Is God's name God?

[RickD]

Is God's name "God"? By writing "God", is there any chance of taking God's name in vain? If God is who God is, and not His name, why don't those who write "G-d", also write "Chr-st", because Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah. So, for those who write G-d, why don't you also write J-s-s, or Chr-st? Is writing "G-d" about respect, or is it actually about making broad phylacteries?

Anyone?

[Byblos]

making broad phylacteries?

mmmm broad phylacteries!

[RickD]

making broad phylacteries?

mmmm broad phylacteries!

Byblos, do you have a recipe for delicious broad phylacteries that we should know about?

[PaulSacramento]

Is God's name "God"? By writing "God", is there any chance of taking God's name in vain? If God is who God is, and not His name, why don't those who write "G-d", also write "Chr-st", because Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah. So, for those who write G-d, why don't you also write J-s-s, or Chr-st? Is writing "G-d" about respect, or is it actually about making broad phylacteries?

Anyone?

God is the term we use to describe God, simply because we have no other word for God.
When Moses asked God his name, God said, " I AM'.
In short, God IS, He doesn't need a name, it is enough that GOD IS !
To name God is to downgrade God to human level.
That said, I AM ( Yahweh or Jahveh, which ever you may prefer) can be used as God's "personal name" ( and yes, Jehovah, though not as correct, is fine too).
When we speak of God and use the term God, most do so thinking not of God the Triune being, but of God the Father.
So when we say that "Christ prayed to God" we are saying Christ prayed to The Father.
We tend to picture the "Old Man in the sky" when we think God, hence we tend to think "Our Father" when we think God.

It is fascinating that, when Jesus taught them to pray ( and Us subsequently) that he did NOT use any name but choose "Our Father".
That, IMO, speaks LOUDER than anything else.

[Byblos]

making broad phylacteries?

mmmm broad phylacteries!

Byblos, do you have a recipe for delicious broad phylacteries that we should know about?

All I know is that you should start by enlarging your fringes ...

[Seraph]

Didn't "God" come from the German word "Gott" over a millenium after the ressurection of Jesus? Also wasn't Jesus' native name "Yeshua"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

Theres no way either of those are their "true" names.

[PaulSacramento]

Didn't "God" come from the German word "Gott" over a millenium after the ressurection of Jesus? Also wasn't Jesus' native name "Yeshua"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

Theres no way either of those are their "true" names.

The term "god" is Elohim in Hebrew and Theos in Greek.
Jesus is the english translation of Ieosus, which is greek for Joshua/Yehsuha/Jaheshua
Transliterations and Translations have always been used.

[cheezerrox]

I think this makes an interesting point. True, G-d's Name isn't G-d. But, to speak on behalf of those who do use the dash, I'd say it's really just a way of trying to show respect for G-d, and to keep in mind not to speak of G-d frivolously or as if He were something common. It's not out of obedience to any Biblical command, such as using G-d's Name in vain (that is, unless you're an Orthodox Jew, where it would be a commandment of the Oral Torah), and at the end of the day it's pretty superficial, I think. I don't see anything wrong about writing God at all, I just prefer to use the dash as a conscious way of keeping in mind not to speak of G-d in an irreverant way.

[neo-x]

I think this makes an interesting point. True, G-d's Name isn't G-d. But, to speak on behalf of those who do use the dash, I'd say it's really just a way of trying to show respect for G-d, and to keep in mind not to speak of G-d frivolously or as if He were something common. It's not out of obedience to any Biblical command, such as using G-d's Name in vain (that is, unless you're an Orthodox Jew, where it would be a commandment of the Oral Torah), and at the end of the day it's pretty superficial, I think. I don't see anything wrong about writing God at all, I just prefer to use the dash as a conscious way of keeping in mind not to speak of G-d in an irreverant way.

I actually agree with you on everything you said except one thing in bold above, which is that regardless of the fact that you use God or G-d, the reason people use the dash is to exactly follow the "do not use G-d's Name in vain" commandment. I mean if not for the commandment why else would you follow it in the first place and also that writing God as G-d doesn't add anymore respect to the idea than thinking about God as G-d? I mean we do not think about God with a dash, do we?

My thoughts, I agree with you, this is superficial and those who use G-d should use it in their good will as they see fit, I only do not think its just out of respect, I think it is exactly in line with the fear of the commandment of not using God's name in vain.

[cheezerrox]

I actually agree with you on everything you said except one thing in bold above, which is that regardless of the fact that you use God or G-d, the reason people use the dash is to exactly follow the "do not use G-d's Name in vain" commandment. I mean if not for the commandment why else would you follow it in the first place and also that writing God as G-d doesn't add anymore respect to the idea than thinking about God as G-d? I mean we do not think about God with a dash, do we?

My thoughts, I agree with you, this is superficial and those who use G-d should use it in their good will as they see fit, I only do not think its just out of respect, I think it is exactly in line with the fear of the commandment of not using God's name in vain.

You're correct, perhaps I didn't choose my words well. The dash IS used out of obedience to the commandment to not take G-d's Name in vain, but, it's specifically out of obedience to the rabbinical interpretation of this commandment found in the Oral Torah. The actual commandment itself no more specifies that one can't write out the English word "God" than that one can't, as you said, think about God as "G-d." I simply was making the distinction between it being a BIBLICAL commandment (which it isn't) and being an INTERPRETATION of a commandment.
Also, when I said that it's simply out of respect and not out of keeping a commandment, I was speaking of myself personally, as I don't see the commandments of the Oral Torah as binding on believers like the Written Torah. I should've pointed that out.

Thank you for pointing this out so I could clarify.

