Thread: Protest of spelling of 'God' (it's a Capitol G)

Whether the moderators or members of this forum choose to believe in God, is, of course, their own personal choice. But, when referring to the belief in One Deity, the proper English spelling is 'God' with a Capitol G. Every dictionary confirms that this is correct. However, those in charge here at TSF, have originally written and maintained the following on the Forum Index page...

Scientific Study of Religion
The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having...

This is obviously an English grammar/spelling mistake! 'A god' also becomes redundent when correctly referring to 'God'. There is also a sexist omission of women in the sentence. Therefore, it, of course, should read...

The outward act or form by which humans indicate their recognition of the existence of God or of gods having...

I repeat, this is not a matter of what your belief in God or gods is. It is a simple matter of the correct spelling and use of English grammar.

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Capitol G

Twit of whit,

You've chosen an excellent screenname for yourself!

Brad why do you want to change the meaning of the forum title? The phrase, "of a god," since is has no specific god in mind should not be capitalized.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Brad why do you want to change the meaning of the forum title? The phrase, "of a god," since is has no specific god in mind should not be capitalized.

Lynx(4,75),

Pardon me, but you are wrong and wrong. The Forum title is: Scientific Study Of Religion, correct? I never said anything about changing that, nor do I want to. The phrase "of a god" does "have a specific God in mind and should be Capitalized" when comparing 'God' to 'gods'. That is the point here: there is a difference in the definition of (One) God and gods that has been established over thousands of years and is in every dictionary.! Right?

Lynx, please reread the op and I think you'll understand that a mistake has been written into the Forum Index page. Let's simply correct it. Afterward, if the moderators and members want to express their disgust with those that believe in God and/or gods, then at least their spelling and grammar will be correct.

Wrong, brad, a god can refer to Zeus. Or Athena. Maybe Ptah. It's hard to say. It might refer to the god of the bible. It might not. "God" is a specific name, not a singular form of the known "god" which is simply a synonym for deity.

Source

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Brad why do you want to change the meaning of the forum title? The phrase, "of a god," since is has no specific god in mind should not be capitalized.

Lynx(4,75),

Pardon me, but you are wrong and wrong. The Forum title is: Scientific Study Of Religion, correct? I never said anything about changing that, nor do I want to. The phrase "of a god" does "have a specific God in mind and should be Capitalized" when comparing 'God' to 'gods'. That is the point here: there is a difference in the definition of (One) God and gods that has been established over thousands of years and is in every dictionary.! Right?.

Fair enough...call it the subtitle you're quibbling about.
The point is though because you your particular beliefs you might understand the term god to refer to one specific deity (God, Allah), that is clearly not the intent of the subtitle which is meant to refer to the generic concept of a deity. Under many guidelines such as the Chicago Manual of Style, APA and MLA you'll find their is no requirement to capitalize unless it's the sentence is referring to a specific deity.

Brad, I know this will come as a great surprise to you, but when writing in the English language, we use capitals to designate a name - a place, person, business etc.! So all words with a capital, will be specific to the physical entity being defined, which will also have a respective LOCATION!

The term 'god', not only fails to be a name - it never was, still isn't and never will be, but also fails to have location - therefore the use of a capital is entirely unnecessary and in truth - WRONG! Now, being a good Christian (note that capital, Brad), you wouldn't want to be promoting the rest of us doing the WRONG thing, would you?

By the way Brad, your 'god' also fails in another arena - to exist, that is - to be real!

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Whether the moderators or members of this forum choose to believe in God, is, of course, their own personal choice. But, when referring to the belief in One Deity, the proper English spelling is 'God' with a capital G.

i fail to see what the fuss is about - does the lack of a capital G signify lack of respect to you ? and if so, why should you insist that someone show respect for an entity that in that person's opinion does not exist ?

I agree, I am atheist yet God refers to an exisiting entity, therefore he is a proper noun, therefore his name must have a capital G.

