Discussion in 'Judaism' started by wil, May 5, 2015.
Don't focus to much on wil now, you hear! It only ends in trouble, for the both of you!
Calm down, Wil. I've said nothing you haven't said repeatedly.
I guess no surprise here....one jewish response.... lots of other folks taking pot shots at the messenger...
Welcome to my world.
And mine, and a *lot* of other peoples'.
You're not the Lone Stranger. Besides, I thought you were one of the ones having issues with this tradition?
God is not a name but only a title. There are several names referred to God in Judaism but, God Itself is not one of them.
I am not a practising Jew, but was educated and grew up in a religious Jewish environment.
Most of the people in my community would write G-d and would be offended by writing God. Personally I thought it silly.
However the are still plenty of observant Jews who have no problem writing God.
Thanx Craz.... I see it as a personal choice.... I have no issues how folks right it...I have no issues with folks who after they hear why find it silly.... I simply still cannot understand how anyone finds it objectionable.
That's the whole point. Many do see it as silly and that's the part that's objectionable.
You object to it because you see it silly? Why would you let a "-" or a "!" affect you? I could care less what others call G!d.... He, She, Allah, Shiva, Gaia, Lord, Adonai, 70 names or 1000 faces....what do I care? why would I object to how another references their connection to allness?
I don't object if you don't believe, or if one thinks I believe in sky faeries...that is their life... I don't even care if you object...I just don't understand it.
No symbols in any of those names, but that's beside the point. I was merely addressing your comment in #29. You say you have no issue with folks finding the practice silly. Yet, can't understand why it's objectionable. I was just pointing out the obvious. People find it objectionable, because it's silly.
I find Laurel and Hardy silly....I don't object to that. I may find someone's purchase of a home at way above market value silly...that is their choice, their decision...I don't object to that.
I simply can't understand one getting their panties in a twist over how another refers to their understanding regarding spirit or their measure of reverence. I object to those who force others into belief systems at gun point or a knife. I object to rape, pillaging and plundering...I object to war and poverty....
Whatever symbol Prince uses for his name, or if you decide to put a fish symbol on the back of your car, or an Aum symbol, or a peace symbol, or a heart...I don't object to the use of symbols... I find the objection silly.
Good grief... You're right Wil. If you can't see the difference between Laurel and Hardy acting silly and silliness regarding God or the difference between a symbol and a deliberate misspelling, you'll never understand the objection. Don't even try. It's well beyond your comprehension.
It still seems to me that the application should be the deciding factor. If one is writing a Jewish commentary, G-d would be the appropriate way to write the word.
In a Christian situation, God is completely appropriate.
BUT, in an interfaith environment, there has to be some softening of positions because no matter which version of God, G-d you use you are going to offend someone. The only solution is for everyone to suspend offense for the sake of a discussion amongst many faiths. In this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. To quote a famous Vulcan.
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, z"l, who headed the Orthodox seminary at Yeshiva University, rather famously would intentionally write and erase the word "God" on the blackboard in front of his students in order to emphasize the fact this is not prohibited by Jewish law. All the prohibitions only apply to what is written in Hebrew.
I usually write "G-d" but only because it has become so widespread a Jewish convention.
From an outside perspective I am indifferent it how on write or pronounces God. It is simply a three letter word defined as what people believe as the ultimate, omnipotent, omnipresent 'Source' some call God(s). I do not believe it helps to avoid the problem by using 'Hashem,' because the thought is in the mind regardless of what name you think is Source some call God(s) or 'Hashem.' A name is the name regardless of the name.
I believe the 'Source' is indifferent to what ever humans egocentrically believe that there is a certain name or spelling that must be used to describe the 'Source' that in reality may be nothing at all.
It is simply a game humans play.
From your "outside perspective", your indifference is quite reasonable. In contrast, the "inside perspective", is anything but indifference on issues related to God. Furthermore, your perspective allows you to replace the word "obligation" with the word "game". Play all the games you want as I do. However, I also remember my dedication to God's meaning in my life AND the obligations that such dedication represent. The word "holy" is used to set aside certain entities of life as being separate, distinct, and special. Each of us has our own holy entities... even you. You appear to take exception to others who claim special meaning in comparison to your "indifference". However, I think you would deny that that thought because you apparently have your own games to play.
Separate names with a comma.