Not spelling out G-d's name. ?

[Smber2c]

However, I find this whole thread silly, telling someone that a perfectly harmless- yes harmless- show of personal respect isn’t “correct”.

I won’t say that you and the OP’s opinions are not valid; people are free to think as they like. But, I think scripture makes it fairly clear that God does desire a close and personal relationship with all people.

The sort of relationship that allows us to call our parents Mommy and Daddy when others call them Mr. and Mrs. Smith. If people choose to deny that kinship, I do feel it is harmful. Just as I feel my cousins calling their dad “Greg” seems damaging.

Again, I’m not saying that your opinion is invalid, but I do feel that it isn’t “correct.”

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t really see this as harmless for Catholics. … How much more should we be obedient to God when He says call me Father, Abba, Jesus, etc…?

Respectfully, we took everything from the Jews, so why not this as well?
I think of it as a representation of the Trinity to be quite specific about what I believe.

G-d
G= Father
-= Holy Spirit
d= Jesus

god
Pagan gods and goddesses, ets…

God
Is the God of Abraham and Moses, and the the Father Jesus spoke about. I think Mohammedans know of God, but do not Know him as he really is. Allah does not share the same attributes of God. I share your concern in the proper use of the name of God.

I use God most often to not stear the topic debate away from another OP, but this is a thread about it. Talking to other Catholics specifically I do not feel prompted to use it because they already accept this distinction.

When the subtle distinction is important to me in what I mean to write to a non-Catholic, I like to use G-d.

God has no name, no gender, no physicality, nothing. It is the most amazing attribute I think there is about God. It is how some Atheists can reasonably conclude there is no God. A paradox with two absolute conclusions: God either IS, or is not.

More things point to IS, not the least of which is the human record of it, than points to no Creator at all. That is as true (not True) a faith, to not believe in God, imo.

Dis-respectfully Islam took from the Jews and the Church only part of what we took/share with the Jews, and calls the rest unreliable. When Mohammedans say Allah is God, and God said:

Then whoever disputes with you concerning him (Iesa (Jesus)) after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, (i.e. Iesa (Jesus)) being a slave of Allah, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad SAW) “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves - then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allah upon those who lie.”
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #61)

You don’t think God said that, do you? They deny G-d. They believe in god who they think is God. Allah is a god or worse.

I share your respect for the name of God. But God is more than a name or title. From nothing, G-d is everything.

 

[Smber2c]

Let me start by saying, I’m not sure I really understood all that your (Verismilitude) post was trying to say. But there are parts of interest.

Respectfully, we took everything from the Jews, so why not this as well?

I agree that we take much from the Jews and I have great respect for their practices and teachings…but we do not take everything they hold to be true.
There is much midrash that we do not accept. We have a different Old Testament Cannon than what they accepted. Our views of heaven and hell differ. We of course feel that many exents they wait for have already occured. So, really it is no surprise to me that our undertanding of human relationships with God would differ. As would our prefered method of referring to Him.

God has no name, no gender, no physicality, nothing. It is the most amazing attribute I think there is about God. It is how some Atheists can reasonably conclude there is no God. A paradox with two absolute conclusions: God either IS, or is not.

I share your respect for the name of God. But God is more than a name or title. From nothing, G-d is everything.

I struggle a bit to see what God having being nothing has to do with G-d or God…so maybe I’ve missed your point; but be it your point or be it your premise, I don’t agree. God does have a name. At least one of His persons has a gender. And one of His persons has physicality. He doesn’t need any of these things, but He has chosen them and therefore they are.

God the Father - seemingly no physicality, and seemingly no gender (though many allusions to Fatherhood and references as He, Him)

Jesus - has a body/physicality, and took the form of a male.

Holy Spirit - no physicality, and no gender.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Let me start by saying, I’m not sure I really understood all that your (Verismilitude) post was trying to say. But there are parts of interest.

It is hard to explain personal inflections. I think I’ll stop now about why or why not I write what I write. But, I’m open to talking about the other things.

I agree that we take much from the Jews and I have great respect for their practices and teachings…So, really it is no surprise to me that our undertanding of human relationships with God would differ. As would our prefered method of referring to Him.

Prefered is the key word. As long as the reference to God is respectfull, and refers to God properly their are many names for God. None are sufficient to fully identify.

God does have a name.

“…they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ “”

Asked and answered.

At least one of His persons has a gender. And one of His persons has physicality.

Only one manifestation of his Being took such form.

He doesn’t need any of these things, but He has chosen them and therefore they are.

I agree. We needed them.

God the Father - seemingly no physicality, and seemingly no gender (though many allusions to Fatherhood and references as He, Him)

Jesus - has a body/physicality, and took the form of a male.

Holy Spirit - no physicality, and no gender.

Just prior to the Big Bang there was an eternity to God already. Jesus is of God. Jesus is God. Before humanity the person of Jesus was not needed.

Greater minds than mine have long pondered and dared to define the Trinity, and I do not have the skill to reformulate their prose in succinct fashion. My thoughts often get ahead of my slow fingers, and difficult conditions leave my vocabulary lacking. I said above “Jesus was not needed” for that particular context…and really don’t want to sidebar the topic trying to explain what many might reject as heresy because the very words “not needed” are being used. God did not need Jesus, we needed Jesus because we need God.

God is more than the Trinity. For what God was before the Big Bang, He is today. The direct personal knowledge of God by our First Parents was not enough seemingly, and the ways in which He revealed Himself to the Patriarchs and true prophets STILL culminated in His having to come Himself. Either humanity is just plain stupid or we take our Free Will further than intended.

I think of it like the five senses or the different dimensional levels…I think there are something like 12 dimensions now. We needed 3 dimensions of God to get it through stubborn heads. 5 out of 6 people still don’t “get it” as we Catholics do.

It’s like the rowboat joke.

What’s in a name? Nothing. (God is Nothing- remember? )

What’s behind the name? Everything.