Nice of you to agree with Brandishim's original point. (I just thought it might bear pointing out that precisely that is what you are doing...)
That may be - but I suspect our reasons for supporting the same action are different.
Wade writes:Now, most of society no longer carries a monotheistic context.That depends on how you define "most of society". Most societies, globally? No, probably not.
But most of, for want of a better word, "Western" society? Oh, it most definitely *does*.
That wasn't what I meant. I should have said something "awareness" instead of "context" and re-written the sentence to suit. Secularism, religious exploration, alternative spirituality, even globalism have all changed what could be called western societies such that a monotheistic religion cannot be regarded as the only choice. Put another way, people wanting religion of the non-Christian kind have a lot of popular, easy-to-find options nowadays.
So, well, if nobody (except Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently -- and "blasphemers" like me, of course) can ever use His "real" name, and the word "God", as you say, "has become a label or a title"... Then isn't that, in effect, "his name"?
I never asserted one way or the other that Christians could not use the name "Yahweh". The closest I got was referring to the fact that the Ancient Hebrews thought it too holy to utter. I don't personally use it because I haven't been brought up to use it, that's all.
However, the title "God" has effectively become a name, yes. Was there a point there? :-)
Wade.