Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rant: On a fortune i just saw here.

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 15

So much to rant about. The fortune i see right now for solidus full-stop is "God must have loved calories, she made so many of them."

So much to rant about. The fortune i see right now for solidus full-stop is "God must have loved calories, she made so many of them."

G-d is either "He" or "it", not "she". Although "it" would be pushing it. It is accepted practice to call the inanimate "she", such as a car, boat, plane, computer, etc. The animate, however (when gender is unknown) is "he". That's why most people call babies or animals of unknown gender "he". It is also the rule in gender-specific languages. Since G-d is animate, especially if reffered to with a capital "G", the rule would be "He". To say "She" is just to make waves, such as this JE.

The worst part is the lowercase "s" in "she". Either don't capitalize the "G", or capitalize the "s". But to lowercase the "s" after capitalizing the "G", as was done, is a comment, not just a word.

It doesn't look like i can turn it off either. :(

cancel ×

15 comments

Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7956364)

G-d is either "He" or "[I]t", not "[S]he". ... The animate, however (when gender is unknown) is "he". That's why most people call babies or animals of unknown gender "he". It is also the rule in gender-specific languages. Since G-d is animate, especially if reffered to with a capital "G", the rule would be "He". To say "She" is just to make waves, such as this JE.

Calling God "She" is a perfectly acceptable practice--just so long as you don't try and argue that the "correct" form is feminine. The Almighty is an animate entity beyond gender, and can be alternately male or female.

I frequenly refer to my Lord God with alternating genders: His Mercy, Her Rage, et al.

The worst part is the lowercase "s" in "she". Either don't capitalize the "G", or capitalize the "s". But to lowercase the "s" after capitalizing the "G", as was done, is a comment, not just a word.

1: "God" is the proper English name of the Almighty. It was a long strange trip from "Jehovah" to "God", but that's how the translated it into English. As such, even without special rules "God" should always be capitalized.

2: You're 100% correct; a reference to the Almighty should always be capitalized, as a grammatical rule. While it could be acceptable to extend this rule to any infinite being (such as a pagan uberdeity, or the hindi trans-deity, or the Christian Satan), it is improper to ignore it.

Re:Sheesh (0)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 10 years ago | (#7956532)

1: "God" is the proper English name of the Almighty. It was a long strange trip from "Jehovah" to "God", but that's how the translated it into English. As such, even without special rules "God" should always be capitalized.

2: You're 100% correct; a reference to the Almighty should always be capitalized, as a grammatical rule. While it could be acceptable to extend this rule to any infinite being (such as a pagan uberdeity, or the hindi trans-deity, or the Christian Satan), it is improper to ignore it.


The word god is the concept of a higher being that is all knowing and or powerful, but the word God presumes the Judeo-Christian god, as a proper noun. Using 'he' or 'she' or 'it' is no different than anyone else in a grammatical context, but people who are believers, tend to try to give it more weight as the bible has done in its capitilization rules.

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7957135)

The word god is the concept of a higher being that is all knowing and or powerful, but the word God presumes the Judeo-Christian god, as a proper noun.

"god" implies a higher being, not just those that are all-knowing or all-powerful. "an entity to which worship is directed" is as good a definition for "god" as any.

Using 'he' or 'she' or 'it' is no different than anyone else in a grammatical context, but people who are believers, tend to try to give it more weight as the bible has done in its capitilization rules.

While the rule was influenced by religious thought, it's the rule nonetheless. You should ALWAYS capitalize a reference to the Almighty Supreme Being. Even if you're an atheist or agnostic saying "God is a myth; He does not exist"

The Capital Community College of Hartford, CT maintains a page for basic grammar rules [commnet.edu] , and they list the relevant rule as "Names of religion and religious terms", which includes pronouns and titles used to refer to the Infinite Being.

Re:Sheesh (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7956919)

...the Christian Satan), it...

As a note, I do not think Satan would be considered "deity," as he also is a creation of God along with the other angels and demons. Satan is capitalized simpley because it is the proper, as in English terms, name of the head of the rebellion of the angels. So, while Satan is divine in the sense that angels are divine and of hte spiritual world, he is not divine in the sense of God.

