On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:11:27 +0900, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:51:34AM +0900, khaines / enigo.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Gregory Brown wrote:
>>
>> >That's the reasonable argument against the name.   My concern is that
>> >many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
>> >extremely offensive to me.
>>
>> Going with that, using "god" as the name of a software package is likely
>> as offensive to Muslims and Jews, as well.  Heck, the religious Jews I
>> know won't even type 'God', preferring 'G-d' or something similar
>> instead.
> 
> On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity.  Some religions
> have many gods.  I think the perspective of most monotheists is
> unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
> fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the words
> their religions have appropriated.

"God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.

It's worth noting that this distinction between God and gods is not at all
unique to Judaism and its inheritors, nor even to monotheistic religions
in general: one need only (for instance) read the pagan philosophers or
examine traditional African religions to find that polytheists often have
the notion of an omnipotent Ultimate Being of an entirely different kind to
the subordinate gods or divinities.

Comparing a monitoring tool to a god in the generic sense really shouldn't
be too controversial, as it isn't too different to the usual analogy drawn
between system services and daemons.  If Tom intended otherwise, it was
either a misunderstanding of what the terms actually mean, or a choice
of a bad analogy simply for the sake of being provocative.

-mental