The other day I did a post called Here We Go Again…. A christian had come by HDC and offered to have a bit of discourse so I posted what he had said and replied accordingly. Apparently there were quite a few comments, some of which got a bit heated and unpleasant. But a few questions were asked in amongst all the angry exchanges that I thought I’d address directly.
Sometimes I know I can be a bit vague about where I stand on issues, mainly because I don’t want to offend anyone. I like to be happy and make others happy. But I think at a certain point, honesty really is more important than a bit of bruised ego. So let’s stop pussyfooting around and I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am not trying to offend anyone. I’m just being honest.
It was noticed that I don’t ever capitalize god. Why should I when there is no such thing? I capitalize Jesus when I feel we’re talking about a person, even though I don’t believe Jesus existed. I capitalize Rome because it’s a place. But I don’t capitalize god because it’s a concept, not a reality. There is no god, hence no need to make it a pronoun. When referring to yahweh or jehovah, also not real… no reason to make them pronouns either.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn, on the other hand, is completely real, bless her holy hooves. LOL… sorry.. trying to lighten the mood.
In that vein, Michael Mock in the comments referred to god as G-d. I find the whole g-d thing irritating because it is done out of deference for the christian god, even fear. That’s why it bothers me. Because it’s silly. Your god can spell, after all. So whether you stick that “o” in there or not means nothing. It’s simply a sign of fear for a god who seems cruel and arbitrary if something like writing out the word god, all three letters, is bad.
There was also a good discussion about indoctrination. I agreed with Steve that people adopt the detergent/ political party/ religion and eating habits of their parents and community.
Religion by its nature is done through indoctrination. And here I’ll say it. I think religion is inherently evil. I think indoctrination of any sort, whether for religious reasons or for simple manipulation is also evil. It assumes that the person being indoctrinated has no free will and gets no say in what they are forced to learn to believe. It’s evil.
I think that picking a detergent is based on parents and society too, but that’s not indoctrination as much as intellectual laziness if you never try anything but what your mother used. Same with what you eat. If as an adult you only ever eat the same meals that your parents cooked for you when you were little, that’s lazy. Try new things, experiment. Especially if she made you eat liver and onions because she thought liver was good for you. You don’t like it but you still eat it because you never bothered to think about it. That’s crazy. That’s not indoctrination though.
And in my view, indoctrination leads to faith. Just to make that clear. Faith is belief in god or the teachings of a religion. It needs no proof or evidence. I feel that if you have faith in a god, then you have been indoctrinated into the religion of that god. Plain and simple.
Sometimes people will go against their indoctrination. Look at me. I was indoctrinated into the christian religion. I gave it all up and am now a happy atheist. It’s more common to stay in lockstep with your family and your community than to wander outside the limits of the lies you were told.
Michael Mock keeps talking about the difference between christianity and other religions, as well as different brands of christianity. Perhaps he could make it clear where he’s coming from. What are you talking about, specifically? I think we’re all pretty clear that every church has its own brand of christianity, or islam or whatever. There are methodist churches, protestant, catholic, pentacostal, etc. Do we need to be specific every time we refer to christianity? I don’t think so.
When I speak of religion, I speak against it as a whole. Sure, there are small little churches that actually help the community. But those small little churches that do good are run by a thoughtful and kind person who would have been good even without religion. But all in all, the evil of religion is pervasive. It crushes the human spirit and turns people into mindless sheep.
In the case of the fathers and priests and pastors, it turns them into wolves in sheep’s clothing in most circumstances. They act like fathers and role models, all while never letting their “children” grow up and be full human beings. No one has to be responsible. No one has to think for themselves. It’s abhorrent to the natural human endeavor to advance and grow. Not to mention the politics, corruption and abuse that has always been associated with the catholic church, especially.
Perhaps you find my statements unwarranted and you see them as harsh and disrespectful assumptions, but I make them with a clear mind. I am not going to cull the news and history books to validate every single word I write. Read the news for yourself. Read history for yourself. See the evils of the different brands of religion throughout history and even today.
Of course you might interpret it all differently. That’s only natural. But I can not and will not sugar coat reality just to make people feel better on this blog. I think that is intellectually dishonest and completely unhealthy.
When you wrap yourself in faith and fairy tales and refuse to listen to reason, or look at science, then yes, you are intellectually lazy and gullible. There’s no nice way to say that. I don’t believe in being politically correct because all it does is make us weaker and more sensitive. Just look at how uptight and sensitive people are about every little supposed slight or utterance. It’s disgusting. I won’t play that stupid game on my blog or in my life.
Sure, sometimes I’ll be nice and not say anything at easter dinner to offend my hosts. But that’s out of respect for their hospitality, not respect for the insane lies spouting forth from the host’s mother.
If I get something wrong and someone corrects me, I apologize and make amends. If I make an assumption about you based on your actions, well, mistakes happen. Again, I will apologize. I don’t always have to be right. I never proclaimed to be perfect.
Steve brought up a great idea about why religion originally came about in the first place. He suggested that it’s to explain “why”, to explain the world when we only had questions and fears with no answers. (I added the second bit because I agree.) So religion isn’t wired into the species, asking “why” is in our very nature. Steve further notes that gods are formed in the image of the people and their culture. Again, I agree, because that is what seems to make sense to a people at the time. It answers the most questions.
Ok, I think that wraps up my small mention in the comment war. I hope it makes it clear where I stand with religion. Your comments and thoughts are most welcome, as always. Please, though, try not to attack each other personally. Use good argument techniques and avoid the dreaded ad hominems if you can help it.
Bravo, Neece! I find myself agreeing with most of the points here. I am currently involved in a rather lengthy debate on Facebook (a different christian this time) on the validity of the bible as basis for law, and I’ve invoked a couple of the statements you’ve set forth here.
I am a VERY non-confrontational person – especially when it comes to those whom I like and/or have the ability to affect my life in a negative way.
Thank you for posting this – it encourages all of us to stop being so timid about our lack of faith. Expressions of faith are everywhere – why can’t we be vocal as well?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Thanks DS.
Yes, I am the same kind of non-confrontational as what you describe here. Unfortunately, I think I have ended up keeping my mouth shut many times when it looked like I was silently agreeing by not speaking up. Now if I do, it seems like I’m being exceedingly objectionable or something. In fact, it’s just me saying what I really think.
Exactly, why do nontheists have to be so timid and respectful of peoples’ irrational and silly beliefs when no one respects our logical ideas? It doesn’t seem to help anyone to let those irrational beliefs rule us all, when in fact they really are incredibly harmful.
Reply to This Comment
Well stated!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Thanks Buffy!
Woot!
Reply to This Comment
I’d like to mention first, that because our society “pussyfoot” around, that when somebody comes forth and just directly writes what they mean, people always take said actions negatively or with hostile intent. Somehow, of course, when adding big words and muddling what is said makes it sound nicer(which, it doesn’t actually do). I don’t “pussyfoot” around, it is therefore taken that I’m being hostile all the time. And let’s not get confused here, I’m out for the kill–I’m just not in a murderous rage. When I try to sugar coat things, I do indeed feel dishonest, since I know full well I’m just trying to get things past the reader.
The origin of monotheism, if I recall from my history classes, started long ago to be used to get the poor in line. That is why it’s so crucial in monotheistic religions of an afterlife that awards the docile. “Don’t worry about the king being rich and you poor, you’ll go to heaven where you’ll be treated like a king yourself!” In any case, it was definitely taken up for this by Emperor Constantine, unfortunately, unexpectedly it gained more power than the king starting around the Dark Ages.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I feel very dishonest when I sugar-coat things. Or worse, when I say nothing.
My opinion was that christianity was based on keeping people in line with rewards of an afterlife. I would agree with you that when they came up with the Nicene Creed, it seemed they had it in mind to shuffle reward on to the next life to keep “good christians” in line in this life.
But I never got that impression from judaism. Do the jews even believe in an afterlife? I’m not sure. I’ve heard it both ways. Maybe it’s different kinds of judaism believe and others don’t?
islam has that whole future reward thing too.
To me it’s all blatant manipulation.
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
My observation is that most Jews do not believe in an afterlife; those that do typically believe in heaven, but not hell.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Yes, that sounds about like what I’ve observed, Johnny. Thanks!
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Along the lines of “origins” … I stumbled on an interesting article a few weeks back that plays out a little imagination scenario, and really does a great job of illustrating how a religion could begin. If you’re interested: Making a Religion.
Reply to This Comment
Nice post Neece!
I like your idea that ‘god is a concept.’ That’s an excellent explaination.
I view Jehovah and Yahweh as fictional characters though; same as I view Zues and Odin, or Hamlet, Sherlock Holmes, and Superman. So I disagree I guess; I think they are the concept personified as a fictional character.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
That’s an interesting perspective. Jesus is a fictional character. I guess yahweh is too, when I think about it. Yeah.. you’re right. They are fictional characters based on concepts. Thanks, Johnny!
Reply to This Comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth
Most people start from the position that Jesus was an historical character, and don’t even question that assumption. Hellenistic Messianic Jewish sects were prominent in the area for at least a century before Saul of Tarsus invented the Jesus character, and attributed legends to him that were directly taken from earlier and contemporary “Sun/Son” Gods. Horus/Dionysus/Attis/Mithras.. etc..
Saul, or St. Paul, was the Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of his day.
The truth shall set you free.
Reply to This Comment
I think I still disagree on the notion that indoctrination leads to faith. I realize you’re angling more to the religious aspects of things, but indoctrination isn’t just about religious cults. For example, The Soviets used the ideas of religion to build their manifesto, and simply replaced god with the state. There was no faith involved in that, but plenty of indoctrination.
Faith, to quote Sam Clemens, is believing what you know ain’t so. Faith is the antithesis of reason. Faith is believing in something without evidence. But you said it yourself, Neece- doing something your parents did can be intellectual laziness; I don’t think that religion is indoctrination but using Dove soap isn’t. I’d argue that faith can be intellectual laziness too.
I am on the fence about the historicity of Jesus. Most biblical scholars (60% or so) actually think he was a real person with exceptions. For example, Bart Ehrman is an atheist scholar who is pretty confident that there was a guy named Jesus walking around but doesn’t attribute any of the miracles or the resurrection to him. His book “The New Testament” describes the very foreign world of two thousand years ago and the first couple of chapters paint a surreal picture of the middle east with “godmen” walking around, essentially performing magic tricks to get people to follow them. Early Christianity (withing the first hundred years following Jesus’ supposed death) was not what we know it to be today, but rather a highly contested smattering of beliefs- Jesus wasn’t really human, he was saved at the last minute by a Roman soldier, etc.
Some of the blogs I follow have some pretty interesting insight into whether he was a real person, or an amalgamation of several real people, or a complete fabrication, but as scholarship currently stands, a clear majority believe that there is enough evidence to indicate that his origins have some basis in fact. Having watched the debate for some time that majority has been diminishing, but I have to trust the people that know better than I do about that.
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Oh, and whether or not Jesus WAS a real person has nothing to do with the validity of Christianity. Mohammad WAS a real guy (and something of a douchebag) and we all know the validity of HIS religion!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
HA! Excellent point, Steve! LOL!
Reply to This Comment
http://www.carm.org/ is a great resource to answer many questions regarding Christianity and it is not fundamental at all. Check it out. Even as a Christ-follower I still find myself asking some very difficult questions about my own faith;hence, the reason I spent 4 years of Bible college studying the very text inside and out. Not all my questions have been answered. Sometimes I found more questions regarding more answers. Throw my an email sometime miller.joshuak at g mail .com if anyone wants to dialogue some more about these difficult questions. I have a lot of very good resources too that provide a fair prospective on the faith and haven’t been diluted and I would definitely not consider them fundamentalist by any means.
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Sorry, Joshua. That website you link to has a contradictory statement in the opening paragraph.
“In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to undergird the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God.”
They start with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of god and use “evidence” and “logic” to prove it is so. You can’t search for truth if you know what the outcome is going to be before you even start. That’s intellectually dishonest.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Thanks, Steve. I hadn’t had a chance to follow the link.
Reply to This Comment
This is a comment on your “Nicest Compliment” post (couldn’t figure how to directly comment on it). I don’t know how you define poor, but i know a number of people who don’t make a lot of money (like me) who are very intelligent (OK, not always me). Not everyone is interested in making as much money as they can. I don’t have a car and don’t own a house, but i am college-educated, read a lot and am very anti-religion in general. Maybe the crux of the problem is how you define poor. I never really considered myself poor (I only make about $1500 a month, have 7 guitars, a piano, gobs of audio equipment and live in a 2-bedroom apt by myself) so maybe by poor you really mean people who handle money poorly and live beyond their means. Care to explain?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I’m going to copy this comment over to the right post. .. see over there…
Reply to This Comment
Just a tangential comment about grammar. You said, “There is no god, hence no need to make it a pronoun.” I think you meant proper noun, not pronoun. But we capitalise proper nouns to show that we’re talking about a specific person, place or thing. Capitalising God is grammatically correct since the word is used in reference to the Judeo-Christian god almost all the time in this sort of context. And note that I didn’t capitalise it that last time. That’s because in that case the term Judeo-Christian signified the specific thing, and god signified the broader class of thing to which the Judeo-Christian god belongs. In that case god is a common noun.
So basically, the use of proper nouns (and therefore capitalisation) has nothing to do with whether or not something is real. But I like the way you subverted grammar to highlight God’s status as a fictional character. I might do that myself in the future. :p
As for the topic of this post, I salute you for not pussyfooting around. To me it seems clear you don’t intend to offend anyone directly. You’re a lot kinder and more considerate than I often am. Sensitivity is one thing, but watching your every word because someone might misinterpret it and take offense is utterly pointless. Thanks for not doing that!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hey Mark, you’re so right! My school teachers would be mortified by the error! I totally meant proper noun.
Thanks so much for calling me kinder and more considerate. I just got into a facebook argument with a “believer” and it was really ugly. I totally lost because I lost my temper. I am so mad at myself about it.
But yes, political correctness is harmful, if you ask me. Thanks for straightening me out.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 am
My post from earlier covering the subject…
”
Step 1: define pronoun: “a function word that is used in place of a noun or noun phrase”
Step 2: define god: “deity: any supernatural being”
Step 3: substitute god for whatever one we are talking about. Zeus, YHWH, Allah, or otherwise.
Step 4: realize that this use is the definition of a pronoun.
