What's With This G_d Stuff?

[Shawn]

I've seen people post writing only G_D and not GOD. What up?

[Outshined]

As you may know, some people, such as Jews, do not write the name of God as a sign of respect.

Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...daism/name.html

Other people feel the same way, and ths do not write it.

[Jason]

Course, "God" is just a title, not a name. God's name (depending on who you ask) is Yahweh or El.

So these misguided pious individuals who do this, are missing the point entirely.

[Shawn]

Yes, Jason, this was kind of my point. In writing the name of God that some call Jehovah, they removed the vowels, changed their clothes, bathed, and even changed their writing tools out of respect. But God is just a title. Thanks for the insights.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Aug 11 2005, 12:38 PM

Course, "God" is just a title, not a name. God's name (depending on who you ask) is Yahweh or El.

So these misguided pious individuals who do this, are missing the point entirely.

Hardly.

Traveler does it out of the respect and reverence he holds for his Lord regardless of whether G_d is a title or a name.

How is choosing to honor God by showing reverence for His title missing the point?

[Shawn]

SNOW ASKS:

How is choosing to honor God by showing reverence for His title missing the point?

This type of errant religious attachment is similar to what the Jews did to the Law - jots and tiddles -to make themselves "more holy" than the next guy. They created their own form of super-religion which was not only displeasing to God, it is dangerous and unnessecary. I mean, some idiot may now think, "Well, G_d created everything too. So therefore I won't spell _nyth_ng c_mpl_t_ly _g__n! Out of respect for H_m." Get it? Man's ways will NEVER EVER please God to the point where they earn favor or brownie points. His ways are perfect and skipping a letter in the title we recognize Him by is ridiculous, religiously inclined, and far from the reality of true Christian living. Other names for such measures include religion, legalism. dogma, fanaticism, pietism, fundamentalism, or plain old, "I want toshow you how holy everyone else should be - and take God's word the extra mile." Get it, Snow?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 11 2005, 09:26 PM

SNOW ASKS:

How is choosing to honor God by showing reverence for His title missing the point?

This type of errant religious attachment is similar to what the Jews did to the Law - jots and tiddles -to make themselves "more holy" than the next guy. They created their own form of super-religion which was not only displeasing to God, it is dangerous and unnessecary. I mean, some idiot may now think, "Well, G_d created everything too. So therefore I won't spell _nyth_ng c_mpl_t_ly _g__n! Out of respect for H_m." Get it? Man's ways will NEVER EVER please God to the point where they earn favor or brownie points. His ways are perfect and skipping a letter in the title we recognize Him by is ridiculous, religiously inclined, and far from the reality of true Christian living. Other names for such measures include religion, legalism. dogma, fanaticism, pietism, fundamentalism, or plain old, "I want toshow you how holy everyone else should be - and take God's word the extra mile." Get it, Snow?

That's right Shawn,

I forgot that your way is the correct way. All other ways are deficient. Traveler, in his own heart, may be showing a simple sign of reverance, but to you, he is pretending to be more holy that the next guy, creating a super-religion and displeasing God, posing a potential trap to idiots and trying to buy his salvation from God by earning brownie points.

Shame that when you cast of Mormonism, you didn't cast off your judgementality.

Your the one who thinks that salvation is by faith only. Since Traveler has that, he is saved and becomes an adopted son of God. Good enough for God - but not good enough for Shawn. Pity

[Outshined]

It's rather amusing that a person can try to put themselves above the beliefs of another group because they show God too much respect...

[Shawn]

SNOW WRITES

Your the one who thinks that salvation is by faith only. Since Traveler has that, he is saved and becomes an adopted son of God. Good enough for God - but not good enough for Shawn. Pity

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. None. Now read it in parts:

Your the one who thinks that salvation is by faith only.

This part is true. I do believe salvation comes only by faith through the grace of God.

Since Traveler has that, he is saved and becomes an adopted son of God.

If Traveler has the same belief that salvation is by grace through faith, I praise God!

Good enough for God - but not good enough for Shawn. Pity

What happened here? What does this mean? You stated that I believe salvation is by grace. I agree. You stated that The Traveler has this faith. I say, fantastic. Then you conclude by saying this belief is good enough for God but NOT me!

Snow, I somehow sense you truly want to be a good man, a righteous man, and a man of wisdom. This is good. But slow down and make your points clearly.I'm not saying this to demean you. But your not making sense.

[Traveler]

When Jesus was a Jew and walked the earth he was respectful of Jewish law. But there was a group of religious people that were the scum of the earth. In fact, of all religions that existed in that era it was considered the most corrupt, more corrupt than pagans or if you will devil worshipers. The group was the Samaritans. Even in our day the Samaritan scriptures have been ridiculed for deliberate changes in doctrine and examples of corruptness.

Yet Jesus singled out the Samaritans – not for their doctrine or care in attending to religion or even the mercies or grace of G-d. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given as an example of how Christians of even our modern era should treat other whose faith is different from their own.

Am I less rightious because out of person care I write G-d? I have never criticized anyone or felt they must write G-d as I do.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 12 2005, 04:13 PM

SNOW WRITES

Your the one who thinks that salvation is by faith only. Since Traveler has that, he is saved and becomes an adopted son of God. Good enough for God - but not good enough for Shawn. Pity

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. None. Now read it in parts:

Your the one who thinks that salvation is by faith only.

This part is true. I do believe salvation comes only by faith through the grace of God.

Since Traveler has that, he is saved and becomes an adopted son of God.

If Traveler has the same belief that salvation is by grace through faith, I praise God!

Good enough for God - but not good enough for Shawn. Pity

What happened here? What does this mean? You stated that I believe salvation is by grace. I agree. You stated that The Traveler has this faith. I say, fantastic. Then you conclude by saying this belief is good enough for God but NOT me!

Snow, I somehow sense you truly want to be a good man, a righteous man, and a man of wisdom. This is good. But slow down and make your points clearly.I'm not saying this to demean you. But your not making sense.

Don't be obtuse Shawn,

Traveler, who has faith, is saved by virtue of having faith and so is an adopted son of God - at least according to your view of the gospel. You are chastising Traveler because it does something you don't like. What on earth does it matter if Traveler shows respect in the way he writes G_D, if he is saved, he is saved. You don't get unsaved and disinherited of God by showing respect, even if it is a way that Shawn disapproves of. You sound like a Pharisee.

If Traveler has the same belief that salvation is by grace through faith, I praise God!

It doesn't matter if Traveler (the subject of my example) believes that or not. According to the "faith only" belief, you are saved, not because you believe the doctrine, but because you have faith, regardless of what you believe on how salvation is obtained.

[Lindy]

Shawn~G_d In MHO...It doesn't have anything to do with by grace...by works...or by faith. It's all about respect and what Snow said...."How is choosing to honor God by showing reverence for His title missing the point?"

I don't bow to Mecca, but I will respect the right of those who choose to do so, I don't meditate and chant at the same time....but I will respect their right also.

Outshined: I don't think that personal insights or preferences make you think your "above" others...sometimes that's just they way you are. :)

[Shawn]

LINDY WRITES

Shawn~G_d In MHO...It doesn't have anything to do with by grace...by works...or by faith. It's all about respect and what Snow said...."How is choosing to honor God by showing reverence for His title missing the point?"

I don't bow to Mecca, but I will respect the right of those who choose to do so, I don't meditate and chant at the same time....but I will respect their right also.

First point: Because it sets up a false idea of God expects of His creations. WHy add to what He expects? Aren't His ideas exactly the way things should be done? Travelers methodologies do not show respect, they show ideation. Respect for God comes when we love and follow HIS ways, not our own. If travelers methodologies were okay, then wouldn't it make sense for more extreme measures to really be okay? Do you see where it leads? I go back to my original statement: this was EXACTLY the trouble with the ruling religious leaders of Jesus time. And HE hated it.

Second point: I sort-of understand your saying you respect peoples right to do what they want. I do not. I don't respect anyone who uses their religious rights to trample upon what God has said. As incorrect as this may sound, why would I ever respect someones choice to speak, act, or live opposite to God? Endure? Maybe. Accept, okay. But respect? Never.

[Shawn]

SNOW WRITES

Don't be obtuse Shawn,

Traveler, who has faith, is saved by virtue of having faith and so is an adopted son of God - at least according to your view of the gospel. You are chastising Traveler because it does something you don't like. What on earth does it matter if Traveler shows respect in the way he writes G_D, if he is saved, he is saved. You don't get unsaved and disinherited of God by showing respect, even if it is a way that Shawn disapproves of. You sound like a Pharisee.

QUOTE

There are a few things you may want to consider regarding my beliefs (which you seem to so readily understand). First of all, being saved is one thing, spiritual rebirth is another, and the rewards a Christian receives after this life are an entirely different issue. Let me explain.

The first phase of spiritual rebirth is the justification phase - the Jesus experience. It comes by faith, grace, and confession of Jesus. When a person accepts Jesus as his/her personal savior, he is justified before God by grace. The second phase of spiritual rebirth is sanctification. This is where the indwelling of God in justified people transforms them from being a creature to a child of God. This takes time. A lot of time. Here is where people learn to die to themselves. Here is where God moves and works in them through His word and spirit. The final phase is that of the resurrection. These three phases make up spiritual rebirth. Salvation is based on the first phase, rewards are based on the second phase. A new uncorrupted body model in the third. You continue to speak of the first phase, but reference the second.

WHen a person truly accepts Jesus, has the Jesus experience, and experiences initial spiritual rebirth, it does not make them perfect in the flesh. THis is part of the second phase. And it comesfrom reading God's word, prayer, church, etc.

