|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 6:56 pm
I often see G-d, G*d, G_d, etc.
Why?
Is this some sort of censorship? Is it lick reccord lables taking the ******** and making it F*ck?
If it's for the believers, is it to avoid using it vainly? It's not as if the meaning changed, you're still talking about god. We all know what you mean, and I'm pretty sure god does too.
I myself intentionaly avoid capitolizing the "g" in god. I like to think that it devalues it to a basic noun in some linguistic standard. If you don't believe in god...why not use the "o." Is it to avoid saying god?
Enlighten me people, I want to understand why you cut out the vowel.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:24 pm
If I understand right, it's a means of showing respect to God, especially for Hebrews. But I don't use it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:22 am
It's not actually necessary, but it's a reminder not to take the concept of God/G*D/G-d lightly; also that it isn't actually the real name of God. When writing out the real name of God, Jews won't put in vowels (diacritical marks) when typing or writing the Hebrew lettering. This is because we've lost the pronunciation of the holy name, and pronouncing it incorrectly (which one would do, if one were to see the vowel marks and try to say it aloud) is forbidden out of respect.
If the Hebrew name of God is written out in full, the letters Yud, Heh, Vav, and Heh, the letters (and therefore the document on which the name is written) is forbidden to be burned, buried without ceremony, erased, cut, torn, or thrown away. This is to avoid showing disrespect to the name of God. Some people also won't erase a file on a hard drive that contains the name, though I feel that's going a bit far, myself.
Interestingly (at least, to me), writing the word god instead of God changes the name from a proper form of address to an insignificant descriptor in English, but would have no effect in Hebrew whatsoever, because there are no upper-case or lower-case letters in Hebrew. So, to a mind that thinks primarily in Hebrew, there's no perceived insult to the deity, just because someone uses a lower-case 'g' to start the word 'god'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:26 pm
Divash It's not actually necessary, but it's a reminder not to take the concept of God/G*D/G-d lightly; also that it isn't actually the real name of God. When writing out the real name of God, Jews won't put in vowels (diacritical marks) when typing or writing the Hebrew lettering. This is because we've lost the pronunciation of the holy name, and pronouncing it incorrectly (which one would do, if one were to see the vowel marks and try to say it aloud) is forbidden out of respect. If the Hebrew name of God is written out in full, the letters Yud, Heh, Vav, and Heh, the letters (and therefore the document on which the name is written) is forbidden to be burned, buried without ceremony, erased, cut, torn, or thrown away. This is to avoid showing disrespect to the name of God. Some people also won't erase a file on a hard drive that contains the name, though I feel that's going a bit far, myself. Interestingly (at least, to me), writing the word god instead of God changes the name from a proper form of address to an insignificant descriptor in English, but would have no effect in Hebrew whatsoever, because there are no upper-case or lower-case letters in Hebrew. So, to a mind that thinks primarily in Hebrew, there's no perceived insult to the deity, just because someone uses a lower-case 'g' to start the word 'god'.
That seems amazingly silly. I don't understand how it is respectfull to not use the name of god. I truely do not understand why it's better to reffer to god improperly.
The term god is abstract anyway, a god is a thing. There have been many gods...just saying "god" seems to be mroe a descriptive term of a nameless entity. So ther certainly should be no level of censorship-based respect built out of a descriptive term.
