edward_george,I don’t think calling God “Jehovah” anthropomorphizes God, for the reasons I discussed earlier–if “Jehovahness” was a human quality, you’d have a point. I see why you’re saying what you’re saying, i.e. that giving God a personal name like that somehow over-familiarizes him, and thus causes us to anthropomorphize him. But this doesn’t have to be the case. Any human term we use for God runs this risk, the key is remembering that words are not an end of themselves, something to trap God in, but rather are a means of getting to God. When we use terms by analogy to describe God, that is, use natural-order realities to talk about supernatural-order ones, then our words become signs which lead us beyond themselves, to God.
-ACEGC
I agree with you from the perspective of the way we, non JW’s, would use the name “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” as a name with all due honor to the one true God with respect to the possibility of this name not being exactly correct but with every intent to make it correct given the possibility. However this is clearly not the intent of the JW organization. Without anthropomorphizing God with the personal connectedness they use to tie to an individual’s feelings, the importance of the “name” no longer would be used as a tool for proselytizing. This tool being one of their sharpest tool in their shed.I don’t think calling God “Jehovah” anthropomorphizes God, for the reasons I discussed earlier–if “Jehovahness” was a human quality, you’d have a point. I see why you’re saying what you’re saying, i.e. that giving God a personal name like that somehow over-familiarizes him, and thus causes us to anthropomorphize him. But this doesn’t have to be the case. Any human term we use for God runs this risk, the key is remembering that words are not an end of themselves, something to trap God in, but rather are a means of getting to God. When we use terms by analogy to describe God, that is, use natural-order realities to talk about supernatural-order ones, then our words become signs which lead us beyond themselves, to God.
-ACEGC
The introduction of The Lord’s Prayer, even in their bible, reinforces that His Name is to be kept Holy, yet they make the argument that this means that we are to use it.MT 6:9 (NWT)
9“YOU must pray, then, this way:
“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified
I would contend that using the Name; used to reference the Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to refer to a people bound to Him through teachings of false prophecy and deception constitutes the extreme violation of this command.EX 20:7 (NWT)
7“You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.
Further, my wife has attempted this argument with me a number of times. Yet she becomes indignant when our son calls her by her first name instead of “Mommy!” We have been instructed to have such a relationship with him, albeit an anthropomorphic one, as to call him “Abba, Father.”Originally Posted by adf417
It would go something like this…“Don’t you think God wants us to know and use his personal name? After all you wouldn’t want me to address you by your title would you?”
PeaceGen 1:26
26 Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness.
adf417. You have made my point! Strictly speaking in an academic sense it must be admited that the name Jehovah does not anthropomorphise God as edward_george has pointed out. However when in context within a group such as the Jehovah Witnesses this sense is blured to the point where the agenda of the group is using the name in a way that could be seen as anthropomorphic. Also I dont think it is to much of a stretch to suggest that the watchtower has used the name in such a way as to make it a franchise in the true mercantile sense of the word. I’m not sure if that would come under the context of anthropomorphic or just crass.I agree with you from the perspective of the way we, non JW’s, would use the name “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” as a name with all due honor to the one true God with respect to the possibility of this name not being exactly correct but with every intent to make it correct given the possibility. However this is clearly not the intent of the JW organization. Without anthropomorphizing God with the personal connectedness they use to tie to an individual’s feelings, the importance of the “name” no longer would be used as a tool for proselytizing. This tool being one of their sharpest tool in their shed.
Peace!!!
Hadn’t thought of that one but I can sure see your point.Also I dont think it is to much of a stretch to suggest that the watchtower has used the name in such a way as to make it a franchise in the true mercantile sense of the word. I’m not sure if that would come under the context of anthropomorphic or just crass.