This thread raises, for me, an interesting (or not) doctrinal question: Was Jesus ever really human? After all, he (or He, in the Scripture) had special knowledge of His oneness with YHVH, being one facet of the Trinity. He knew of His own death, and how His friends would betray him (three times before the cock crows for one of them), et cetera. Finally, He rose bodily after three days in the ground, repudiating the faith (then) that the dead ‘know not nothing’ (Grammar Nazis, just try and make that ‘correct’ (double-negative my godless ass)) until Judgement Day.
So, according to Christian dogma and what little logic we can apply here, did YHVH ever walk the earth in human form, or was His ‘human’ really closer to a Roman Hero (part deity, part human) and therefore divorced from the human experience?
Hazel-rah, we seem to have a misunderstanding. It was not my contention that the only case in which the subjunctive was to be used were in clauses beginning in “if,” but rather (and erroneously) that “if” requires the subjunctive. And I admit that I was in error there, but also note that you were also.
The subjunctive is used, not only in conditions contrary to fact, but in hypothetical conditions. In a Great Debate about the existence and behavior of God, for example, both Czarcasm and I would use “If God were to …” because the topic under discussion is what God might be apt to be and do under such-and-such circumstances, and we are setting up a hypothetical case. By using the past subjunctive in “were,” Liz is presumably setting up a hypothetical situation: “If I were Queen back in 1936, Baldwin would never have gotten away with firing Uncle David as King.” I might say today, hypothetically, “If I be right in this assumption, then it follows that…” Note that I am submitting to the judgment of the board the question of whether I am indeed right in that assumption, and introducting its logical consequence as a conditional statement whose actual truth value is based on the accuracy of my assumption. On the other hand, Ed Zotti might say, “If I am in charge around here, there will be no more misquoting” – and use indicative because he is not setting up a hypothetical situation; he is (subject to Cecil and the management of the Reader) in charge.
Consider this hypothesis, says the song criticized in the OP: “What if God was one of us?” – not as a situation contrary to fact but as a hypothesis offered as a basic presumption for the sake of argument.
the song bugged me because it said “no body calling him on the phone, cept mabey the pope in rome”
who the hell would not want to call God!? I got at least one question for him… and would be just a generaly good idea to call him up and try to get on his good side
Damnit, if it unlisted then how am I going to call him?
He doesn’t have an address and I can call him… So how the hell am I supposed to deliver this shipment of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs and Men of the Cloth ™ calandar?