On that contrary however, some people do not believe in him and therefore does not exist, therefore is not a proper noun, ergo can use a lower case 'g' for god.

It seems I am internally at battle then doesn't it?

I capitalize Mickey Mouse but not a mouse; so capitalize God and not gods.

In agreeing with Bunbury, if your discussing a God, that should be capitalized. I do understand the thread authors frustration however, in that many members here do 'spell check' (for typo's) and they probably all "TRY" to correct the poster and would bet many "ignore" that correction. If nothing else showing respect, with in the discussion, should be considered, personal objections ignored...

What's the proper etiquette for using The Lord God's name in vain?




Your concern is with a problem that apparently upsets your worldview. Not with grammar. You are questioning your own beliefs because you think that if others don't believe in god (yes, that was intentional), he may not be real. Now I'm not on anyone's side here..I simply think that if your faith were truly strong it wouldn't matter what other people did or said.

The flaw in your thinking comes from believing that "a god" was referring specifically to the god of the bible, God.

The god of the bible, God, is a name and thus should be capitalized however they were not specifically talking about that god.

What if I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That is a god, is it not? I could post about him on that forum and it would qualify as legit discussion, provided it was a legit discussion in the topic and not just preaching.

So your premise is flawed assuming that it was your god, God, the god of the bible that the moderators were referring to. So no, "a god" in that sentence is not redundant.

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Whether the moderators or members of this forum choose to believe in God, is, of course, their own personal choice. But, when referring to the belief in One Deity, the proper English spelling is 'God' with a Capitol G. Every dictionary confirms that this is correct. However, those in charge here at TSF, have originally written and maintained the following on the Forum Index page...

Sorry, but you are wrong. God is not a name. It's a title. That would be like having to capitalize Man when you use it.

I'd be curious to know where the assumption comes from that god, means Jehovah. Zeus is a god. Aphrodite is a goddess. If you refer to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the most common form of god in the old testament can translate to "deities." Yes, plural form.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

What's the proper etiquette for using The Lord God's name in vain?




Your concern is with a problem that apparently upsets your worldview. Not with grammar. You are questioning your own beliefs because you think that if others don't believe in god (yes, that was intentional), he may not be real. Now I'm not on anyone's side here..I simply think that if your faith were truly strong it wouldn't matter what other people did or said.

Exactly. It's only capitalized when used, explicitly, as a name.

except for the adherents of the lower case cult who totally object to the use of capitalisation under any circumstances
your use of the capital equivalent of the letter "g" (you see, i can't bring myself to write the blasphemous letter in full) is sacrilege in our eyes

When certain, overly enthusiastic posters stop abusing colors, fonts, bolded and larger letters, often underscored, in their posts on pseudoscientific numerology, then perhaps others will hear their point of "god" versus "God."

Until then, it's just a piss in the wind.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Capitol G

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Twit of whit,

You've chosen an excellent screenname for yourself!

Capitol:

–noun
1. the building in Washington, D.C., used by the Congress of the U.S. for its sessions.
2. ( often lowercase ) a building occupied by a state legislature.
3. the ancient temple of Jupiter at Rome, on the Capitoline.
4. the Capitoline.

Capital:

–noun
1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
2. a city regarded as being of special eminence in some field of activity: New York is the dance capital of the world.
3. capital letter.
4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.
6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
7. Accounting:
a. assets remaining after deduction of liabilities; the net worth of a business.
b. the ownership interest in a business.
8. any source of profit, advantage, power, etc.; asset: His indefatigable drive is his greatest capital.
9. capitalists as a group or class ( distinguished from labor): High taxation has reduced the spending power of capital.

–adjective
10. pertaining to financial capital: capital stock.
11. principal; highly important: This guide offers suggestions of capital interest to travelers.
12. chief, esp. as being the official seat of government of a country, state, etc.: the capital city of France.
13. excellent or first-rate: a capital hotel; a capital fellow.
14. capital letter.
15. involving the loss of life: capital punishment.
16. punishable by death: a capital crime; a capital offender.
17. fatal; extremely serious: a capital error.



