Why say G_d?

27 posts

Flag Post

Ok. I want to know what you guys think about this, and if you think G_d should be said in place of His name. Even if you aren’t religious, think about it. Here’s what I think:

I already said this in a different post on a different topic (tell me if I’m allowed to post it again here. If I’m not, just tell me and I’ll edit my post to delete it.) The phrase G_d started in the Jewish religion, and it is said that it would be disrespectful to have to ‘delete’ or ‘erase’ His real name. Plus, it doesn’t work to say Go or od, and they didn’t have vowels in a big language in the Jewish religion: Hebrew. So G_d was an obvious hchoice for the word. I think this is the same reason Christmas became Xmas. Notice the similarities? Christ’s name is replaced with the letter ‘X’.

Now to my beliefs. I think that calling Him by a name similar to that of a mortal’s would be disrespectul. Plus, what us English speaking people call Him isn’t even what the Bible called him. First, the Word called him Elhm. Next, YHVH. One way to translate this to English (a way some people use) is Elohim, or Yehweh/Yehveh. What do you guys think about it?

 
Flag Post

Saying G_g in place of God is because some people believe (Jewish people for instance) find it disrespectful to say God. And it’s every individuals decision to decide how they want to approach the name.

I think this is the same reason Christmas became Xmas. Notice the similarities? Christ’s name is replaced with the letter ‘X’.

“This abbreviation is widely used but not universally accepted. Many do not know about its antiquity and believe it to be of commercial origin and thus demeaning to Christ, whilst others find it a helpful abbreviation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

Saying G_d and Xmas are two entirely different issues

what us English speaking people call Him isn’t even what the Bible called him.

What the bible calls God isn’t even his real name Yehweh (and it’s many other spellings) means “I am what I am”

If your asking what to call him ask your priest/pastor/minister/ or whoever leads your religous group, but there are MANY interpretations ons of the Bible and it’s impossible to find an absolute way.

if you think G_d should be said in place of His name

Again we don’t know His real name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_%28word%29

 
Flag Post

A quick google of “G_d” returns 133 000 results.

For comparison, googling expelliarmus returns 172 000…

G_d is one of the stupidest abbreviations I’ve ever seen, I really hope it never catches on. God’s not a name in the sense Daniel’s a name, it’s a name in the sense Moon’s a name when you’re talking about our nearest moon. In other words, it’s no more deserving of abbreviation than other appellatives such as the ‘prime mover’, ‘Uncaused Causer’, ‘Father’ or ‘Lord’.

 
Flag Post

The way I see it, God is a term for the idea, being, or force in question, not so much a name for Him. If you are devoutly religious, I can perhaps see offense in saying or writing His biblical names, JHVH or YHWH (vowels omitted to help avoid offending any one), but the term itself shouldn’t be a problem.

 
Flag Post

Is there a reason why it isn’t considered disrespectful to write or say Jesus then? Seems like it should be, since that too is the true name of one of the aspects of God. Does the name Jehovah (or whatever) refer to the whole trinity combined as one, or just the ‘Father’ part?

 
Flag Post

imo, it doesn’t make much sense. if you censor “God” to “G_d” because “God” is a name for the same thing as YHVH, which is unspoken or not written fully, then why not censor “G_d” to something else, since it’s just another name for the same thing. you’re just creating a different language that’s the same as english except for this substitution with an obvious translation. i could see deciding to obscure the original name, but deciding to obscure names (as references) made in other languages just doesn’t seem to mean anything. the obscuring seems to have been already accomplished by the different spelling, pronunciation, and script anyway.

analogy for no real added effect:

it seems like the same thing as if you didn’t want to say “Christ”, and so decided to say “Lord” instead, but then, not wanting to reference the name “Christ” in its entirety, decided to obscure the word “Lord”, which is already understood as a substitute for “Christ”, and which already accomplished that goal.

relatedly, this touches on why i don’t like chat filters.

 
Flag Post

Didn’t think it was possible to relate chat filters to the bible but you did it :|

 
Flag Post

if you censor “God” to “G_d” because “God” is a name for the same thing as YHVH, which is unspoken or not written fully, then why not censor “G_d” to something else, since it’s just another name for the same thing. you’re just creating a different language that’s the same as english except for this substitution with an obvious translation.

Couldn’t agree more.

 
Flag Post

I third Eggy and matt. It reminds me of a really religious guy I knew who wouldn’t swear but would flick people off. I never understood how he rationalized that, since it communicates the same thing… But yeah, G_d is just dumb in my book.

 
Flag Post

It’s because words are impermanent and can be erased, so to write God’s name is blasphemy apparently because erasing Gods name is sacriligious. It’s an old Jewish custom.

 
Flag Post

“words are impermanent”… not when they are chiselled into stone REALLY REALLY REALLY deeply… And the idea of censoring God is daft. So, we’re now going to call the prominent beings of common religions in the UK G_d, ll_h, B_dd_h and Br_hmn?

 
Flag Post

relatedly, this touches on why i don’t like chat filters.

Agreed. This kind of thing is a load of nonsense. Changing “god” to “g_d” or “crap” to “crud” is exchanging a bunch of letters and sounds without changing the meaning. Anyone worth their salt understands you’re saying the same thing.

As I understand it, the whole “adonai” thing in “the Jewish religion” (most of us like to call it “Judaism”) was a misinterpretation of Aramaic from thousands of years ago. Thousands of years of tradition are quite solid in justifying continuation of a harmless act, just like Kosher laws. Is there any reason not to mix meat and dairy, not to eat pork, or not to eat shellfish? Not in the least. Tradition is the main keystone that upholds Kosher laws and “adonai”, and any handwaving at blasphemy is misinterpretation.

Also, “christ” is not a name. It’s a description, nigh a title, given to “Jesus” by Christians. No one other than a Christian would refer to Jesus as “christ”, by the very definition of “Christianity”.

 
Flag Post

Also, “christ” is not a name. It’s a description, nigh a title, given to “Jesus” by Christians. No one other than a Christian would refer to Jesus as “christ”, by the very definition of “Christianity”.

Doesn’t matter what Christ means, at least for those who don’t go so far as to take offense to the suggestion Jesus is the messiah, Christ has come to be a part of Jesus’ name thanks to the historical ubiquity of Christianity in the West. Most pantheists and atheists I know will happily use the term.

 
Flag Post

“words are impermanent”… not when they are chiselled into stone REALLY REALLY REALLY deeply… And the idea of censoring God is daft. So, we’re now going to call the prominent beings of common religions in the UK G_d, ll_h, B_dd_h and Br_hmn?

TDF brings up a really interesting flaw in this logic here. Why is it not sacrilegious for the Bible to have “God” in it? Or even the Dead Sea Scrolls or any other holy document? They’re all temporary representations. Any of them could be destroyed, and some of them are.

 
Flag Post

Well, at teh early years of this era, the beginnings of teh church destroyed many books of the bible because tehy wanted everyone to believe one set of events.

 
Flag Post

teh

how is it you keep doing that?

 
Flag Post

TDF has a history of teh’s. We discussed it before actually. He’s remarkably consistent with it. :)

 
Flag Post

I know, it’s almost uncanny. I don’t actually mean to type teh, it just happens.

 
Flag Post

proof-reading ftw

 
Flag Post

Proo-reading? What’s proof-reading?

 
Flag Post

TheDarkFlame: Proo-reading? What’s proof-reading?

QFT. That was epic. :-D

 
Flag Post

Well, Because to quote (Para-Phrasing, the words are different, I am aknowledging that) “God is Dead”. No one cares except Super religious people that have a cow over any sin. EVER. Like Colester, but he’s gone.

Funny story actually. He told me all about it. He said that he had a dream that he went to his Kongregate page, but he wasn’t able to get it to load. He then said that he “had to delete his page”. Which you can’t, but whatever. He said God had told him through the dream to end Kongregate association. But more like this: “i harve ta goo cuz gawd sed taht I shoodnt go on kong. hee tlod mee in teh dream.” He then proceeded to tell me the dream story in Broken English.

Also, People won’t say G_d, because people are lazy. HAlf of the people on kong probably don’t know how to type an underscore.

 
Flag Post

blink

Uh, what?

 
Flag Post

I cut it up some, less “Wall-Of-Text”y.

 
Flag Post

This thread is officially derailed.