InesQor: Oh my. After my long explanation differentiating common and proper nouns? I didn't even realize it was LogicBoy I was even talking to. Never mind, man.

We both speak English. Even if you believe that i'm illogical, at least grant me this basic knowledge.

"god" is not a proper noun. Your explanation is useless. I said quite clearly that it is a common noun.


Proper nouns are names of people, places, trademarks, businesses etc.

god is not a name of a person. it is a word that means "with divine power/attributes"- that is why we have many gods.

god is a common noun. god is only capitalised for a dogmatic religious reason. We all know that dogmatic religious doctrines are foolish




FYI; you only look like a pompous fool when you act all high and mighty....

JeSoul:
but to uncle Uyi - the path you are on is fantastic. Self-discovery is exciting and everyone must come to a place where they put their beliefs to the test and figure out if it is worth holding on to or throwing away. Nothing worse than a programmed zombie either way.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

The issue here is clear - Uyi Iredia wants God to fit into his own definition/understanding of love. That is neither an intelligent nor logical expectation from a Sovereign God whose ways are above your ways, whose thoughts are above your thoughts and whose unlimited wisdom, knowledge and understanding is beyond your comprehension.

No one here can 'convince' you - you must seek God for yourself. Thank God you know how to since you are/once were a Christian. If you truly and diligently seek him, he will answer your questions.

Logicboy03:
We both speak English. Even if you believe that i'm illogical, at least grant me this basic knowledge.

"god" is not a proper noun. Your explanation is useless. I said quite clearly that it is a common noun.

Proper nouns are names of people, places, trademarks, businesses etc.

god is not a name of a person. it is a word that means "with divine power/attributes"- that is why we have many gods.

god is a common noun. god is only capitalised for a dogmatic religious reason. We all know that dogmatic religious doctrines are foolish

NOPE. Whether it is a common noun or a proper noun, Mazaje has used it in the context of a proper noun by saying Last time you spoke to god. So take it up with Mazaje, why he called the subject "god" rather than "your god" or whatever, thus branding it a proper noun. As long as you use the word in a proper noun context, at least speak good English while you're at it.

Or do you say 'I am going to house", "I took dog for a walk"? These are common nouns. When you use a proper noun, or a noun in the context of a proper noun, you capitalize. This is basic English.

Logicboy03: FYI; you only look like a pompous fool when you act all high and mighty....

These things happen.

InesQor:
NOPE. Whether it is a common noun or a proper noun, Mazaje has used it in the context of a proper noun by saying Last time you spoke to god. So take it up with Mazaje, why he called the subject "god" rather than "your god" or whatever, thus branding it a proper noun. As long as you use the word in a proper noun context, at least speak good English while you're at it.

Or do you say 'I am going to house", "I took dog for a walk"? These are common nouns. When you use a proper noun, or in the context of a proper noun, you capitalize. This is basic English.


These things happen.

Can "sheep" ever become a proper noun if you are talking about one sheep?


How can a common noun become a proper noun depending on the sentence That is BULSH!T!!!


Majaze ommnitted "your" inthe sentence; it is better explained like this;


"When last did you speak to your god"
"when last did you speak to your cat"

Because we know that it is the christian god, we just use "god" not "your god"
Not a proper noun. Just accept that you are wrong.

Logicboy03:
Can "sheep" ever become a proper noun if you are talking about one sheep?

Yes. If I have chosen to call my sheep "Sheep".

Logicboy03:
How can a common noun become a proper noun depending on the sentence That is BULSH!T!!!

I'm more appalled than you are, that you are even contesting it.

Logicboy03:
Majaze ommnitted "your" inhe sentence; it is better explained like this;

"When last did you speak to your god"
"when last did you speak to your cat"

Not a proper noun.

Had Mazaje said either of this, I wouldn't have taken him up. His usage shows a deliberate slur at English because you DO NOT start a proper noun with lowercase.

Logicboy03:
Just accept that you are wrong.

Yes sir high and mighty. I am wrong. English is wrong. And why? Because you're never wrong.

But sha may I lend you my The Queen Primer?

InesQor:
Yes. If I have chosen to call my sheep "Sheep".

lol.....what is the name of your god? God or Yahweh?

Logicboy03:

lol.....what is the name of your god? God or Yahweh?

