Sacred Name Movement

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indonesian christians are not representative of any reality other than their own, Mel
put it rather excellently when he stated, that the Christian reality is greater than any
language or culture, suck it up!

So Christianity in Indonesia does not, in your view, form part of the reality of the wider Christianity shared by all Christians in this world? Do you accept, for instance, that the words Shangdi, Zhu and Tian Zhu refer to God? Or do these words somehow make the reality of the Christianity practised by those who use them "not a reality of Christianity itself"?

Originally posted by FMF
So Christianity in Indonesia does not, in your view, form part of the reality of the wider Christianity shared by all Christians in this world? Do you accept, for instance, that the words Shangdi, Zhu and Tian Zhu refer to God? Or do these words somehow make the reality of the Christianity practised by those who use them "not a reality of Christianity itself"?

what is it about this statement that yet evades you?

Indonesian christians are not representative of any reality other than their own. If
they are , as you claim, representative of the reality of Christianity itself, how so,
because they utilise the term Allah? Please explain.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it about this statement that yet evades you?

Indonesian christians are not representative of any reality other than their own.

The statement of yours that I am more interested in is the "reality of Indonesian Christians [is] not a reality of Christianity itself". Is not the "reality of Christianity" made up of the realities of all Christians around the world? Do you also think that JW organisation is not a part of the "reality of Christianity"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If they are , as you claim, representative of the reality of Christianity itself, how so, because they utilise the term Allah? Please explain.

So Christians who use the words Shangdi, Zhu and Tian Zhu to refer to God, for example, are somehow not a constituent part of the "reality of Christianity itself" in this world? I'm trying to work out whether you actually mean what you say or whether you're trying to distance yourself from something you didn't really mean to say.

Originally posted by FMF
The statement of yours that I am more interested in is the "reality of Indonesian Christians [is] not a reality of Christianity itself". Is not the "reality of Christianity" made up of the realities of all Christians around the world? Do you also think that JW organisation is not a part of the "reality of Christianity"?

if it is a reality of Christianity itself, as you are claiming, explain how, by the use of the
term Allah (the substantiation that you utilised to qualify your premise), that it
becomes a representation of the reality of Christianity itself. I dont think it does, why,
because how could the use of a term, utilised by none else in Christianity except the
Indonesians be in any way a representation of the reality of Christianity, how so FMF,
you have not said. We are not talking of Jehovahs witnesses we are talking of how,
the use of the term Allah, makes Indonesian christians, representative of the reality of
Christianity itself, its not my premise, its yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if it is a reality of Christianity itself, as you are claiming, explain how, by the use of the
term Allah (the substantiation that you utilised to qualify your premise), that it
becomes a representation of the reality of Christianity itself. I dont think it does, why,
because how could the use of a term, utilised by none else in Christianity e ...[text shortened]... ristians, representative of the reality of
Christianity itself, its not my premise, its yours.

I am saying that Indonesian Christians clearly form part of Christianity - for what does "Christianity" mean if it does not refer to the practices and beliefs of believers in Christ? If you don't believe that they do, fine. I understand you. But if you accept that the reality of the Christian lives of Indonesian Christians forms part of the wider reality of Christianity, then surely the language used by these Christians in the expression and practice of their faith forms part of the reality of Christianity as it is currently expressed and practised in this world?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are talking of how,
the use of the term Allah, makes Indonesian christians, representative of the reality of
Christianity itself, its not my premise, its yours.

The use of the Indonesian word "Allah" by Christians in Indonesia 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 disagree?