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7956944)

I do not think Satan would be considered "deity,"

Neither do I. But, as Satan is an amalgram of every biblical malign spirit, it may be appropriate to dub him as "infinite."

(And, of course, being created by Omnipotence does not mean that you can't be infinite--the universe, for example, might be infinite, and yet it was still created by Omnipotence.)

i second (1)

SolemnDragon (593956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7956954)

I knew a woman once- a woman who made no other outward show of contradiction with her roman catholic upbringing- who would send cards to people, you know , the standard 'God has you in his grace' stuff that gets sent for occasions all the time. And she'd get a pen and make the word female- 'Her' or 'She.' It was actually kind of beautiful, the way she went about it. (this has been Just a note from way out in the field...)

Re:Sheesh (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958899)

Wikipedia has a thorough entry on God and gender [wikipedia.org] . It points out that there is a distinction between lingustic gender and sexual gender. Using feminine words for God in English is controversial, because English doesn't have linguistic gender. All non-neuter language is naturally interpreted to have sexual implications.

"God" is the proper English name of the Almighty. It was a long strange trip from "Jehovah" to "God", but that's how the translated it into English.

I disagree that "God" is a proper name for God, like "Jacob" or "Timothy" for a person. On the surface, it does appear that God and Jehovah (i.e. "the Lord") are interchangeable names of God. However, etymologically and theologically, they signify different shades of meaning, even when using a capital-G God. The Bible usually refers to our Deity by saying "God," but sometimes it says "Lord God" or just "Lord," and a few times even "God Lord," if translated rigidly. Scholars and theologians have written voluminous commentary on the name(s) of God and why the Bible uses one term over another.

The combined name of LORD God or Jehovah God indicates a specific god that is the self-existing, everlasting, living God. "God" by itself can refer to any believed supreme being. Recall the controversy about the phrase "one nation under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance. Many argued that, although that word "God" originally meant the God/Messiah/Holy Spirit of Israel, the phrase didn't support a specific religion, because God could also be understood to be Allah, Krishna, the Great Spirit, Brahma, etc.

More on the name of God here. [wikipedia.org]

The use of the name Jehovah was misguided from the start. Here's how that word came about, as I understand it. Since the original name of God in Hebrew cannot be spoken, the rabbis wrote in nikkudim [us-israel.org] ("points"; vowel hints) under the letters of the Tetragrammaton to indicate the vowels in the word Adonai. It was to remind the reader that he should say "Adonai" for the name of God when reading aloud. As history would have it, some ignorant Gentiles came along and tried to read it literally (from JHVH), thus the word "Jehovah." Differences in transliteration produce other names in English: Yahweh (YHWH), Yahveh (YHVH). More on "Jehovah" here. [yhwh.com]

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959220)

Using feminine words for God in English is controversial, because English doesn't have linguistic gender.

No, it's controversial because Anglo cultures have a great deal of sexist inertia. Christ was a man, as were almost all of the biblical authors (or scribes, if you will), and all of the aknowledged prophets and disciples.

If we did have linquistic gender, it would be controversial because it would be wrong. But, as we don't, "She" is every bit as appropriate as "He" when describing a person of indeterminite gender.

I disagree that "God" is a proper name for God,

Well, you're welcome to be wrong, then. "God" has more weight as the English form of His name than any other title. (Note that nearly every other biblical name has been translated into English; "Abraham," "Moses," and "Mary" were not how the names were pronounced in Hebrew or Aramaic.)

The use of the name Jehovah was misguided from the start.

Essentially, yes. "Jehovah" came about due to an unintentional mistranslation.

And, out of order:

God/Messiah/Holy Spirit of Israel, the phrase didn't support a specific religion, because God could also be understood to be Allah, Krishna, the Great Spirit, Brahma, etc.

There can only be one all-powerful, all-knowing, all-being Creator Deity who crafted all that is and ever will be. Or, rather, if there are more than one, we as mortals would be unable to tell the difference.

Allah is God, from an agnostic mythological perspective--but from a theological perspective, so are most of the others. (Isn't Krishna technically a manifestation of Brahma?)

Re:Sheesh (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960038)

If we did have linquistic gender, it would be controversial because it would be wrong.

