leonardcohenforum.com

Thanks, Vicomte, for taking my answer so seriously that you broke it down into segments, with answers/further questions to each one.
A number of us are wondering why you asked in the first place.
My responses to your set of responses will go unresponded to... just because it's not worth the typing to carry it on further; for one reason that some/a lot of what you said didn't make sense in the context of all this.

LOLOL, Ken. The next available God/G-d ~ VERY funny.

Vicomte wrote:That is not an answer is it Harald.
I asked why non Jewish members would feel the need to be so patronising as to write it in such a way?

I think, cher Vicomte, your mistake lies in the word „patronising“. It´s not patronising anybody if I write a word just in the way I like to. It´s rather patronising of you criticise that.

Your question wasn´t a bad one in the first place. We got the chance to learn something from prudent postings here.
With your insisting against the use of the hyphen in the ongoing discussion one could really get the impression of the thread being started with slanted motives.

No harm in arguments here, dear Lizzy, less in non concert years.

harald wrote:
I think, cher Vicomte, your mistake lies in the word „patronising“. It´s not patronising anybody if I write a word just in the way I like to. It´s rather patronising of you criticise that.

Sorry dear Harald but I really do not believe you understand the word patronising and it's use but never mind. If you like to write the word God as G-d, or g-d, or indeed however, ask yourself the question as to whether you ever wrote it in such a way before you started to post on here? I have many friends, like all of us no doubt (well I sincerely hope we all do) and not one to my knowledge ever wrote it in such a way.

One of the things I've loved about this Forum, as well as in meeting people in person, as a result of this Forum, is learning new things, new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking about things. It's also one of the reasons that I like traveling.

Does god exist?
That is the question!
(Don't worry about the capital letter.)

Amazed how dogmatic some people can be about the ineffable...

I asked my daughter about the use of G-d a year ago. She is studying Theology at Cambridge and is focussing on Judaism. She told me bluntly that the Jewish use of G-d is an affectation of no value or significance at all, and we can all ignore it without fearing giving offence.

The point she made is that 'God' is not the name of God, and therefore may be pronounced and written freely. The School of Divinity at Cambridge University is so respectful of the wide number of religions being studied there that, out of regard for Jewish students, when my daughter was taught the name of God while learning Biblical Hebrew, the lecturer did not pronounce it aloud but simply pointed to its syllables on a slide with a stick.

Hi hydriot ~

Those two paragraphs seem to be contradictory.
I could be missing something, though.
Why would a high-level instructor take such pains to avoid offense re: an "affectation"?
That term seems to me to be offensive to the Jews who observe the hyphenated form of spelling.


~ Lizzie

Warning! Stupid joke ahead : one writes god if it is seen from the back and g-d if it is seen from the front.

Seriously, borrowing from other cultures is a natural way of life for humanity. Monkeys were we, monkesy are we.

Something that has a deep sense can be coded in a simple symbol that many people use for how many reasons that there is human beings using it, and a great number among them without being aware of the meaning.

A symbol is like a seed : it contains information that it is not the symbol and people may mistaken one for the other.

If I am not wrong, this one refers to the levels of spirituality that we can achieve while growing spiritually. But I may be wrong.

No LIKE button here, Tchoc, but I Like what you just wrote about this.

Full marks for even understanding it, let alone saying you like it. Took me back to the 60's and listening to bonkers people who told you they saw pink elephants whilst smoking a spliff, load of cobblers but there you go......

Perhaps, it's above your pay grade, Vicomte ?

Tchoc/Tchocolatl [more familiar with the "Tchoc" now] and I haven't always agreed, or necessarily even gotten along here, but there are several certainties. She is intelligent; and she thinks conceptually and deeply with a broad scope. With English not being her native language, her expressions of her thoughts may not always be 'straightforward,' but they still come through. Totally NOT "bonkers" [what a derogatory term!]; no pink elephants, no spliffs, no load of cobblers. Simply valid thoughts expressed in ways you're not used to.

hydriot wrote:I asked my daughter about the use of G-d a year ago. She is studying Theology at Cambridge and is focussing on Judaism. She told me bluntly that the Jewish use of G-d is an affectation of no value or significance at all, and we can all ignore it without fearing giving offence.

The point she made is that 'God' is not the name of God, and therefore may be pronounced and written freely. The School of Divinity at Cambridge University is so respectful of the wide number of religions being studied there that, out of regard for Jewish students, when my daughter was taught the name of God while learning Biblical Hebrew, the lecturer did not pronounce it aloud but simply pointed to its syllables on a slide with a stick.

Actually even the word "G-d" is the name of the one which art in heaven. In the Hebrew language we don't say the word "Elohim" which is the equivilant of the word "G-d" we usually say "Elokim"

Hence the splitting up of the word "G-d" is of great value here, in the age of the computer and cyper space.

lizzytysh wrote:Perhaps, it's above your pay grade, Vicomte ?

Tchoc/Tchocolatl [more familiar with the "Tchoc" now] and I haven't always agreed, or necessarily even gotten along here, but there are several certainties. She is intelligent; and she thinks conceptually and deeply with a broad scope. With English not being her native language, her expressions of her thoughts may not always be 'straightforward,' but they still come through. Totally NOT "bonkers" [what a derogatory term!]; no pink elephants, no spliffs, no load of cobblers. Simply valid thoughts expressed in ways you're not used to.

As I said, well done to you. Obviously you are far more intelligent than I to be able comprehend that particular post by Tchocolatl. My reference to bonkers is a saying well used in the UK and is not seen as terribly derogatory. Even the Mayor of London is often referred to as totally bonkers, so please do try to be sensible, you obviously think being derogatory in return is OK. This did make me grin though "Simply valid thoughts expressed in ways you're not used to". Bravo lizzy, nice one, now that is one hell of a way to say, look at me I understand gobbledeegook and you don't.

Now what does pay grade mean, it looks like it is mocking my intelligence, you appear to believe that by attempting to turn my lights off, it will make yours shine all the more brightly? I take it you are not au fait to how it was when some bonkers people thought taking cannabis made them see pink elephants?

Of course, I remember all that, Vicomte; however, it doesn't justify your taking the condescending view of being wholly dismissive of what was written and the person who wrote it. You appeared not to try to understand, but rather a big, broad sweep and you were the one being too sane, too intelligent, too unencumbered by mind-altering substances to be able to 'get' it. Your post was a throwaway to begin with... it served ONLY to put someone down for what they wrote. Nothing to do with moving any discussion forward.

I may not always deserve all the epithets (and I may deserve others) but certainly not all this attention. It is not about Tch-c-latl here.