"Believer" and "Unbeliever": CAPITALIZE or not?
Superwebgirl
the usage of these 2 words:
In the following sentences, should the terms "Believer" and
"Unbeliever" be capitalized or not?
1) "How much power does the Believer have over the enemy through Jesus
Christ?"
2) "Many believers go down with no fight and an overwhelming sense of
no hope."
3) "An unbeliever is anyone who rejects Jesus Christ the Lord alone
for his or her salvation or believes one must contribute to their
salvation."
Thanks in advance to anyone who replies!
Earle Jones
mich...@mountaintopdesign.com (Superwebgirl) wrote:
*
Yer welcome!
My advice is this: Find another project. If your major worry is
whether to capitalize "believer", then you have too much time on your
hands.
Here's a suggestion: Find some downtrodden group: A school with
limited resources, or a school with disabled kids, and figure out a way
to make their lives better. Take them on a field trip -- explain to them
how different life forms interact with each other.
It isn't hard. Get yourself a simple book on ecology and go from there.
Don't worry about whether "believer" should be capitalized. Believe me,
it isn't important. What is important is the lives of disabled kids.
Contact me if you need more specific suggestions.
Thanks!
earle
*
Jessica Rasku
To answer the original question. It doesn't matter, be consistant, and
decide *why* you are chosing to use one form over another. I know
you're ``editing'' so that decision is not really ultimately your's to make.
To the sugestions give ner. What about the lives of disabled adults?
Jessica
Tony Cooper
(Superwebgirl) wrote:
By all means capitalize "Believer" and "Unbeliever". It fits with the
hyperbole of the rest of the context.
How is the book "Christian"? Do you immerse it or merely sprinkle
water on it? Will a second edition be "Printed Again"?
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
If you think we drive badly in Florida, you should see us vote.
Charles Riggs
(Superwebgirl) wrote:
I see no reason to capitalize "believer" or "unbeliever" in any of
these sentences. I have seen it done in similar sentences, but I see
no reason to do so, in modern English. (We used to capitalize all
sorts of nouns, but no more.)
Charles
Steve Hayes
>Don't worry about whether "believer" should be capitalized. Believe me,
>it isn't important. What is important is the lives of disabled kids.
Should Disabled be capitalised?
And shouldn't they be called "Differently Abled"?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Martin Ambuhl
>
> I am editing a Christian book for a friend, and I need some help with
> the usage of these 2 words:
>
> In the following sentences, should the terms "Believer" and
> "Unbeliever" be capitalized or not?
In none of your examples does "believer" or "unbeliever" achieve the
proper name status in, for example, "the Evil One." In all cases, they
are simple common nouns and should not be capitalized except as part of
heavy-handed propaganda program.
Mike Lyle
I don't mean this unkindly, but if you need to ask, I wonder if you
should be editing. Much better to get a professional job done: there
are all sorts of problems lurking for the inexperienced. I assume your
friend hasn't got a publisher or an agent yet: they would be able to
help if they believe in the manuscript.
And, no, it's better without the capitals.
Mike.
Mike Schwitzgebel
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> Should Disabled be capitalised?
>
> And shouldn't they be called "Differently Abled"?
My wife, who has been a paraplegic since the age of eleven, is fond of
saying, "I'm not 'disabled'; I'm 'inconvenienced'."
Mike
Stephen Toogood
Superwebgirl <mich...@mountaintopdesign.com> writes
too many capitals. They seem to think a capital to be a mark of respect
rather than merely an indication of a name.
Hence in an ordinary hymn book you might find
Stand then in his great might
with all your strength endued
which in an 'evangelical' book becomes
Stand then in His great Might...
At the same time the same books are over-indulgent in exclamation marks,
partly because of a mawkish (cross-thread alert) fondness for phrases
beginning 'O what a ....'
To answer your question, there is no reason to capitalise either word,
since it's not a name, unless what you want is to do what they expect,
rather than what is normal in the outside world.
The very concept of a 'Christian book' rather than a theological book, a
philosophical book or a devotional book, raises matters such as question
begging, and a preference for indoctrination over education.
--
Stephen Toogood
Javi
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> escribió:
> On 8 Oct 2002 19:14:48 -0700, mich...@mountaintopdesign.com
> (Superwebgirl) wrote:
>
>> I am editing a Christian book for a friend, and I need some help with
>> the usage of these 2 words:
>>
>> In the following sentences, should the terms "Believer" and
>> "Unbeliever" be capitalized or not?
>>
>> 1) "How much power does the Believer have over the enemy through
>> Jesus Christ?"
>>
>> 2) "Many believers go down with no fight and an overwhelming sense of
>> no hope."
