Contemporary usage of word "create"

  • Thread starter Thread starter donsnow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No because we are an extremely arrogant species 😃

But I do agree with you. I think the term “create” is a term that should be left to the beginning. Everything else, that we as humans create, should be called manipulate. I mean, that is essentially what we are doing, manipulating the already created 😉
Thanks, lemondiesel,

For posting and I think you hit the nail on the head, when you point to arrogance as the cause of the over use of the word “create”.

Yeah, we do all sorts of things except create. Did you see my second and third posts on this thread? Just lists and lists of other words we can use.

God loves you,
Don
 
For posting and I think you hit the nail on the head, when you point to arrogance as the cause of the over use of the word “create”.

Yeah, we do all sorts of things except create. Did you see my second and third posts on this thread? Just lists and lists of other words we can use.
Haha, I realized all of the words you posted after I saw the OP. I just like to answer original posts first, so I don’t lose any of my thoughts while reading.

I liked that post too by the way, and I especially was drawn to your point of laziness or lack of better vocabulary. I am sure other people have pointed it out, but I think it is largely due to the English language, which seems so comprised of slang and ‘short cut’ vocabulary words.

This reminds me of a quote I heard recently, and sorry if I butcher it haha.

“Helping people is different than empowerment, and empowerment begins with education.”

Edit: May I ask if that is you in your avatar haha? If so, I am extremely jealous of that beard. We just got a foot of snow, it would be nice to have a natural head warmer :blushing:
 
I see your point in theory, but as a person who paints, writes, sews, bakes, plays music, and does many other “creative” things it would be pretty cumbersome to have to overthink this handy umbrella term in my everyday speech. And if I’m going to say “creative” or “creativity” I might as well say “create” in the same contexts. 🤷

That being said, I value the gift of creativity; I think it’s the most joyous gift God gave me as far as personal traits go. And I see my creativity as using certain components of Creation to make something new, and the entire process and product as a way to give glory to my Creator. :harp:
 
Haha, I realized all of the words you posted after I saw the OP. I just like to answer original posts first, so I don’t lose any of my thoughts while reading.

I liked that post too by the way, and I especially was drawn to your point of laziness or lack of better vocabulary. I am sure other people have pointed it out, but I think it is largely due to the English language, which seems so comprised of slang and ‘short cut’ vocabulary words.

This reminds me of a quote I heard recently, and sorry if I butcher it haha.

“Helping people is different than empowerment, and empowerment begins with education.”

Edit: May I ask if that is you in your avatar haha? If so, I am extremely jealous of that beard. We just got a foot of snow, it would be nice to have a natural head warmer :blushing:
Hi, lemondiesel,

And, education begins with enabling a person to go get educated.

Yes, lemondiesel, that’s really me and my beard. My album has photos of my dogs, too, at my public profile.
What I like about the beard, is the inner layer that covers my throat. It keeps my throat warm as well as my chin. And, we’re getting the time of year that this beard really earns its keep.

God loves you,
Don
 
I see your point in theory, but as a person who paints, writes, sews, bakes, plays music, and does many other “creative” things it would be pretty cumbersome to have to overthink this handy umbrella term in my everyday speech. And if I’m going to say “creative” or “creativity” I might as well say “create” in the same contexts. 🤷

That being said, I value the gift of creativity; I think it’s the most joyous gift God gave me as far as personal traits go. And I see my creativity as using certain components of Creation to make something new, and the entire process and product as a way to give glory to my Creator. :harp:
Hi, 3DOCTORS,

Always good to hear from you.

Only, this time, for the record, I have to inform you, that I write music and have heard a composition of mine played in the Cathedral. I write poetry. I write pose and have compiled my own little book and copyrighted it. I sing. When I had my coronet I made music with it, some of which I had written and composed. The music came to me, I did not create it.
Now, I do have a fertile imagination.

I guess we just see things differently. I don’t create anything. Like you, I love to glorify our Creator. With what He provides me.

God loves you,
Don
 
Hi, 3DOCTORS,

Always good to hear from you.

Only, this time, for the record, I have to inform you, that I write music and have heard a composition of mine played in the Cathedral. I write poetry. I write pose and have compiled my own little book and copyrighted it. I sing. When I had my coronet I made music with it, some of which I had written and composed. The music came to me, I did not create it.
Now, I do have a fertile imagination.

I guess we just see things differently. I don’t create anything. Like you, I love to glorify our Creator. With what He provides me.

