G-D or G_d?

#1
Noticed a lot in online media over the past few days people referring to G-d (or G_d) in place of typing the word God.
(G-d be with you, I pray to G_d etc.)

Can anyone enlighten me as to the reason behind it? Is there a belief which forbids the full spelling? A P.C. thing in case someone doesn't like God... What?
 
#2
The strict Jews won't write the word Yaweh - their name for God. I think this G-D or G_D thing is just a bunch of people trying to draw attention to their faith. I use God for my Christian God and god for "Harry, god I'd love a Pint."

The Jehovah's Witnesses - Jehovah being their corruption of Yaweh - and always have to mumble something with it. That's about as daft as the Muslims who, when mentioning their prophet Mohammed, mumble some tosh too. Plain superstition.

Just stick to good old Church of Scotland and yez cannae gae wrang! Nae crosses to nod at, no magic water at the entrance and no dodgy priests.
 
#4
It's a very ancient Jewish religious concept conceived in order to avoid transgressing the religious prohibition of taking the name of the deity in vain. In the original Hebrew there are various alternative titles that do not involve using the name of the deity, such as "The holy one blessed be he", or, as in the example you ask about, a single letter in the name of the deity is replaced by another letter. English speaking orthodox Jews transfer the concept when expressing the name of the deity in English, hence G-d rather than God. I would not expect to find this concept used by people other than orthodox Jews.
 
#6
ND is slightly off the mark, the Hebrew g•d was written using the tetragrammaton which transcribed from the original Hebrew is YHWH. The vowels were added to make it pronounceable.
 
#8
Not pretentious when the motivation is an earnest desire to maintain the sanctity of the deity. However, the real problem is objectification. The absolute that the concept of the monotheistic deity attempts to represent is not an object. We tend to need to objectify in order to be able to relate. Once related to as an object, however much sanctified, the name or title used isn't going to make too much difference.
 
#9
Mrs Tuffy screams Jesus Christ every time she sees my bell end (she does however follow the phrase with 'is that It').
 
#10
Not pretentious when the motivation is an earnest desire to maintain the sanctity of the deity however, the real problem is objectification. The absolute that the concept of the monotheistic deity attempts to represent is not an object. We tend to need to objectify in order to be able to relate. Once related to as an object, however much sanctified, the name or title used isn't going to make much difference.
mr-logic.jpg


Riiiiiight.
 
#12
Not pretentious when the motivation is an earnest desire to maintain the sanctity of the deity however, the real problem is objectification. The absolute that the concept of the monotheistic deity attempts to represent is not an object. We tend to need to objectify in order to be able to relate. Once related to as an object, however much sanctified, the name or title used isn't going to make much difference.
Just the sort of tripe I need to read on a pleasant Sunday morning,G_-d G-d Al-_g_-t_
 
#13
Not pretentious when the motivation is an earnest desire to maintain the sanctity of the deity.
No, it's ******* pretentious. "God" is a common noun; the name (proper noun) of their god is YHWH. All this nonsense is like writing D-g because you think it would be disrespectful to write "Rover."

As far as christian fundies doing it goes they're just trying to show how much better they are than the rest of us, because they're not so common as to be bound by trivial little things like being able to ******* spell.
 
#14
Etymology of the Name God


Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.

According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.

Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Khoda.
 
#15
11718975.jpg
 
#18
According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.

Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Yoda.
Your syntax explain it does.
 
#19
It's a very ancient Jewish religious concept conceived in order to avoid transgressing the religious prohibition of taking the name of the deity in vain. In the original Hebrew there are various alternative titles that do not involve using the name of the deity, such as "The holy one blessed be he", or, as in the example you ask about, a single letter in the name of the deity is replaced by another letter. English speaking orthodox Jews transfer the concept when expressing the name of the deity in English, hence G-d rather than God. I would not expect to find this concept used by people other than orthodox Jews.

I'll go with that.

'Ha Shem' - The Name', is also used as in 'Baruch Hashem' being used as ' Praise the Lord' or 'Thank G -d', to exclaim a good ending to a situation.

YHVH , pronounced 'Yah..(or 'Jah' if you're Rasta) as mentioned by Joe Private, is not used that often in a sentence, but that's where you also get 'Hallelujah' from, this being another way of saying it ,plus we all know a song about that Children......

James Ingram & Michael McDonald - Yah Mo Be There - YouTube
 
#20
ND is slightly off the mark, the Hebrew g•d was written using the tetragrammaton which transcribed from the original Hebrew is YHWH. The vowels were added to make it pronounceable.
Fascinating.

Sadly, this is the sort of intellectual thread that gives arrse a bad reputation.  
 

Latest Threads

Top