Yes, god is a pronoun. It is substituted for an abstract noun. … When you say god, you fail to realize that it can mean any god, Athena or otherwise. Thankfully, most people know how to handle contexts, so when I’m talking about Christianity they would know to place the proper god whenever I said god. When used to identify the whole group, like of the gods, it is a common noun. Proper noun, would be the name Zeus, Athena, YHWH, or Allah. As the word god can be used to reference to multiple things, it is, a pronoun. Of course, let’s take this into context. This is use for an atheist. For theists, the god in question is the only one, it cannot be changed depending on context. Op, more context, monotheists. Further context, we’re talking why it’s acceptable for Neece to use it without capitalization.
”
Capitalizing god in any case is incorrect grammar if you DO NOT have the belief that there is only one god, even if used to reference a god of a single religion. IF you believe there is only one god, then it is a proper noun in consideration to your views.
For Neece, a noun doesn’t have to exist, ie, abstract noun. This is further compounded by the fact that most of the time god will change depending on who the believer is. Of course, this again, is for nonbelievers, as a believer will think it as a concrete noun. In technical sense, it is always an abstract noun since under conditions of faith you cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell god.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
The beliefs of the writer are irrelevant if the context is the beliefs of the person to whom the sentence is directed. So if I write about a Christian who does believe in one god whom they call God, then God should be capitalised if grammatical correctness is important.
And even if you’re writing in reference to your beliefs, you would still capitalise God if you were referring to a specific god which is identified with that specific name, regardless of whether or not you think it exists. If that were not the case an atheist would never capitalise Zeus, for example. Therefore the Judeo-Christian god, who is commonly referred to by the name “God”, should be capitalised. It’s a proper noun because it refers to a specific entity with that specific name, not because the entity is supposedly unique.
On the other hand, when referred to in the third-person singular (he, or she, or it), the pronoun shouldn’t be capitalised. That’s where capitalisation is used as an honorific and is grammatically incorrect (though sometimes style overrides grammar).
As for pronouns, I’m not sure. I don’t think god is ever used as a pronoun which substitutes for an abstract noun. It’s used directly as an abstract noun in those cases, isn’t it? Can you give me an example of where “god” would function as a pronoun, and not an abstract noun or common noun?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“Can you give me an example of where “god” would function as a pronoun”
Every time you feel the need to capitalize the word. Substitutes for one of the abstract nouns Zeus, Yahweh, Athena, and all the rest depending upon context. See more argument below.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
That doesn’t address the question. If the word should be capitalised it’s a proper noun. I asked for an example of where “god”, uncapitalised, would function as a pronoun as opposed to an abstract noun or common noun. I might write, “I don’t believe in Zeus.” I would never write, “I don’t believe in god” and mean the same thing. I’ve never seen the word “god” used in that context. I might write, “I don’t believe in gods” or “I don’t believe in your god” or “I don’t believe in him” but in the first case the key word is an abstract noun, in the second it’s a common noun, and in the third it’s a real pronoun.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:39 am
“‘I don’t believe in god’ and mean the same thing.”
You would, if widespread belief in Zeus was the norm, and you were one of them. How about this, how about we substitute for this…
“I don’t believe in Yahweh.” and “I don’t believe in god.” What now? Huh? What now? But someone who didn’t believe Yahweh, and believed in that is was Allah, would do the same to you.
None of you just don’t seem to get it. You take advantage of the fact that YOU AND NOT US believe there is one true god. And the above proves it. You only care about yourself, about your version of god. Each and every one of you, has a different view on what your god is, yet you capitalize it as a specific, unchangeable, singular thing. Let me ask you, what would happen if you changed faiths? Yes, unthinkable that you would change your mind, but say you did. Whenever you capitalized god then, it would then refer to your NEW believed god. IT IS ALWAYS USED IN THE CONTEXT OF A PRONOUN WHEN CAPITALIZED, IE, it refers to Yahweh, or whatever god you want to believe in at the time.
The word god, IS NOT A PROPER NOUN. Really, Michael’s argument already far surpassed you on this… god is NOT the name, it is therefore NOT a proper noun. Is god the name? Answer the question, is god the name? NO. The best argument, which Michael already made, is god is a title. I don’t seem to get why you think it’s a proper noun… IT’S NOT A NAME. It doesn’t matter if it refers to a specific object, that’s not what a proper noun is.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Why would I compliment Neece on calling God a fictional character, and say I might do the same, if I believed in him? I’m an atheist. Your “proof” is therefore only proof of your lack of comprehension and speaks against your expertise with the English language.
Further, why should anyone pay attention to advice on grammar given by someone who writes “None of you just don’t seem to get it”. I suppose that’s a bit harsh since it’s probably a typo, but it does go to show, you’re not really attention to what *you’re* writing let alone what *other* people have written.
Anyway, I’ve addressed the other points in my other reply. Try to be a bit more civil in any reply you make otherwise don’t bother; I don’t see the point in a discussion with someone who doesn’t pay attention, shouts, and swears.
Michael Mock Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
And, again: a pronoun is a placeholder word. It has no specific meaning aside from whatever it’s referring to. “God” is a substitution, but it has a meaning of its own and so it is a noun. The fact that it’s being used to replace another noun (in this case, a name) does not, by itself, make a word into a pronoun.
Way more than you ever wanted to know about pronouns:
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/pronouns.html
Alternatively, check out the definition of “god”:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
…and look at the parts of speech in the various definitions. There are more possibilities than I would have guessed, but pronoun is nowhere on the list.
Reply to This Comment
“referred to by the name ‘God’”
Wow, wait right there. god is not the name. And that’s the point. That’s the whole bloody point. Again, your taking it from your singular view that there is only, and I quote:
“a specific entity with that specific name”
There is no specific entity. When we say Christian god, we are talking about all of your gods, yes, each one of you has your own view of what your god is. Each and every denomination has their own take. Furthermore, I specify which god it is through context. I wouldn’t, for example, capitalize the word god when I’m talking about Zeus in any form–and neither would you. This makes the double standard, and further proves the point. You only want your god capitalized. Well no. I think it’s about high time double standards for the religious are eliminated.
“not because the entity is supposedly unique”
That’s one of the distinctive attributes of a proper noun, way to fight against your point.
“atheist would never capitalise Zeus”
That’s ridiculous. Because Zeus, is a proper noun. In fact, when referring to Yahweh, I would capitalize it. BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE PROPER NOUNS. The word god isn’t. Well, when you don’t believe there is only one that is.
“beliefs of the person to whom the sentence is directed”
Wow, that’s a BS statement. Those sentences you just wrote are directed at me huh? So stop capitalizing the god in them. No, that’s really just plain BS. I don’t see how you can possibly think that writing should accommodate the impossible to know opinions of the reader.
Micheal:
Yes, a pronoun has no specific meaning aside from whatever it’s referring to… Exactly. It does not have a meaning on its own when used to refer to any god. Tell me yourself, what is the meaning behind the word in situations when you capitalize it? And that’s the usage. How you are using the word is as a pronoun. Thank you for your supporting argument.
So you give me twisted definitions of the word. Alright, fair game, let’s use the capitalized version:
“the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.”
No doubt done by a theist. What does it say? THE ONE. Huh, exactly my point, so you’ve proven again, that a theist can capitalize the word, even though, I have said quite clearly that that is acceptable from a theistic standpoint.
.