God loves you,
Don
And I respect your view, Don. That’s really an honor to have been able to contribute your musical talent in that way. (Notice I didn’t say ‘creation’:D! ) Seriously, I had an amazing experience with music that you reminded me of. I took piano for 8 years as a kid and teenager, and was OK at it. Then years later I got an electronic keyboard and all of a sudden I could chord with melodies. I truly believe God just gave me that ability as an unexpected, yet delightful gift! :harp: You have a great day, sir! 🙂
 
And I respect your view, Don. That’s really an honor to have been able to contribute your musical talent in that way. (Notice I didn’t say ‘creation’:D! ) Seriously, I had an amazing experience with music that you reminded me of. I took piano for 8 years as a kid and teenager, and was OK at it. Then years later I got an electronic keyboard and all of a sudden I could chord with melodies. I truly believe God just gave me that ability as an unexpected, yet delightful gift! :harp: You have a great day, sir! 🙂
Hi, 3DOCTORS,

Thanks, for your response, and respect for my point of view. Aren’t you glad I’ll never be the Pope? 😛

Oh, ma’am, that’s a wonderful testimony about God giving you the ability to play melodies on a tune, like that. Thanks for sharing.

I think this is something we can safely agree to disagree on, because it’s not a matter of faith or morals. 😃

God loves you,
Don
 
The problem with stressing over words is that the “official” definitions of words only follow the way in which people have been known to use them, and that keeps changing. Language is ever-evolving. “Proper” French is actually “improper” Latin, and “proper” Latin was also “improper” at some point.

Today’s “proper English” sticklers would find it nearly impossible to be understood in old England.

If you want a word that refers solely to the type of creating only God can do, you would probably need to invent a brand new word. If that word stuck, you would have a case for preserving it, but ultimately language would evolve, and it would just make for one more thing for good pious people to be offended by. The beautiful thing about the way God made us is we were given the ability to discern context. This is why isolated syllables and words on their own don’t need to carry too much arbitrary weight.

We could start an etymology discussion here (how “create” comes from the Latin word “creare”, which pagan Romans used to describe making, producing, growing, etc, thus having nothing to do with the judeo-christian God), but even that would artificially stop the history. People who study the history of language will tell you that a large portion of every modern language can be traced the the very first languages spoken by man and even the most separated languages today have many surprising commonalities.

Let’s just say that the word “create” was not “invented” to mean what certain people may have grown up believing it to solely mean, thus it would be unfair and overreaching to try and ban all people from using it in ways that have always been acceptable.

At some point, a peculiar group of myopic people disregarded the rest of the English-speaking world and tried to sell some authoritative rule about it’s “true” meaning. It really has no overarching basis beyond their own circles. It’s similar to the aristocrats who successfully convinced a large portion of modern folk that “sh-t” is somehow innately worse than “feces” (at one point in time, the former was perfectly acceptable, but later it became used mostly by poor people, and of course one doesn’t want to be associated with peasants). Before you know it, saying “sh-t” became seen as sinful, thus piling on to the ways good Christian people can develop high blood pressure.
 
Hi, Jonatello,

And, welcome to the thread.

I think you’re correct in what you wrote.

Nevertheless, as I posted in Post # 19, I can also correctly continue to restricting the word “create”'s usage in my speech to actions by our Creator. I don’t have to force that on anyone, to enjoy using it that way in my thoughts, heart and speech.

God loves you,
Don
 
Hi, Jonatello,

And, welcome to the thread.

I think you’re correct in what you wrote.

Nevertheless, as I posted in Post # 19, I can also correctly continue to restricting the word “create”'s usage in my speech to actions by our Creator. I don’t have to force that on anyone, to enjoy using it that way in my thoughts, heart and speech.

God loves you,
Don
Hi Don 🙂

God bless.

I just realized I accidentally posted my reply in the wrong part of the tree, as if I was directly responding to your previous comment. My mistake, maybe I should try and repost my reply in the proper context?

But I completely agree with what you just said here. If it’s just a matter of one’s own personal preference/associations, I’m all for it 🙂
 
(reposted in proper context - i had accidentally slipped this under an interior comment, which made no sense…the OP actually clarified that he’s not asserting that everyone should abide by his own association/use of “create”, in which case I’m all for him personally reserving that word for what only God can do, but i feel it is probably still better if i repost my reply in the correct part of the thread)

The problem with stressing over words is that the “official” definitions of words only follow the way in which people have been known to use them, and that keeps changing. Language is ever-evolving. “Proper” French is actually “improper” Latin, and “proper” Latin was also “improper” at some point.

Today’s “proper English” sticklers would find it nearly impossible to be understood in old England.

If you want a word that refers solely to the type of creating only God can do, you would probably need to invent a brand new word. If that word stuck, you would have a case for preserving it, but ultimately language would evolve, and it would just make for one more thing for good pious people to be offended by. The beautiful thing about the way God made us is we were given the ability to discern context. This is why isolated syllables and words on their own don’t need to carry too much arbitrary weight.

