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: <3019@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jan-84 08:23:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3019
Posted: Mon Jan  2 08:23:08 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jan-84 08:44:18 EST
References: <1603@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 22

Laura,

I would still argue that "G-d" is not a translation which can become a
holy word, since by its very nature it is not an English word. English
words do not use hyphens in place of vowels. It is clearly a substitute
for something. Therefore it will not become a holy word, as you correctly
note other substitutes have done in the past.

Yes, it is largely the attitude which counts. The restrictions on using
the English form largely relate to attitude; only the Hebrew rendition of
the Tetragrammeton is truly "holy", when you get down to the most basic
principles, although the alternative Hebrew forms have a lesser, but still
important, holiness.

Yes, it does matter what deity you are referring to. One might say
that your God is not my G-d. Again, this makes sense when you remember
that the basic idea is to remind one of the importance of the matter.

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