Hiya! I'm new to the guild but...

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

Well, you could call on him by using "father" (Adonai) or the like, but I was never really Christian, so my scripture knowledge is spotty.

Lord actually- not father.

Do remember that the early copies of the Jewish sacred texts didn't need vowels. People knew how the words were pronounced.

Also- the Jewish people did know the name and how to pronounce it, and it was said in the Temple once a year.

With the destruction of the Temple, it makes sense that the tradition would have faded.  

[TeaDidikai]

A little more background:

The Temple was the most sacred of places. There were strict concepts of purity and defilement- sacred and profane.

Short of divine enlightened unification (which wasn't all that present in the mythos anyway), the most sacred and holy thing was their gods name. It wasn't meant to be placed amongst the profane- the common existence that was outside of the Temple.

Two thousand plus years ago- people would have known how to pronounce it. In fact- when we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, the name is written in a different text style in order to prevent people from saying it by accident as they were reading their scripture.

They had a host of titles that they used instead.

Adonai- or Lord. Some Jewish traditions restrict Adonai to prayer only, others prohibit it's use in total.

Shekhinah- The Presence of YHVH on earth.

Elohim- which translates as god (note that in the first chapter of Genesis, the Elohim are not named. In the second chapter they are- YHVH, and in latter chapters Elohim is attached to the name of deities from other cultures)

Hashem- meaning "The Name". This isn't restricted as it is a mere place holder by design.

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh- YHVH's response to Moses' request for his name.

As for people who put blanks into the word god- I find it a bit silly.

While very apt for using terms from Judaism wherein the characters themselves have a cultural understanding of power- to apply such rules to another culture's words in another culture's alphabet strikes me as absurd.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

Deoridhe

Dristinia

Wait so the Christians have a god that doesn't want to be called by their name? o.0 That seems a little... I don't know weird? It seems like the god doesn't care to be recognized by people who follow these ideals. (I guess is how I can word that) I'm also curious what the meaning of this name is in numerology .

*shrugs* Names hold power. An unnamable god would be quite sercure.

Also,t here's fun stuff you can do with it re: a monotheistic deity being synonymous with the unknowable, ineffable all, which if it is named is limited and thus is no longer the unknowable, ineffable all.

And given the complete textual rendition of the First Commandment, one could infer that the guys a bit paranoid...

Ver thu heil  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

A little more background:

The Temple was the most sacred of places. There were strict concepts of purity and defilement- sacred and profane.

Short of divine enlightened unification (which wasn't all that present in the mythos anyway), the most sacred and holy thing was their gods name. It wasn't meant to be placed amongst the profane- the common existence that was outside of the Temple.

Two thousand plus years ago- people would have known how to pronounce it. In fact- when we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, the name is written in a different text style in order to prevent people from saying it by accident as they were reading their scripture.

They had a host of titles that they used instead.

Adonai- or Lord. Some Jewish traditions restrict Adonai to prayer only, others prohibit it's use in total.

Shekhinah- The Presence of YHVH on earth.

Elohim- which translates as god (note that in the first chapter of Genesis, the Elohim are not named. In the second chapter they are- YHVH, and in latter chapters Elohim is attached to the name of deities from other cultures)

Hashem- meaning "The Name". This isn't restricted as it is a mere place holder by design.

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh- YHVH's response to Moses' request for his name.

As for people who put blanks into the word god- I find it a bit silly.

While very apt for using terms from Judaism wherein the characters themselves have a cultural understanding of power- to apply such rules to another culture's words in another culture's alphabet strikes me as absurd.

It's my understanding from information I've read to date, that Elohim is in fact always plural. Or do we have variant forms of the term?

The word God is in fact Germanic, and is indeed originally designating the divinity of the ancestral deities of the Germanic peoples. Hence it would make sense that when the Germanic Folk were converted, that the term God would simply (as with many terms and symbology) be modified to what the Christians wanted it to mean.

Ver thu heil  

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

It's my understanding from information I've read to date, that Elohim is in fact always plural.

Etymologically, you'd be correct. Grammatically, not so much.

Hebrew grammar places it in a singular form.

It would have been more accurate to say "deity" or "divinity" over god.

Quote:

Or do we have variant forms of the term?

It would appear to be endless!

When I have time (and can find my notebook) I'll type up a handful of the different meanings and applications of El.

Quote:

The word God is in fact Germanic, and is indeed originally designating the divinity of the ancestral deities of the Germanic peoples. Hence it would make sense that when the Germanic Folk were converted, that the term God would simply (as with many terms and symbology) be modified to what the Christians wanted it to mean.

Ver thu heil

However- if there was an accurate cultural parallel, god, like Elohim would not be edited in such a way.

Dropping of letters to protect the name is not applied universally to titles.  

[Mule of Liz Sama]

Is it odd that I've learned more about the christian faith in a guild dedicated to paganism within the past few weeks I've been here then I have in the years spent going to church and.. -ick- "bible camp". sweatdrop
 

[TeaDidikai]

Dristinia

Is it odd that I've learned more about the christian faith in a guild dedicated to paganism within the past few weeks I've been here then I have in the years spent going to church and.. -ick- "bible camp". sweatdrop

Heh. Has a lot to do with the fact that I see a great deal of merit in Christendom and get mildly annoyed with people misrepresenting the faith. Sadly, in this day and age, scholarship does not play the same role in Christendom that it once did.  

