Please stop disrespecting other believers

[sayak83]

From Grammarist.com:



President (capitalization) - Grammarist


The correct form would be "the president". In that context, it's not a proper noun. OTOH, "President Trump" would be a proper noun.

Here is something then.

God (word) - Wikipedia

The development of English orthography was dominated by Christian texts. Capitalized, "God" was first used to refer to the Judeo-Christian concept and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allāh, Persian Khuda, Indic Ishvara and the African Maasai Engai.


Also

Definition of GOD


capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

 

[Revoltingest]

Please read the entry for Khuda in Wikipedia.

I did.
My argument stands.

 

[sayak83]

I did.
My argument stands.

How so?

Khuda or Khoda (Persian: خدا‎‎, Kurdish: ‎Xweda, Xuda, Urdu: ‎خدا) is the Iranianword for "Lord" or "God". Originally, it was used in reference to Ahura Mazda.

Muslims, Zoroastrians, Iranian Bahai or Christians will all translate their God as Khuda. Which is the point.

 

[Revoltingest]

How so?

Khuda or Khoda (Persian: خدا‎‎, Kurdish: ‎Xweda, Xuda, Urdu: ‎خدا) is the Iranianword for "Lord" or "God". Originally, it was used in reference to Ahura Mazda.

Muslims, Zoroastrians, Iranian Bahai or Christians will all translate their God as Khuda. Which is the point.

I'm still sticking with the lower case "g" when referring to a non-specific god.
"God" is for one so named, typically the Xian dispenser of fire & brimstone.

 

[sayak83]

I'm still sticking with the lower case "g" when referring to a non-specific god.
"God" is for one so named, typically the Xian dispenser of fire & brimstone.

That is your choice of course. I am pointing out that a large number of English users do not use it that way.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is your choice of course. I am pointing out that a large number of English users do not use it that way.

I do and always have.

 

[Fool]

This is a general debates section, and here many members are theists without being Abrahamic theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews). Yet many folk put "God" in thread title while only referring to the Abrahamic God. Nobody would do this if they were instead referring to God of Hinduism, Deism, Sikhism etc. I feel that this reflects an attitude that other faiths and beliefs don't matter.

If you feel that this is a fair criticism, I would request everybody to please specify whose God you are referring to when posting on the General section. Thank you.

the word general usually doesn't mean specific. god, if there is one, can't be owned by it's adherents either the idea, the word, or even the discussion.

if i'm not mistaken, the directories were specifically created for those religion.. general means people, places, or things as a whole an not in part.

if they wish to discuss the term god as specific to a religion, that is what my understanding of the directories are for.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, of course many threads are perfectly good and refers to a general God. Others are quite specific and are also quite OK. I am referring to those threads that talk about God and its quite clear from the OP that only the Abrahamic(and often the Christian) God is meant.. as if that is the only God and Bible is the only scripture.

A lot of times God is referred to for Christianity and sometimes Allah. Outside of that, I've seen most people refer to, say, the Hindu god as Brahman (or Brahma-sorry, I keep forgetting), or an incarnation-a specific god. So, they differentiate the word god from other gods depending on the religion.

So, in other words, when most refer to god, they aren't consciously excluding all other gods its just most of us on the RF forum come from christian environments and/or associate the word with christianity. It's more the word. If you ask them specifically about the Muslim or Hindu god, I'm sure they would mention them by their name in relation to their faith (Allah, Brahma, etc) rather than putting them under one god.

-

For me, when I refer to god (no caps) it's any person and object of worship. When I refer to God (caps) most times I say abrahamic but when I don't, it means the abrahamic god. If I'm referring to a specific theist religion, I won't say god, I'd say Brahma, Ordin, or Hecate.

I wouldn't get to bothered about it. Just know that most who speak of other religious gods will use the name of the god within that specific religion. It's just more appropriate. I wouldn't refer to Brahma as god but Brahma. It's just respectful.

 

[Brickjectivity]

God designates (in English) the Supreme personal deity in any religion, be it Yhwh, Allah, Vishnu, Siva or Ek Onkar or any other specific divinity who takes that position.

Use the hyphenated version like Jews do. 'G-d'. This is a positive action which you can make which will work towards a favorable result for you. 'God' is a Christian Bible term. 'G-d' is not, and its perfectly serviceable for Hindu uses.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is your choice of course. I am pointing out that a large number of English users do not use it that way.

A large number of English users also say things like....
"He & myself are going out."
"Me & him are going out."
"We be going out."

I don't use this group as my standard, nor do I go out with them..

 

[Muslim-UK]

I don't suppose you have any empirical evidence of this...

Which Religion do you want to examine to see if there's evidence showing they received a Messenger/Prophet from God?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Which Religion do you want to examine to see if there's evidence showing they received a Messenger/Prophet from God?

If you can show me empirical evidence of God sending messengers or prophets to tell mankind about Himself in any religion, I'll be impressed.

 

[Muslim-UK]

If you can show me empirical evidence of God sending messengers or prophets to tell mankind about Himself in any religion, I'll be impressed.

All we can examine are the Scriptures of whichever Religion it maybe, to see that they record receiving a Messenger from God.

 

[SalixIncendium]

All we can examine are the Scriptures of whichever Religion it maybe, to see that they record receiving a Messenger from God.

So you're saying you do not have evidence. You had me excited there for a few minutes. I thought at last someone was going to finally provide evidence of the existence of God. I can't say I'm surprised though.

 

[Looncall]

All we can examine are the Scriptures of whichever Religion it maybe, to see that they record receiving a Messenger from God.

Of course they record something of that sort. What else can be expected of that kind of scam?

Scripture is the last place a reasonable person would look for verification of anything.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindus do not need to use the term 'God', so let them use their terms.

You have a point there, Hindus could use the word "Ishwara", everyone understands that.

But what are the names of those gods? Are they named "God"?

We have named them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Iranian forms such as Avestan xva-dhata- "self-defined; autocrat", an epithet of Ahura Mazda.
"Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (a feminine noun). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhās, means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European *mn̩sdʰeh₁, literally meaning "placing (*dʰeh₁) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".

Khuda/Khoda/xva-dhata: In Sanskrit, that will perhaps be 'Sva-dha".

Not traditionally, no. We have Brahman, Ishwara, Bhagavan, which mean "God".

Do they mean "God" or do they generally correspond to "God"?

Ishwara, Bhagawan and Devi correspond to a God or a Goddess. But Brahman is a slippery thing. It can be a God or not one. For me, it is not a God.

 

[sayak83]

You have a point there, Hindus could use the word "Ishwara", everyone understands that. We have named them.

Ishvara is not an English term. Translating Ishvara to English would be God. Isn't it.?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most people who are likely to read about it will know, for example, most of our knowlegeable members at RF. Yes, Ishwara is a personal/chosen God.

Svadha: the exclamation or benediction used on presenting the above oblation or libation to the gods or departed ancestors, self-power, knife, refreshing drink offered to the spirits of deceased ancestors, food or libation, pleasure, law, rule, habitual state, comfort, own place, sacrificial offering due to each god, home, own portion or share, axe, convenience, self-position, inherent power, own state or condition or nature, custom, ease.
http://spokensanskrit.de/

 

[Sundance]

Well to be clear when I say god does not exist that means no god, not even one, exists.

What about The Universe?