Keep it coming boys. No seriously, this is training my argument so I can start to perfect it. I think I’ve almost got it done pretty solid. Gotta make it really good before I make if fully public. I’ll write a big paper on it or something.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:48 am
It’s ironic that you pointed out that “most people know how to handle contexts”. This is precisely what you’ve failed to achieve; you haven’t got a handle on the context in which the term God is used by some people, and more specifically you’ve failed to understand the contexts in which I’ve used the term.
“Wow, wait right there. god is not the name.”
Wrong. In the context of calling their particular Judeo-Christian god, “God”, God *is* a name. Not Yahweh or anything else. God. It’s the name they use instead of the other “proper” names they made up for him.
As an example to illustrate this use and it’s context as a name (as opposed to a pronoun), many Jews write God as “G-d” because they don’t want to deface God’s name. If “God” were not considered God’s name (e.g., a pronoun) they wouldn’t have a problem writing it. They don’t, for example, replace e with a hyphen in “he” when referring to God.
Valid pronouns are used instead of the word “God” all the time, e.g., “God is our creator, he gave us life.” In those cases where the word God is used it’s functioning as a proper noun, not as a pronoun. This should be clear from phrases which use the term in isolation without any reference to what the term substitutes for, e.g., “God loves us all.” To any reasonable person there is no question that God refers specifically to the God the writer believes in and refers to by that name. That kind of understanding is impossible with a true pronoun, e.g., “He loves us all.” Who is “He” in that context? It’s impossible to know without further information.
“God” only appears to function as a pronoun because it’s in the same position as a pronoun would be. A problem with your argument is one that Michael tried to point out; that just because a word is used like a pronoun, that doesn’t make it one.
“When we say Christian god, we are talking about all of your gods, yes, each one of you has your own view of what your god is.”
I don’t have any gods. Not only do you not have a handle on the context of the use of the word God, but you don’t have a handle on the context of this discussion and the people participating in it.
“I wouldn’t, for example, capitalize the word god when I’m talking about Zeus in any form–and neither would you.”
If I used “god” instead of “Zeus” I would be using a common noun.
“I think it’s about high time double standards for the religious are eliminated.”
That’s not an issue of grammar. Linguistically it’s a matter of style, at best.
“That’s one of the distinctive attributes of a proper noun, way to fight against your point.”
Way to completely miss the point. It’s the relationship between a unique entity *and* it’s name that makes the name a proper noun, not the fact that the entity is unique.
“Wow, that’s a BS statement. Those sentences you just wrote are directed at me huh? So stop capitalizing the god in them. No, that’s really just plain BS. I don’t see how you can possibly think that writing should accommodate the impossible to know opinions of the reader.”
If I were writing about your belief in gods then I would be either using a common noun or an abstract noun, not a proper noun. Or I would use the relevant proper noun, e.g., Zeus. If you were paying attention and trying to understand the concepts rather than simply insisting that you’re right and therefore don’t really need to read whatever anyone else writes, you might have noticed that I didn’t capitalise every use of the word god, as appropriate. You would have also noticed that at no point was I explicitly referring to gods according to your beliefs (as opposed to referring to how you should write regardless of your beliefs).
Lastly, I was explicitly talking about when you do know the beliefs of the person you’re directing your comments to. So it’s either disingenuous or ignorant of you to suggest that I was talking about impossible to know opinions.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Finally, I was waiting for this. Some solid stuff. This stuff I can do. Honestly, Michael’s title argument is a pretty hard case, I don’t know if I can crack that without some serious work–if it even can be. Yours… piece o’ cake.
.
First off, I’m going to ignore every single mention you made of it’s usage as a common noun. I guess you didn’t catch on, but we aren’t talking about the usage as a common noun. In fact, if you go back and read the first statement, you would figure out that I know full well the use of it as a common noun, that we quite agree on it’s usage, and THAT WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT THAT. AT ALL. Seriously, wtf. That is completely outside the argument. To be honest, every time you revert to trying to tell me on how to use god as a common noun, you basically have ignored what I said, and made a straw man argument that doesn’t actually counter anything. So I’ll quote, “you’re not really attention to what *you’re* writing let alone what *other* people have written.”
“That just because a word is used like a pronoun, that doesn’t make it one.”
Again, yes it does. Grammar, whether things are nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, are how they are used. It is a noun, because it’s used as a noun. It is a verb, because it’s used as a verb. That is… wait for it, CONTEXT. Wow. You would understand this more, if you had taken a class in linguistics covering syntactic analysis. Not that these classes are romping about mind you, or that you would have fun pursuing such a class. If I wasn’t forced to take one, I sure wouldn’t have…
“Valid pronouns are used instead of the word ‘God’ all the time”
This actually proves my point further. What have people taken to do with pronouns in reference to their god? Capitalize them. Yes, he, him, they capitalize the pronouns. Because that’s what they do, capitalize pronouns, their argument for capitalizing it is the exact same argument your giving to capitalize god… So… Do you support them capitalizing the pronouns he and him?
“In the context of calling their particular Judeo-Christian god, ‘God’, God *is* a name.”
No, it, isn’t. Just to clarify the first part of what you said… the context of using the word god to refer to their particular god… You’ve again, given a pronoun, it substitutes for their god’s name. Next, there is a reason why god is used instead of the name. Using god’s inherited a risk that the written name might later be defaced or destroyed accidentally or by somebody who didn’t know better. THUS, god was used instead, AS A PRONOUN so that they wouldn’t be using any of his names. This is actually a pretty important historical concept, especially for this argument. You seem to understand why they would do it, UNFORTUNATELY, you didn’t put two and two together. This whole thing is taken further, with the g-d thing, but it has been completely noted that this is not necessary… for the reason that god IS NOT THE NAME. Furthermore, this whole process of capitalization of the pronoun started, simply out of thinking that it was sacred and some respect notion.
.
Let’s review here. The word god was originally used as a pronoun for the name of god. Capitalization of god came about through a sense that capitalizing gave it some sort of respect. Currently, people take that even farther by capitalizing pretty much anything that references to him(like “him”). When you go up to somebody and ask, what is god’s name, they’ll give you an answer that isn’t “god”. You are arguing, basically, that people think god’s name is god–I don’t really see how you think that your making a good argument.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Do that and you’re simply ignoring part of the argument, rather than addressing it. Every mention of the use of the word as a common noun is relevant where the word is used as a common noun instead of as a pronoun (or any other form of noun), as was the case in my reply.
No, it doesn’t. What you don’t seem to have learnt in your linguistics class is that pronouns are a closed word class. Or perhaps you did learn it but forgot to acknowledge it because it’s contrary to your argument. In any case, unless you can show that “God” has been admitted to the restricted list of English pronouns, your argument fails without even needing to consider all the other ways in which it’s wrong.
And where they do that they are using a valid pronoun. That’s not the case with “God” used a proper noun. And no, it doesn’t prove your point, it refutes it; it shows that “God” does not operate as a pronoun because there are valid pronouns available and used in instances where a pronoun is appropriate.
You didn’t address the point that use of God as a pronoun would violate the purpose of a pronoun, which is to substitute for another noun when the context in which it’s used makes it clear for which noun it substitutes. “God” is frequently used where, if God were not a proper noun, it wouldn’t be clear to who/what the sentence was referring. I gave you an example.
Here are just two examples (of many more which I can’t be bothered listing) in which “God” is explicitly referred to as a name:
From Wikipedia: “The Hebrew words Eloheynu (Our God) and HaShem (The Name), as well as the English names “Lord” and “God”, are also used in modern-day Judaism.”
