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.

“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.

None of my arguments argue against the usage as god as a common noun. Really, what do you not get about that?

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.

The Wikipedia source DOES NOT say that god is the name. It says that the Judaism god is referenced by that.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

Tell me, how did I misunderstand it?

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.

So while it can be understood, it can easily be misunderstood as the wrong reference, the wrong one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Closed class of words? You don’t realize, but it doesn’t support your argument.

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.

I’m arguing that the word has been misclassified since the beginning… only because of special treatment to religion.

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.

Why am I bothering to argue grammar with someone who can’t tell the difference between a grammar mistake and a spelling mistake?

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.

Or even, with somebody who can’t even comprehend the concept of a mistake?

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)?

.

“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?