[Ivellious]

Just a quick thought about "using God's name in vain." I have never really felt like the literal, commonly used interpretation of this commandment is really important. I mean, I understand that using God's name as an insult or for no real reason shouldn't be encouraged, but I hardly see the sin in occasionally shouting "Jesus!" when you get scared at a haunted house or the like.

Rather, I've always felt (and been taught, to be fair) that this line was an order to not use God's name as a tool to control, take advantage of, cheat, manipulate, or mislead anyone else for you benefit. In that sense, I see many televangelists, cult leaders, "religious" scams, politicians who flaunt their love of God to get votes, past leaders who used God as a way to gain power and influence, and the like as the true violators of this commandment, not the people who use "Christmas" instead of "X-mas".

That's my feeling of it anyway. I'm not saying that frivolous usage of God's name (or many names) should be encouraged, but I hardly think God cares in the slightest about how many times I've said "God only knows", and given its place in the Ten Commandments, I would classify the interpretation I gave as being much more in line with the rest, and certainly the more severe no matter how you look at it. But that's just my two cents.

[neo-x]

You're correct, perhaps I didn't choose my words well. The dash IS used out of obedience to the commandment to not take G-d's Name in vain, but, it's specifically out of obedience to the rabbinical interpretation of this commandment found in the Oral Torah. The actual commandment itself no more specifies that one can't write out the English word "God" than that one can't, as you said, think about God as "G-d." I simply was making the distinction between it being a BIBLICAL commandment (which it isn't) and being an INTERPRETATION of a commandment.
Also, when I said that it's simply out of respect and not out of keeping a commandment, I was speaking of myself personally, as I don't see the commandments of the Oral Torah as binding on believers like the Written Torah. I should've pointed that out.

Thank you for pointing this out so I could clarify.

Thank you for the clarification, I got nothing against anyone using God or G-d, just pointing out what I thought was a more subtle point.

[cheezerrox]

Just a quick thought about "using God's name in vain." I have never really felt like the literal, commonly used interpretation of this commandment is really important. I mean, I understand that using God's name as an insult or for no real reason shouldn't be encouraged, but I hardly see the sin in occasionally shouting "Jesus!" when you get scared at a haunted house or the like.

Rather, I've always felt (and been taught, to be fair) that this line was an order to not use God's name as a tool to control, take advantage of, cheat, manipulate, or mislead anyone else for you benefit. In that sense, I see many televangelists, cult leaders, "religious" scams, politicians who flaunt their love of God to get votes, past leaders who used God as a way to gain power and influence, and the like as the true violators of this commandment, not the people who use "Christmas" instead of "X-mas".

That's my feeling of it anyway. I'm not saying that frivolous usage of God's name (or many names) should be encouraged, but I hardly think God cares in the slightest about how many times I've said "God only knows", and given its place in the Ten Commandments, I would classify the interpretation I gave as being much more in line with the rest, and certainly the more severe no matter how you look at it. But that's just my two cents.

I think this is a pretty good point. Often Christians get hung up about avoiding common every-day blasphemy, and yet neglect to recognize those who TRULY blaspheme G-d and use His Name in vain. Now, not to say that using G-d's or Jesus' Names as expressions of disgust or fear isn't blasphemy, but, I think you've made a right observation that this isn't anywhere near the full scope of the commandment as it was intended.

Thank you for the clarification, I got nothing against anyone using God or G-d, just pointing out what I thought was a more subtle point.

I'm glad I could explain my words better, and that you pointed it out. Hopefully it helped explain it to others as well.

[neo-x]

Ivellious » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:12 pm

Just a quick thought about "using God's name in vain." I have never really felt like the literal, commonly used interpretation of this commandment is really important. I mean, I understand that using God's name as an insult or for no real reason shouldn't be encouraged, but I hardly see the sin in occasionally shouting "Jesus!" when you get scared at a haunted house or the like.

Rather, I've always felt (and been taught, to be fair) that this line was an order to not use God's name as a tool to control, take advantage of, cheat, manipulate, or mislead anyone else for you benefit. In that sense, I see many televangelists, cult leaders, "religious" scams, politicians who flaunt their love of God to get votes, past leaders who used God as a way to gain power and influence, and the like as the true violators of this commandment, not the people who use "Christmas" instead of "X-mas".

That's my feeling of it anyway. I'm not saying that frivolous usage of God's name (or many names) should be encouraged, but I hardly think God cares in the slightest about how many times I've said "God only knows", and given its place in the Ten Commandments, I would classify the interpretation I gave as being much more in line with the rest, and certainly the more severe no matter how you look at it. But that's just my two cents.

To the people to whom this commandment was given, to them it was actually conveyed in a more literal sense than you think. To them God was the binding force of, the legal and spiritual authority and therefore it was sacred. This was one of the reasons Christ forbade people to vow in the name of God, for if it was not done sincerely then the name and authority it carried, was used in vain.

Consider this
Numbers 30:2
If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

You can see that it was the Lord, the authority of it that made the vow legal and therefore the oath to be considered proper among people and that was done in ancient times as a legal formal thing than the usual swearing we see today. So taking the name causally or in a slandering manner was therefore an offense. Just like you can not insult a presidents mark or seal of his authority or law, it must be respected because it carries authority. You have to respect it, that is what is was for the people back then for they lived in a theocratic system unlike us today.

[Ivellious]

Good point, Neo. I guess then to a degree we can classify that usage under the "probably no longer need to follow that so closely", because that sort of ritualistic/theocratic society no longer exists for Christianity.

Though I would be curious, does that mean that the core meaning of the commandment has changed its focus with the times? Or gained new meaning? Or is my view of it simply totally off-base from the intended command?