Even if one believes in the "G-d rules everything" religions, one doesn't necessarily believe that those who represent G-d are infallible since they are not controlled by or made perfect by their service to G-d. (Think Moses violating G-d's commands and thus being denied the privilege of passing over into the promised land.) It also doesn't necessarily mean that we believe everyone who purports to represent G-d. There are many warnings against false prophets in religious scriptures. If we accept every purported representative, then we make ourselves vulnerable to false prophets and their trickery.

"If we accept every purported representative, then we make ourselves vulnerable to false prophets and their trickery."

And the "true" prophets are...? Accepting any "representative" of G-d (why leave out the "o"?) is the result of trickery--whether external or internal. (Except for Eric Clapton).

If you don't believe in G-d, obviously you would hold that all who "represent" him are false. If you believe, as I do, you do the best you can at figuring out who is and is not a man of G-d based on what they teach and your best but obviously imperfect understanding of what G-d is. If there were an easy test, false prophets wouldn't be so convincing to so many good but imperfect humans.

If you don't believe in G-d, obviously you would hold that all who "represent" him are false. If you believe, as I do, you do the best you can at figuring out who is and is not a man of G-d based on what they teach and your best but obviously imperfect understanding of what G-d is. If there were an easy test, false prophets wouldn't be so convincing to so many good but imperfect humans.

As for the "O" thing, it's one of many Jewish traditions based on the power of the names of G-d and the reverence with which they are to be treated. One of those is to not completely write them out so as to avoid having them obliterated. Another is that certain names of G-d are pronounced only in prayer. One, as Mitch described on another post, is only pronounced within the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. So, theoretically, it hasn't been spoken in nearly 2000 years. It must seem quite silly to you, but I find that it keeps G-d in perspective for me.

Kind of like the reasons I keep kosher. I don't think G-d will condemn me to hell or whatever if I eat a ham sandwich. But it helps me reflect on my Jewish identity and what that means every time I eat.

You believe there is a power the resides in symbols for God? That the words themselves have some spiritual force or energy?

When you write G-d you have just changed the spelling. It is like when the media spells fuck, f**k, it is a difference without a distiction. The meaning is the same, just a different set of characters. You wouldn't use G-d if you didn't think it would be understood to mean God.

My DNA and tradition are usually at odds. I like to reflect on the foods flavor when I eat, or watch TV.

No, I don't think there's some sort of weird mystical power in the words. That tradition in particular is just so that the name of G-d is not obliterated, erased, etc. (The ones about speaking the names are specifically related to the power issue.) For me, whatever the origins of the tradition, it helps me keep G-d in perspective.

I like to watch TV when I eat too. It's only a momentary reflection. I don't sit there with every bite thinking, "Hmmmmmmmm.... I'm a Jew."

Seems counter-intuitive to me. The less a word is used the more likely it will fade from language.

How can you possibly keep God in perspective? That idea trivializes the scope of the idea of God.

Of course this is coming from someone who thinks the idea of God(s) is a lie about reality and its possibilities and probabilities.

The worst conditions of the human race are the product of our nature to identify with a small group. Us v Them.

That's precisely what I mean by "perspective," remaining aware of the scope of the idea of G-d and my inability to understand that idea in any kind of concrete, definitive way. Represented by the hyphen is all that I do not know, the myriad questions yet unanswered.

As for it being counterintuitive, much that is counterintuitive is none-the-less true in whatever way we can define that. Jews have kept the concept of an abstract G-d alive for thousands of years despite (or because of?) such traditions. Seems to have worked.

If the hyphen represents all that you do not know about God, I would suggest it should then be spelled G------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->infinity-and-beyond d.
Symbols are meaningless for indefinable objects.

It's the Jews who have kept God alive? At least Mitch is trying to fix that mistake. This is not a time to stay the course, traditions be damned!

No, it's the Jews who "invented" if you will both monotheism and the idea of an "abstract" G-d. This is very different from the concrete, "G-d is definitely a man", anthropomorphic G-d. (In Hebrew, there are both masculine and feminine names for G-d. The pronoun He seems more a concession to the impossibility of expressing gender neutrality in Hebrew, which is even more gendered than the Latinate languages.) Of course, Judaism also invented the concept of conscience, so we're not all bad. Really.

I'm sorry, but I will have to see the patents to believe your claims of invention.

I would also like some proof that "conscience" is a "good" concept. I have a strange feeling it is a cultural constraint on behaviors unvalued by the boss man eating grapes--you know, the W of the time.

Of course you (I assume you are speaking of Jews) are not all bad, not bad at all in fact. You are what you are, invented conscience and all.

Isn't it interesting that conscience is con + science--could be a clue!

I wish I could remember the title of a book I read some years ago. It was a comparative study of religion from an atheist's perspective. In it, the author goes into the historical evidence for the Jewish origins of monotheism, the abstract deity, and the idea of conscience.
But here's a good discussion of the "G-d" issue. http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/g-d-5558.html
As for the idea of conscience, obviously (like any idea) it can be abused. However, I like the idea of reliance on an internal guide to balance out external law.
And conscience isn't "against science". It's derived from the Latin conscientia or "knowledge within oneself". More on its etymology here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscience

I like the idea that conscience and external law come from the same place--human imagination.

Conscience: a culturally induced internal con job on reality. --Jayopedia

Just the idea that someone (you say he/she was Jewish) invented the conscience proves it does not exist but in one's imagination.

Having been an avid student of the Manhattan Project as a youngster, the recentness of that history makes me quite sure that it was mostly Jews who invented the atomic bomb.

Now that is a real invention.

Pretty much makes up for any good, real or imagined, from the invention of the unreal conscience, no?

It is my experience that conscience is usually used in a context of rationalization.

I don't know if Jews actually invented the conscience itself. I think they invented the idea of using it as a guide to morality rather than relying solely on external law. If you develop your moral sensibilities well enough, (you know, compassion, mercy, love of justice, etc.) the voice within will guide you to the right thing and let you know when you've erred.

Conscience isn't "rationalization," often rationalization is the attempt to silence conscience.

As for the origins of both conscience/external law within the human imagination, what concept isn't born within the human imagination? Even the most scientific of ideas began with a spark in someone's imagination, a moment of intuition, a questioning, an examination of possibilities.

Mostly Jews who invented the atomic bomb? Perhaps. But I didn't say Jews were perfect. I just said that we're not ALL bad.

Obviously, despite our mutual love of science, we're not going to agree on every issue. You have your perspective. I have mine. I honestly can't tell you which is better. Obviously, I'm a bit partial to my own, but partiality is hardly a measure of truth.

I must add, however, considering the sad state of intellectual debate these days, it is an honor to match wits with you. Despite what I hope is a little good-natured mockery, we've somehow managed to avoid sinking to the depths so prevalent on the net today. Perhaps there is hope yet.

The truth is, both truth and hope are very temporal and relative, and both terms are loaded with religiosity.

I did not say, "Conscience is rationalization", I said, "It is my experience that conscience is usually used in a context of rationalization."
so an attempt to rationalize away your feelings of what is good fits just as well in that context.

However I still hold to the belief that the little voice in your head is a culturally induced internal con job on reality. Be a good boy or a good girl and let your conscience be your guide.
And that, boys and girls, is how our country's policies are determined today, W stile. He listens to the little voice in his head (or gut). He believes God is with him and his conscience.

It's almost enough to make you stop and think. I guess we will see in Nov.

It is a pleasure discussing these things with you, Melina, for me as well.