Sacred Name Movement

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
😴

That's a good idea. 😴

I think what robbie is saying is that the full reality of Christianity transcends any given culture or language.

I think what FMF is saying is that any given human expression of Christianity must, nevertheless, involve the particular culture and language of that community.


I think both are correct.
as an analogy - consider something simple like a horse.

the "reality" of a horse transcends any given culture or language - indeed, the "reality" of a horse doesn't even require the existence of humanity.

BUT - any human expression of a horse will involve the particular culture and language of the community that is talking about or making use of horses.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I think what robbie is saying is that the full reality of Christianity transcends any given culture or language.

Do you agree with his suggestion that the English word "God" transcends all other words for "God" around the world? 😵

Originally posted by FMF
Do you agree with his suggestion that the English word "God" transcends all other words for "God" around the world? 😵

I guess there's no word for "God" that could possibly transcend all other words for "God" - because any word for God implies a specific language.

I think the Israelites in the Old Testament had the right idea in their tradition that the word for the one creator God was not to be pronounced or uttered - rather God was refered to indirectly as "the Lord".

although - even the idea of "not uttering God's name" still reflects the practice of a human language or culture.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
as an analogy - consider something simple like a horse.

the "reality" of a horse transcends any given culture or language - indeed, the "reality" of a horse doesn't even require the existence of humanity.

BUT - any human expression of a horse will involve the particular culture and language of the community that is talking about or making use of horses.

Your analogy doesn't work. First: unlike the horse, Christianity does require the existence of humanity; Christianity is nothing other than an aspect of humanity. Second: there are hundreds of breeds of horses around the world; they are 'united' by the fact that they are all called "horses" [in various languages] and the "reality" of "the horse" is that the species encompasses hundreds of versions; there is no single breed that transcends all others; the reality of each breed is linked to all other breeds and this is the only relevant "reality" of horseness that might be analogous to Christianity. The analogy does not withstand scrutiny I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I guess there's no word for "God" that could possibly transcend all other words for "God" - because any word for God implies a specific language.

Yes, it was one of the more bizarre things that robbie claimed. Permit me to repeat myself: the use of the Indonesian word "Allah" by Christians in Indonesia (and by Arab Christians since hundreds of years before Islam was established) makes the word "Allah" part of the multilingual reality of world Christianity, just as the words "Shangdi", "Zhu" and "Tian Zhu" are part of the same "reality of Christianity" too. Do you agree?

Originally posted by FMF
Your analogy doesn't work. First: unlike the horse, Christianity [b]does require the existence of humanity; Christianity is nothing other than an aspect of humanity. Second: there are hundreds of breeds of horses around the world; they are 'united' by the fact that they are all called "horses" [in various languages] and the "reality" of "the horse" is that t ...[text shortened]... ht be analogous to Christianity. The analogy does not withstand scrutiny I'm afraid.[/b]

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the analogy. It does
not intend to compare the horse with Christianity, but you are too
dense to understand this.

Originally posted by FMF
Your analogy doesn't work. First: unlike the horse, Christianity [b]does require the existence of humanity; Christianity is nothing other than an aspect of humanity. Second: there are hundreds of breeds of horses around the world; they are 'united' by the fact that they are all called "horses" [in various languages] and the "reality" of "the horse" is that t ...[text shortened]... ht be analogous to Christianity. The analogy does not withstand scrutiny I'm afraid.[/b]

I could use anything as an anology -- to make it something that requires the existence of humanity, and something that is a specific thing, we could refer to "Lucille Ball". But any discussion about Lucille Ball is going to depend on the specific language and culture of the people discussing her. And yet, the reality of Lucille Ball transcends any given language or culture.

My point is that there's no way for a human being to express the reality of anything without it involving a specific language and culture.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, it was one of the more bizarre things that robbie claimed. Permit me to repeat myself: the use of the Indonesian word "Allah" by Christians in Indonesia (and by Arab Christians since hundreds of years before Islam was established) makes the word "Allah" part of the multilingual reality of world Christianity, just as the words "Shangdi", "Zhu" and "Tian Zhu" are part of the same "reality of Christianity" too. Do you agree?

yes

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I could use anything as an anology -- to make it something that requires the existence of humanity, and something that is a specific thing, we could refer to "Lucille Ball". But any discussion about Lucille Ball is going to depend on the specific language and culture of the people discussing her. And yet, the reality of Lucille Ball transcends any given ...[text shortened]... eing to express the reality of anything without it involving a specific language and culture.