>>
>> 3) "An unbeliever is anyone who rejects Jesus Christ the Lord alone
>> for his or her salvation or believes one must contribute to their
>> salvation."
>>
>> Thanks in advance to anyone who replies!
>
> By all means capitalize "Believer" and "Unbeliever". It fits with the
> hyperbole of the rest of the context.
Personally, I find more appropiate for that book to capitalize "Believer"
and to not capitalize "unbeliever". If you can choose typefaces, select a
smaller one for "unbeliever" and a bigger one for "Believer".
> How is the book "Christian"? Do you immerse it or merely sprinkle
> water on it?
I suppose it depends on the branch of Christianity the book follows. If
Baptist, they immerse it, though never a first edition.
If I may give my oppinion, I think that your sentence nº3 is not clear
enough. Do "their" mean "one's" or "their own" or something else? Also,
though perhaps it is only my problem for not understanding neat English,
does not the sentence "An unbeliever is anyone who ...believes one must
contribute to their salvation." imply that being a Believer or an unbeliever
has no effect on one's salvation, since choosing to be a Believer is a
contribution to one's salvation?
--
Best regards
Javi
P.S.: OK, I cannot help it; what is the answer to question nº 1?
Earle Jones
<FD5F2C010AC1F730.86F7488B...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Mike Schwitzgebel" <tempn...@copperTUMORosity.com> wrote:
*
Mike: Thanks for your response. In my docent work -- leading guided
walks at the Año Nuevo State Reserve in northern California -- I see
many groups of "people with disabilities", including adults and
children. We have what we call an "Equal Access" program that allows us
to get a good number of those people from our parking lot to the beach
(a couple of miles), where we can watch a few thousand elephant seals
cavorting about.
During the training for this, we spent a good bit of time discussing
terminology. A hundred years ago we would have called them "crippled".
When I was a kid in the '30s and '40s, there was a "Crippled Childrens'
Clinic" nearby.
For a long time, we referred to these individuals as "handicapped".
As of now, it seems the preferred terminology is "people with
disabilities". I don't think we could get away with "inconvenienced
people", since many would not have the sense of humor that your wife
evidences.
I don't know where you live, but if you and your wife would like to
visit our reserve, we are on the coast about half way between Santa Cruz
and Half Moon Bay, California. The best time of the year is in
January/February when the breeding season is in full swing. To make a
reservation for a guided equal-access walk, call the California State
Park reservation number: 1-800-444-4445.
Best regards,
earle
*
Aaron J. Dinkin
> The best time of the year is in January/February when the breeding
> season is in full swing.
That does sound like fun.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Christopher Green
No caps. "Believer" and "unbeliever" aren't titles or proper names,
and they don't refer to God or any other deity.
The sentences themselves are awkward, especially the third one, which
is also offensive to Roman Catholics. Maybe it was meant to be, but
your friend should weigh the consequences before publishing anything
like that.
--
Chris Green
Orne Batmagoo
> By all means capitalize "Believer" and "Unbeliever". It fits with the
> hyperbole of the rest of the context.
Better yet, instead of "Unbeliever", use "Infidel". That really fits.
--
Orne Batmagoo
Raymond S. Wise
news:3da3b8cf...@news.saix.net...
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 03:59:51 GMT, Earle Jones <earle...@attbi.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >Don't worry about whether "believer" should be capitalized. Believe me,
> >it isn't important. What is important is the lives of disabled kids.
>
> Should Disabled be capitalised?
>
> And shouldn't they be called "Differently Abled"?
>
There is something to be said for "differently abled," since it emphasizes
that the person in question does have abilities. There are no doubt many
people who ordinarily might be called "disabled," and in the past would have
been called "crippled," "halt," or "blind" (for example), who accomplish
more in their lives than many able-bodied people. (It seems to me, however,
that "differently abled" remains a relatively rare expression.)
I don't see an advantage to capitalizing "disabled" or "differently abled,"
however. "Deaf," on the other hand, is another matter: There is a Deaf
culture (based around the various national sign languages), so that there
are occasions when it is appropriate to capitalized "Deaf": when referring
to the culture and members of that culture rather than the physical
condition and those who have it.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
rzed
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:uq90ikm...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3da3b8cf...@news.saix.net...
> > On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 03:59:51 GMT, Earle Jones
<earle...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Don't worry about whether "believer" should be capitalized.
Believe me,
> > >it isn't important. What is important is the lives of disabled
kids.
> >
> > Should Disabled be capitalised?
> >
> > And shouldn't they be called "Differently Abled"?
> >
>
>
> There is something to be said for "differently abled," since it
emphasizes
> that the person in question does have abilities.
I expect this will be taken the wrong way, but wouldn't "differently
abled" imply that those who were possessed some ability or abilities
not possessed by others? What would those be? I'm not arguing that the
abilities should be ignored, but in point of fact, it's unlikely that
loss of, say, ability to walk would bring about a gain or some new
ability.
