Using gods name

by Gorbatchov 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gorbatchov

  I've never thought about it before, but isn't it some sort of blasphemy and extremism to use a god's name in the official name of your religion?

  G.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I'm not sure it's blasphemy.

  Extremism? - yeah, maybe.

  JWs always shove God's name down people's throats, and they're extremist in some ways.
  
• 

  Earnest

  Lots of Jews included God's name in their personal names (e.g. Joshua/Jesus) so it can hardly be blasphemous or extremist.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Blasphemy according to who? Inasmuch as blasphemy, as with other religious categories, is a socially constructed concept, one group’s ritual is another group’s idolatry, one group’s devotion another group’s blasphemy.
• 

  GodBeliever

  but they're looking for a better country instead, a heavenly country. That is why God isn't disappointed with them, and is happy to be called their God, for he has built a city for them.
  Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

  According to the Bible every individual or group of people that do God's will can be called by his Name.
  
• 

  GodBeliever

  Not a religious organisation though.
  
• 

  Overrated

  How about the supper righteous where everytime they speak, every other word is Jehovber. If someone keeps saying my name I would think they are some sort of retard.
• 

  Mr.Finkelstein

  Well from a theological perspective since the JWS are an organized group of apostate false prophets by definition through scripture , JWS are blasphemous.
  
• 

  stan livedeath

  i used to get seriously pissed off every time i heard "jehovah god". its not his first and last name--like john smith.. but then if someone seriously believes in a gigantic invisible man in the sky, they are capable of believing anything.
• 

  GodBeliever

  The etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge.[8][9] In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors, rulers, and even towards God.[4] Religio was most often used by the ancient Romans not in the context of a relation towards gods, but as a range of general emotions such as hesitation, caution, anxiety, fear; feelings of being bound, restricted, inhibited; which arose from heightened attention in any mundane context.[5] The term was also closely related to other terms like scrupulus which meant "very precisely" and some Roman authors related the term superstitio, which meant too much fear or anxiety or shame, to religio at times. definition of religio offered by Cicero is cultus deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."[19]

  Religio among the Romans was not based on "faith", but on knowledge, including and especially correct practice.[20] Religio (plural religiones) was the pious practice of Rome's traditional cults, and was a cornerstone of the mos maiorum,[21] the traditional social norms that regulated public, private, and military life. To the Romans, their success was self-evidently due to their practice of proper, respectful religio, which gave the gods what was owed them and which was rewarded with social harmony, peace and prosperity.

  Religious law maintained the proprieties of divine honours, sacrifice, and ritual. Impure sacrifice and incorrect ritual were vitia (faults, hence "vice," the English derivative); excessive devotion, fearful grovelling to deities, and the improper use or seeking of divine knowledge were superstitio; neglecting the religiones owed to the traditional gods was atheism, a charge leveled during the Empire at Jews,[22] Christians, and Epicureans.[23] Any of these moral deviations could cause divine anger (ira deorum) and, therefore, harm the State