Well the horse analogy didn't work for me. My point is that the reality of world Christianity obviously embraces the realities of all its believers around the world. The fact that different people use different languages does not detract from some sort of centralized reality; indeed, it forms the very composition of Christianity's "reality". Diversity is an essential ingredient of Christianity's "reality".

Originally posted by FMF
Well the horse analogy didn't work for me. My point is that the reality of world Christianity obviously embraces the realities of all its believers around the world. The fact that different people use different languages does not detract from some sort of centralized reality; indeed, it forms the very composition of Christianity's "reality". Diversity is an essential ingredient of Christianity's "reality".

There is only one Christ and that is the reality.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is only one Christ and that is the reality.

Be that as it may [it isn't my belief system anymore, as it happens], but we are actually talking about "Christianity" which means 'The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history'. The "reality" of this collective body of Christians throughout the world and history is a diverse thing; to claim that there is one "reality" doesn't work. Robbie's suggestion that the English language vocabulary for "God" transcends other languages' vocabulary did rather sink his whole line of argument about one single "reality".

Originally posted by FMF
Be that as it may [it isn't my belief system anymore, as it happens], but we are actually talking about "Christianity" which means 'The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history'. The "reality" of this collective body of Christians throughout the world and history is a diverse thing; to claim that there is one "reality" doesn't work. Robbie' ...[text shortened]... ocabulary did rather sink his whole line of argument about one single "reality".

It works for me. 😏

Originally posted by FMF
"Allah" is an Arabic word. According to wiki, the use of the term "Allah" in Arab Christian churches predates Islam by several centuries.

Yes, FMF, I get it.

It's also an Indonesian word.

When I typed that sentence you quoted, not only was I not aware that Allah was the Indonesian word for God, I was also unaware that you were speaking of Indonesian Christians, versus Indonesians as a whole.

My bad. In future I shall double check what you have typed so that I do not make similar mistakes.

By the way, I fully agree with your statement that the Christian God and Islam's Allah are the same God, the God of Abraham. But what these two groups get out of worshipping this same God is distinctly different. It all comes down to the fact that Christianity comes from Isaac's side of the family, and Islam comes from Ishmael's side of the family.

Despite any assumptions you've come to about our discussion the other day, our differences were based on the fact that you knew Allah was the Indonesian word for God, while I did not. How many times did I ask why would Indonesians use an Arabic word for God? Obviously, I was not aware they were using an Indonesian word for God. What you said was "Christians here in Indonesia use the names "Tuhan", "Allah" and "Yaweh"." Forgive me if I did not automatically assume this meant the word for "God" in the Indonesian language was "Allah". You said they "use" the name "Allah", you did not say it was the word for God in the Indonesian language.

When I posted this:

I just figured that since Allah is used predominantly in the Quran (not to mention that it is Arabic), that it would be used only because the Indonesians are mainly Muslim. I mean there's probably not much call to use it if they weren't Muslim.

the fact that I did not know "Allah" was the word for "God" in the Indonesian language should have seemed obvious (btw, when I wrote the above, I was still unaware that you said "Christians here in Indonesia" ). The very fact that my quote above was in response to your statement:

No. It's the word used by Christians. It means [the one and only] "God".

it almost seems you were trying to use my ignorance of the Indonesian language to draw me further into an argument. Note your use of "It's the word used by Christians." Not Indonesian Christians. Not "It's the Indonesian word for God."

At the time, I was frustrated by your focus on the completely unimportant fact that I was American and spoke English and that led to my anger once I realized my mistake. You knew the mistake I was making and yet you refused to clue me in. You let me go on and on, letting me make a complete fool of myself.

Well, rest assured that I get it now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But what these two groups get out of worshipping this same God is distinctly different.

Well, I agree that they are distinctly different traditions, but I think what they "get out of it" might be closer than one might think: make sense of life; make sense of "creation"; code of conduct; a hope for life after death; sense of tradition, culture, history; a relationship with "God" etc. etc. I am a theist who believes that I have not yet met anyone who knows what "God's instructions" are [or that there are any to be known about] and that there is no do-this-and-you-live-ever-after deal to be entered into. So, to me neither Christianity or Islam is any more or less "right" than the other, at least in terms of the "God's instructions" and "immortality" things.