Aussie airline bans staff from using ‘gender-inappropriate’ language

[Stavro]

35 minutes ago, Gregexplore said:

Jehovah's standard is unchangeable ...  He created them: woman and men  (no "it" )

 

What Scriptural standard is violated by using a gender-neutral term for marriage mates?

[New World Explorer]

15 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

On the other hand, we are not isolated from society, so should they become the normal grammatical way of speaking, we do adopt even such ways of speaking

Isolated : we are no part of this world

Adopt: I don't think what world is doing with grammatical way of speaking in relation to "gender" is of ANY interest to us.

Just to give you "extreme" example ..profanity is very common in the movies and in fact everyday speech, yet we don't adopt it because is in contradiction to Bible values.

When mankind wants to change fundamental truths about men and woman we do not support it.

 

Well, Johan ..that's how I see it.

[New World Explorer]

10 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

What Scriptural standard is violated by using a gender-neutral term for marriage mates?

Have you ever seen Jehovah addressing Abraham saying ..listen to your partner Sarah?

This is the principle on which I base my views.

Expressions such as : Father, mother, son, husband, wife ... reflect Jehovah's standard.

 

Jehovah figuratively views himself as a husband:

Let us rejoice and be overjoyed and give him glory, because the marriage of the Lamb has arrived and his wife has prepared herself

There is no confusion in the inspired Word, the Bible.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Gregexplore

[Stavro]

3 minutes ago, Gregexplore said:

Have you ever seen Jehovah addressing Abraham saying ..listen to your partner Sarah?

This is the principle on which I base my views.

Expressions such as : Father, mother, son, husband, wife ... reflect Jehovah's standard.

 

"Marriage Mate" is a gender neutral term commonly used by the slave, and the definition is virtually identical to "partner".

 

What Scriptural standard makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable?

[New World Explorer]

2 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

"Marriage Mate" is a gender neutral term commonly used by the slave, and the definition is virtually identical to "partner".

 

What Scriptural standard makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable?

Yes, I agree

In Australia especially is very common. (I use it too)

But unfortunately those who push "gender neutrality" go much further then that.

Slave would never abandon terms as Father and Mother ... etc

[Ahuvah]

17 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

"Marriage Mate" is a gender neutral term commonly used by the slave, and the definition is virtually identical to "partner".

 

What Scriptural standard makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable?

 

Because the slave is addressing an audience consisting of both genders. It's not to replace/exclude the terms husband or wife, its to include.

Partner even by the world's definition is someone who has an interest in the other person, be it in their personal lives or in a business life. 

It often includes commitment, but rarely dedication, because partnerships can be sold, divided or trashed,

Partnerships are often formed withint the four corners of legal documents. Marriages include not only a promise or contract before Jehovah, but for it to work it includes dedication which is involving the heart, not for personal gain as many partnerships seek, but for the gain of the other party over yours.

 

Relegating a sacred arrangement like marriage to a partnership leaves open doors to exit through or water down with worldly reasoning. 

 

So for me and admittedly it might be how its slanted here in NZ, for me there's a huge difference. I would never refer to Tom as my partner unless we set up a business together. He is my husband, he is one flesh with me ... I will not replace that with partner or any gender neutral replacements. 

I wish to honour the gift of marriage our Creator has given us. That is my stand. Your stand, Stavro might be completely different, and I respect that difference ... but I am convinced that our lips should utter praise by the words we use in harmony with our actions and our dress.

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Stormswift

[Stavro]

2 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

Relegating a sacred arrangement like marriage to a partnership leaves open doors to exit through or water down with worldly reasoning. 

 

*** nwtsty Matthew Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
The man thereby publicly declared that he was taking the woman as his marriage partner.

 

*** w52 3/15 p. 190 Questions From Readers ***
For this reason not only a first marriage but also a remarriage after death of one partner should be carefully weighed.

 

Note that the second reference is from 1952, and the slave has used "partner" in the publications almost every year since that time, so this is by no means a recent adoption of the term due to social or political pressure.