I will grant that "disabled" is far too broad a term when the meaning
is really "almost-completely abled" or something on that order.
tr...@td.prserv.net
news:3DA3ABDA...@armispiansystems.ca...
> To answer the original question. It doesn't matter, be consistant, and
> decide *why* you are chosing to use one form over another. I know
> you're ``editing'' so that decision is not really ultimately your's to
make.
On the other hand, it might well matter from whom you decide to take editing
advice.
Richard R. Hershberger
> There is a strong tendency in evangelical Christianity to sprinkle far
> too many capitals. They seem to think a capital to be a mark of respect
> rather than merely an indication of a name.
>
> Hence in an ordinary hymn book you might find
>
> Stand then in his great might
> with all your strength endued
>
> which in an 'evangelical' book becomes
>
> Stand then in His great Might...
I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelical", but it is common practice
to capitalize pronouns for which the antecedent is God (in any of His
three persons.) (Note that this is a good example of a usage in which
the plural of "person" most assuredly is "persons", but that is
another thread.) I am a very traditional Lutheran, which church is
evangelical in an old sense but probably not in the sense you mean. I
would be surprised to find a hymnal with these pronouns uncapitalized.
Here is an example I pulled more or less at random from the 18th
century Anglical hymnist Isaac Watts:
In Him [Christ] the sons of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost.
The capitalization of selected pronouns is both precise and typical.
Richard R. Hershberger
Stephen Toogood
Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> writes
>Stephen Toogood <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<oBr2hBCk...@stenches.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> There is a strong tendency in evangelical Christianity to sprinkle far
>> too many capitals. They seem to think a capital to be a mark of respect
>> rather than merely an indication of a name.
>>
>> Hence in an ordinary hymn book you might find
>>
>> Stand then in his great might
>> with all your strength endued
>>
>> which in an 'evangelical' book becomes
>>
>> Stand then in His great Might...
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelical", but it is common practice
>to capitalize pronouns for which the antecedent is God (in any of His
>three persons.)
I know it's common practice, at least amongst non-conformist (probably
not a helpful term here - I mean Protestant but not Episcopalian)
churches and it is indeed just this practice against which I rail, on
the grounds that it misunderstands the purpose of capitalisation.
[ - ]
> I am a very traditional Lutheran, which church is
>evangelical in an old sense but probably not in the sense you mean. I
>would be surprised to find a hymnal with these pronouns uncapitalized.
>
>Here is an example I pulled more or less at random from the 18th
>century Anglical hymnist Isaac Watts:
>
>In Him [Christ] the sons of Adam boast
>More blessings than their father lost.
I can well believe this is a traditional hymnal, simply by the presence
of Isaac Watts. Some of the books of the 'charismatic' tendency have
Charles Wesley by the ton, even second-rate Charles Wesley, but little
or nothing from earlier generations at all. I often wonder why.
The extra capitals are there because of the hymnal you got it from. The
same hymn in say Ancient and Modern New Standard, or New English Hymnal,
or Hymns for Church and School would not have the capitalised pronouns.
>
>The capitalization of selected pronouns is both precise and typical.
>
As you say, it is typical, but of some Churches only. And as I say, I
don't like it.
--
Stephen Toogood
Steve Hayes
And she should know, if anyone does.
Mike Lyle
> In article <82401463.02101...@posting.google.com>, Richard R.
> Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> writes
> [ - ]
> > I am a very traditional Lutheran, [...]I
> >would be surprised to find a hymnal with these pronouns uncapitalized.
> >
> >Here is an example I pulled more or less at random from the 18th
> >century Anglical hymnist Isaac Watts:
> >
> >In Him [Christ] the sons of Adam boast
> >More blessings than their father lost.
>
> I can well believe this is a traditional hymnal, simply by the presence
> of Isaac Watts. Some of the books of the 'charismatic' tendency have
> Charles Wesley by the ton, even second-rate Charles Wesley, but little
> or nothing from earlier generations at all. I often wonder why.
>
> The extra capitals are there because of the hymnal you got it from. The
> same hymn in say Ancient and Modern New Standard, or New English Hymnal,
> or Hymns for Church and School would not have the capitalised pronouns.
> >
> >The capitalization of selected pronouns is both precise and typical.
> >
> As you say, it is typical, but of some Churches only. And as I say, I
> don't like it.
Ah, Isaac Watts! And dear old Addison: I can't count how many times
I've been along "My noonday walks", though I never noticed a friendly
crook. But the spacious firmament was certainly there on high. How we
cast forth infants with the waters!
