# Minced Oaths: Split From Sports Thread



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.



If you're concerned about being rude then I suggest using the PM system.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.
> ...


Fixed; at least the thread heading.


----------



## etexas (Nov 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.
> ...


The PM rocks! Esp. in debates over words like h**k!


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 26, 2007)

I'm just thankful no one posted 'h-e-double hockey sticks'. I HATE hockey.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



 Thank you Chris. It is important that we treat God's justice with reverence.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.
> ...



Sorry, but I want to discourage everyone from using _that_ word.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 26, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I HATE hockey.



You will pay for that, I assure you Bob. Jim (the other Canadian) and I are coming out of our igloos, coming down to the border on our dog sleds, fueled by Canadian bacon and maple syrup and when we get to Wisconsin we are going to force you to watch Don Cherry 24 hours straight. 







EH!?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 26, 2007)

I knew that would get someone riled. Thanks for the warning Pastor Daniel.

So you are coming, not chu are?
I bedder get off da' chesterfield and put some 4 by 2's up by side and build a fortress.
Come on Thursday and bring a couple 2-4's so we can drink while we watch the game. 



Poimen said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > I HATE hockey.
> ...


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 26, 2007)

Poimen said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > I HATE hockey.
> ...




Gives me visions of this ---


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



I thought that the only word that is sinful to be merely "thrown around" in any context is God's name. Other than that, words are just sounds. If she used the word "heck" as a flavoring particle or as a noun to show emphasis then it was not a maltreatment of God's reverence.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



The term "name" of God refers to all God's attributes - including His justice. Using the word hell (or a replacement inappropriately) is taking His name in vain.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2007)

Mod. I suggest starting a _minced oath_ thread if this is going to keep going.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 26, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Mod. I suggest starting a _minced oath_ thread if this is going to keep going.



 It never ceases to amaze me how some innocuous thread can evolve into a theology debate. It's a *sports* thread, _by gum_. (Oops!) .


----------



## Gryphonette (Nov 26, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how some innocuous thread can evolve into a theology debate. It's a *sports* thread, _by gum_. (Oops!) .



It's a gift.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Are you serious? So if I say "good," "great," "big," or "mighty" I'm taking His name in vain, too? I use those words all the time, sometimes in silly contexts, I'm sure, and certainly all the time when not referring to God. 



victorbravo said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Mod. I suggest starting a _minced oath_ thread if this is going to keep going.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

> Are you serious? So if I say "good," "great," "big," or "mighty" I'm taking His name in vain, too? I use those words all the time, sometimes in silly contexts, I'm sure, and certainly all the time when not referring to God.



You can apply the terms "good", "great", "mighty" etc to various things without being guilty of profanity; however, when you use a word like "heck" which is a replacement for hell, you are making light of God's justice, and thus one of His attributes.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2007)

I'm with Daniel on this, but when I suggest a new thread, consider it a _strong _suggestion. Stop discussing this here now.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm with Daniel on this, but when I suggest a new thread, consider it a _strong _suggestion. Stop discussing this here now.




Are you able to move the posts relating to this Chris, or should I start a new thread completely?


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm with Daniel on this, but when I suggest a new thread, consider it a _strong _suggestion. Stop discussing this here now.



Sorry


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

I guess I don't have much else to say. Perhaps I'm thinking too narrowly of God's attributes but it seems like we could use all kinds of words vainly that describe God in one way or another.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I guess I don't have much else to say. Perhaps I'm thinking too narrowly of God's attributes but it seems like we could use all kinds of words vainly that describe God in one way or another.





It is certainly something we need to give more thought to. The Lord expects us to honour Him with our words.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 26, 2007)

Joking aside, I sort of agree with Daniel. I do think that minced oathes are a form of reverse legalism. We use them to avoid a literal violation of the Third Commandment. But we all agree that such manuevers don't really meet the spirit of the law. 

The reason I only sort of agree with Daniel is that I am not sure that using the word "hell" is taking God's name in vain. I think it may be close, especially if we are minimizing God's judgment while doing it. But sometimes it is a useful term to describe bad conditions. David uses it in 2 Samuel 22 to describe his sorrows. 

So I agree that guarding our tongue is commanded, but having a word ban may not be the way to do it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2007)

See my previous post on this subject.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for putting up with a grumpy moderator; and thanks to Josh for splitting the posts to a new thread.


Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Daniel on this, but when I suggest a new thread, consider it a _strong _suggestion. Stop discussing this here now.
> ...





CarolinaCalvinist said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Daniel on this, but when I suggest a new thread, consider it a _strong _suggestion. Stop discussing this here now.
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

Would someone explain to me what "minced oaths" are?


