Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: "G-d" and destroying holy names - reposting of the rules
Message-ID: <2971@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Dec-83 09:05:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.2971
Posted: Mon Dec 19 09:05:29 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Dec-83 09:34:52 EST
References: <6434@unc.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 16

From Tim Maroney:
-- Interesting, but with regards to English language translations still being
-- holy and it being preferable to write "G-d", doesn't that make "G-d" itself
-- into a translation, and leave you right where you started?

It's possible, but I think not. "G-d" is so different from normal
English words (normal English words don't have hyphens in them,
after all), that it's quite visibly a substitution for something.
Of course there's nothing "magical" about the letters "g", "o" and
"d". The reason for not writing the name is partly for our own sake -
it reminds the writer and reader of the sanctity of the topic of
discussion.

Dave Sherman
-- 
 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave