"God" is not God's name. It's a title of some sort, isn't it? Scripture makes mention of many gods. Certainly, all their names weren't also "God", so it does point to the term "God" as being some sort of label. Moreover, the ancient hebrews had a particular name for god, represented by the tetragrammaton, which was not the same word as the hebrew word for either "god" or "lord". In genesis, God distinguishes himself from the other gods by calling himself the one true God, which he wouldn't have to do if God were a name of one god only or enough of a term to serve to identify him distinctly. Rather, there's a lot of text that serves an identifying purpose such as "the God of your forefathers" and "the God of Abraham" and so on. Reflecting on that for a moment, it appears that these adjectives were needed to point to this one god. In fact, in some places the tetragrammaton appears along with "God" and "Lord" as an adjective for the tetragrammaton itself. In the ancient texts that featured the tetragrammaton, the scribes replaced it's appearance with "elohim" and "adonai" ("God" and "Lord") so that no blasphemy may accidently occur by misspelling his name when transcribing (and probably also to prevent readers from accidentally mispronouncing his name) a practice which is down to today practiced by religious jews, as seen in your spelling "God" as "G_d", (although why that variation is not itself considered purposeful misspelling I have no idea, but apparently has its reason why it's considered OK to do). Not that I'm condoning disrespect or your perception of it. But you're right about how it's become very much a part of the language. I was watching some show on TV the other night on network TV, and as you may know, there is a renewed concentrated effort to stay away from all matters they believe to be indecent. They kept bleeping out the "four letter" words, but left what would be considered by you and others to be blasphemous use of the deity's name completely intact.
I'll second that Samson! The only answer, as the rest is just speculation. Of course this only applies for those who have chosen to be a believer! Have a Nice day! God Bless & GF2U! Kelly
And to think, when this thread was originally started people were just coming up with funny hypotheticals, now it's turned into ANOTHER thread on religion. Any chance we can get back to some creative answers to the original meaning of this thread ??
Gemini 315 wrote: >>>For those that are christians and are posting to this post: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain⦠and the later, â¦Unfortunately blasphemy has become a part of our language, because of allowances such as those above. And yes, saying "oh my G_D" frivolously is wrong. More importantly, lack of reverence to G_D is offensive to G_D. My post is directed to Christians who need to be weary of participating in a thread as disrespectful as this one is.<<< OK, this is a financial forum, but I wanted to point out to Gemini that the commandment he quoted was one of Judaism's top 10 far before Jesus came along. I have to tell you that I find your left-handed complementary explanations of why Jews are viewed as greedy, and how Christians, only, need to take note of a pillar of the Judeo-Christian ethic to be more than a little offensive. If you don't know where to find the references to Jews as usurers within the texts, then say so. Here's a hint, though, they don't exist. Perhaps there is commentary that reaches these conclusions, but not all commentary is viewed as being credible. The Temple sacrifices? Come on. You can do better than THAT! Why not talk about how Jews control the media and the government? It's all the same. Let me guess. You're relatively new to this "religion as a part of my daily life" thing. Sorry to unload, everyone. I originally looked at this string as being entertaining. Until I read between the lines. OT
This was your ? that I replied to with this response. http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30106&perpage=6&pagenumber=6 No where in the above referenced text do I see reference to the Jewish as collectors of usury. The post referred to the profit that was made from the exchange from a currency into temple currency, & the purchase of sacrificial animals with that, which there was also a profit from. This profit is not able to be defined by usury, as usury is collected from the act of lending money, not exchanging it. If commentary is the only other source, as in bibilical you can allude to, then your search would be in vain. While your perception of being able to read between the lines, after finding this as entertaining has led you to digress even further. Therefore I believe it may be best on my part to end our exchange here, unless there becomes a compelling reason not to. Good Luck on your quest! May God Bless You & Yours! Kelly!