[New World Explorer]

Gender free terms would create problems for example here:

 

Abraham became father to Isaac;
Isaac became father to Jacob;
Jacob became father to Judah and his brothers;
 3 Judah became father to Peʹrez and Zeʹrah by Taʹmar;
Peʹrez became father to Hezʹron;
Hezʹron became father to Ram;
 4 Ram became father to Am·minʹa·dab;
Am·minʹa·dab became father to Nahʹshon;
Nahʹshon became father to Salʹmon;
 5 Salʹmon became father to Boʹaz by Raʹhab;
Boʹaz became father to Oʹbed by Ruth;
Oʹbed became father to Jesʹse;

 

And here:

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

 

I am so glad that I can see clarity in the bible.

 

 

 

[New World Explorer]

2 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

*** nwtsty Matthew Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
The man thereby publicly declared that he was taking the woman as his marriage partner.

 

*** w52 3/15 p. 190 Questions From Readers ***
For this reason not only a first marriage but also a remarriage after death of one partner should be carefully weighed.

 

Note that the second reference is from 1952, and the slave has used "partner" in the publications almost every year since that time, so this is by no means a recent adoption of the term due to social or political pressure.

My dear, you're are missing the points.

Partner , mate, are just additional terms ..NOT a replacement terms.

[Stavro]

Just now, Gregexplore said:

My dear, you're are missing the points.

Partner , mate, are just additional terms ..NOT a replacement terms.

 

Who here is advocating the use of "partner" as a complete replacement of husband and wife in every context?

 

[New World Explorer]

2 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

Who here is advocating the use of "partner" as a complete replacement of husband and wife in every context?

 

Ok then, we can move on ...

[skipdaflip]

7 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

I don't think this is what Johan is saying. I understand his point of view is that the Slave will, perhaps, eventually, if this system goes on long enough, drop gender specific terms.  Jehovah would no longer be referred to as heavenly FATHER.  Jesus would no longer be the SON of God.  Christ would not have BROTHERS. Those are all gender specific terms along with he, his, etc.... 

 

 

 

So Jehovah would be our heavenly PARENT.  Christ would be Jehovah's CHILD. The anointed would be Jesus SIBLINGS. 

 

 

 

We would accept such term, from what I understand, if or when culture completely removes gender specific terms.  

 

 

 

I question, though, the idea that such translation would be in harmony with the spirit we hold to in translation.  Remember the videos or talks we had about translating the NWT?  Some cultures did not have a word for sheep so, at one time, another animal was used there.  This idea was later viewed as inappropriate and we should not substitute words like that.  The same was true about translating the word bread.  Some cultures did not have a word for bread. The NWT committee decided that the word food was acceptable to use in this case but not some other food specific word.  

 

 

 

I don't think this system will last that long. 

 

And out of respect to persons who are offended by the name of Jehovah, we will replace it back to Lord. We do anything not to offend anyone, but bring the good news. Become a Jew for a Jew...?????????

 

I'm sorry, but I think this is exactly where we draw the line. Satan is bending everything to get everything in his power. And we will never Admit to that. 

If the GB would translate everything to be gender neutral, why are they creating a Caleb and Sophie movie about this topic, that offends exactly this group, then?

 

This convention will also talk about courage in case of this topic.

Everything is changing, and it will not be without a reason that the world will not be sad in the first place when the UN attacks religion. Because the bible and it's message will not change, and is not of this time in the eyes of this world. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by skipdaflip

[Stavro]

14 minutes ago, skipdaflip said:

And out of respect to persons who are offended by the name of Jehovah, we will replace it back to Lord. We do anything not to offend anyone, but bring the good news. Become a Jew for a Jew...?????????

 

This attitude is how worldly extremists act. Let's not mimic them.

[Áine]

42 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

This attitude is how worldly extremists act. Let's not mimic them.

I would hardly call it that... neither would I call Kim an extremist !

