[HANASHIR:12279] Re: question on words. one word, actually.

[I.Oppenheim <i.oppenheim...>]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 Freedabet (at) aol(dot)com wrote:

> But, according to the logic of this issue, if
> ... have become 'actual names of God' then
> we shouldn't use them even in a bracha or service
> context, right?

While we consider God to be our Father, at the same
time we consider Him to be our King.

To a father one can feel close. However, in order to
pay respect to a king, one has to approach him using
the accepted protocol.

All such protocols are arbitrary, traditional and to a
certain extent questionable. However, if I were invited
by the Queen of the Netherlands, I would conform to the
appropriate protocol in order to show my respect to her
and what she represents. So much the more if I want to
approach the Supreme King by calling His Name, is it
respectful to do so according to the accepted protocol.

The accepted protocol directs us to use certain Names
in a berakhah or in a passuk, and certain Names within
other contexts. That's all we need to do, to show a
little respect to God.

> And, how and when did 'God' become
> an 'actual name of God'?

'God' is not a name of God, just as 'president' is not
a name of George Bush.


Groeten,

  Irwin Oppenheim
  i(dot)oppenheim (at) xs4all(dot)nl
  www.xs4all.nl/~danio/chazzanut/

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+