From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: G-d or G*d?
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:47:47 GMT

In article <emc.721944213@keiko> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>I have long been interested in the repect shown to God by
>not spelling out His name in full.  So we have,
>
>Elokim, (instead of Elohim)
>Y*VH   (instead of YHVH)
>G-d (most common in English)
>G*d
>Gd
>(all instead of God)
>etc.
>
>I have several questions about this:
>
>1. Suppose you happened to stumble on a desert island,
>   and you found a lost Jewish community that had been that had been
>   stranded on that island for 500 years and was keeping many
>   Jewish traditions without knowing why.  They commonly 
>   referred to God as "G-d" (or the equivalent in their language).
>   Would you go about changing another vowel or consonant of the
>   now commonly used name to show your repect?  That is would you
>   use "G-b" instead of "G-d" (remember "G-d" is being used liberaly
>   by everybody on the island).
>
>2. Suppose that you instituted the change, and after a few years
>   everyone was using "G-b" instead of "G-d".  Where someone had
>   said "G-d" before, he was now saying "G-b".  Should you try to
>   change "G-b" to something else, say "G-t"?  Should this be done
>   every once in a while, to make sure that there was a respectful
>   term for G-b...I mean G-d?
>
>3. Considering your answer to questions 1 and 2, and considering that
>   the common name for God on SCJ is G-d, should we begin to use
>   a more respectful name?  In other words, I know what you mean
>   by G-d, and you know what you mean by G-d, so whenever we see
>   G-d we automatically know that it refers to God?  Should we 
>   use an even more respecful term that is not commonly used?
>
>4. Should we refer to false gods with deleted vowels or consonants,
>   for instance "J*s*s" as many have done?  Is not the deleting of
>   vowels or consonants a way to make a name more respectful by not
>   writing it in full?
>
>5. Should we have an equivalent to "G-d" in speech?  Should we say
>   Hashem ("the name" literally in Hebrew) instead of saying God?
>   Is it more respectful to completely bypass saying the name of 
>   God.  So instead we should say Hashem said this, or Hashem 
>   did that?  When it becomes commonly used, should we delete a
>   vowel?  For instance "Hash-m"? Or two, "H-sh-m"?
>
>6. If someone writes "G-d", do you automatically know that this person
>   is a good Jew who respects God?  If that is the case, can
>   writing "G-d" be a good criterion for judging which Jews respect God 
>   and which don't?  Is this a good external sign of the person's
>   internal attitude?
>
>I would be interested in your comments.
>
>--
>Eli Chiprout                 
>Dept. of Electronics, 
>Carleton University, Canada
>emc@doe.carleton.ca                                     

I think that the real obligation is not to bandy about a certain
Hebrew word of four letters.  There are derivative obligations
with regard to other Hebrew words which may be regarded as extensions
of the primary obligation.  The English word "God" is not a name of
God in any legitimate sense (it is in origin a common noun for
referring to pagan deities!) and so we are under no obligation to
abbreviate it.  It seems to be already an adequately indirect way of
referring to Him.

To euphemism I say (as King Canute once said to the sea), "Thus far
and no farther!" 


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu