practice the religion you want except for human sacrifice and the like". In other words, people can bring their personal religious beliefs with them when they enter office -but- those beliefs do not get passed on to others via the government.
Post #44,087 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:37:33 AM Reply	Could be. Yup. That's when YOU read it. Like I said, there isn't much "research" involved. It's there for those who know it or who want to look it up. I'd be interested in knowing how many people know the "true" name of God from your study group. If anyone should know it, it would be people in there. But I'll stick by my point. As demonstrated here (aside from you), no one could reference his name. I even got "Tetragammon" as a name of God. :) But, then, there is also how Jesus refered to God as "Elohim" (sp?). Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? It can be. But if you say that, then you support my position to that "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. Maybe not the only name.... I'd also be interested in seeing if anyone claims "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" as names for God. Particularly since these are based on errors.
Post #44,131 by a6l6e6x 7/1/02 4:57:06 PM Reply	What? Never a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses at your door? :) Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #44,138 by Brandioch 7/1/02 6:13:03 PM Reply	Not in YEARS. You'd understand if you saw my house.
Post #44,164 by static 7/1/02 9:50:02 PM Reply	I'd like to make some distinctions. Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? It can be. But if you say that, then you support my position to that "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. Maybe not the only name.... Might I point out the difference between "the name" and "a name", please. And also the subtle difference between a or the name of something (or someone) and what it gets called. Semantic hair-splitting, possibly, but I feel it worth mentioning. But, then, there is also how Jesus refered to God as "Elohim" (sp?). Hebrew has several words for their god which describe different aspects of him. A short list: Elohim, Elshaddai, Abba. Short of borrowing them directly, English does not have equivalents for these words. In fact, modern editions of the Bible often have an introduction with several paragraphs detailing how they addressed this issue. It's a bit like the old saw about Inuit having dozens of words for "snow". :-) I'd also be interested in seeing if anyone claims "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" as names for God. Particularly since these are based on errors. Well, "Yahwah" is, but really only in Ancient Hebrew. Again, English does not carry the requisite language construct to translate it correctly. Wade. I understand this is largely because they are a linguistic construct English does not have. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,169 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:32:44 PM Reply	Agreed. Might I point out the difference between "the name" and "a name", please. whoops. you're right. And also the subtle difference between a or the name of something (or someone) and what it gets called. Now it's my turn to split hairs. I still consider it a mythology. A personal mythology for each and every Christian out there. Now, what you call something in your personal mythology depends upon what you want to call it. Which is why I specified the modern US Christian. Which is why I said that the length of this thread proved my point. The personal mythologies have their roots in the older mythologies. But not everything gets carried over. Things that are linguistically specific, in particular, don't get copied over. To put it in concrete terms, think concrete. More specifically, think an old temple. The basic design gets copied for a new temple. But the terrain in the new area doesn't allow for a 100% perfect copy to be made (not to mention that the building materials aren't the same in the new area). So, asking where a door is, in the new temple, should be a simple question. "Where is the door in the temple?" Now, suppose someone says "the same as in the old temple". But the door is not in that location. Where is the door? Is it where it is in the new temple? Is it where tradition (and the old temple) has it? The question isn't so complex when we're talking about concrete items. When we're discussing a mythological character, it gets murky.
Post #44,199 by static 7/2/02 2:57:17 AM Reply	We'll have to differ. I wasn't going to be part of the "is it real/is is myth" question. So there isn't anything productive in me entering the "personal/communal" question, either. Except to say this: I, personally, usually address my God as "Lord God" or "Father God", both of them titles. I cannot speak about US Christians, but all of the AU Christians I know would use the same or similar titles. And probably not be bothered about whether it's a title or a name for God. :-) And lastly, while we do regard our relationship as personal, we also believe that it is the same God we all have a personal relationship with. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,196 by CRConrad 7/2/02 2:13:55 AM Reply	Uh... "God is a four-letter word", I think. But I'll stick by my point. As demonstrated here (aside from you), no one could reference his name. I even got "Tetragammon" as a name of God. :) That was "Tetragrammaton", IIRC (in a post by Don "Silverlock" Richards?). And, if you try to recall your basic Greek -- no Classical studies required! Just chemistry and geometry -- "tetra" means "four". And a "grammat-on" (or "gramma-ton"?), couldn't that be like an electr-on or positr-on, a "smallest element" of something...? Of "Grammar", or speech, perhaps? My guess is, it means "letter". Don't look down on everybody else quite so much, please, Khas: The term looked familiar to me too, and thinking about it for a bit and coming to the conclusion that it probably means "the four letters", it seems reasonable to me to assume that it is a reference to 'YHWH' (or 'JHVH', or whatever) -- it is, too!, the name of god. Well, a name of god. :-) (Yup, still the Christian god -- 't'was His Bible what was written in Greek.) Now go grovel to Don (if it was him) a bit! Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,231 by Brandioch 7/2/02 10:58:57 AM Reply	Mhy speling sux. Yup. I can't remember how that is spelled without hitting a dictionary.

Welcome to IWETHEY!