We could start an etymology discussion here (how “create” comes from the Latin word “creare”, which pagan Romans used to describe making, producing, growing, etc, thus having nothing to do with the judeo-christian God), but even that would artificially stop the history. People who study the history of language will tell you that a large portion of every modern language can be traced the the very first languages spoken by man and even the most separated languages today have many surprising commonalities.

Let’s just say that the word “create” was not “invented” to mean what certain people may have grown up believing it to solely mean, thus it would be unfair and overreaching to try and ban all people from using it in ways that have always been acceptable.

At some point, a peculiar group of myopic people disregarded the rest of the English-speaking world and tried to sell some authoritative rule about it’s “true” meaning. It really has no overarching basis beyond their own circles. It’s similar to the aristocrats who successfully convinced a large portion of modern folk that “sh-t” is somehow innately worse than “feces” (at one point in time, the former was perfectly acceptable, but later it became used mostly by poor people, and of course one doesn’t want to be associated with peasants). Before you know it, saying “sh-t” became seen as sinful, thus piling on to the ways good Christian people can develop high blood pressure.
 
Hi Don 🙂

God bless.

I just realized I accidentally posted my reply in the wrong part of the tree, as if I was directly responding to your previous comment. My mistake, maybe I should try and repost my reply in the proper context?

But I completely agree with what you just said here. If it’s just a matter of one’s own personal preference/associations, I’m all for it 🙂
Hi, Jonatello,

Yes, I saw your second post. Actually, as far as I know, you were fine where you posted but I repeat myself all the time so it’s Ok that you posted twice. 🙂

God loves you,
Don
 
While it is true that in many fields specialists do tend to develop their own jargon, they never really tend to try and claim that nobody else is allowed to use it, nor do they get offended when someone outside their field uses it for something else. You can never really be assured, especially with modern communications technology, that any particular word won’t be picked up for something else. Just think of how many words in our language have double meanings. Certainly I can understand the desire to reserve a word to separate what God creates from what we develop, but choosing a word that is already common vernacular is the type of thing that can easily build unneeded conflict. Perhaps the herbew word ברא (Bara’ [pronounced baw-raw] would be a better choice in this instance. You go back to the original word used in scripture, and it allows for the introduction of something new to the people listening rather than trying to change something they already have a meaning for.
Hello, Patrick:

The problem is that the word was hijacked, usurped. If you go to dictionary.com you read a close approximation of what Create meant, in definition #1. But, in definition #2 and following, it is as though the 1st, and primary, definition didn’t exist! Why would the secular world want to water down the wonderful and correct meaning of that word? Why would it usurp it only to use it inappropriately?

There are many existing words that more aptly describe what human beings do. There is/was no reason to excise the word away from it’s rightful meaning. Why use the word sculpt when what a child is doing is manipulating PlayDough? Why use the word cook, when one is merely reheating something in the microwave?

There are numerous instances where the proper words have not been usurped. Whenever the word is (mis-)used, in modern communications, it is misused grossly. ONLY god can create. ONLY God can bring something into being where there was nothing before. Only God can cause without the use of the primary causes. All other forms of causation presuppose extant materials, or Primary Matter and Form, out of which a thing comes to be.

A painter uses pre-existing paints for color, and mental pictures of pre-existant objects (things having mass) if painting objects on a canvas. Even the design (Form) is no more than shufflings of, and/or modifications of pre-existing designs (Forms) in the painter’s mind. It is always interesting when you explain the real meaning of the word for somebody and they get it. It is as though someone turned on a spot light.

I, for one, refuse to use the word vulgarly.

God bless,
jd
 
Well considering I am only 24 you would have to understand that I would obviously have a different understanding of the word than many older members of the forum. I grew up with create being a common term that was often used outside of theological/religious context.
Patrick:

You are quite right. I, like Don, remember when it became fashionable to (mis-)use the word. It slipped past me for a while. But then, I realized that it was being seriously mis-used. However, at only 24 years old, you are now in the midst of its rampant misuse.

I agree with Don: it is lamentable.

God bless,
jd
 
We could start an etymology discussion here (how “create” comes from the Latin word “creare”, which pagan Romans used to describe making, producing, growing, etc, thus having nothing to do with the judeo-christian God), but even that would artificially stop the history.
Yet in the Creed it is

*factorem coeli et terrae *

translated as “Maker of heaven and earth” which is sort of lame (because today it’s the entire universe plus heaven) but at least it’s capitalized.

factorem is formed from facio, facere, feci, factus, meaning “do, make, etc.”

compare with: Et homo factus est.
 
Say, JDaneel and ProVobis,

I thank ya’ll for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I wonder how much desensitization plays into the abuse of the word create?

So many of the younger fold have no idea how the mainstream media has overwhelmed the public in continuous stories of atrocities and abominations until one’s sensibilities are numbed. That’s desensitization.