Have you ever studied a language with linguistic gender? In French, the word for book is masculine (le livre). The word for library is feminine (la bibliotheque). It doesn't make any sense to me, but you can't say that it's "wrong," because it's not implying anything sexual about the objects themselves. As far as I can tell, gender is just a meaningless attribute that the language attaches to words.

"God" has more weight as the English form of His name than any other title.

You missed my point. I'm not comparing the popularity of words. My argument has to do with semantics. The LORD happens to be the main supreme god believed in our society, so we call Him God. But "God" is not our god's name, although we can certainly refer to Him by that word.

Allah is God, from an agnostic mythological perspective--but from a theological perspective, so are most of the others.

Would you clarify what you mean by that? I had written a response, but after looking at it again, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963166)

In French, the word for book is masculine (le livre). The word for library is feminine (la bibliotheque). It doesn't make any sense to me, but you can't say that it's "wrong,"

You misunderstood.

In French, it's simply wrong to, for example, call a book feminine (la livre). If English had linquistic gender, the 'gender' of God would be likewise fixed.

But "God" is not our god's name

Well, that's because his "true name" is lost to the far reaches of time. But "God" is a proper name that we use to refer to Him--just the same as "Mr. President" or "King of Kings."

Allah is God, from an agnostic mythological perspective--but from a theological perspective, so are most of the others.

Would you clarify what you mean by that?


Sure.

If we look at Islam from a secular, mythological perspective, and compare it to Judeo-Christianity, we can find a clear and concious connectection between Allah and the God of Abraham.

Allah, or "The God", was an extant member of the polytheistic faith that the pre-Islamic arabs worshipped. Mohammad noted the direct paralellel between Allan and the Judeo-Christian "God the Father", and correctly (?) matched the two up, thus starting Islam. (It's noteworthty that Mohammad first tried going to the Jews, but they rebuffed him.)

Now, if you look at it from a theological POV--that is, the viewpoint from a belieiver--God/Allah is the same entity that references to any other similar entity winds up targeting. When a Hindu says "Shiva is just a manifestation of Brahman", a Christian should hear "Shiva is just a face of God".

(Now, the actual sit-these-so-called-gods-down-for-tea truth may very well be different--but learning that requires a different point of view yet again.)

Re:Sheesh (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7967174)

I know that "Allah" is the word used for God in Arabic language Judeo-Christian Bibles, so I can agree that both words can be used to refer to the LORD. But Allah and the LORD in reality are two distinct entities.

Mohammad noted the direct paralellel between Allan and the Judeo-Christian "God the Father"

No, I'd say those lines are just a little bit skewed. :-) Like this X , in my view. For instance, why would God tell people not to make friends with His chosen people?

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends ..." - Koran 5:51
Allah/God implies that His chosen people do not believe in Him? Islamic theology is rife with such revisionist history. They claim that Jesus was a Muslim. I guess that would make Him the founder of Islam, not Mohammad.

Anyway, Adonai and Allah are not a close match. They relate to people differently (as described in the holy books) and they can't agree on what people are the "believers." Genesis says those who bless Israel will be blessed (Genesis 12:3). The Koran says all people who don't regard Mohammad as Allah/God's prophet, which would include the descendants of Jacob/Israel, will abide in "torment" (5:80). The Hadiths say outright that Jews must be killed, and the Koran grants equal authority to the Hadiths.

God/Allah is the same entity that references to any other similar entity winds up targeting.

The descriptions of Adonai and Allah share some attributes: an uncreated Being above all created things, sole Creator, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, holy, expects people to follow Him and be holy, and compassionate. But they differ in other very significant ways, as you must surely know. And they differ in how they define such things as holiness. Think Jihad. Who is a Muslim's neighbor? Only another Muslim. Everybody else is a vile infidel marked for slaughter at the earliest opportunity. At least, that's the majority view in Islamic states.

When a Hindu says "Shiva is just a manifestation of Brahman", a Christian should hear "Shiva is just a face of God".

This [wikipedia.org] is NOT a "face" of the God of the Bible. The Hindu god of Shiva is usually represented by a phallus!

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7967721)

For instance, why would God tell people not to make friends with His chosen people?

You mean you can't think of ANY reasons?