I do not think Traveler is going to hel because he writes G_d. Traveler will go to hell if he doesn'taccept Jesus. But you say he has accepted Jesus and is saved. I say fine. Now Traveler need to appropriately apply the Word to his life. This is the tough part of spiritual regeneration. Because it means succumbing to God's will and not our own any longer. My point here is, traveler is imputing his own will and ignoring the Word. This is why there is danger in making up new little rules and practices regarding God. He tells you what to do in His Word. G_d is not in His word.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 12 2005, 07:38 PM

First point: Because it sets up a false idea of God expects of His creations. WHy add to what He expects? Aren't His ideas exactly the way things should be done? ............. I go back to my original statement: this was EXACTLY the trouble with the ruling religious leaders of Jesus time. And HE hated it.

And you know this hoooooow? Did God come over to your house for dinner last nght and you two sit and chat about what He expects and what He hates?

I'm not in the mood to play games with anyone right now.... Shawn, I've been in a foul mood all day, and I don't want to start something .......cause quite frankly I just don't care about much of anything right now...... however, I do find it refreshing that you and God are so close you know how HE feels.

[Shawn]

Lindy,

I'm sorry you've been in a foul mood all day. But I know the ways of God by reading His Word. I do not know all of them, but I know of some of them. And one of them is He hates religious pretense. Read about God in the flesh (Jesus). It's pretty obvious His distain of the religious leaders of His day.

[Traveler]

My friends of the forum. Obviously our friend is not aware of Tetragrammaton or the effect of textual variation in the ancient scripture. Nor is our friend able to understand the ancient manners of symbolism, and respect for speaking in reference to G-d. It is also obvious to me that he has little or no understanding of the ancient languages that G-d chose to speak to his word. There is not a single example in any ancient scriptural text where any reference to G-d (title or name) where the text provided complete text to speak or pronounce any reference to G-d (title or name). The casual reference to divine title and name is a development that has occurred after all Biblical scripture was complete.

The criticism of indirect reference to divine name and title is ill placed and is a criticism of scripture itself. Never once did Jesus criticize the scriptural text referencing divine name or title in a manner that could not be spoken. Tetragrammation or the altering of text in reference to G-d’s name or title dates back to well before the Babylonian captivity. Because of the sacredness of reference to divine name and title I avoid getting involved in arguments of this kind. I ask the forum to end this discussion. If there is any blame for this - let it now be upon me.

The Traveler

[Lindy]

Because of the sacredness of reference to divine name and title I avoid getting involved in arguments of this kind. I ask the forum to end this discussion. If there is any blame for this - let it now be upon me.

Out of respect for you Trav.... I'm done.

[Shawn]

The Traveler writes:

My friends of the forum. Obviously our friend is not aware of Tetragrammaton or the effect of textual variation in the ancient scripture. Nor is our friend able to understand the ancient manners of symbolism, and respect for speaking in reference to G-d. It is also obvious to me that he has little or no understanding of the ancient languages that G-d chose to speak to his word. There is not a single example in any ancient scriptural text where any reference to G-d (title or name) where the text provided complete text to speak or pronounce any reference to G-d (title or name). The casual reference to divine title and name is a development that has occurred after all Biblical scripture was complete.

The criticism of indirect reference to divine name and title is ill placed and is a criticism of scripture itself. Never once did Jesus criticize the scriptural text referencing divine name or title in a manner that could not be spoken. Tetragrammation or the altering of text in reference to G-d’s name or title dates back to well before the Babylonian captivity. Because of the sacredness of reference to divine name and title I avoid getting involved in arguments of this kind. I ask the forum to end this discussion. If there is any blame for this - let it now be upon me.

The Traveler

Since I started this post maybe I could have the last word. I appreciate the expansive knowledge Traveler has regarding the history of the use of the name (or title) of God. Much of this, from what I can tell with my limited knowledge of Tetragrammation, seems right on. And I would agree that it was more than appropriate for ancient peoples to fear writing the name (or title) of God and to approach Him as if He was about to wipe them out. Because He did, on occasion, wipe people out for what appeared to have been innocent mistakes (appeared).

The problem with Travelers insistence of carrying these traditions on (and which, by the way, is a direct reflection of the problem of religious people today who, not knowing God, continue to apply legalistic appelations to their relationship with Him) is that since the ascention of the Lord, His Children can come boldly to the Holy Throne. Archaic reverences have died and been replaced by joy in the Good News of the Gospel. Legalisms, and ordinances, have been nailed to the Cross. It was finished along time ago, Traveler.

Perhaps Paul said it best:

For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15)

Jesus brings freedom, not a yoke. People try and yoke others, either directly or indirectly, and even through good intentions. Don't buy into it, readers. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.

In JESUS HOLY NAME,

Shawn McCraney

[Outshined]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 12 2005, 08:26 PM

Outshined: I don't think that personal insights or preferences make you think your "above" others...sometimes that's just they way you are. :)

Oh, I agree, but that is coming across here, with this statement that those who prefer to write G_d instead of writing it in full "don't know God". But HE does...

He's talking down to Traveler and making broad assumptions that he knows more about God than others here.That's a lot of arrogance, and I have no respect for it. Out of respect for Traveler, I'm done with this as well.