What does it matter to THIS discussion? Mazaje called him God (see? that's a proper noun context) and not Yahweh, and that's what this is all about so why are you gallivanting on the matter?

@Logicboy03

Just learn the English lesson quietly and move on, you need not accept that you were wrong if that is a big problem for you.

Learn and move on, in case you're still in school, or you will be applying for graduate school soon, and you'll need to take the IELTS or TOEFL exams. OR you need to write that business proposal to someone that pays finicky attention to such details.

Rule: When mentioning an object by its assumed or accepted name, ALWAYS capitalize.

e.g. Nairaland, InesQor, California, Lagos, Zebra etc

Thank me later.

InesQor:

What does it matter to THIS discussion? Mazaje called him God (see? that's a proper noun context) and not Yahweh, and that's what this is all about so why are you gallivanting on the matter?

I told you that a common noun can not just magically become a proper noun.

You gave the example of naming a sheep "Sheep" to obscure the rule.

However, the name of your god is Yahweh not "God".


Majaze never capitalised "god"......so you are the one grapsing at straws based on your religious rule of capitalising god

InesQor: @Logicboy03

Just learn the English lesson quietly and move on, you need not accept that you were wrong if that is a big problem for you.

Learn and move on, in case you're still in school, or you will be applying for graduate school soon, and you'll need to take the IELTS or TOEFL exams. OR you need to write that business proposal to someone that pays finicky attention to such details.

Rule: When mentioning an object by its assumed or accepted name, ALWAYS capitalize.

e.g. Nairaland, InesQor, California, Lagos, Zebra etc

Thank me later.

lol.....trololo


Zebra is now a proper noun?

"I went to see a Zebra"? Lmao



A proper noun is defined by what it names or titles not by how the sentence goes.


This is becoming too funny!

debosky:

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

The issue here is clear - Uyi Iredia wants God to fit into his own definition/understanding of love. That is neither an intelligent nor logical expectation from a Sovereign God whose ways are above your ways, whose thoughts are above your thoughts and whose unlimited wisdom, knowledge and understanding is beyond your comprehension.

No one here can 'convince' you - you must seek God for yourself. Thank God you know how to since you are/once were a Christian. If you truly and diligently seek him, he will answer your questions.

Love is well-defined. I have no peculiar understanding of love. If you think that God being above me is an EXCUSE for not replying the points I raised then I'm sorry for you because you are being ignorant as I was. Just because it's God doesn't justify the massacres He sanctioned in the OT.

Mary had a little lamb <--- used as a common noun. Correct
Mary's lamb <--- used as a common noun. Correct
Have you read Lamb's tales from Shakespeare? <--- Lamb (someone's surname) and Shakespeare are proper nouns. Both capitalized. Correct
He is washed in the blood of the Lamb <--- used as a proper noun, because it is the name of an entity. Correct
This is the lamb that I will sacrifice <--- used as a common noun, it is not the name of an entity. Correct

Have you seen lamb? <--- incorrect. Lamb as used here, MUST be capitalized because it is the name of an entity.
Have you seen our lamb? <--- used as a common noun. Correct

I can't even believe I'm having this conversation.

Logicboy03:


lol.....trololo


Zebra is now a proper noun?

"I went to see a Zebra"? Lmao



A proper noun is defined by what it names or titles not by how the sentence goes.


This is becoming too funny!

Putting "a" in front of zebra shows that it's a common noun. Zebra, as used there, is the name of a particular animal. Like "Bingo" or "Jack".

InesQor:

Putting "a" in front of zebra shows that it's a common noun. Zebra, as used there, is the name of a particular animal. Like "Bingo" or "Jack".

Grammar 101;

a common noun should have a qualifier before it

Eg a car, 1 car, two cars,my car, your car

InesQor: Mary had a little lamb <--- used as a common noun. Correct
Mary's lamb <--- used as a common noun. Correct
Have you read Lamb's tales from Shakespeare? <--- Lamb (someone's surname) and Shakespeare are proper nouns. Both capitalized. Correct
He is washed in the blood of the Lamb <--- used as a proper noun, because it is the name of an entity. Correct
This is the lamb that I will sacrifice <--- used as a common noun, it is not the name of an entity. Correct

Have you seen lamb? <--- incorrect. Lamb as used here, MUST be capitalized because it is the name of an entity.
Have you seen our lamb? <--- used as a common noun. Correct

I can't even believe I'm having this conversation.