From bible.org: “…to many the names God or Lord convey little more than designations of a supreme being.”
Nope. In that case they’re using a proper noun, “God”, to indicate to which specific entity in the class of entities they’re referring.
And once again I have to wonder why I’m bothering to argue grammar with someone who can’t spell.
A concept which you’ve misunderstood. “God” is used as an alias, not a pronoun.
If they do they’ll probably interpret your question as meaning, “What’s God’s real name?” And all the answers will probably refer to the God of the Abrahamic religions, since they’ll probably interpret you saying “god” as meaning “God”.
In any case, it’s fairly simple; all valid uses of the word “God” can be understood (at least by anyone with a decent grasp of linguistics, despite what classes they might or might not have taken) as uses other than as a pronoun, and no amount of insisting otherwise will change that. But here again is the clincher: pronouns are a closed class of word, so unless a word is admitted to that class, it’s not a pronoun.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“Do that and you’re simply ignoring part of the argument, rather than addressing it.”
You immediately, missed the whole bloody point… again. You’re NOT making an argument of it’s usage of a common noun. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT OVER IT’S USAGE AS A COMMON NOUN. What do you not get about that? Is it not coming out clear? I’ve said that nearly 5 times… I guess it really shows, that you cannot comprehend the argument at hand. None of my arguments argue against the usage as god as a common noun. Really, what do you not get about that?
.
“Here are just two examples (of many more which I can’t be bothered listing) in which “God” is explicitly referred to as a name:
From Wikipedia: “The Hebrew words Eloheynu (Our God) and HaShem (The Name), as well as the English names “Lord” and “God”, are also used in modern-day Judaism.””
Hehehe… hahaha… that actually says exactly what you’ve been doing this whole time. Did you really read that? No, you didn’t. The Wikipedia source DOES NOT say that god is the name. It says that the Judaism god is referenced by that. Let’s quote the sentence just before that…
“This Supreme Being is referred to in the Hebrew Bible in several ways, such as Elohim, Adonai or by the four Hebrew letters “Y-H-V (or W) -H” (the tetragrammaton), which observant Jews do not pronounce as a word.”
Congratulations. Did you not expect me to check your sources? Here, let me supply mine:
“God is not God’s name. That’s right. The God of the universe has a name, but “God” isn’t it. “God” is what God is. “Human being” is not your name, “Human being” is what you are. You also have a name. Whether it is “Barbara” or “Ken” or “Tom” or “Debbie”, you have your own personal name. So does God.”
It’s the first link of “god is not the name” in google search. There are PLENTY of religious sources to say it. And of course, mainstream, yes, the majority of people, DO NOT consider god the name. That is really, a BS claim. Your not talking about a majority here, the majority fully and very much know that god is not the name.
“refer to the God of the Abrahamic religions, since they’ll probably interpret you saying “god” as meaning “God”.”
No, they won’t. They will give the name of their own god. Meaning whatever religion they are in. BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? EVERY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION REFERS TO THEIR GOD AS GOD. I don’t see how you don’t understand that either. But then of course, you ignored the whole point. They wouldn’t say, god is the name. AND THAT’S JUST IT. In fact, if I go Panentheistic on you, god does not have a name. This is a whole straw man argument though, your trying to make a BS claim, and the fact of the matter is, that god is not the name, and it never was. To be certain, your only trying to now make it a name to support your argument, and it simply won’t work. YOUR arguments even work against it, especially Jewish custom, which is not I, BUT YOU who’ve misunderstood. Tell me, how did I misunderstand it? I didn’t. That is what happened. It is exactly what happened. You’re now making another BS argument, that you get to decide when the argument applies. To be honest, I had already had that argument lined up BEFORE you used it incorrectly to defend yourself… It’s common when looking into why the word god was used throughout the bible instead of the name.
“all valid uses of the word “God” can be understood”
… Really now… I guess you really just don’t get it, that not everybody refers to the same god when the say “God”. So while it can be understood, it can easily be misunderstood as the wrong reference, the wrong one. Context, gives the correct one… MOST of the time. Which brings us to,
” “God” is frequently used where, if God were not a proper noun, it wouldn’t be clear to who/what the sentence was referring.”
Right… No it isn’t. It is often quite clear BY CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING SENTENCES OR TOPIC. Which, would further support the point that it’s a pronoun, as it does indeed need context. When context is not given, it can INDEED be mistaken. There is a difference between the Panentheistic god and Christian god. But you just can’t seem to grasp that concept, that there is more than one “God” even if you argument was true. The word god has ambiguity.
““God” does not operate as a pronoun because there are valid pronouns available and used in instances where a pronoun is appropriate.”
Your really trying to scrape at the bottom of the barrel aren’t you? The use of other pronouns has actually been a flaw of religion… There are papers on this everywhere, that the use of the pronouns “he” and “him” are completely incorrect usage.
.
Closed class of words? You don’t realize, but it doesn’t support your argument. It just means pronouns aren’t generally thought up and added as they have certain functions. I’m not arguing an addition to the language, I’m arguing that the word has been misclassified since the beginning… only because of special treatment to religion.
.
“why I’m bothering to argue grammar with someone who can’t spell.”
Another potshot, so I guess I’ll follow. Why am I bothering to argue grammar with someone who can’t tell the difference between a grammar mistake and a spelling mistake? Or even, with somebody who can’t even comprehend the concept of a mistake?
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 1:00 am
You said, “I’m going to ignore every single mention you made of it’s usage as a common noun” following me saying, “If I were writing about your belief in gods then I would be either using a common noun or an abstract noun, not a proper noun.” That was in response to your comment: “Those sentences you just wrote are directed at me huh? So stop capitalizing the god in them. No, that’s really just plain BS. I don’t see how you can possibly think that writing should accommodate the impossible to know opinions of the reader.” I said what I did to point out what you’d ignored for the sake of your insulting non-sequitor, that where appropriate I didn’t capitalise “god”. That part of the argument isn’t over the use of “god” as a common noun – it’s explicitly about when it’s appropriate to capitalise the word. That line of the argument began with examples of when capitalisation is appropriate, which I acknowledged didn’t include when “god” is used as a common noun. I didn’t suggest you claimed otherwise.
It says that “God” is a name by which God is referred to. The preceding sentence confirms that. It shows that the word is used in the same way that other proper nouns are used. In other words, it is a proper noun, just like the others.
That was a poor source to choose. By comparing the statement that ‘“Human being” is not your name, “Human being” is what you are.’ to ‘The God of the universe has a name, but “God” isn’t it. “God” is what God is’ they are showing that they don’t understand that “God” – used to describe what God is – is a common noun (and inappropriately capitalised). Further, that quote and the rest of the content of that page shows that the entire piece is about God’s real name, to counter the implicit position that “God” is his real name. I never claimed that God is God’s only or real name, so posting that quote amounts to a strawman.
You keep saying “the name”. This shows that you’ve misunderstood this whole line of the argument. “God” is a name, grammatically identical to those proposed as his “real” name. Nothing you’ve said is an argument against that claim. You haven’t showed how, if it’s used exclusively as a proper noun, why you consider it a pronoun instead.