But even the older Vaughan Williams English Hymnal has no truck with
spattered capitals. The one on my poetry shelves is the 1933 edition:
don't know what the 1906 original did. I skimmed the preface to see if
there was a comment, but saw none -- there are some nifty
rapier-thrusts in there, though!
Q's Oxford Book seems, I see, to remove Milton's pronoun capitals; but
perhaps the 1900 version differed from the later edition. The oldest
AV here is undated, but uses lower case, even in the "high and mighty
prince" bit, which I'd expect to see unaltered. The English Prayer
Book amusingly gives God's pronouns small letters, but capitals to
those of Elizabeth II and her unfortunate predecessor Charles I.
Try as I may, I can't find any evidence around the house against the
proposition that capitals for God's pronouns have in the UK been
unusual and obsolesecent for at least seventy years, and probably much
longer.
Mike.
Jerry Friedman
> In news:q6b7qu49mjqu70esn...@4ax.com,
> Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> escribió:
> > On 8 Oct 2002 19:14:48 -0700, mich...@mountaintopdesign.com
> > (Superwebgirl) wrote:
> >
> >> I am editing a Christian book for a friend, and I need some help with
> >> the usage of these 2 words:
> >>
> >> In the following sentences, should the terms "Believer" and
> >> "Unbeliever" be capitalized or not?
> >>
> >> 1) "How much power does the Believer have over the enemy through
> >> Jesus Christ?"
> >>
> >> 2) "Many believers go down with no fight and an overwhelming sense of
> >> no hope."
> >>
> >> 3) "An unbeliever is anyone who rejects Jesus Christ the Lord alone
> >> for his or her salvation or believes one must contribute to their
> >> salvation."
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance to anyone who replies!
>
> If I may give my oppinion, I think that your sentence nº3 is not clear
> enough. Do "their" mean "one's" or "their own" or something else?
"One's", same as "one's own". The use of "their" with "one" is fairly
common in English, but seems pointless to me, as "one" comes with its
own gender-neutral possessive form.
> Also,
> though perhaps it is only my problem for not understanding neat English,
> does not the sentence "An unbeliever is anyone who ...believes one must
> contribute to their salvation." imply that being a Believer or an unbeliever
> has no effect on one's salvation, since choosing to be a Believer is a
> contribution to one's salvation?
Apparently the author is taking a side in a theological
controversy--one that, if I'm not mistaken, goes back to the apostles
Peter and Paul. The author's position has probably been formulated
precisely somewhere, and readers who care about precision have
probably read it.
Not that anyone would be hurt if the sentence were clearer. I also
like "An unbeliever is anyone who... believes etc."
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>"Javi" <poziSP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ao1lk5$gbt$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>...
>> In news:q6b7qu49mjqu70esn...@4ax.com,
>> Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> escribió:
>> > On 8 Oct 2002 19:14:48 -0700, mich...@mountaintopdesign.com
>> > (Superwebgirl) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am editing a Christian book for a friend, and I need some help with
>> >> the usage of these 2 words:
>> >>
>> >> In the following sentences, should the terms "Believer" and
>> >> "Unbeliever" be capitalized or not?
>> >>
>> >> 1) "How much power does the Believer have over the enemy through
>> >> Jesus Christ?"
>> >>
>> >> 2) "Many believers go down with no fight and an overwhelming sense of
>> >> no hope."
>> >>
>> >> 3) "An unbeliever is anyone who rejects Jesus Christ the Lord alone
>> >> for his or her salvation or believes one must contribute to their
>> >> salvation."
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance to anyone who replies!
>...
>>
>> If I may give my oppinion, I think that your sentence nº3 is not clear
>> enough. Do "their" mean "one's" or "their own" or something else?
>
>"One's", same as "one's own". The use of "their" with "one" is fairly
>common in English, but seems pointless to me, as "one" comes with its
>own gender-neutral possessive form.
Using "their" or "his" to follow "one" introduces unecessary ambiguity, unless
it refers to someone other than the "one".
Mike Lyle
It also occurs to me that 2) and 3), if I've read correctly between
the lines, appear to contradict one another: if it's essential to
believe that one cannot contribute to one's own salvation, surely
fighting for it must imply unbelief. In the same way, power over the
enemy is not something which the Christian should actively seek. The
doctrine here is that salvation comes through grace, and through grace
alone. Catholics would also agree with the point in 2) that despair is
a sin.
I get the impression that the original document must have been written
by a Catholic with slight heretical tendencies: perhaps the author is
on the verge of becoming a Protestant. This, of course, is a big step,
and should be taken with great care. It isn't full-blown apostasy, but
it's risky; Mother Church will always welcome the schismatic back at
any time, though.
This is the kind of mess people get into when the Bible is translated
into vernacular languages.
Mike.