Jump to content

      



























Photo

Religious Slips of Paper in Mail


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:24 AM

Atheism and atheist are not to be capitalized as one would capitalize followers of religions and the religion itself.

Edit: as for capitalism, yes, a Capitalist can/should capitalize the word when referring to him or herself.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Colwood

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:40 AM

Atheism and atheist are not to be capitalized as one would capitalize followers of religions and the religion itself.

Edit: as for capitalism, yes, a Capitalist can/should capitalize the word when referring to him or herself.


The use of a proper noun says nothing about religions being capitalized, it only states a name used for an individual person.

If I state I am something, I am naming myself. I think that religions are generally capitalized has nothing to do with the definition of a proper pronoun, but because of their place in society.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#23 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:16 AM

Yahwey is the term for God going back to ancient (pre-Christian) times. It does not explicitly refer to Jehovah.

I recall getting a similar packet of religious notes several months ago. The utilitarian presentation of the materials struck me as a hokey way to spread a religious message.


But Yahweh is how JW followers still refer to God, and no other denominations do. That combined with the fact that you have literature on your doorstep can mean only one thing.

I caught a couple of them doing this literature drop on my doorstep and promptly handed the clippings back and told them not to do it again.
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#24 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,398 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:42 AM

But Yahweh is how JW followers still refer to God, and no other denominations do...


To be fair, I was raised RC and we sang several hymns that used the term Yahweh for God.

#25 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member
  • 282 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:47 AM

That address on Shelbourne is probably the big new Kingdom Hall they finished last year. You may remember it from the news reports when a crane tipped over on a young JW volunteer construction worker and impaled him. He's recovering, but WorkSafe BC ruled his expenses wouldn't be covered because he's a volunteer. (News link.)

#26 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:56 AM

Yahwey is the term for God going back to ancient (pre-Christian) times. It does not explicitly refer to Jehovah.

Actually Jehovah is a bastardization of Yahweh, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah.

As for Atheist: arguing over the capitalization is rather pointless and clearly of interest primarily to those who do not respect a person's right to believe in the non-existence of a supreme being(s) or other mythical creatures.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#27 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:05 PM

We once had some JWs come to our door with a novel approach. They said they wanted to speak to me about the "practical uses for the bible". I told them if I ever needed to start a fire I would call them.
Don't be so sure.:cool:

#28 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:12 PM

Or people that believe that only proper nouns should be capitalized. IMO none of christian, jewish, muslim or atheist should be capitalized if being used as an adjective. If it being used to describe a group of people than Atheists could be used as that is a proper noun just as Canadians is but "I am canadian" is an adjective (and thus not capitalized).

I am an atheist vs Atheists believe... (feel free to swap in muslim, canadian, biker, skater etc...)

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#29 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:19 PM

Actually Jehovah is a bastardization of Yahweh, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah.


Right, but Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses. Yahweh predates the Christian era by millennia.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#30 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:20 PM

I am not religious, but I wish I knew more about religion, it seems such a complex subject.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#31 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:45 PM

I'm an atheist yet I am fascinated by the complexity, beauty and horror found in religions and understand why it continues to inspire and confound us.

I especially like reading about the apocrypha, the bits of the bible left on the cutting room floor. Or the story of Lilith, the demon seducer of men, supposed first wife of Adam.

Getting back on topic, those weird clippings can't be authorized JW literature. As we can see by the new JW church on Shelbourne, they are trying to project a more accessible, homey face to a wary public used to thinking of them as annoying door-knockers.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#32 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:23 AM

I too enjoy this sort of stuff. I am particularly interested in ancient religions and how their interpretations of "god's" and their activities on earth form the basis of religion as we know it, and how presumably stone-age civilizations constructed ancient monuments that defy scientists and builders to this day. Fascinating stuff.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#33 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:40 AM

Right, but Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses. Yahweh predates the Christian era by millennia.

You still seem to be confused. Jehovah IS Yahweh. Yahweh IS Jehovah. They are two variants of the same name. It is like Yeshua and Joshua, or John and Sean, same name, different forms for different languages.

The form Jehovah was a later bastardized form of the name of the Hebrew (and possibly Samaritan) God. Jehovah's Witnesses are a much later offshoot of Christianity which is in itself a radical offshoot of Judaism despite the ignorance of this fact amongst large segments of the Christian faithful.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#34 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:33 PM

I'm an atheist yet I am fascinated by the complexity, beauty and horror found in religions and understand why it continues to inspire and confound us.