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

Nevermind, I read Andrew's link. Thanks!

My point was not that "heck" is okay because euphemisms are okay. I do think it is silly to try to get away with euphemisms (minced oaths?). However, this presupposes that saying the word for which the euphemism has been created is intrinsically sinful. I don't believe that "swear words" are sinful. Their foulness is a cultural construct. In other words, "that was a heck of a game!" isn't okay because minced oaths are, but because I don't see what's intrinsically wrong with saying "that was a hell of a game!" The word "hell" is just a sound produced by vocal chords. Linguistically it's being used in this sentence to emphasize what a great game it was. If I wanted to, I could say "that was a turkey of a game!" Logically I could insert any word. Others may not understand me, but I'm not saying anything about that animal which has also come to be identified with the vocal utterance "turkey" any more than I'm saying something about the place where bad people go, or especially about God's character, if I use the word "hell" in this sentence. I'm saying something about the game, and a particular sound is fulfilling a particular linguistic function in the sentence. I don't think that calling a woman a b**** is bad because of the word chosen, but because the speaker's heart is full of hatred. Had the speaker called her silly, his sin would have been just as great if it stemmed from hatred.

As I mentioned earlier, the only time there appears to be an exception to this is the use of God's actual name. Wouldn't rather a ban on words be a violation of the spirit of the command?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Would someone explain to me what "minced oaths" are?



David -- The following is from the Wikipedia article on minced oaths that I linked to above:



> A minced oath, also known as a pseudo-profanity, is an expression based on a profanity which has been altered to reduce or remove the disagreeable or objectionable characteristics of the original expression; for example, "gosh" used instead of "God", "darn" instead of "damn", "heck" instead of "hell", ...



And the following is from the other article that I link to:



> What is a MINCED OATH? The verb "mince" means "to lessen the force of, to weaken, as by euphemism." What does the word EUPHEMISM mean? A euphemism is "the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distasteful, less offensive, etc. than another" (from a tract entitled "Christian Cursing" by J.W.Hiebert published by Tabernacle Baptist Church in Lubbock, TX). What we have then is one word or phrase being substituted for another. Instead of using the Name of God, we use a substitute word in place of God's name that sounds better and is less offensive. Instead of using a swear word we use a substitute word that actually means the same but does not sound as bad. Thus we can say that a MINCED OATH is "a form of cursing that replaces a direct curse word with a more acceptable word [better sounding word] which in effect does the same thing" (Ibid.).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Joking aside, I sort of agree with Daniel. I do think that minced oathes are a form of reverse legalism. We use them to avoid a literal violation of the Third Commandment. But we all agree that such manuevers don't really meet the spirit of the law.
> 
> The reason I only sort of agree with Daniel is that I am not sure that using the word "hell" is taking God's name in vain. I think it may be close, especially if we are minimizing God's judgment while doing it. But sometimes it is a useful term to describe bad conditions. David uses it in 2 Samuel 22 to describe his sorrows.
> 
> So I agree that guarding our tongue is commanded, but having a word ban may not be the way to do it.



I think it all depends on the context in which it is used; it is using the word "hell" in a flippant manner that I want to discourage.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Nevermind, I read Andrew's link. Thanks!



Sorry, my post came after yours, but I'll leave it up for reference.

Also, the November 2006 issue of _The Presbyterian Banner_, published by the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, which treats the subject of profanity and minced oaths, is worth reading for any who may be interested. It be can downloaded as a pdf document here.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 26, 2007)

OK, This is starting to get silly.

This sounds like 'seven degree's of Kevin Bacon" for pete's sake. (Pete is my second cousin who is famous for extrapolating to the extreme, not a reference to any member of the Godhead, or to any atribute of said Godhead)

The law of God says to not take his name "... in vain...". It does not say to "avoid all tertiary references that may be considered a substitute for a use of my name".

No one on this board needs a reminder of what blasphemy is. Perhaps we do need a reminder of what it IS NOT.

It is not obscenity. Literally "off scene" or out of sight, or unmentioned, obscenity is the use of a word that is "out of place" in "polite" company. It includes references to any activity that involves disrobing. Scatological refences, refernces to bodily functions, or references to the sex act are the primary examplars.

It is not a refence to the healthy functions of the human body. Words that describe such functions are often out of place, but they are not a violation of God's commandment.

It is not a honest opinion. If I honestly believe, and feel convinced by God's word that a certain behavior deserves the aprobation of our Heavenly Father, then I may sincerly declare this condemnation. Sometimes "God Damn him/it" is the only suitable response. This is no more out of place them regular pronouncement of God's blessing, or His peace on those who deserve it.