Lamb is a persons name- should be capitalized
Lamb is a name of an animal- shouldnt be capitalised as a common noun.

You are just making yourself silly. A proper or common noun is determined by what it names- name of a person (proper noun), name of an animal/specie (common noun)

He is washed in the blood of the Lamb

Nah....

Can you see how you're the only one that has been going in on this? Probably your atheist friends are holding back because they can see that you're in error. Including Mazaje sef that I was talking to, I think he has seen what I meant. Or maybe not.

It's whatever.

Alfamann: He is washed in the blood of the Lamb

Aha and here he comes

You want to state your concern?

Ihedinobi:
Actually it isn't, because what I wanted to hear is how key 'A' on my laptop shows 'A' and nothing but 'A' on your screen, but we can work with this. When did you learn all that?

I'm a Computer Engineering undergraduate.

Ihedinobi:
Ok, the intellect of an atheist too. How does the lack of obligation imply refusal?


Ok, so if He isn't refusing, where is the answer? Remember a few questions about your faculty of reception I asked you earlier that you didn't deem worthy of an answer? Well, a tone-deaf person cannot hear any music, you know.

If you lack obligation the possibility of refusing to answer remains. You had better explain how I am tone deaf.

Ihedinobi:
Sure, whatever you say. I don't believe you thought that I might be right about that one until you checked it out. In fact, you positively said that the Lamb was not slain from the foundation of the world, but that He was predestined to be slain. You thought I was wrong. I can wait for you to learn how right I am about the rest too.

Actually, you haven't even given anything that addresses my points. At least, not yet.

InesQor:
Aha and here he comes

You want to state your concern?

I'm dumbfounded.

Uyi Iredia:

Love is well-defined. I have no peculiar understanding of love.

Love is well defined - by who? By you or by God?

If you think that God being above me is an EXCUSE for not replying the points I raised then I'm sorry for you because you are being ignorant as I was. Just because it's God doesn't justify the massacres He sanctioned in the OT.

Excuse? Hardly - the fact is that God is not only a God of Love, he is also a God of Justice, as well as being Sovereign. You need to discover the Sovereign nature of God in order to understand his actions. Like I said, God is not silent - if you seek him he will give you the answers you need, but maybe not the answers you want.

Unlike some, I am not in the business of 'defending' God on issues such as these - seek him for yourself. Job did in his time of disillusionment and received the answers he needed. I suggest you dust up your bible and study God's responses to Job - you may just find the answers you need therein.

JeSoul: Interesting thread going here and wish I had more time to go through it thoroughly but...
but to uncle Uyi - the path you are on is fantastic. Self-discovery is exciting and everyone must come to a place where they put their beliefs to the test and figure out if it is worth holding on to or throwing away. Nothing worse than a programmed zombie either way.


In regards to the core question "Is the Christian God good/loving? especially in light of many OT events?"
^to that, I say no - at least not according to our present understanding of what good is.

This is of course problematic because we are limited by what we know. Some questions we can ask ourselves - how accurate, true, correct - is our understanding of what good/loving is/entails? does our understanding of "good/loving" change with time? generation? culture? context? circumstance? etc etc... is 'good' rigid? is it fixed? or is it relative? fluid depending on the situation?

One aspect I can speak to with confidence - when you say why couldn't God just forgive? If someone harmed my family - my husband, or children or parents - and in the court someone stood up and asked me why can't I just forgive? I will not only shoot down the criminal, I will also shoot down the person who suggested forgiveness.


All in all, I wish you well my dear. If christianity is for you, you will make your way back. If it is not for you then you will move on to other beliefs. Still, it is well with you. Godbless.

Finally ! JeSoul, a breath of fresh air. Your answer to that question was honest but I don't think you've resolved the issue. Because the question to me is how one can reconcile the concept of an all-loving God with what we see in the Bible - particularly the OT. I think good is QUITE fluid. We certainly see changes in what is considered good but it has been since agreed that one must always strive to what one thinks good.

InesQor: Nah....

Can you see how you're the only one that has been going in on this? Probably your atheist friends are holding back because they can see that you're in error. Including Mazaje sef that I was talking to, I think he has seen what I meant. Or maybe not.