See above. More completely, it’s used exactly as a proper noun would be, functions in a way that no other pronoun does, is not used where valid pronouns are available, yet you insist on calling it a pronoun. You explicitly said “god” is used as a pronoun anywhere I feel it should be capitalised. That more closely conforms to the definition of a proper noun. Further to that point, if it were a pronoun it could be used without needing to be capitalised. Yet the only time it’s not capitalised is when it’s used as something other than a pronoun, i.e., a proper noun (or by people who don’t want to capitalise it, regardless of grammar).
Secondly, no other pronoun is restricted in its use to a specific class of entity; that suggests implicit meaning in a non-grammatical sense. For example, “he” is limited to masculine personal nouns; masculine in the grammatical sense, which happens to coincide with the definitional sense in English. As you propose it “god” is limited to any of the class of abstract entities classified by the common noun “god”. That provides definitional information in a way that no other pronoun does.
You’re confusing grammatical ambiguity with definitional ambiguity. My point referred to the former while your response refers to the latter, so this part of your response doesn’t actually address the point.
This further shows that you’re confusing grammatical ambiguity with definitional ambiguity. The difference between the “Panentheistic god and Christian god” is one of definition. If the context helps resolve that ambiguity then it is only resolving the definitional ambiguity and is therefore not the kind of ambiguity I was talking about and has nothing to do with grammar.
Grammatically incorrect? Or just misogynistic or patriarchal? Got a reference?
If “god” were a pronoun, it would be perfectly acceptable to write, “Zeus was the child of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of god’s siblings. In most traditions god was married to Hera, although, at the oracle of Dodona, god’s consort was Dione: according to the Iliad, god is the father of Aphrodite by Dione.”
Yet this isn’t done. Not even used at the start of sentences while other pronouns take the other positions. And even if such an example existed it would be just the same as for proper nouns. The only place where “God” is used more liberally is where it refers to the god of the Abrahamic religions.
It explicitly and conclusively supports my argument. My argument is that, AFAIK, “god” is not considered by anyone knowledgeable in linguistics to be a pronoun, nor is it used in that function. If it were considered a pronoun there would at least be some reference to someone proposing that it be defined as such. You’re yet to produce such a reference.
That has not been your argument. You said nothing about misclassification. You’ve written about how you believe things are (grammatically), not how they should be. It would have been a different argument if you’d said “god should be a pronoun” rather than “god is a pronoun.” You did mention that you felt religion should not be privileged in its capitalisation of “God”, but when I pointed out that was a stylistic issue and therefore separate to the grammatical one, you didn’t respond. Why would you do that unless either a) you weren’t paying attention or b) that wasn’t the main point of your argument.
I shouldn’t be surprised that your insults also reflect your lack of comprehension. I didn’t say you made a grammatical mistake, just that your poor spelling reflects badly on your authority when it comes to grammar.
See my last comment on your poor typing (which again shows you’re not paying attention).
Incidentally, why are you even bothering? Why is this so important to you that you have to “shout” and attempt to belittle me (with no success whatsoever)?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hmm… lots of quick little erroneous comments.
“I said what I did to point out what you’d ignored for the sake of your insulting non-sequitor, that where appropriate I didn’t capitalise “god””
Then I guess, you missed the point from square one. I directly commented on your claim that I should follow what the reader thinks. IE, I should capitalize god simply because the reader thinks it should be. To counter this, I made the remark you shouldn’t capitalize god in any case in that passage, simply because that’s what I think is correct, and the passage was directed at me. It seems to have gotten quite out of hand, I’m pretty sure you didn’t really mean it that way anyways, although you never know. I’ve done this a few times, and you seem to miss it every time, when I take your argument, and apply it to you.
“It says that “God” is a name by which God is referred to.”
Ah, you’re right. It does call the words names. Your source stands. Of course Wikipedia doesn’t actually count as a valid source, as it can be written by anybody, and quite frankly, I could go edit it and remove that inconsistency right at this moment if I wanted. Indeed, how can I know you didn’t add that in before you sourced it?
““God” is what God is’ they are showing that they don’t understand that “God” – used to describe what God is – is a common noun (and inappropriately capitalised). Further, that quote and the rest of the content of that page shows that the entire piece is about God’s real name, to counter the implicit position that “God” is his real name. I never claimed that God is God’s only or real name, so posting that quote amounts to a strawman.”
Actually, it is appropriately capitalized. “Human being” isn’t the second time around, but we can argue by consistency of it being quoted that way the first it should also second since it was talking about the same thing. I’ll have you find that the only time it could be considered a common noun would be at the start of the sentence. Let’s not forget basic grammar in this conversation now shall we?
“I never claimed that God is God’s only or real name, so posting that quote amounts to a strawman.”
If you’ve made a claim that god’s name is “god” then yes, that source fits, as it is not. It’d be best to understand that he’s talking to people who say “god” is god’s name.
“More completely, it’s used exactly as a proper noun would be, functions in a way that no other pronoun does, is not used where valid pronouns are available, yet you insist on calling it a pronoun.”
See, when you like to quote one line at a time, guess what? You removed the context, and completely missed the point and actually, what it was referring to. It’s referring to the Jewish tradition of not writing god’s name, thus inferring that god isn’t a name. Specifically, because you said that I misunderstood it.
“Secondly, no other pronoun is restricted in its use to a specific class of entity; that suggests implicit meaning in a non-grammatical sense. For example, “he” is limited to masculine personal nouns; masculine in the grammatical sense, which happens to coincide with the definitional sense in English. As you propose it “god” is limited to any of the class of abstract entities classified by the common noun “god”. That provides definitional information in a way that no other pronoun does.”
??? That’s solid BS there. You barely made sense here. Pronouns ARE restricted in use to a specific class of entity. You just said it, but missed the connotation of what you said. In other words, you wouldn’t use “he” when talking about females. That is a restriction to a specific class of entity, with a direct meaning in a non-grammatical sense. In other words, “he” is limited to any of the class of entities classified by the common noun “male”. Wow, do you think about what you’re saying before you make this stuff up? Honestly, did you think that argument would fly?
“This further shows that you’re confusing grammatical ambiguity with definitional ambiguity. The difference between the “Panentheistic god and Christian god” is one of definition. If the context helps resolve that ambiguity then it is only resolving the definitional ambiguity and is therefore not the kind of ambiguity I was talking about and has nothing to do with grammar.”
WTF, again, WTF. Where do you come up with this outrageous BS? The pronoun “he” doesn’t differ between uses. Meaning I can use “he” to represent you, or I can use “he” to represent John. Both has “he” grammatically defined to be the same, just like “god”. CONTEXT shows us which is which, just like “god”. I want you to consider something the next time you make a BS argument like this… Put in another pronoun other than “god” into your argument. If you find it FITS (like this argument and the previous argument), it means your argument IS a BS claim against using “god” as a pronoun.
“If it were considered a pronoun there would at least be some reference to someone proposing that it be defined as such.”
Everything has to start somewhere. I’m starting it. It is, my proposition as it were. Amazingly, some people are actually creative in this world, and start some things that haven’t been heard of before. Of course not all of them are right, but in this case, I’m pretty sure I’ve got something.
“That has not been your argument. You said nothing about misclassification. You’ve written about how you believe things are (grammatically), not how they should be.”
WTF? Again, do you even reread what you put down? If I’ve written how I believe things are not grammatically as they should be, then I’M ARGUING IT’S BEEN MISCLASSIFIED. This is not rocket science, do I have to come out and directly state misclassified for you to get the argument? Alright, I’ll do it.