Originally posted by FMF
I am saying that Indonesian Christians clearly form part of Christianity - for what does "Christianity" mean if it does not refer to the practices and beliefs of believers in Christ? If you don't believe that they do, fine. I understand you. But if you accept that the reality of the Christian lives of Indonesian Christians forms part of the wider reality of Chri ...[text shortened]... part of the reality of Christianity as it is currently expressed and practised in this world?

yes they form part of Christianity, yes they are Christians, but specific customs are
entirely parochial. For example the Christians of Goa, celebrate the coming of the
monsoon rains by jumping into wells, having parades and celebrations, is this
representative of the reality of Christianity? no its an expression of their culture. It
appears to me to be entirely the same with the Indonesian use of the term Allah, its an
expression of their culture and as Christianity transcends both language and culture, I
cannot see how it can be representative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes they form part of Christianity, yes they are Christians, but specific customs are
entirely parochial. For example the Christians of Goa, celebrate the coming of the
monsoon rains by jumping into wells, having parades and celebrations, is this
representative of the reality of Christianity? no its an expression of their culture. It
appea ...[text shortened]... Christianity transcends both language and culture, I
cannot see how it can be representative.

If you accept that Indonesian Christians form part of Christianity then you will accept that "Allah" is one of the world used by Christians around the world. This is all I have been saying. I am not claiming that you use it or that Americans like Suzianne use it.

What I originally said was: "...in terms of the languages spoken by its followers around the world, [the use of "Allah" to refer to God is] a reality of Christianity".

You seem to have conceded this simple self-evident fact at long last although many of your posts - and your introduction and awkward use of the words "representative" and "representation" - make it appear like you simply did not want [seemingly at all costs!] to accept that the word "Allah" is one of the words used by Christians to refer to God.

Originally posted by FMF
If you accept that Indonesian Christians form part of Christianity then you will accept that "Allah" is one of the world used by Christians around the world. This is all I have been saying. I am not claiming that you use it or that Americans like Suzianne use it.

What I originally said was: "...in terms of the languages spoken by its followers around the wor accept that the word "Allah" is one of the words used by Christians to refer to God.

no FMF, i have tried to explain, with reference and illustration, that its a cultural
element. Christianity transcends culture and i readily admit, that i myself, have
personal reservations about the use of the term Allah, to describe the Christian God,
but I am not an Indonesian Christian.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It appears to me to be entirely the same with the Indonesian use of the term Allah, its an expression of their culture and as Christianity transcends both language and culture, I cannot see how it can be representative.

Are you using the word "representative" in some non-standard way here? Surely Christians around the world all represent constituent parts of Christianity - complete with their linguistic diversity - and it is the sum total of all these "representations" that constitute the "reality" of Christianity?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you using the word "representative" in some non-standard way here? Surely Christians around the world all represent constituent parts of Christianity - complete with their linguistic diversity - and it is the sum total of all these "representations" that constitute the "reality" of Christianity?

Its like saying that Mexicans who worship a black faced deity of Mary and who carry
her statue in procession through the streets on feast days are representative of the
Christian reality, i dont think they are, its an entirely cultural phenomena. Christianity
transcends both language and culture and while i fully understand the proposition that
in some sense, the sum of its constituent parts adds up to the Christian reality, well,
these things appears to me to be purely cultural.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i myself, have personal reservations about the use of the term Allah, to describe the Christian God.

Robbie, no one is asking you to use the word "Allah" to refer to "God". But the word is one of those used by your fellow Christians in Indonesia to do so - and this is an uncontested reality, whether you have "reservations" or not - and so, unless you confer some kind of less-than-full Christian status on Indonesian Christians, then surely the language they use forms part of the reality of world Christianity? Surely on this we can agree?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its like saying that Mexicans who worship a black faced deity of Mary and who carry her statue in procession through the streets on feast days are representative of the Christian reality, i dont think they are, its an entirely cultural phenomena.

OK, so you seem to be saying that the Indonesian language somehow precludes Indonesian Christians from forming part of the reality of world Christianity? I thought we had reached agreement on that, but it seems we haven't.

Originally posted by FMF
Robbie, no one is asking you to use the word "Allah" to refer to "God". But the word is one of those used by your fellow Christians in Indonesia to do so - and this is an uncontested reality, whether you have "reservations" or not - and so, unless you confer some kind of less-than-full Christian status on Indonesian Christians, then surely the language they use forms part of the reality of world Christianity? Surely on this we can agree?

please see my above post FMF, you have exhausted me, i agree to everything 🙂