'In God We Trust' moving to face of $1 coins

[wooderson]

I would also say you're somewhat confused by the introduction of Hindu terminology - the Hindu word for this supreme deity is Ishvara. This is translated into English as God - why? Because as a Judeo-Christian people, God (capitalized, proper noun) is our linguistic concept for a anthropomorphized supreme deity. Why is that? Because of the Abrahamic deity.

[wooderson]

And if you absolutely require it for understanding, I'll add a qualifier to my first statement - referring to the Abrahamic deity in western culture. I assumed this was understood - insofar as we're both in the continental US, referring to US coins, you're (presumably) a Christian and I was raised in an unavoidably Judeo-Christian culture.

There, does that head off some of the semantic dissembling I see coming 'round the corner?

[Stand_watie]

Hmmm. Maybe that "God" doesn't mean "Abrahamic deity" as you claim.

No, what I said was that 'God' refers to a specific being or concept of same - on American coins, obviously the Judeo-Christian God. In other contexts (ie cultures, situations), it may refer to something else - but god may only be capitalized when it is a proper noun. If you're using it as a title or other non-specific form, the word is not capitalized.

What I also said, and what you seem to be confused by, is that the definition you're citing capitalizes 'god' when referring to the Abrahamic deity.

No. What you said was this.. (I'm going to quote you, so you can't go back and delete or change your post...)

.. God is a proper noun, referring to the Abrahamic deity.

English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...

[Stand_watie]

     Here we go. Now the Shinto are referring to their deities as "Gods"? They worship the Abrahamic deity, like the Hindu's do now, is that it? Yeah. The word "God" refers to just the Abrahamic deity...pull my leg some more.


***
"Shinto is an all-pervading indefinable way which is quite universal. Shinto or Kaminomichi or the way of the Kami or the Gods is the name of the religion observed by the Japanese from time immemorial. Kami means God or deity, or sometimes soul. Shinto implies spontaneous following of the Way of the Gods. Shinto is not really an ism. It is only a teaching. It is not a set of verbal theories or concepts. It is the all-pervading way.

It is very difficult to translate Shinto into English. Shinto means The way of the Gods or the God-like way or The way from the Gods. There is no proper equivalent for the term Shinto in English. Shinto is an all-pervading, indefinable way which is quite universal."
***

Or maybe Sequoya was referring to the Abrahamic deity? O.K. whatever.

[wooderson]

English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...

Um, no, they refer to the supreme being as Ishvara. Kinda like the Japanese word isn't actually 'God.' This language stuff is tricky, innit?

The word "God" refers to just the Abrahamic deity...pull my leg some more.

So, no, it didn't head off the semantic dissembling. Good to know.

Look - even your own dictionary definition makes it patently clear that you're wrong about the proper capitalization and use of god. God should only be capitalized when used as a proper noun. When used, as you claimed, as a title or encompassing concept, it should not be capitalized.

Thus, when the word is capitalized, it is being used to refer to something specific. On American coins this being the Abrahamic god, of course.

[Perd Hapley]

What exactly do we mean by "Abrahamic god"?  Muslims, modern-day Jews, Mormons, Trinitarian Christians and non-trinitarians all claim to worship the God of Abraham.  But they each have a different God in mind. 

[wooderson]

I dunno, what does everyone mean by Judeo-Christian god or Abrahamic faiths or all those terms? All the faiths you refer to share the same conceptual genesis of this deity, so they all get lumped together.

For outsiders, whatever petty differences you lot claim to have are patently irrelevant.

[Stand_watie]

English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...

Um, no, they refer to the supreme being as Ishvara. Kinda like the Japanese word isn't actually 'God.' This language stuff is tricky, innit?

The word "God" refers to just the Abrahamic deity...pull my leg some more.

So, no, it didn't head off the semantic dissembling. Good to know.

Look - even your own dictionary definition makes it patently clear that you're wrong about the proper capitalization and use of god. God should only be capitalized when used as a proper noun. When used, as you claimed, as a title or encompassing concept, it should not be capitalized.

Thus, when the word is capitalized, it is being used to refer to something specific. On American coins this being the Abrahamic god, of course.

"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".


I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god".  I'll let you have it from here though. I've wasted enough time on you. When Norman Greenbaum tells me he's "going up to the Spirit in the sky" (notice I capitalized it) or that "He's got a friend in Jesus" (notice I capitalized it), I'll assume he's a genuine, New Testament believing, follower of Christ. Or not

[Perd Hapley]

I dunno, what does everyone mean by Judeo-Christian god or Abrahamic faiths or all those terms? All the faiths you refer to share the same conceptual genesis of this deity, so they all get lumped together.

For outsiders, whatever petty differences you lot claim to have are patently irrelevant.

Conceptual genesis?  Of this deity?  There's more than one version of "God" though.  That's the point. 

[wooderson]

"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".

Who these people might be, one wonders...

I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god".

In fact, you did. That whole "God" is a title thing, remember that?

[wooderson]

Conceptual genesis?  Of this deity?

Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.

There's more than one version of "God" though.  That's the point.

But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.

[Stand_watie]

"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".

Who these people might be, one wonders...

    Any of those people who refer to "God" who aren't referring to the Abrahamic "God". Those people I quoted.

I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god".

In fact, you did. That whole "God" is a title thing, remember that?
[/quote]

No, I didn't. Now diagram that last sentence.

[Ben]

If you whippersnappers can't behave you'll need to get off of my lawn.

[Stand_watie]

    If you object to seeing your Lord God Almighty name in print - please read no further on this thread...

[wooderson]

    Any of those people who refer to "God" who aren't referring to the Abrahamic "God". Those people I quoted.

Which people were those?

The Hindus who call their supreme deity by his given name, Ishvara?

No, I didn't.

""G-d" is non-denominational. It's a title."

Sure you did.

[230RN]

OK, how about "In Neptune We Trust?"

Or, "In Satan We Trust?"

Or, "In Jesus We Trust?"

"In Caesar We Trust?"

"In Ra We Trust?"

Regardless of what diefic creature one inserts in that phrase, whether dignified with a capital letter or not, it must inevitably offend someone out there who is not a worshiper or follower of that particular deific creature.

If this offense is committed under color of Congressional Authority, i.e., as a matter of Law, it is in fact the establishment of a religion.

And even if it is stated in terms of merely a "Creator" or "creator," it offends those who do not believe in any deific creature at all.  To this extent also, it is the establishment of a religion, even if that religion is unnamed.

Arguments that the US is 50.001% Judeo-Christian are specious and smack of the "tyranny of the majority" which the Founders so feared and is the reason they instituted our system of checks and balances.  Which, by the way, has failed us so often in the sense that the major check (SCOTUS) on the tyranny of the majority has so often succumbed to pressure by that majority.

Or at least as it perceives that majority as presented to them by the media and friends of the Court briefs.

Lest one think I am anti-religious, far from it.  I am simply anti-tyranny.

By the majority or otherwise.

[Perd Hapley]

230,

A creature is something that has been created.  So, if you're looking for a generic term for a god (or God), "deific creature" is not a very good one. 

[230RN]

^^^ Others would disagree that a creature is necessarily created (by some creator.)

Whence the antipathy toward that phrase.

[Perd Hapley]

Conceptual genesis?  Of this deity?

Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.

Actually, this "accepted unity" is not very widely accepted.  But I think I get your meaning about the various ideas about Abraham's God having roots in the same original concept.  Just in point of fact, though, the "Abrahamic" ideas of God are not anthropomorphic.  The term you're looking for is "personal." 

Speaking of Allah, I think it bears on the discussion that Christian Arabs refer to the Christian God as "Allah," because it is a term which means "God," rather than the name of a specific God. 

There's more than one version of "God" though.  That's the point.

But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.

That is the opinion of many theological moderates and "liberals."  Our President, for instance.  But many scholars will disagree.  Certainly, the three religions describe God very differently, while claiming to worship the same one Abraham did.  Whether three people can "refer" to the same person, while describing him in flatly contradictory ways, is perhaps the operative question. 

[Perd Hapley]

^^^ Others would disagree that a creature is necessarily created (by some creator.)

Whence the antipathy toward that phrase.

I wasn't trying to convey any antipathy, just stating a fact.  In any case, why not just say "deity"?  I don't see any reason for controversy with that word. 

[wooderson]

Certainly, the three religions describe God very differently, while claiming to worship the same one Abraham did.

This tells me that you're arguing from a minority position that chooses to disagree with the widely-held version of events.

This is akin to "Mormons ain't Christians" wrangling in that it has no relevance to analysis from outsiders and unbelievers. All a bit "Judean People's Front," really.

And no, I meant anthropomorphic.

[Perd Hapley]

Certainly, the three religions describe God very differently, while claiming to worship the same one Abraham did.

This tells me that you're arguing from a minority position that chooses to disagree with the widely-held version of events.

Huh?  The Big Three disagree on some pretty big issues regarding the nature of the Almighty.  That's hardly a minority position. 

And no, I meant anthropomorphic.

Then, respectfully, you could benefit from some study of comparative religion. 

[roo_ster]

And even if it is stated in terms of merely a "Creator" or "creator," it offends those who do not believe in any deific creature at all.  To this extent also, it is the establishment of a religion, even if that religion is unnamed.

"Establishment of Religion" has a particular meaning that does not match your words.

For example, the UK has an established religion, Church of England. 

Also, at the time of the ratification of the COTUS, several states had established churches.

Mashing, "In God We Trust" into coinage is not an establishment of religion to anyone who understands what an establishment of religion is.

[roo_ster]

Conceptual genesis?  Of this deity?

Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.

There's more than one version of "God" though.  That's the point.

But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.

wooderson:

Your position, "'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology." is the minority position held by theological liberals.

Orthodox* Judaism is not on board with the Christian conception (yuk, yuk) of the triune Christian God.

Orthodox* Christians believe that Islam is either the spawn of one of the false prophets (Mohammed) we were warned against or, if Islam's Allah is real, he is a creature of Satan (demon, IOW). 





* Not indicating the sect, but the state of belief: orthodox vs heterodox

[wooderson]

Huh?  The Big Three disagree on some pretty big issues regarding the nature of the Almighty.  That's hardly a minority position. 

Holding that the Big Three don't believe in the same historical "god of Abraham" is very much a minority position. That you lot have issues is irrelevant to the matter (and the fact that all three groups maintain that they believe in this particular god...).

Then, respectfully, you could benefit from some study of comparative religion.

So the Abrahamic god isn't given human characteristics?