It is generally thought that god is a proper noun, I argue that it is in fact a pronoun and thus it has been misclassified by the large majority of people.
How about another way? Alright.
The word god when capitalized is a pronoun, it has been misclassified.
Also, on a related note, and unknown to you obviously, this argument didn’t start on this post… You joined the game late. But this classify argument is nothing you couldn’t OBVIOUSLY INFER from my posts. And it isn’t a stylistic issue. I did respond to that, but you ignored the response. You don’t get to say I ignored you and didn’t give a response, when in fact, I did, and you ignored the response. But it’s time to restate everything below:
.
“Nothing you’ve said is an argument against that claim. You haven’t showed how, if it’s used exclusively as a proper noun, why you consider it a pronoun instead.”
I guess it’s time to go a different approach. In other words, it is time to stick to the main point instead of having you sidetrack me with individual cases. Because quite frankly, I’ve given SEVERAL arguments against the claim, SEVERAL different ways. And, you’ve ignored them and sidetracked the argument. So let’s stick to it shall we?
“The difference between the “Panentheistic god and Christian god” is one of definition.”
Is incorrect. There IS NO DIFFERENCE in the definition of a Panentheistic god and a Christian god. They both mean the same thing. The Jewish god, the Christian god, the Islamic god, the Bahai god, the Judaic god, the Zoroastrian god, the Vaishnavist god, the Shaivist god, the Shaktist god, Smartist god, the Sikhist god, the Pantheistic god, the Panentheistic god, and so forth are all defined as the same thing. The ONE supreme being.
Most of these gods have a name, some don’t. The word “god” is used to identify the god of any of these religions. Therefore, use of “god” is ambiguous without an antecedent to identify which of the gods is being talked about. I can also use a determiner with the pronoun, as when talking about the Christian god I may comment that this god loves all. The determiner doesn’t have to be used, as when talking about the Christian god I may comment that god loves all. If left without the antecedent, and I simply said god loves all, you would not be able to directly infer which of the gods I was talking about–although you would make an assumption. Such an assumption generally goes to the majority of the populations beliefs, therefore, it is generally thought as the Christian god. This will be right a majority of the time, as it is the majority, but otherwise it can, will, and is inferred wrong. Context must be present in order to ascertain which god is being talked about.
The word “god” is a pro-form that substitutes for a noun with or without a determiner.
In other words, a PRONOUN.
.
“I shouldn’t be surprised that your insults also reflect your lack of comprehension. I didn’t say you made a grammatical mistake, just that your poor spelling reflects badly on your authority when it comes to grammar.”
… Right, and you highlighted a grammar mistake, and I quote:
”
‘I don’t really see how you think that your making a good argument.’
And once again I have to wonder why I’m bothering to argue grammar with someone who can’t spell.”
So yes, you were talking about a grammar mistake, and you applied it as a spelling mistake. Amazingly, just as I said, it wasn’t a spelling mistake, but a grammar mistake. If you’d realize, I don’t actually have a SINGLE spelling mistake IN ALL MY POSTS. Do you know why? Because I’m behind a machine, Mark, with a spell checker. Indeed, go ahead and copy it into Word Mark. You will find grammar errors sprinkled around here and there, mostly due to the format. I don’t happen to run a grammar check, of course neither do you. Oh, by the way, “non-sequitor” is spelled “non-sequitur” in case you were wondering. The actual person with the “poorest” typing, would be you Mark. Simply because now, using your own logic, you now own all the spelling mistakes in this whole discussion. In other words Mark, I shouldn’t be surprised that your insults also reflect your lack of comprehension.
.
“Incidentally, why are you even bothering? Why is this so important to you that you have to “shout” and attempt to belittle me (with no success whatsoever)?”
And I reverse that question. Why are you even bothering? Why is this so important to you that you have to “shout” and attempt to belittle me (with no success whatsoever)? I’m the one who made the claim, and I’m supporting my claim. You’re the one attacking my claim, it’s you that are doing the bothering as it where.
GMNightmare Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
For a small add-on, rigorous debate and talk is a very good way to reform and expand upon thoughts and ideas. It would be intellectually unsound of me to just walk away as it were.
Mark Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Have a look through these lists of pronouns. Let me know when you find “god” listed in one of them…
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Duplicate
Reply to This Comment
In situations where I capitalize it, it’s because I’m using it to refer to a single, specific being (imaginary or not; makes no difference). I capitalize it to distinguish that usage from the more general definition (“powerful supernatural being that people worship or have worshipped”). Grammatically, this is perfectly acceptable.
I’ve already offered one example (“president” versus “the President”) that follows the same pattern. Here’s another. Sometimes, when I’m writing about my son, I use “the Boy” instead of his proper name. Despite this, the word “boy” remains a noun, and for the same reason: it has its own meaning (“young male human being”).
“How you are using the word is as a pronoun.” Yes, “God” is a substitution for “YHWH”. Yes, that is the same function that a pronoun has in a sentence. However, the word still retains a definition of its own (“powerful supernatural being that people worship or used to worship”). So, even though it’s serving the same purpose as a pronoun – which I’ll freely concede – it’s not actually a pronoun.
Being a pronoun isn’t a matter of sentence structure, the way being a subject or object or part of a clause would be. It’s actually a fairly narrow category of words.
As an aside… I was going to point you to a translation of the Iliad where it talks about “God” (using the capitalization) in reference to Apollo, but that was years ago and I can’t find it. So… take my word for it? No?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Let’s tackle the president issue first. If I said the cat ate my cheese… I wouldn’t capitalize cat. Replace cat, with virtually EVERYTHING. Oh, except if I said the President ate my cheese. What is this difference? Can you guess? The second case, IS WRONG. I would have rather avoided this part, but whatever, it’s good for me. The reason why? I’m sure you’ll find some writing style that claims otherwise… but whatever, I cannot find a single one. So go for it. EVERY writing style rules/guidelines give capitalization of titles are used ONLY when placed directly before the name.
“I use “the Boy” instead of his proper name. Despite this, the word “boy” remains a noun, and for the same reason: it has its own meaning (”young male human being”).”
Would you like to take that back? Here’s a story for you:
“I was eating cheese with Joe, the boy couldn’t tell his peas from his carrots!”
“Where did the boy go?”
Boy is not capitalized here, EVER. Every grammar guideline for the English language will slap you on the head for capitalizing that. See more below.
“Yes, “[his]” is a substitution for “[Micheal]”. Yes, that is the same function that a pronoun has in a sentence. However, the word still retains a definition of its own (”[belonging to him]”). So, even though it’s serving the same purpose as a pronoun – which I’ll freely concede – it’s not actually a pronoun.”
Okay, enough silliness with obvious substitution, let’s get real here. You are referring to a specific god, pronoun, but it retains a definition of something else thus making it not a pronoun? I want to know, first off, where you really came up with this BS theory in the first place. Who told you that pronouns don’t have a definition of their own? They do.
“Being a pronoun isn’t a matter of sentence structure”
Yes, yes it is. Sentence structure controls EVERYTHING. How you use the word DETERMINES grammar. “Go to school” vs “Go is cool”, what is controlling whether go is a verb or noun? SENTENCE STRUCTURE. What it acts like, is what it is. “I cheesed it.” Cheese isn’t a verb, but in this sentence, it is. Cheese here is a verb. Is it wrong or right to use it as a verb here? Doesn’t matter.