It's whatever.

lol...I dont need an argument ad populum......


But even so, I dnt see your own pals backing you up

#hypocrisy

Uyi Iredia:

I'm a Computer Engineering undergraduate.

Uh, I didn't ask how you learned all that. I asked when you learned all that. There's this subtle difference, you know.

If you lack obligation the possibility of refusing to answer remains. You had better explain how I am tone deaf.

Lol.

My friend, you have not answered my question. Does the lack of obligation imply refusal or not? Nobody said anything about possibilities.

Perhaps you're tired, but I said nothing like you being tone-deaf. Read what I wrote again.

Actually, you haven't even given anything that addresses my points. At least, not yet.

You are free to believe anything you want, my friend. Doesn't mean what you believe is true.

Alfamann:

I'm dumbfounded.

Eiyah. I guess this is not one of your more vocal moments.

Jesus is referred to as Lamb of God (or Lamb of Yahweh if you prefer). Not just a lamb or any lamb, but Lamb of God.

THUS, washed in the blood of the Lamb is correct. Also correct is washed in the Blood of the Lamb (if you take the blood as an entity on its own, thus named).

In summary, if it is wrong in English to say "when was the last time yahweh talked to you?" or "where is charles ?" then it is wrong to say "what did god say?".

Phew. I actually have time this evening. Lol.

Logicboy03:
Proper nouns are names of people, places, trademarks, businesses etc.

god is not a name of a person. it is a word that means "with divine power/attributes"- that is why we have many gods.

god is a common noun. god is only capitalised for a dogmatic religious reason. We all know that dogmatic religious doctrines are foolish




FYI; you only look like a pompous fool when you act all high and mighty....

No ! God is a proper noun. Referring to a specific entity that is generally understood as being the creator of the universe.

Uyi Iredia:

No ! God is a proper noun. Referring to a specific entity that is generally understood as being the creator of the universe.

#busted

What is this what is happening here I don't even...

That said, this should be more a personal thing, opening a thread seems a bit...excessive.

Good lucking figuring out your path @uyi

debosky:

Love is well defined - by who? By you or by God?

In the dictionary, of course !

debosky:
Excuse? Hardly - the fact is that God is not only a God of Love, he is also a God of Justice, as well as being Sovereign. You need to discover the Sovereign nature of God in order to understand his actions. Like I said, God is not silent - if you seek him he will give you the answers you need, but maybe not the answers you want.

Unlike some, I am not in the business of 'defending' God on issues such as these - seek him for yourself. Job did in his time of disillusionment and received the answers he needed. I suggest you dust up your bible and study God's responses to Job - you may just find the answers you need therein.

Punishing descendants of wrongdoers for a crime they didn't commit isn't justice - it's madness, neither is killing little children and babies. If the answer I get is simply an exposition of how great & mighty God is_which is how God responded to Job_ I should be disappointed since one's position should not be justification for doing evil. In any case I'll read Job, infact the whole Bible again. This time critically.

Uyi Iredia:

No ! God is a proper noun. Referring to a specific entity that is generally understood as being the creator of the universe.

This guy you mean?



Ptah is the creator god par excellence: He is considered the demiurge who existed before all things, and by his willingness, thought the world. It was first conceived by Thought, and realized by the Word: Ptah conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word. That which Ptah commanded was created, with which the constituents of nature, fauna, and flora, are contained. He also plays a role in the preservation of the world and the permanence of the royal function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah

Alfamann:

This guy you mean?



Ptah is the creator god par excellence: He is considered the demiurge who existed before all things, and by his willingness, thought the world. It was first conceived by Thought, and realized by the Word: Ptah conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word. That which Ptah commanded was created, with which the constituents of nature, fauna, and flora, are contained. He also plays a role in the preservation of the world and the permanence of the royal function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah

God (n): The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

As long as that is your understanding, and Ptah (Wikied above) and God (defined above) are synonymous for you, then just like you won't write ptah or amadioha why would you write god in a proper noun sense?

Edit: Ptah is not even worshipped in a monotheism but I see what you did there anyway.

wiegraf: What is this what is happening here I don't even...

That said, this should be more a personal thing, opening a thread seems a bit...excessive.

Good lucking figuring out your path @uyi

The whole thread is like a festering madness.