I suppose I feel the same way about people saying sh-t. We all KNOW what you mean. Having censored it doesn't change the meaning or purpose at all. How is it less offensive? Saying crap still means fecal matter. Saying god still means god. Regardless of how it's said you are talking about the exact same thing. I guess I just don't find much logic in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:05 am
Moonlite Symphony Divash It's not actually necessary, but it's a reminder not to take the concept of God/G*D/G-d lightly... That seems amazingly silly. I don't understand how it is respectfull to not use the name of god. I truely do not understand why it's better to reffer to god improperly. The term god is abstract anyway, a god is a thing. There have been many gods...just saying "god" seems to be mroe a descriptive term of a nameless entity. So ther certainly should be no level of censorship-based respect built out of a descriptive term. I suppose I feel the same way about people saying sh-t. We all KNOW what you mean. Having censored it doesn't change the meaning or purpose at all. How is it less offensive? Saying crap still means fecal matter. Saying god still means god. Regardless of how it's said you are talking about the exact same thing. I guess I just don't find much logic in it. 1. Thank you for referring to my religious traditions as silly, and to my reverence for my deity of choice as a 'thing'. I feel that that statement gives me a great opportunity to demonstrate maturity and class in my response to the insult I suspect you intended to give. I'll point out that I'm not asking you to respect my deity, but to respect the beliefs of others. 2. That "there should be no level of censorship-based respect" is a personal judgement, something you feel, rather than something that is. Opinion, not fact. 3. It isn't censorship. Censorship is meant to disguise an offensive or possibly-offensive concept. God (G-d, G*D) is not an offensive concept, to those who leave out the vowels out of respect. 4. You're not required to find logic in the religions of others, nor even to agree that any logic exists there at all. The only requirement in this thread is to ask questions to LEARN and not to give yourself ammunition in a debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:30 pm
Divash Moonlite Symphony Divash It's not actually necessary, but it's a reminder not to take the concept of God/G*D/G-d lightly... That seems amazingly silly. I don't understand how it is respectfull to not use the name of god. I truely do not understand why it's better to reffer to god improperly. The term god is abstract anyway, a god is a thing. There have been many gods...just saying "god" seems to be mroe a descriptive term of a nameless entity. So ther certainly should be no level of censorship-based respect built out of a descriptive term. I suppose I feel the same way about people saying sh-t. We all KNOW what you mean. Having censored it doesn't change the meaning or purpose at all. How is it less offensive? Saying crap still means fecal matter. Saying god still means god. Regardless of how it's said you are talking about the exact same thing. I guess I just don't find much logic in it. 1. Thank you for referring to my religious traditions as silly, and to my reverence for my deity of choice as a 'thing'. I feel that that statement gives me a great opportunity to demonstrate maturity and class in my response to the insult I suspect you intended to give. I'll point out that I'm not asking you to respect my deity, but to respect the beliefs of others. 2. That "there should be no level of censorship-based respect" is a personal judgement, something you feel, rather than something that is. Opinion, not fact. 3. It isn't censorship. Censorship is meant to disguise an offensive or possibly-offensive concept. God (G-d, G*D) is not an offensive concept, to those who leave out the vowels out of respect. 4. You're not required to find logic in the religions of others, nor even to agree that any logic exists there at all. The only requirement in this thread is to ask questions to LEARN and not to give yourself ammunition in a debate.
2. So it isn't a fact. I'll get over myself some day I suppose.
3. Censorship is just willfully ommiting something for ANY reason. It has nothign to do with being offensive. More often than not, in a historic context, it was done propogandously.
4. I'm not required to find logic in others. But I simply ask that people explain their logic. If people want my respect in their beliefs, they can certianly explain to me why they are sensible. It's MY thread thank you. I know what it's for. I made this thread to try and understand why people choose not to actually say their god's name.
Why is it respectfull to speak a god's name improperly? Why is it more respectfull to say it WRONG than to give abslute credit? Why shouldn't people bask in the knowledge and love of their god rather than trying not to mention him. That's certainly the impression I get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 9:32 am
You can always Google, or phone your nearest synagogue and ask a rabbi. He will no doubt have an answer that will be much more complete than my answer, since I'm not a scholar or a debator, and never claimed to be one.
You're not going to be able to understand based on what I tell you out of my own experience or feeling, nor to express yourself in a respectful way, and I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain to someone who doesn't seem to want to understand, but to provide herself ammunition for insults. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:36 pm
Divash You can always Google, or phone your nearest synagogue and ask a rabbi. He will no doubt have an answer that will be much more complete than my answer, since I'm not a scholar or a debator, and never claimed to be one. You're not going to be able to understand based on what I tell you out of my own experience or feeling, nor to express yourself in a respectful way, and I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain to someone who doesn't seem to want to understand, but to provide herself ammunition for insults. Have a nice day.
It seems rude to me that you simply call my pursuit for knowledge a pursuit for insults. On what grounds is it a pursuit for insults? I am asking for FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, on the part of the users, why they censor the name of their own god.
You don't NEED to be a debator. You don't need to be a theologian. You don't even need respect (though it helps). You just need an opinion and enough maturity to deal with it being contested. The reason I argue the point is to find the logic in it. If you can't actually argue the point then there probably isn't solid logical founding ( at least on your part). That's fine. But I need to find out what point the whole concept breaks down. The only way to do that is to disect it.
Sorry if I hurt your little feelings over having a less than possitive opinion of the things you believe in. Feel free to mock buddhism, I'm sure it isn't very hard. I've even made fun of the "airport monks" myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:18 am
I seriously thought we already explained this to you. Maybe it was someone else.Moonlight Symphony I suppose I feel the same way about people saying sh-t. We all KNOW what you mean. Having censored it doesn't change the meaning or purpose at all. How is it less offensive? Saying crap still means fecal matter. Saying god still means god. Regardless of how it's said you are talking about the exact same thing. I guess I just don't find much logic in it. Quote: Nah. I really don't think I need to respect other people's beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:22 pm
From my outbox:Moonlite Symphony You'd never even know if you were right or wrong because you are the only person in your world. A buddhist must live a life amongst varied ideas. The reason being that the only proof for theory is its lack of falibility. Quote: An opinion must be fought for and contested. If it can be argued against many stances and still retain its logic and meaning without fallacy, then it is wholy justified.
Hence, you are pretty much just preaching to the choir here. This is what I was planning to do with my Guild, only I wanted to expand that debate to encompass all religions. I didn't plan for people to harshly criticize other peoples' beliefs. There is a clear difference between disagreeing with someone on something and attacking them for believing something that you do not.Quote: If someone debated with me and I was wrong I would need to re-evaluate my beliefs, and have in the past. Quote: That being said I feel free speach and argument are VERY important. It aggitates many people to have their ideas contested, but it is almost necesary for them to be held reasonably true. Quote: I feel that I do not NEED to respect anything. A demand for respect may in itself earn less. I believe all things are desserving of an equall baseline of respect. Depending on actions, or at times expository information, respect can be gained or lost. Quote: I do however lack a level of respect for certain beliefs. If someone said that anti-semitism or racism were at the core of their beliefs, would you respect it? I wouldn't. Quote: I may be more critical than that. I have very little respect for catholicism and mormonism. Quote: I have more respect for people than their ideas. Quote: I dislike the tolerance applied to people thinking things. If some expresses something you dislike I would encourage ALL people to speak against it. ESPECIALLY if it's me, I would love to learn from it. It's something to truely learn from.
I mean, I don't believe in Biblical scripture the way that Christians do, and I find it personally irritating sometimes when some Christians use Leviticus as a way to police the behavior of others, but I'm going to respect and try to understand the way that they interpret the scripture. Another example is the way that Christians and Jews both interpret the "fall" of Adam/Eve differently. I cringe the way that some Christians interpret those passages, especially when they imply Original Sin, but I seek to understand why they come to those conclusions and while I don't agree with their interpretation, I respect and tolerate it.Quote: So just because I don't flock around on the free love, and revere all the silly thigns people believe, sure block me if that's your policy. Quote: If you think I'm a troll or something than you are harshly mistaken. I am simply someone who feels truth and knowledge are sometimes more important than whether or not people enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:24 am
Oh, she's gone now? Sweet, I can start posting again without fear of one of my characteristic lashing-outs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:29 pm
She's still emailing me and bothering me. crying
EDIT: See? gonk Moonlite Symphony Please allow me to understadn when the attack started and the attempt at understanding ended. I know I said it was silly, or somethign to that extent. I don't think that's particularly harsh. Quote: Well, now I learned something new! I suppose my problem is that it seems like my debate or argument was disliked because it wassn't blatantly friendly. Quote: It seems like strong disagreement or opposed viewpoint is more at odds here. I could be wrong of course.
What you don't understand is that Jews disagree on everything, the meaning of Torah, laws, rabbinical commentary, you name it. They come up with counter-arguments, instead of just saying "that's silly" to the other person. Instead, they handle it courteously. "You may be right on this one point, but if you look at this passage here, you'll see..." That's a lot different than what you were doing.Quote: Good thing that's not what I'm asserting! It'd be silly of me if I was. Maybe I wassn't clear. I believe in logic. If somethign is logically fallable it is wrong.