It is not an explitive. The fact that the wicked use Gods name as an explitive is not a convincing arguement (to me), that from hence forth that particular part of speach is forever verbotten. I may use any number of (non-blasphemous) explitives when I hit my thumb with a hammer. By saying "Oh, Sugar" or even "Oh, *****" I have not diminished the Glory of God one iota. I have only verbalised the shock and pain of hitting my thumb with a hammer.

I have great respect for some of those who have posted against "minced oath's", however I must say that this smacks of legalism to me. Darn it!


----------



## Augusta (Nov 26, 2007)

Kevin, did you read the link Andrew put up? I will post the most pertinent part for easy viewing. 



> What is a MINCED OATH? The verb
> "mince" means "to lessen the force of, to
> weaken, as by euphemism." What does the
> word EUPHEMISM mean? A euphemism is
> ...


----------



## Kevin (Nov 26, 2007)

yes.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2007)

Kevin said:


> OK, This is starting to get silly.
> 
> This sounds like 'seven degree's of Kevin Bacon" for pete's sake. (Pete is my second cousin who is famous for extrapolating to the extreme, not a reference to any member of the Godhead, or to any atribute of said Godhead)
> 
> ...



I would agree with a lot of what you say, blasphemy is not profanity (profanity is small a breach of the third commandment, blasphemy - cursing God - is a more extreme form of it). Also, there are times when we can use the word "damn" to describe something that is wicked. And I also agree that to use the "s" word is not sinful, as Paul seems to have used it in Phil. 3:8. But it is _not_ legalism to want people to regard the attributes of God as Holy by refraining from a flippant use of His attributes in speech.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Nov 27, 2007)

This really boils down to the intent of the heart, something the Lord only knows, but when I make use of the words drat! darn! or curses! I am not seeking to blasphemy, I'm either being playfully expressive or voicing mild irritation.

If truly angry I tend to curse like a real man, I assure you one thing I've never been accused of is half-effort and that goes for the way I sin too, all out.


----------



## bob (Nov 27, 2007)

It is prudent for the saints to take great caution with the use of the tongue. The Scriptures are replete with instances of its abuse and I fear that we tend to sin very frequently with it.

There is no doubt that we should be take care to be very careful not to take the Lord's name in vain. I try to refrain from the use of any slang that applies to the Lord's name. I certainly take no offense from those who might apply these terms more broadly than I.

It is not my intent to fence with those who refrain from the casual use of the words "damn" or "hell", but I would like to pose a question to them.

Could it not be appropriate to suppose that words could have a general meaning as well as a theological meaning? When the Scriptures employ certain words as they are translated into other tongues, I am not sure we always need to refrain from using those words in a casual or general way.

For example, the word damn, while employed often in our English Bibles, is defined as "to condemn, to declare as guilty, to adjudge to sentence or punishment". When used in theology, "to doom to eternal punishment, curse, to consign to perdition." Is it necessary to lose the use of the word "damn" in a general application because English translators chose to use it in the tranlsation of the Scriptures. This past summer I damned the poison ivy lying around the house. I may have even uttered a "darn it" when I had a foot full of it. Perhaps using the phrase as an ejaculation crosses the line, I am not sure, but if it does, its misuse ought to apply the heart of the matter (uttering an ejaculation) as opposed to fencing over the terms used.

By the same token the word "hell" is defined as a "place of turmoil and pain." It is also has a theological meaning. I personally have no issue with its use. After crawling out of the basement following a severe thunderstorm the prhase "That was a hell of a storm." would strike me as an appropriate use of the term. Of course, the phrase is today used somewhat metaphorically to describe things that are somewhat outlandish and out of the norm: "That was a hell of a football game." Of course, it was a place of literal turmoil and pain for the Bears running back Benson who was carted off the field, but I think the term was used more to describe the wild ending of the game.

To accuse those who employ these terms as sinning against the third commandment is going a little far, in my opinion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2007)

> To accuse those who employ these terms as sinning against the third commandment is going a little far, in my opinion.




I think that it is fair to say that those of us who do consider minced oaths a sin against the third commandment, only consider it to be a small sin, just like a lustful glance is. We are not saying that we are better than anyone else, or that we don't break the third commandment ourselves in various other ways. It is just a bit of brotherly exhortation.


----------



## etexas (Nov 27, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Mod. I suggest starting a _minced oath_ thread if this is going to keep going.
> ...


My wife found me on the floor after reading Vic's HORRID gum! I had to have smelling salts and have a lace hanky waved under my nose for a bit! I think I had the vapors! (By the way, I am making fun of NO ONES position! I have always wanted an excuse to use the word vapors!)


----------