“I was going to point you to a translation of the Iliad where it talks about “God” (using the capitalization) in reference to Apollo”
That ignored the question, would you do it? Furthermore, why did you add god in quotes for that sentence? To try and differentiate the pronoun since it was then referring to Apollo and not what you would normally do? I guess that basically answers the question, you wouldn’t. Special, preferential treatment for your god. Oh, that’s a good one, in the previous sentence, would I capitalize god?
.
Finally, you are again, taking it all from your view when again, I said theistic use is completely valid. “I’m using it to refer to a single, specific being”, right, we’re never using it to refer to a single, specific being. We use it to reference to any one within the context we’re speaking about. IE, Christian god, every denomination-Mormon, Catholic, Protestant… whatever. We ARE NOT REFERENCING A SINGLE BEING, SINCE WE QUITE FRANKLY UNDERSTAND THAT GOD CHANGES DEPENDING UPON THE PERSON. And I can vary that quite a bit as well. Got it? We do not reference to a single, specific being. Before your next answer, simply say “got it” first, and I’ll take what your saying a little bit more seriously, since you would show that you are doing at least the minimal amount to do the same. Honestly, if you don’t say “got it”, I’ll probably ignore it and move on.
Reply to This Comment
Michael Mock Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Good plan. Let’s ignore it and move on.
For what it’s worth, you may be right about the capitalization issue. This page (rule 5):
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp
…indicates that titles shouldn’t be capitalized when they’re being used alone.
On the other hand, this page (rule 9):
http://www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com/writing/sixtrait/conventions/capitalization.html
…seems to indicate that capitalization the way I do it is correct, or at least allowable.
And this one (third bit down):
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000049.htm
indicates that titles can be capitalized when used in reference to a specific individual, but only for “certain very high ranking government officials’ titles”. While “God” doesn’t meet that particular qualification, the general pattern does exist in our language.
::shrugs and moves on::
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Good enough then.
One last thing I would like to mention, is simply asking what do you really gain by capitalizing god? As you said earlier, “distinguish that usage from the more general definition”, but we could get that just through context of your usage. In other words, by the fact that you can reason the situations where you capitalize god, we can see those situations as well. More simply, by context the meaning of your sentence does not change whether you capitalize god or not. I’m just taking your opinion on this one.
Let’s just face it, grammar rules are a mess, and looking it all up is like finding a fish in a barrel. I need to find some good research material on the subject… which is also a pain, since all you get is simple examples that never get what your looking for.
Reply to This Comment
Michael Mock Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:33 am
What do I gain? Not much. All it does is add a tiny little bit of confirmation that, yes, this is the context in which I’m using the word.
You’re right that most of the time, the usage is probably clear from the context. In other words, most of the time I probably gain nothing at all. However, I do think that sometimes this extra little bit of confirmation makes the difference between someone immediately grasping the context, and someone having to go back and double-check. It’s a small gain, but then it’s a small effort.
The other part of it is that not adding the capitalization is likely to look like sloppy grammar, especially to a believer. The last time I read through a style manual, there was actually a specific rule which indicated that the word “god” should be capitalized when referring to YHWH, and that the word “bible” should also be capitalized when referring to the Christian holy book. Admittedly, that was a long time ago, so the rule may have changed since then – or it may just be falling out of general usage. (And, for that matter, I’ll freely concede that the very existence of that rule is priviledging Christianity, so I’m open to arguments that it should be done away with.)
Reply to This Comment
First of all, the biblical story of creation is nothing more than the reworking of the ancient Sumerian tales that preceeded the so-called chosen of god by hundreds of years. When the scrolls of Sumer were enearthed in the late 1800’s there were few who could interpret them and of course the ‘church’ tried to ignore them and keep that business quiet. Most honest scholars now agree that when the rag-tag band of wanderers known today as Jews were in captive in Babylon they ‘borrowed’ extensively from the pagans history and also religions to create a glorious history of their own. They were nothing more than forgers. There is NO historical or archaeological evidence for moses, abraham, king david or solomon. Those characters are thought to be modeled on the lives of Egyptian Pharoahs whose real documented lives are in sharp agreement with much of what is written of these hebrew fables. Whoever penned the books of moses forgot many times what era moses is said to have lived as the writers have moses speaking of cities that did not exist in his day, coins not minted in that era and has him naming all the kings of Israel before many of them were even born. Moses speaks of his own death and burial! Eza, the OT prophet in the 500 bc range is thought to be the true author of the Torah and redactor of much of the OT.
Yahweh was nothing more than a concocted vicious killing machine god. He was no different than all the other concocted brutal tribal gods of the other nations the ‘chosen’ set out to slaughter. The OT clearly gives the example of yahweh appearing in the assembly of the other gods where land and people are divided up among them and it states that yahwehs portion was jacob/Israel. People don’t know the bible because they never read it. Yahweh was also the evil baal and in the book of Hosea 2:16 good old yahweh says “And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.” Tricky dicky yahweh was the first to create the good cop bad cop theory and reading about his insane behavior throughout the OT gives ample evidence of dual personalities. Any deity that commands the slaughter of innocent people including women, children and even infants is not a god but a demon. Any deity that commands the rape of innocent virgins including little girls is a bastard. Anyone who can read that book and follow such a ‘god’ is a fool.
All of this might be funny except the bible created three of the most vicious, arrogant and deadly religions this planet has ever known. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all claim to be the offspring of Abraham and all three claim to be the true chosen. All three are hellbent on the destruction of one another and any other religion that refuses to bow. The imbeciles are now armed with atomic and nuclear weapons that could completely destroy this planet and all life. There is nothing in this world more hateful and cruel than religious zealots and bigots who have no problem killing for their particular maniac god.
The leaders and priests were cons who profitted greatly from the slaughters and plunder they made the mindless sheep do all in the name of yahweh. Who do you think was eating all the burnt sacrifices to this lunatic god? The more the number of priests increased the more sacrifices were demanded. They were living like kings while the people brought forth to them the best they had. Sounds a lot like today and the lazy scum we call clergy and priests. I guess some people deserve what they get if they haven’t firgured all this out by now.
Law statistics now prove that pedophilia is rampant within the ranks of rabbi’s, priests and protestant religious leaders and teachers. This area is a tailor made save haven for child molestors and stupid parents keep handing over precious innocent children to these devils. These sick parasites don’t work and live better than most of their simple minded sheeple and are given all the children they could hope for to rape and sodomize. The nasty hebrews started this practice in the name of the same disgusting god that the modern husksters claim as their god today.
Since lucifer is said to be the god of this world it is only proper that such a perverted book as the bible be the word of such a god as lucifer. The bible is NOT my book and the bible gods are NOT my gods.
Reply to This Comment
BTW, below is a the link to one of the simplest and finest short articles on the true pantheon of gods represented in the OT that proves the chosen worshipped many gods. Even though the redactors wrote out elohim and the other gods by name, they still left a reference to them by using the various terms God, Lord God, Lord, Most High God, El(father god) etc. For example, in the first creation story it is God, in the second creation tale it is the Lord God. The first God rested on the seventh day and declared it holy while in rebuttal, the Lord God began his human creation on the seventh day. Read it for yourself. This Lord God is also the one who had the first man look over the animals in hopes he could find his helpmate!!!! What a god. At least the first God had sense enough to create male and female at the same time without robbing the man of a rib.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html
Reply to This Comment