Religious Slips of Paper in Mail
#21
Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:24 AM
Edit: as for capitalism, yes, a Capitalist can/should capitalize the word when referring to him or herself.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#22
Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:40 AM
Atheism and atheist are not to be capitalized as one would capitalize followers of religions and the religion itself.
Edit: as for capitalism, yes, a Capitalist can/should capitalize the word when referring to him or herself.
The use of a proper noun says nothing about religions being capitalized, it only states a name used for an individual person.
If I state I am something, I am naming myself. I think that religions are generally capitalized has nothing to do with the definition of a proper pronoun, but because of their place in society.
#23
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:16 AM
Yahwey is the term for God going back to ancient (pre-Christian) times. It does not explicitly refer to Jehovah.
I recall getting a similar packet of religious notes several months ago. The utilitarian presentation of the materials struck me as a hokey way to spread a religious message.
But Yahweh is how JW followers still refer to God, and no other denominations do. That combined with the fact that you have literature on your doorstep can mean only one thing.
I caught a couple of them doing this literature drop on my doorstep and promptly handed the clippings back and told them not to do it again.
#24
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:42 AM
But Yahweh is how JW followers still refer to God, and no other denominations do...
To be fair, I was raised RC and we sang several hymns that used the term Yahweh for God.
#25
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:47 AM
#26
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:56 AM
Actually Jehovah is a bastardization of Yahweh, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah.Yahwey is the term for God going back to ancient (pre-Christian) times. It does not explicitly refer to Jehovah.
As for Atheist: arguing over the capitalization is rather pointless and clearly of interest primarily to those who do not respect a person's right to believe in the non-existence of a supreme being(s) or other mythical creatures.
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
#27
Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:05 PM
#28
Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:12 PM
I am an atheist vs Atheists believe... (feel free to swap in muslim, canadian, biker, skater etc...)
#29
Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:19 PM
Actually Jehovah is a bastardization of Yahweh, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah.
Right, but Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses. Yahweh predates the Christian era by millennia.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#30
Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:20 PM
#31
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:45 PM
I especially like reading about the apocrypha, the bits of the bible left on the cutting room floor. Or the story of Lilith, the demon seducer of men, supposed first wife of Adam.
Getting back on topic, those weird clippings can't be authorized JW literature. As we can see by the new JW church on Shelbourne, they are trying to project a more accessible, homey face to a wary public used to thinking of them as annoying door-knockers.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#32
Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:23 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#33
Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:40 AM
You still seem to be confused. Jehovah IS Yahweh. Yahweh IS Jehovah. They are two variants of the same name. It is like Yeshua and Joshua, or John and Sean, same name, different forms for different languages.Right, but Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses. Yahweh predates the Christian era by millennia.
The form Jehovah was a later bastardized form of the name of the Hebrew (and possibly Samaritan) God. Jehovah's Witnesses are a much later offshoot of Christianity which is in itself a radical offshoot of Judaism despite the ignorance of this fact amongst large segments of the Christian faithful.
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
#34
Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:33 PM
I'm an atheist yet I am fascinated by the complexity, beauty and horror found in religions and understand why it continues to inspire and confound us.
I especially like reading about the apocrypha, the bits of the bible left on the cutting room floor. Or the story of Lilith, the demon seducer of men, supposed first wife of Adam.
Getting back on topic, those weird clippings can't be authorized JW literature. As we can see by the new JW church on Shelbourne, they are trying to project a more accessible, homey face to a wary public used to thinking of them as annoying door-knockers.
Well, now I know why they picked the name Lilith for Fraser Cranes wife!!!
#35
Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:16 PM
You still seem to be confused. Jehovah IS Yahweh. Yahweh IS Jehovah. They are two variants of the same name. It is like Yeshua and Joshua, or John and Sean, same name, different forms for different languages.
No confusion here, just pointing out that Yahweh does not necessarily refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as was suggested earlier in the thread.
Yahweh = Jehovah
Yahweh /= explicitly Jehovah's Witnesses
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#36
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:11 AM
No confusion here, just pointing out that Yahweh does not necessarily refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as was suggested earlier in the thread.
Yahweh = Jehovah
Yahweh /= explicitly Jehovah's Witnesses
Mike, as an admin on a forum it behooves you to maintain a certain standard which should include NOT re-writing history to suit your personal opinions. It is a form of falsehood and easily tracked since the actual word you wrote are available to all to read.
You wrote:
...Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses.
Note you said, "to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses" (emphasis mine). You were clearly making a statement about two different usages.
In regards to "Jehovah", that has been addressed and you admitted your error. Well done.
In regards to "Jehovah Witnesses" you are doing backflips of semantics as the deity referred to is indeed the same god. They did not invent a new deity somehow. They worship in very different ways and believe very different things but if you have any understanding of the history of religion you know that the evolution of their religious sect traces back to the desert-dwellers of the land now known as Israel.
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
#37
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:55 AM
Mike, as an admin on a forum it behooves you to maintain a certain standard which should include NOT re-writing history to suit your personal opinions. It is a form of falsehood and easily tracked since the actual word you wrote are available to all to read.
Actually it can all be deleted should a moderator say something that is tooo confrontational.
#38
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:11 AM
If I see a document that uses the term loomex I may assume that the document is written by an electrician however someone who is not an electrician could and most likely has used the term loomex in some written document.
#39
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:25 AM
And tedward, lighten up, will you? I don't care to get into an unnecessary debate with you. I was making a simple observation by pointing out that we cannot identify the group behind the notes from a reference to a term that is used by many religions. Now we're running in circles.
I do not appreciate the harshness and vindictiveness of your postings on this forum. Your attitude is often argumentative and I do not feel it is conducive to respectful discussion. Be polite and respectful or check yourself out.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#40
Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:38 PM
I think Mike is just talking about word usage. Same could be said about many words. Just because one group uses the word Yahweh does not mean every time it is used it can only refer to that group. Nothing more nothing less. Doesn't seem controversial to me.
Pointing out factual errors is controversial?
My entire objection has been to an error on Mike's part which he seems hell-bent on defending to the point of absurdity.
Yahweh=Jehovah. That is all I have been saying.
It matters not whether the context is Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses or any other sect, it's still the same root deity.
Of course that has nothing to do with who left religious literature in this case and I have made no comment on that part of the discussion at all.
I was making a simple observation by pointing out that we cannot identify the group behind the notes from a reference to a term that is used by many religions. Now we're running in circles.
No. What you said was Yahweh was NOT Jehovah and claimed that somehow the word "Jehovah" in "Jehovah's Witnesses" did not refer to him. That is a factual error and rather than simply acknowledge the fact you have chosen to keep arguing.
I have made no comment on identifying which sect was responsible for the literature because you are correct on this point. Does not enter into this.
I am trying to be neither harsh nor vindictive. I am simply trying to ensure that blatant factual errors are not allowed to stand. I am sorry if my insistence on the truth seems argumentative to you.I do not appreciate the harshness and vindictiveness of your postings on this forum. Your attitude is often argumentative and I do not feel it is conducive to respectful discussion. Be polite and respectful or check yourself out.
Respectful discussion to my mind means that when faced with an error one acknowledges it and moves on rather than continuing to argue.
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users