G-d

C

cavalier

Well-Known Member
Messages
720
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Taiwan
Something I saw on another thread intrigued me, I hope someone here can help me understand

I've been told by people of the Jewish faith that writing or speaking the name of God is a form of idolatry. It takes the essence of the unknowable and puts it into words (or images) of human creation.

I understand the idea of this but just wondered it works in practice.

The person who wrote the above pointed out that the word G-d is usually used. He was unsure (and I at present cannot help but agree with his sentiments) how this solved the problem.

As I say, I hope someone can help me understand.

Thanks
 
Hi Cav.

In the case of the word God or G-d or G!d as BB writes it, that's really something that's been adopted that goes beyond any halachic requirement. God isn't a name Jews use for God. Rather, it's the standard English word for a god in the singular or plural. When using an actual name, we tend to take greater care. So, for example...

YHWH isn't really pronounced. Even if we did know how to pronounce it, we'd still use a substitute such as adonai, Lord, and Hashem, "The Name," out of reverence.

The answer to your question gets a bit trickier though. One issue is that once the Tetragrammaton is written on paper, that paper is dealt with differently. It can't just be thrown away. It has to be buried. However, the words on a computer aren't considered really written, because they actually flash very quickly, instead of being in one place. So I could, if I wanted to, write the Tetragrammaton and then delete half of it if I wanted, then write it again. But it seems like there's still a general tendency in the Jewish community not to do something like that, possibly because it could unintentionally lead someone to believe they could do the same off paper.

Writing God as G-d is just custom. The real issue comes when dealing with the Tetragrammaton, in Hebrew.
 
Hey Cav:

Dauer or Bananabrain could probably give you a more eriudite and precise answer. However, I'll give it a try,

The use of the nominative "G-d" is, I believe, a rather recent invention of western culture, and internet-based. I first noticed its use over on the TCPC website by people who wished to refer to this spiritual presence among us, but who did not wish to use archaic words/ symbols, and who also wished to preserve a traditional approach in indentifying the unnameable (if that makes any sense).

I believe that it is a symbolic way to refer to the unknowable and unrepresentable presence in our lives that has also been popularly referred to as YHWH or Yahweh. But also to do it in a way that respects and identifies with ancient understandings and traditions. Also, by eliminating the circle and substituting a line in the middle of the symbolic name, one also eliminates certain symbolic understandings which perhaps infer that life moves forward in linear ways, and does not always bend back upon itself as a general rule (you know, the new Disney myth of the circle of life). IMHO, this is a subtle way to refer to G-d's consistent admonition to his people to choose life and not death.

I also, in discussions such as this, like to point out that G-d is d-g spelled backwards. Maybe this version of the myth sprang forth from the font of wisdom created in your neighboring land during the cultural revolutions of the 60's there, as in the phrase, "Running dogs of capitalism".

flow....:)
 
I may have created some confusion by treating the use of "G-d" as part of the prohibition bananabrain said should apply to the use of the names of God, which I think is limited to the original language of the Hebrew Scriptures. Bananabrain is my usual authority for all things Jewish on the forum, and I took his use of "G-d" to be an extension of this prohibition.

Reading Dauer's comments above, I don't think they are contradicting one another. My statement about the respect for the use of the Hebrew names for God I think is accurate, though it doesn't appear to be associated with the convention of writing "G-d."

Hope this clears things up. :) And, of course, I apologize for any confusion.
 
Abogado:

No confusion here, because I've come to accept it as the natural state of the world at large, but, IMHO, it does serve its purpose. I enjoy playing our "word and symbol" games, even if it does get a might confusing. I look at it all as exercising my brain muscles !

Peace and Light...

flow....:)
 
dauer said:
The answer to your question gets a bit trickier though. One issue is that once the Tetragrammaton is written on paper, that paper is dealt with differently. It can't just be thrown away. It has to be buried....Writing God as G-d is just custom. The real issue comes when dealing with the Tetragrammaton, in Hebrew.
Click to expand...
I took it up when I needed to seperate myself from my Sunday School anthropomorphic vision...when I couldn't get the Michaelangelo Santa Clause version out of my head...I came across the Judaic thought somewhere and took on the concept...and thoroughly appreciate it.

Dauer, along the lines of what you speak above, I ran into a kosher vegetarian. He couldn't eat a veggie burger with soy cheese. Not that it violated any law...but it being a subsitute for something that did violate the law...it is a very interesting line to draw....and one that comes from years of tradition and understanding.

I so appreciate the variety in this world...building enough neuronets to catch any thought that misses the trapeze.
 
Thanks for the replies to my question. It's appreciated.