[New World Explorer]

51 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

This attitude is how worldly extremists act. Let's not mimic them.

Look Stavro, No topic warrants such expressions.. please we are here to encourage each other.

[Ahuvah]

54 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

This attitude is how worldly extremists act. Let's not mimic them.

 

The problem is when we are using the term extremist towards anyone let alone a brother ro sister we are being no better than the Court System in Russia. It's a very powerful word with so many variable connotations to it. 

[Stavro]

Just now, Gregexplore said:

Look Stavro, No topic warrants such expressions.. please we are here to encourage each other.

 

I personally do not feel that " using neutral words is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name" is a very encouraging statement.

 

When we have the Scriptures to back up our beliefs, we should not have to resort to logical fallacies to make our point.

[Ahuvah]

How you worded it there is much better Stavro. Even if we disagree you've got your point across in a palatable way.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Stormswift

[New World Explorer]

2 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

I personally do not feel that " using neutral words is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name" is a very encouraging statement.

 

When we have the Scriptures to back up our beliefs, we should not have to resort to logical fallacies to make our point.

Sometimes the "point" can hurt others ..is it worth it?

[Stavro]

Just now, Gregexplore said:

Sometimes the "point" can hurt others ..is it worth it?

 

I was hurt by the original point that my choice to use respectful neutral terms is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name.

[New World Explorer]

Just now, Stavro said:

 

I was hurt by the original point that my choice to use respectful neutral terms is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name.

Of course everybody has feelings and takes points differently ..but let's not forget that we are one brotherhood here 

We are all real brothers and sisters spread out around the world, united here by this forum ..
 

[Áine]

3 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

I was hurt by the original point that my choice to use respectful neutral terms is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name.

Stavro... perhaps you could show me where the slave uses gender neutral terms, as in the way you are meaning. 

We are very firm on our outlook, this is one of the reasons we have had the videos for children on this very fact. 

[Stavro]

Just now, anniebea said:

Stavro... perhaps you could show me where the slave uses gender neutral terms, as in the way you are meaning. 

We are very firm on our outlook, this is one of the reasons we have had the videos for children on this very fact. 

 

*** nwtsty Matthew Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
The man thereby publicly declared that he was taking the woman as his marriage partner.

*** w52 3/15 p. 190 Questions From Readers ***
For this reason not only a first marriage but also a remarriage after death of one partner should be carefully weighed.

 

If someone in the ministry prefers the term "partner", then it's a perfectly acceptable term to use. We would not argue with them that husband and wife are the only allowable words to describe their relationship, we would remain respectful of their choices while remaining within the Scriptural standards.

[skipdaflip]

10 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

I personally do not feel that " using neutral words is exactly as bad as removing Jehovah's name" is a very encouraging statement.

 

When we have the Scriptures to back up our beliefs, we should not have to resort to logical fallacies to make our point.

 

I understand that you keep neutral when preaching. But at one point you must declare scriptures and take the bull at the horns.

One of these difficult to accept scriptures are Ephesians 5:21-24.

 

21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 

22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 

23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 

24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 

 

This scripture is hard to explain to people nowadays. A woman can't be less then a man? And how do you explain this scripture to gay people?

We must choose or words wisely, but we can't change scriptures like these to gender neutral ones. Cause the meaning of it wil get lost. 

 

So I agree in choosing words wisely. On changing it to gender neutral, I disagree. 

 

On using strong words and placing a brother or sister in the same row as extremists is a form of judging. And only one has power over that. I don't think that was on purpose, but be careful with that please. 

 

So no offense to you brother. 

[New World Explorer]

3 minutes ago, Stavro said:

If someone in the ministry prefers the term "partner", then it's a perfectly acceptable term to use. We would not argue with them that husband and wife are the only allowable words to describe their relationship, we would remain respectful of their choices while remaining within the Scriptural standards.

Would we then ..teaching the truth or adding to their confusion regarding gender ...?

People in the world are confused enough and our firm stand can help them to see where the confusion comes from.