[Mule of Liz Sama]

It is sad. It seems like people just take the original context and twist it to fit their needs of the time then some one else takes the twisted version and twists it a bit more. sweatdrop It's actually enlightening to learn the truth of a religion I didn't find to fit. If I ever do meet the christian god I wanna ask him why he started a religion that is highly sexist against women. Seems like throughout the entire book women are constantly being blamed for the crap that happens. Mary magdilyn was turned into a whore (more then likely the churches doing) and Adam gets punished for listening and trusting his wife Eve with the whole fruit of knowledge thing. Though I will admit some stories there are actually female "heros" but not many. sweatdrop  

[TeaDidikai]

Dristinia

If I ever do meet the christian god I wanna ask him why he started a religion that is highly sexist against women. Seems like throughout the entire book women are constantly being blamed for the crap that happens.

Couple flaws with this approach.
1) You're ignoring all the crappy things that men did to support your position that women are victims.
2) It assumes that the sum total of the religion is found in the scripture you have read. I'll bet 500 gold that you haven't read the other gospels or the bulk of the works of the Saints.
3) It holds YHVH accountable for the errors of the Church.

Quote:

Though I will admit some stories there are actually female "heros" but not many. sweatdrop

Ummmmm... like the whole book of Ruth?

Within Christendom, both Men and Women are fallen. And I think that if we remove personal bias- this comes through very clearly.  

[Mule of Liz Sama]

Well of course both men and women have "fallen" I'm not saying that either side hasn't. What I'm saying is that it seems to me that the entire book gives off the whole theme that women are supposed to be submissive to a male instead of his equal. Somewhere it says that priests can't marry because it's unholy. I don't get it. Why can't a priest be happy and devoted to a god? Not sure which gospels you're talking about but I will be honest and say that the old testament was enough to annoy me. I doubt YHVH is going to hold himself accountable for the actions of man. He's already claimed immunity to mankind laws when some one tried to sue him over something. (saw it on the news.)  

[TeaDidikai]

Dristinia

What I'm saying is that it seems to me that the entire book gives off the whole theme that women are supposed to be submissive to a male instead of his equal.

No. Different =/= Unequal.

The fact of the matter is that in the culture of the Bible they acknowledge that a woman can be feminine and maintain the duties of womanhood without sacrificing what makes one a woman.

I mean- Deborah in Judges 5:1-31, Shiphrah and Puah's acts in Exodus 1:14-21, Huldah of 2 Kings 22- Esther, Ruth, Judith!

And that's just the OT. I mean, Phoebe of the book of Romans was a deconess.

These women served their god and their men.

Myself I am proud that I serve my husband. I am able to love him and met his needs and believe me, scripture is by no means short of examples as to how a husband serves his wife.

Quote:

Somewhere it says that priests can't marry because it's unholy. I don't get it. Why can't a priest be happy and devoted to a god?

Would you be kind enough to cite this.

I get the sinking suspicion that you're citing Paul's issues with Chastity.
And 1Ti 3:5 addresses that clergy need to be able to take care of their own house.

Quote:

Not sure which gospels you're talking about but I will be honest and say that the old testament was enough to annoy me.

Wait- are you judging Christians by the OT? eek  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

It's the Catholic church that forbids priests from marrying, not the Bible. Priests of Anglican/Episcopal traditions as well as pastors of purely protestant denominations frequently get married. In fact, the priest who for years presided over the Episcopal church I grew up in actually converted from Catholicism because he fell in love with his now-wife and wished to marry her.

And yes, there are quite a few Biblical references to women who actually DO something rather than sitting around being submissive all day. The problem arises from the fact that many of the followers of Christianity misinterpret the scripture. They take Paul's words to mean that women are made to be submissive doormats, while they ignore the context. The scripture says for women to submit to their husbands, but it also says for husbands to love their wives and treat them accordingly. It seems mostly to be a matter of people taking issue with the word "submit" - they use it to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it actually represents.

The same sort of theme comes up often in Shakespeare's plays - wives 'submitting' to their husbands. The culture of those times was such that submission had a different connotation. While we (as a culture) in modern times generally think of submission as something reserved for self-loathing, spineless types, originally it was more of a show of respect and cooperation rather than blind obedience.  

[TeaDidikai]

Daffodil the Destroyer

And yes, there are quite a few Biblical references to women who actually DO something rather than sitting around being submissive all day.

I find this more than a little offensive.

Submission takes effort. Service takes work. stare  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

TeaDidikai

Daffodil the Destroyer

And yes, there are quite a few Biblical references to women who actually DO something rather than sitting around being submissive all day.

I find this more than a little offensive.

Submission takes effort. Service takes work. stare

But the image of submission that I was referring to - the image popularly portrayed by many of the Christians in the area where I live - is not an image of submission as service. It's an image of submission as a negative, something that involves not service, but sitting back and allowing someone else to make all of your decisions for you, basically running your entire life and robbing you of your personal expression. Of course it's offensive.

The whole point of my post was that the original intent of that verse was NOT this offensive image. The wording I used there was a reference to the misdirected view that we were discussing.  

[TeaDidikai]

I often wonder how much of this is actually present within Christendom and how much of it is external misunderstandings.