Abogado, I apologise for any offence I have given. I assure you, none was intended. I quoted you because it seemed like the best way to start this thread and ask this question. I didn't name you because it didn't seem to be important, I apologise if this was a mistake. You had aroused my curiosity about this part of Jewish practice, I know very little about this religion and so came here to ask. That's all there was to it.
Flow, there were no smoke and mirrors, I don't engage in that kind of thing.

Thanks again for the replies to my question.
 
Dauer, along the lines of what you speak above, I ran into a kosher vegetarian. He couldn't eat a veggie burger with soy cheese. Not that it violated any law...but it being a subsitute for something that did violate the law...it is a very interesting line to draw....and one that comes from years of tradition and understanding.
Click to expand...

Wil,

That's interesting. That's actually a case where traditional halachah seems to be pretty clear. If it's in the privacy of your own home, it's not an issue, but if it's in public, it might be, depending on what your rav says, because somebody might see you and think you're eating real cheese. But I like to say that we all condition ourselves to a lot of these things, for better or for worse.

Dauer
 
dauer said:
Wil,

That's interesting. That's actually a case where traditional halachah seems to be pretty clear. If it's in the privacy of your own home, it's not an issue, but if it's in public, it might be, depending on what your rav says, because somebody might see you and think you're eating real cheese. But I like to say that we all condition ourselves to a lot of these things, for better or for worse.

Dauer
Click to expand...
Namaste Dauer,

At first I questioned the concept, thought it ridiculous. Not the law, or following the law, but thinking the extension of the law was an issue. Then I honored it, and was sort of in awe of the concept, and understood as my mother used to say 'pardon my french' when she said 'darn' I knew it wasn't a curse word and couldn't understand it...but she knew she was replacing a curse word and felt remorse for doing so afterword... Gotta admire those that go the extra mile...on their work on themselves! Perfect example of how one by ones actions can lead others to personal improvement...much more powerful than telling or coercing or threatening...
 
Wil,

I agree, but I also think it's something that the individual should investigate within themselves. Having kept kosher for over a year and then stopped more than once in my lifetime, I know the power of self-conditioning. And while this example is, IMO, harmless, and even potentially enriching for the individual, there are other concepts and practices, baggage, that can come with religion that I think need more evaluation.

Dauer
 
Dauer:

This discussion will probably require a thread of its own eventually, but I believe that the food discussion here is leading to a question that I have been wondering about for quite some time.

The original Hebrews were very concerned about consuming or associating with "unclean" things. In fact there are pages upon pages of laws given in the OT and I'm sure in associated materials developed later in the faith, specifying keeping kosher, allowed sexual practices, the handling of the deceased, etc.

But I am specifically interested in what "uncleanliness" may have meant to those who were so obsessive and compulsive about designing a life-style to avoid the state of "uncleanliness" and just what a more general understanding of such a state at that time might have been. Does it perhaps refer to some sort of contamination of one's spirit through the adoption and practice of activities that were known to possibly lead to such contaminations of one's spiritual being ?

I know that this is a broad area of understanding to cover, but it seems to me that this might be the core of what it really meant back then to be one of G-d's chosen people.

thanks....flow....:)
 
Flow,

unclean is simply an English approximation, and not necessarily the best one. The usual classification for "ritually pure" or "ritually impure" as it were, is tahor and tamei. As it's been explained to me, it's a bit like radiation. There are also different degrees of tumah. It's a sort of status that can be aquired through certain events and can also be transferable, but shouldn't be confused with a concept of being dirty. If you want to talk about the time of the Torah I don't think we can talk as much about a strong spirit-person dichotomy, at least not as we might understand it, because it isn't so indicated in the text itself without later interpretations. The idea of an eternal soul is something that seems pretty foreign.

There are a lot of different regs that seem to "distinguish" and "separate" in certain ways, although it has been pointed out by traditional folk that it is through separating things that we can come to recognize them as holy or unique or special or what have you. So you've got things being distinguished as holy, as fit or unfit for consumption, as spreading or creating ritual purity or impurity. I don't think we can necessarily know why these concepts were created, but it may have had to do with who the author of these particular texts was (a kohein for example), or with the position of the small nation of Israel, on a very busy trade route and often next to much larger nations or empires.

Dauer
 
I live in the US, Maryland, nearby the Chesapeake Bay, where the crab, the clam and the oyster reign as kings.

When it comes to cleanliness or purity....I actually find it interesting what G-d or evolution put here to keep the bay clean....we eat. Course I have the same issue with liver...I think Leviticus has a lot of information that will be contained in health and longevity books in the future...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top