Originally Posted by
Vivisteiner
^I do not think that the meaning of the term God should reach the stage in Western societies where it is meant to assume the Judeo-Christian one only and not any of the others. Thats not just close-minded, its arrogant. People should talk about God as an encompassing hypthothesis that encompasses the Judeo-Christian God as well as many other Gods.
Yes and no. I say yes, for I see your point, yet I mostly lean towards no. It has been the convention when translating the Bible into English that God is written with a capital "G". There is no denying the influence that Christianity has had on Western society (and vice-versa); it is an irrevocable part of Western history. It is not a rule that "God" can only mean the Judeo-Christian, rather it is what is normally being referred to. As I said before, in translations of Sanskrit texts, the word
Brahman is often translated as "God". Plus if you look at other religious traditions and their focus of worship, the nomenclature is completely different. Often with Islam, we use Allah, though God is equally acceptable. In Taoism, the focus is moved to the Dao. Shinto, various kami's who have their own name are used. Hinduism, with the exception of
Brahman and its translation, usually the name of the deities are used. Buddhism, while not focused on worshipping gods (
devas), when referring to specific buddhas, Buddha is often capitalized. Other traditions have "actual names", as it were, for the focus of their worship, thus following English grammar, is spelt with a capital letter like a proper name should be. In Christianity, "God" just so happens to be the name we use for the Judeo-Christian idea of divine, thus we follow the grammatical protocols and capitalize it. So it is neither arrogance or narrow-mindedness, rather following convention and the grammatical structure of the language. God is a proper name; god is a noun referring to the concept of divinity (usually in a masculine or gender neutral sense).
Reply With Quote