{"id":3562,"date":"2011-08-04T06:14:36","date_gmt":"2011-08-04T12:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/community\/paganportal\/?p=3562"},"modified":"2011-08-04T06:14:36","modified_gmt":"2011-08-04T12:14:36","slug":"guest-post-steve-provost-asks-whose-god-is-it-anyway","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/pantheon\/2011\/08\/guest-post-steve-provost-asks-whose-god-is-it-anyway\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post: Steve Provost asks Whose god is it anyway?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Need more proof that the traditional media\u2019s claims of \u201cobjectivity\u201d are bogus? You need look no further than a single three-letter word: god.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nCurrent style in journalism goes something like this:<\/p>\n

Capitalize God or words that mean God in reference to the divine being of all\u00a0monotheistic religions. Lowercase god, goddess and their plural forms when referring to the\u00a0deities of polytheistic religions and cultural mythologies; but capitalize their proper names.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See any bias there?<\/p>\n

I sure do. For some reason, under these guidelines, polytheistic deities get the short end of the stick. That hardly seems objective to me. Some may contend that using the term \u201cgod\u201d by itself in referring to a deity from a given pantheon might cause confusion. There\u2019s no way of knowing which one, they might argue. I\u2019ll return to that a little later, but it\u2019s really beside the point. The problem with using a big \u201cG\u201d in reference to any god is that it\u2019s incredibly presumptuous. And it\u2019s also flat wrong, because the word simply is not a proper name. Using it as such implies that the monotheists are right: There\u2019s only one god.<\/p>\n

But which one?<\/p>\n

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that monotheism is the way to go, it doesn\u2019t come close to resolving the issue. There\u2019s more than one monotheistic faith out there, and many of them have radically different ideas about who this one-and-only god is. The AP Style Guide<\/em> recently promoted the god of Islam to the status of God with a capital \u201cG\u201d in the following updated entry: \u201cAllah: The Arabic name for God. The word God should be used, unless the Arabic name is used in a quote written or spoken in English.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\n<\/p>

Mosque in Kiarong, Brunei<\/strong><\/p>\n

It might make Muslims happy to know that their version of god is finally being awarded status equal to that of the Christian god in this so-called \u201cbible of journalism.\u201d\u00a0But hold on a minute. It turns out that the term Allah didn\u2019t originate with Muslims at all. In fact, it was already in use on the Arabian Peninsula long before Muhammad came along. And it wasn\u2019t a name at all, but a title \u2013 an abbreviated version of the term \u201cal-ilah,\u201d meaning simply \u201cthe deity.\u201d Now here\u2019s the kicker: It was applied to the highest-ranking god\u00a0in a polytheistic system<\/em>. Evidently, the idea of using a generic term equivalent to \u201cGod\u201d in a such a setting wasn\u2019t that confusing to the pre-Islamic Arabs and their Palestinian neighbors. So there\u2019s no reason it should be confusing to us.<\/p>\n

That pretty much debunks the idea of treating the gods of polytheism any differently.
\n\"\"<\/a>
\nElijah kicks some ass<\/strong><\/p>\n

But wait. The story doesn\u2019t end there. Obviously, the pre-Islamic Arabs and Palestinians weren\u2019t referring to the god of Islam (since Muhammad hadn\u2019t yet founded the Muslim faith). And it so happens they weren\u2019t referring to the Judeo-Christian god, either. Not hardly. Rather, al-ilah was simply another title for the nemesis <\/em>of the Judeo-Christian god. Baal. You might remember him as the Canaanite deity who got beaten down by the Jewish god YHWH in a lightning-throwing, caged death match refereed by none other than the prophet Elijah.<\/p>\n

Things get even more complicated from here. It turns out that Baal wasn\u2019t actually a proper name, either<\/em>. It was a Ugaritic word meaning \u201clord\u201d and often was used in conjunction with a suffix that further identified the deity in question. Baal-zebul was used to mean \u201clord of the high place\u201d (presumably a shrine\/temple erected on a mountain). This god\u2019s enemies apparently mocked him by changing the title slightly to read baal-zebub, meaning \u201clord of the flies,\u201d then further denigrated him by falsely equating him with Satan. But he had other titles, as well:<\/p>\n