I love dictionary.com

Should it be devil or Devil? I think if this is an equal opportunity universe, sorry - an Equal Opportunity Universe, then it should be Devil.

All hail my Almighy Penis!

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

When certain, overly enthusiastic posters stop abusing colors, fonts, bolded and larger letters, often underscored, in their posts on pseudoscientific numerology, then perhaps others will hear their point of "god" versus "God."

Until then, it's just a piss in the wind.

And he is wrong even on that issue. Where god's name appear in the bible, it's translated as LORD. "God" is used where it says simply "god".

who needs facts, when you have certainty ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

who needs facts, when you have certainty ?

Ha, it all comes back to Quantum physics again doesn't it?

Heisenberg so obviously was an atheist
didn't know whether he was coming or going

Until a deity`s existense is proven no gods should be spelled with any capitol letters at all, to put religious people in place. Stupidity and ignorance shoulndt be rewarded but punished.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Until a deity`s existense is proven no gods should be spelled with any capitol letters at all, to put religious people in place. Stupidity and ignorance shoulndt be rewarded but punished.

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? What makes the difference between you and there god for punishing them then?

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Raziell

Until a deity`s existense is proven no gods should be spelled with any capitol letters at all, to put religious people in place. Stupidity and ignorance shoulndt be rewarded but punished.

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? What makes the difference between you and there god for punishing them then?

I don't think he means that they should be physically (or even in the form of intellectual assault) punished. What he means is the ignorance should be acknowledged as such and we should move on to the truth of various matters. Superstition should be seen as superstition. No one should be forced to accept science (if raised on it, it will be obvious fact to them) but we need to teach our kids science as well as religion. But we shouldn't stop with Christianity. We should teach them customs and religions of Native Americans, Africans, Buddhists, Muslims, etc and then they'll see the stories for what they were meant to be: prescientific explanations for natural phenomena. Stories passed down from generation to generation which serve to promote cultural unity.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by Brad Watson

Whether the moderators or members of this forum choose to believe in God, is, of course, their own personal choice. But, when referring to the belief in One Deity, the proper English spelling is 'God' with a Capitol G. Every dictionary confirms that this is correct. However, those in charge here at TSF, have originally written and maintained the following on the Forum Index page...

Sorry, but you are wrong. God is not a name. It's a title. That would be like having to capitalize Man when you use it.

I'd be curious to know where the assumption comes from that god, means Jehovah. Zeus is a god. Aphrodite is a goddess. If you refer to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the most common form of god in the old testament can translate to "deities." Yes, plural form.

It comes from the fact that for the last hundred years YHWH has been translated God by bible translators instead of as it actually is, the proper name of the god of the bible. Translate it as you will but it NEVER translates "God".

Originally Posted by Megadork

It comes from the fact that for the last hundred years YHWH has been translated God by bible translators instead of as it actually is.

As I said above, this is not true. English translations use LORD for YHWH.

Well we better get it right. Last time we bugged up we got kicked out of Garden of Eden.

Perhaps someone should ask the big fella if it's G or g.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Megadork

It comes from the fact that for the last hundred years YHWH has been translated God by bible translators instead of as it actually is.

As I said above, this is not true. English translations use LORD for YHWH.

See! that's why all the confusion.
YHWH is a proper name and should NEVER be translated with a pronoun.
Would you translate your name into another language and always use "man or him". And if you look at translations before 1900 you will see that they did use the real name of God.
And you ARE wrong about the above statement. In modern bibles lord appears about 7000 times and god about 4000 times and only about half of the time are they referring to God YHWH. The rest are referring to people in power and various demons or idols.
So you see just saying god or God doesn't mean much.
Go around tomorrow and call everyone you meet man or woman and see how stupid it is.

Actually, "Lord" is a title, not a pronoun. And it would be quite proper to refer to those who've earned it by their title. "Your Honor," "Majesty," "captain," "sheriff," "deputy," "Mr. President," "Madam Secretary," and just plain old "sir" all come to mind.