God loves all of you,
Don
 
Yet in the Creed it is

factorem coeli et terrae

translated as “Maker of heaven and earth” which is sort of lame (because today it’s the entire universe plus heaven) but at least it’s capitalized.

factorem is formed from facio, facere, feci, factus, meaning “do, make, etc.”

compare with: Et homo factus est.
so within the context of the Creed, this is what “create” means, but if we’re talking about daily use of the english language, this word’s scope is not defined by any faith or religious creed.
 
I wonder how much desensitization plays into the abuse of the word create?

So many of the younger fold have no idea how the mainstream media has overwhelmed the public in continuous stories of atrocities and abominations until one’s sensibilities are numbed. That’s desensitization.
But is it abuse or just plain deterioration of corruption of the meaning?

Several months ago on another forum, I noted the word “amazing” had undergone such similar atrocities (it’s used for almost everything now) that a song like “amazing grace” has really lost its original meaning. It’s basically lost its association with the divine. Same as create and a whole slew of other words we use in our religion. I’m very sympathetic to your cause but I can’t offer any viable solutions. This thread has been most interesting though.
 
so within the context of the Creed, this is what “create” means, but if we’re talking about daily use of the english language, this word’s scope is not defined by any faith or religious creed.
Good point.
 
Actually, ReggieM,

Thanks for responding.

There’s lists of words once in common usage to designate human activity rather than the word “create”.

For material things, there’s:
Build.
Construct.
Make.
Fashion.

For immaterial things such as songs or texts, there’s:
Compose.
Compile.
Devise.
Construe.

And, other words which have been suffocated by the abuse to the word “create” are:
Assemble.
Produce.
Fashion.
Arrange.
Contrive.

And other words.

I don’t understand why, other than laziness, conceit or lack of vocabulary, that people over use the word “create” when there’s so many other more appropriate words.
G’day there Don!

Good to see you challenging the lexicology once again!!

That list of verbs which you supplied does indeed highlight a certain laziness which has crept into the English language. They all have particular contexts in which they are most suitable. You compose music, I build a shed, someone else arranges flowers, etc, etc. In relation to God, we say He Created everything, In saying that we most times leave off as a given the fact that he Created everything from nothing and we simply refer to Him as the Creator, with a capital C.

However, is it not the case that when we humans synthesise something from available resources, say, a motor car from steel, ceramics and plastics, all of which we have manufactured, that we have created something and something new? Something brand new that did not and could not have existed otherwise? It would be somewhat cumbersome, and probably descriptively vague to have to go around saying “I synthesised a new thing, which is a form of transport which never existed before and could not have if I hadn’t the idea to use a plethora of new technologies to form new materials from which this new form of transport is manufactured”. To say “I created…” is much more gramatically economic, even if a little less precise. One might ascribe to man a certain degree of arrogance to suggest that the same word which denotes the Creator of all things is used to describe a synthesis, by humans, of existing materials to form something new. However I think God would not frown on the creativity of his created beings! He might actually be pleased that they are using their God given intelligence creatively!

Some one here gave the Latin root of the word create. I too looked it up and found an interesting description of the use and development of the word ‘Create’. It stems from the latin word creatus, which means "to do, to make". It can be further traced back to the Greek word kreinein, which means "to fulfill". The concept of 'creator and ‘create’ appeared around 14,000 years ago to explain the world. However, Latin, Greek and English are not that old and use of the term is recorded in English for the first time in only the 13th century. Words such as ‘creativity’ and ‘creative’ appeared much later. Their useage can be tracked alongside the “creation” of technology. So, was mankind starting to feel a little arrogance because of his developing creativiness, or was he simply searching for greater linguistic descriptiveness when he began to develop the useage of the word “create”. The word has gone from being used as an upper case description of the Creator, to the lower case adjectival usage of creative and further to a lower case description of the creativity of mankind. Nothing sacriligious there. Just an intellectual exercise in describing mankinds development over time. As for the fall off in the use of the adjectives which you list, well, that laziness probably pertains to many words in the English language. Look at the word “incredible”. It has virtually nothing to do with its original and correct meaning. Gee, people even find books incredible in this day and age! And look at the word ‘Cool’. It certainly has little to do with temperatures any more!!

I say let the language develop and change and give greater expression to the range and scope of human activities. If, indeed, that is what the changing language is doing. However, at the same time I say rail against the intellectual laziness that does cause either a misuse of words, or a fall off in their use, which really is nothing more than a regression into vagueness. As for not allowing others to use the word ‘Create’, well, isn’t that akin to the political correctness which is causing even more vagueness and ambiguity to creep into the English language?

There, I feel better now.

I have -]created crafted built constructed/-] composed ( or is it contrived?) a post!! 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top