I especially like reading about the apocrypha, the bits of the bible left on the cutting room floor. Or the story of Lilith, the demon seducer of men, supposed first wife of Adam.

Getting back on topic, those weird clippings can't be authorized JW literature. As we can see by the new JW church on Shelbourne, they are trying to project a more accessible, homey face to a wary public used to thinking of them as annoying door-knockers.



Well, now I know why they picked the name Lilith for Fraser Cranes wife!!!
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#35 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:16 PM

You still seem to be confused. Jehovah IS Yahweh. Yahweh IS Jehovah. They are two variants of the same name. It is like Yeshua and Joshua, or John and Sean, same name, different forms for different languages.


No confusion here, just pointing out that Yahweh does not necessarily refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as was suggested earlier in the thread.

Yahweh = Jehovah
Yahweh /= explicitly Jehovah's Witnesses

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#36 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:11 AM

No confusion here, just pointing out that Yahweh does not necessarily refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as was suggested earlier in the thread.

Yahweh = Jehovah
Yahweh /= explicitly Jehovah's Witnesses


Mike, as an admin on a forum it behooves you to maintain a certain standard which should include NOT re-writing history to suit your personal opinions. It is a form of falsehood and easily tracked since the actual word you wrote are available to all to read.

You wrote:

...Yahweh does not exclusively refer to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses.


Note you said, "to Jehovah and Jehovah Witnesses" (emphasis mine). You were clearly making a statement about two different usages.

In regards to "Jehovah", that has been addressed and you admitted your error. Well done.

In regards to "Jehovah Witnesses" you are doing backflips of semantics as the deity referred to is indeed the same god. They did not invent a new deity somehow. They worship in very different ways and believe very different things but if you have any understanding of the history of religion you know that the evolution of their religious sect traces back to the desert-dwellers of the land now known as Israel.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#37 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Colwood

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:55 AM

Mike, as an admin on a forum it behooves you to maintain a certain standard which should include NOT re-writing history to suit your personal opinions. It is a form of falsehood and easily tracked since the actual word you wrote are available to all to read.


Actually it can all be deleted should a moderator say something that is tooo confrontational.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#38 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:11 AM

I think Mike is just talking about word usage. Same could be said about many words. Just because one group uses the word Yahweh does not mean every time it is used it can only refer to that group. Nothing more nothing less. Doesn't seem controversial to me.

If I see a document that uses the term loomex I may assume that the document is written by an electrician however someone who is not an electrician could and most likely has used the term loomex in some written document.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#39 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:25 AM

^thanks, G. I'm glad somebody gets it :)

And tedward, lighten up, will you? I don't care to get into an unnecessary debate with you. I was making a simple observation by pointing out that we cannot identify the group behind the notes from a reference to a term that is used by many religions. Now we're running in circles.

I do not appreciate the harshness and vindictiveness of your postings on this forum. Your attitude is often argumentative and I do not feel it is conducive to respectful discussion. Be polite and respectful or check yourself out.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#40 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:38 PM

I think Mike is just talking about word usage. Same could be said about many words. Just because one group uses the word Yahweh does not mean every time it is used it can only refer to that group. Nothing more nothing less. Doesn't seem controversial to me.


Pointing out factual errors is controversial?

My entire objection has been to an error on Mike's part which he seems hell-bent on defending to the point of absurdity.

Yahweh=Jehovah. That is all I have been saying.

It matters not whether the context is Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses or any other sect, it's still the same root deity.

Of course that has nothing to do with who left religious literature in this case and I have made no comment on that part of the discussion at all.


I was making a simple observation by pointing out that we cannot identify the group behind the notes from a reference to a term that is used by many religions. Now we're running in circles.


No. What you said was Yahweh was NOT Jehovah and claimed that somehow the word "Jehovah" in "Jehovah's Witnesses" did not refer to him. That is a factual error and rather than simply acknowledge the fact you have chosen to keep arguing.

I have made no comment on identifying which sect was responsible for the literature because you are correct on this point. Does not enter into this.

I do not appreciate the harshness and vindictiveness of your postings on this forum. Your attitude is often argumentative and I do not feel it is conducive to respectful discussion. Be polite and respectful or check yourself out.

I am trying to be neither harsh nor vindictive. I am simply trying to ensure that blatant factual errors are not allowed to stand. I am sorry if my insistence on the truth seems argumentative to you.

Respectful discussion to my mind means that when faced with an error one acknowledges it and moves on rather than continuing to argue.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users