I did not intend to imply that lord was a pronoun, my reply was a two part answer, first part----
YHWH is a proper name and should NEVER be translated with a pronoun.
Would you translate your name into another language and always use "man or him".
Second part went on to discuss lord and god

And while on the subject of "titles", god and lord are titles, not the replacement of a name when translating.

meh. We might as well be arguing the validity of a green light saber over a blue one. It all exists only in imagination.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

meh. We might as well be arguing the validity of a green light saber over a blue one. It all exists only in imagination.

That's ridiculous! Everyone knows the red one is the best, especially the double ended one.

The words "God" and "Lord" as it relates to religion are both translations of words that come from another language, namely Aramic Hebrew. The word for God in Hebrw is ELOHEEM (which is a plural) and the word for Lord in most places in the Torah or the Old Testament of the Bible is "YAHWEH" or "YAHUWA". Whether you should use a Captial "G" or a lower case "g" really doesn't make any difference because THERE ARE NO UPPER CASE AND LOWER CASE LETTER IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE!!! So whether you say "GOD", "God" or "god", it really doesn't make any difference in the language that gives these words their meaning.

I agree with everything you said except on the word for "lord."

Yahweh is a god that originated in the Canaanite pantheon along with El (the singular of Elohim) and Ashera. The word ba'al, however, does mean lord (and can also be interpreted as prince or king) and variously used so in early Hebrew texts.

El and Yahweh are probably the two gods that the early Jews chose as they evolved from the Canaanite cultural origins, moving from a polytheistic cult to a monotheistic one. The differences were probably highland and lowland Jews who had some very similar oral traditions that had to be combined as writing was made available or considered appropriate or important by early priests. In an effort to merge the two similar traditions who had some of the same stories yet different names for their god, much redaction had to be done.

Literary analysis of the Pentateuch reveals very obvious Yahwist and Elohist traditions as sources of information as well as a priestly sources (the J, E, and P "documents" respectively).

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Yahweh is a god that originated in the Canaanite pantheon along with El (the singular of Elohim) and Ashera.

Yah-Weh does not mean 'god', nor relates in any manner to any 'god' of any origin or any religion.

Yah-Weh is a core explanation of who we (humanity and all in existence) are, yet this fundamental explanation has been forever buried under much religious mythical conjecture to the extent that even science is yet to commence upon it's respective investigation - for it too finds itself in the middle of the long-standing religious minefield.

Yahweh is a god derived from the Canaanite pantheon. It's supported by material record. Your "insights," however, have no support in reality.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Yahweh is a god derived from the Canaanite pantheon. It's supported by material record. Your "insights," however, have no support in reality.

Well............. to be totally rigorous scientifcally, perhaps what you mean to say is; they have no support in any reality of which you are currently aware, in which case; I will accept your bewilderment.

On the other hand, it is conclusive to note, that the religious of this world have indeed invented a fictitious 'god' around the ancient term 'Yahweh', which remains originally per a scientific quality understanding. Yet it is also valid that if they chose to; they can invent a 'god' around anything imaginable - even a ten armed elephant that stands upon its hind legs.

Unlike yourself however, I personally don't accept any support in any proposed 'reality' per such invention, therefore admit to lacking your level of faith.

Please. Support your "insights" with evidence.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Please. Support your "insights" with evidence.

There is a great deal of evidence that supports my 'insights' as you call them - all over this forum. You have merely failed to comprehend/investigate/question/accept any of it, or for that matter - recognise how each post is an integral portion of an overall picture - that being; one picture of the very same overall REALITY!

Even so, your recent challenge to me on the other thread - since relocated HERE, in conjunction with the wealth of evidence already posted, will have to indulge you for the moment.

So if you object predictably to this response, then you may have to await until such time as I determine whether your proposed 'interest' in any such evidence, is indeed genuine, and therefore worth a second slice of my time. Right now, I severely doubt it, but I'm just asking.