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...)

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*.

For instance -- to return to the origin of this thread -- do you think that it even occured to Eisenhower (or his advisors, or whoever) to add "under the Gods" to that pledge of allegiance?

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"?

At least enough so for us to be able to state pretty damn certainly just who it means, in the Pledge?

[*]: The one encompassing Europe, North (and most of south) America, the Antipodes, and large chunks of the rest of the world (of which, in case you weren't keeping count, there is only Asia and Africa left).

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.

Post #44,192 by CRConrad 7/2/02 1:23:29 AM Reply	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...) 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. For instance -- to return to the origin of this thread -- do you think that it even occured* to Eisenhower (or his advisors, or whoever) to add "under the Gods" to that pledge of allegiance? 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"? At least enough so for us to be able to state pretty damn certainly just who it means, in the Pledge? []: The one encompassing Europe, North (and most of south) America, the Antipodes, and large chunks of the rest of the world (of which, in case you weren't keeping count, there is only Asia and Africa left). 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 #44,306 by static 7/3/02 1:47:52 AM Reply	Hello Christian. 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. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,378 by CRConrad 7/3/02 2:57:40 PM Reply	Point? Just the first line (never mind why). Hi yerself! :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!