Also, it's similarly difficult to prove that a state of Enlightenment truly exists, isn't it? It's completely subjective.Quote: I actually don't think this makes much sense. The lack of vowels is all well and good for the hebrew language. God, being a word in the english language, has english vowels. These vowels are still being removed. Hebrew linguistic standards are not english linguistic standards. It is very clearly removing something from an english word. Quote: Uhm, that is a terrible analogy that makes no sense. You are comparing an intolerance for anti-Semitism to an intolerance of religious beliefs that reflect a core priniciple of the Jewish faith. Quote: It makes pleanty sense. It's all based on how logical these beliefs are. I'm not concerned with whatever bias you may have towards your beliefs over others. To the anti-semites they aren't believing anything wrong, and it is a core of their beliefs. It's just a matter of bias. To me it's just a matter of logic, if there isn't any than there isn't any. Quote: I try to avoid "bashing" religions. I like to try and find fallacies in them, Quote: I would try and debate the principles of their beliefs though. Quote: Would you mind actually usign specific examples? I figure since we are arguing history here, and fairly recent history at that, citation should be easy.
Comparing God to fecal matter isn't offensive? (Considering that the majority of Guild members believe in God...) You did this with Stitches in another thread, but I don't feel like digging it up, because this debate is pretty much meaningless and I'm not writing a paper. (Nice dig at me with the "recent history" remark, at least I'm proficient at something.)Quote: I have respect for people, not their beliefs. Quote: This is fairly specific. I know people who are homophobic, anti-semetic, and any number of things. I have no respect for their beliefs but I am nice and respectfull to them in their pressence. I prefer to be nice to a person and not their ideas. Quote: I think it's very different from evangelicals. They tend to just point fingers and tell people they're wrong. Quote: My view is that people should be willing to debate their beliefs. Quote: The difference we have here is that I guess maybe having repsect and being nice are also two different things? Commiting what is basically a hindu sin is a lot different from criticizing a person's beliefs. Even more so, I'm trying to come to an understanding of their version of respect to their diety. I'm trying to have the LOGIC in it put forth. I want it to make sense. Quote: I don't like dieties, they don't make sense and that's fine. Quote: The way they are worshiped should PROBABLY make sense though something born of logical fallacy can't be expected to be very well thought out. Quote: Regardless, I want to come to a very CLEAR and indesputeable understandign as to why cutting the "o" out of god is more respectfull, when to me it almost seems the opposite. Quote: Intentionally misrepresenting the name of the thing you believe in never sounded respectfull to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:50 pm
And she PM'ed me again (next time I get a PM I'm going to get a mod to deal with it).Moonlite Symphony Conflict isn't necesarilly all bad. Enmity may also be a strong word to use. I'm not sure though that it really matters. If you can clearly cite how I defy the rules than please do so. Giving I suppose the exact rule, and way in which I broke it. I'm not saying it didn't, but a certain level of precise clarity would be nice. Rules VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING RULES WILL GET YOU BANNED. 1) Theological discussion in this thread should not be contigent upon disproving or attacking another religion. Quote: 2) Somewhat related to #1, don't make value statements about religions that are not your own. Quote: 5) If I ban you from the guild due to violation of the above rules, do not PM me about it. I will provide a reason when I ban you, so don't PM me asking why you were banned. I won't let you back into the guild, so bothering me isn't going to change my mind. Again, as I stated on the guild home page, this is my guild, so these are my rules. Quote: I also don't think I'm very concerned about how well I get along with people. It doesn't really bother me much. I'm not sure why anyone would care much about it unless they really didn't get along with anyone.
I hope you learned something from this experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:06 pm
You've got a very patient but very precise way of explaining things, roothands. You're dealing with the person in a very mature way. I hope she stops harassing you soon. I'm sorry to have given her so much ammunition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:54 pm
Divash You've got a very patient but very precise way of explaining things, roothands. You're dealing with the person in a very mature way. I hope she stops harassing you soon. I'm sorry to have given her so much ammunition. Divash, I for one don't see where you gave her any ammunition if she was being reasonable. I am also impressed with roothands' patience, I would be fed up far long ago. Moonlight just seemed to be looking for offense. If I had come across the post first, and responded, the same thing would have probably happened, except I might have gotten myself banned, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