What if He needed a second, seperate 'chosen people' so it'd be God's People v. God's People for the fate of the world, so He wins both ways? (1). What if the contemporary Christians and Jews had fallen from God's grace? (2) What if God wanted to send a multi-part message that could only be expressed by three major religions? (3) What if the Koran was misinterpreted, by Mohammad's followers (who wrote it down), Mohammad (who spoke it), Gabriel (who told it to Mohammad) or whomever told it to Grabriel? (4)

God is many things, and we simply cannot know His reasons. Though we sure can speculate. ;)

They claim that Jesus was a Muslim.

And Medieval Christians claimed that Moses and Abraham were "Christians", in that Jesus found them after death and saved them from the damnation that claimed all other "Jews." Extending an inclusive reach to prophets and saints is a time-honored cultural rationalization--and proper, IMO. (After all, a good Christian is essentially a Muslim who doesn't recognized Muhammad and follows a slightly different set of rules.)

Anyway, Adonai and Allah are not a close match. They relate to people differently (as described in the holy books) and they can't agree on what people are the "believers." Genesis says those who bless Israel will be blessed (Genesis 12:3). The Koran says all people who don't regard Mohammad as Allah/God's prophet, which would include the descendants of Jacob/Israel, will abide in "torment" (5:80).

Well, those who bless Israel have been blessed, and those who don't regard Mohammad as God's prophet do live in "torment." Just look at the middle east. ;)

But, IMO, you're confusing the Deity with the religions that describe Him and lead people to a better knowledge of who He wants them to be.

At least, that's the majority view in Islamic states.

And in Israel, and in many Christian states. We have all fallen short of what God wants us to be, but that does not meen that we are seeking a different God.

This is NOT a "face" of the God of the Bible. The Hindu god of Shiva is usually represented by a phallus!

As opposed to being represented by a corpse?

God invented sex. While I believe that sex is best when it is between a lifelong-monogamous married couple (and I think God agrees with me), I don't think that God is even partially incompatable with sexual desire, sexual imagry, or the sexual act itself (or its many permutaions, derivitives, and perversions.) Heck, Christ didn't say anything more about sex than "don't stone that prostitute to death."

I have a seperate question for you. Christ said that whenever three or more humans would gather in his name, He would be there. Through this, we can assume that Christ has some influence in the various Christian denominations--such that, even if various denominations are horribly wrong on key aspects, He will still find and save those who follow the "wrong" denomination.

Now, since Christ is essentially God (enough to forgive on God's behalf and make proclimations in His name), and no one knows more than four letters of God's name--which no one even tries to speak, anyway--wouldn't the same rule apply to God--and wouldn't God see any group of mortals gathering in one of his many wrong names as equally worthy of His infinite attention as any other?

(Not to say that all other religions are right--just that they are most certainly not "wrong" in the extent that God cannot hear their prayers and never answers their supplications.)

Re:Sheesh (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7970866)

I don't know why you can't see what I so clearly can. I'm not even going to try to continue this discussion, except for one point.

As opposed to being represented by a corpse?

I assume you mean Jesus' body on a crucifix. That represents an act - a snapshot in time; not our Savior who is alive presently and has been since the third day after His Passion. For the very fact that Christ bodily rose from the dead and lives today, Protestants prefer to use the Cross by itself as the symbol of the faith.

Re:Sheesh (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7970915)

I don't know why you can't see what I so clearly can.

Please, don't.

You are committing an error of pride; your conclucions are not necessarily the correct ones, and even if you ARE correct, that does not mean that those who disagree with you are incorrect, or deficient in any way.

Or to put it another way: you're not seeing clearly. You're deciding that what you believe is true, and deciding not to see what else there could be. (This may or may not be a bad thing; God may very well want you to remain ignorant of parts of His plan.)

But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7957478)

..what if God actually has a sex? Jesus H Christ was the son of God. Ergo, God had sex with someone. Zeus used to come down and boink ladies, maybe the Judeo-Christian God has a vagina. And a clitoris. Gee, I would sure hate to get "the tap" from God while going down on her, all because I forgot to pay attention to his^H^H^H her clitoris.

See how ridiculous that is? I was about to type "his clitoris" and that doesn't make any sense at all. (It's like Chewbacca living on Endor -- it does not make sense!) I'm not going to call anyone (God or otherwise) "him" while talking about their clitoris.

I hope this helps.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...