Comments on: Semantics http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/ Clarke comments on the Restoration Movement and the Church of Christ. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:07:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: mark http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31571 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:28:54 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31571 Grace covers both personal sin and doctrinal error. Therefore there is no need to code our speech as to seperate us from the religious community. I think we need to add more words to our theology like ecumenical, denominational,women minsters, choir, band. The truth is the church of Christ is slowly melding back into the place it was before the restoration. Hopefully when we are done words won't matter and "brothers in error" will simple mean I disagree. Grace covers both personal sin and doctrinal error. Therefore there is no need to code our speech as to seperate us from the religious community. I think we need to add more words to our theology like ecumenical, denominational,women minsters, choir, band.

The truth is the church of Christ is slowly melding back into the place it was before the restoration. Hopefully when we are done words won’t matter and “brothers in error” will simple mean I disagree.

]]> by: Guy http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31391 Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:18:01 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31391 i hear what you're saying, but i also feel the a legitimate sense of wanting to be different from the denominational world. i think that's where i would have the most beef with all our insistence upon words. Just because we call things differently doesn't make them different. For all our hollering about not being a denomination, we sure do look and act pretty must just like them. If we focused on being different instead of just naming differently, then i don't think the semantics would be nearly as annoying. In fact, they'd be nearly unnecessary, wouldn't they? i would need to throw such a big fit about calling this or that by a different name because it would obviously be different no matter what it was called. i hear what you’re saying, but i also feel the a legitimate sense of wanting to be different from the denominational world. i think that’s where i would have the most beef with all our insistence upon words. Just because we call things differently doesn’t make them different. For all our hollering about not being a denomination, we sure do look and act pretty must just like them. If we focused on being different instead of just naming differently, then i don’t think the semantics would be nearly as annoying. In fact, they’d be nearly unnecessary, wouldn’t they? i would need to throw such a big fit about calling this or that by a different name because it would obviously be different no matter what it was called.

]]> by: Alan http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31381 Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:30:26 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/semantics/#comment-31381 You're right, Clarke. We have our own set of semantics, designed to distinguish us from everyone else--our own "newspeak" (from Orwell's 1984) We also tend to shy away from the term "bishop", I think primarily because of how it is used by groups such as the Catholic church. Not to mention, the word "catholic". How about the word "miracle"? I remember as a young Christian wondering why people who didn't believe in miracles bothered to pray. If God isn't going to intervene and do something that wouldn't happen otherwise, what is the point? You’re right, Clarke. We have our own set of semantics, designed to distinguish us from everyone else–our own “newspeak” (from Orwell’s 1984)

We also tend to shy away from the term “bishop”, I think primarily because of how it is used by groups such as the Catholic church. Not to mention, the word “catholic”.

How about the word “miracle”? I remember as a young Christian wondering why people who didn’t believe in miracles bothered to pray. If God isn’t going to intervene and do something that wouldn’t happen otherwise, what is the point?

]]>