Comments on: Framing God

By: Iorwerth Thomas

Iorwerth Thomas — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:06:35 +0000

As an orthodoxish Anglican:

Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, Shub-Niggarath.

…

What?

Mind you, I’m also fond of the Athanasian Creed (in the old version of the Book of Common Prayer), which attatches the word ‘incomprehensible’ to each of the traditional personages. I think there may have been some linguistic drift since that translation, but I’m less than certain of that…

By: Alejandro

Alejandro — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:04:58 +0000

A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Return of the Jedi?

By: glenn

glenn — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:09:37 +0000

Peter, Raymond and Egon.
(the Ghostbusters)

Coffee, tea, milk.

By: KaraLynn

KaraLynn — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:05:49 +0000

Christian is as the Council of Nicaea does. If you can’t accept it, fine. I don’t. You can embrace atheism, or new age paganism, or Universalist Unitarianism or Giveallyourmoneytochrisism. But playing word games with the tenets of a well understood religion to suit your tastes when you can no longer subscribe to them just makes you look like a blithering idiot. And not even a Christian one.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it when people who don’t agree with my faith tell those who also don’t agree to leave well enough alone. There are a kajillion religions on this planet, heck you can start your own if you want (Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard did). One cannot change 2000 years of teaching to suit one’s own tastes. It’s been done before and proved to be disasterous.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:29:12 +0000

Oh dear me – ‘Father, Son & Holy Ghost’ is a convenient fiction, which half of Christianity no longer finds convenient & the other half does not regard as fiction.
‘Dove of Peace’ is a bit species-ist isn’t it?

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:58:15 +0000

Ah! I like “the Army and the Navy”.

If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven’s scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:24:38 +0000

Big Daddy, JC and the Spook

Milligan, Sellars and Seacombe

The Executive, the Legislative and The Judicial

Army, Navy and Air Force

Obe for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and go cat go.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 09:35:32 +0000

A goat, a goose, a ghost.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:57:28 +0000

A priest, a rabbi, and a minister?

By: engels

engels — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:06:26 +0000

An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman.

By: rogergur

rogergur — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:03:37 +0000

Shake, rattle and roll

By: Roy Belmont

Roy Belmont — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:23:40 +0000

Stop, drop, and roll.

By: garymar

garymar — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:29:58 +0000

Winken, Blinken, und Nod.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:18:41 +0000

Veni, vidi, vici.

By: Shieva

Shieva — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:05:23 +0000

The Economist (which everyone seems to adore) also had an article mentioning that the UN is trying to decrease the use of exonyms. (Bear with me, it relates, I promise!)

I briefly looked into what reasons the UN was giving for this, and the best I found was the following: “In the opinion of the UN, the use of exonyms impedes global communication. In addition, their use is contrary to the UN’s basic principles concerning one name for one object and thereby obstructs efforts to create international uniformity in the handling of names.” (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn22wp75.pdf)

Seems the UN should be less than pleased with the developments discussed in this post. The new names aren’t exonyms—at least, unless it turns out that God is a location!—but they’re relevantly similar with respect to what the UN seems to care about.

Though insofar as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one object (which is tempting to claim – they’re said to be one God, after all!)we’re already violating the UN’s basic principles . . .