# Is "By Jove" a minced oath?



## Rufus (Aug 1, 2012)

Is it? Jove being the Pagan god Jupiter, I actually think that by blaspheming Jove we are asserting his non-existence and so forth.

And if so, is reading P.G. Wodehouse then a sin?


----------



## Andres (Aug 1, 2012)

What does your conscience say?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 1, 2012)

That's something of a difficult question. Formally, it's not minced because it's not toned down in any way. If you were a serious Roman polytheist swearing to confirm the truth of a statement you might say something like that. Of course, used in a context where no one actually believes in Jove it may functionally be a minced oath - a mild (because disbelieved) replacement for swearing by the name of the true God. I would take it that this is how the people Wodehouse writes of actually used it: not intending a statement about paganism at all, simply trying to express their feelings without running too obviously afoul of reverence for the Lord's name.

Blasphemy is more complex than simply asserting non-existence. Blasphemy _can_ involve a sort of deliberate challenge, where you are saying that the object of your blasphemy does not exist or at any rate is powerless to uphold the honor of his name. But in certain cases (casual blasphemy comes to mind) it also involves a recognition that the object of blasphemy is of significance for you, that it belongs to your culture. Swearing by the name of the Lord is a mark of the restoration of true religion; swearing casually by that name is an indication that true religion is in decay, but still recognized. Swearing seriously by the name of another god is idolatry (and secondarily blasphemy), because it formally violates the first commandment; swearing lightly by the name of God is blasphemy, because it violates the third commandment.

The line from that to reading P.G. Wodehouse being a sin is not quite so straightforward, however. It will depend on your view of literature in general, and what is permissible and not, and in what quantities, and to what end.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 1, 2012)

I grew up in the habit of saying "gosh" by way of an all-purpose exclamation, but a few years ago a friend alerted me to the fact that it caused offence to her little girl, since it was an obvious euphemism (not the word the little girl used). It hadn't even occurred to me before but it was obviously true, so I stopped saying it. 
I would have said that "by Jove" was a euphemism in a very similar way, and the same with all those ingenious phrases that just happen to have the initial letters j and c.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 1, 2012)

Some guidelines, recently posted:

Minced Oaths « - The Continuing Story -

Set a watch over it! « - The Continuing Story -


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 1, 2012)

I'd say evaluate this one according to Conscience and Scripture, "Meat unto idols."


----------



## Edward (Aug 1, 2012)

If your theology permits you to swear by a false god, go ahead and use the phrase. I wouldn't count it as a minced oath, but rather a violation of the First Commandment, not the Third. I'd refer you to question and answer 105 of the Larger Catechism.


----------



## Rufus (Aug 2, 2012)

Edward said:


> If your theology permits you to swear by a false god, go ahead and use the phrase. I wouldn't count it as a minced oath, but rather a violation of the First Commandment, not the Third. I'd refer you to question and answer 105 of the Larger Catechism.



But it's mocking and showing disbelief to a false God.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 2, 2012)

Rufus said:


> But it's mocking and showing disbelief to a false God.


it may be if you say it with that conscious understanding, but don't most people use it (the ones who use it at all) just as a substitute for the more standard thoughtless blasphemy?


----------



## Edward (Aug 2, 2012)

Upon reflection, my original post was too narrow. In addition to the invocation of a false god, there are also oath taking implications. I'd also reference WCF 22:2

"II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred....


----------



## caoclan (Aug 3, 2012)

I'm sorry... this may be a stupid question... but who gets to define what a minced oath is? Who defines it? Is it prohibited in the Bible, if so, where? I don't think one's conscience should be bound on a made-up objection (if, indeed, it is made up). Is saying something like "Oh my gosh/goodness" or "By jove" or "holy moley" taking an oath or swearing? BTW, this is a serious question, not a snide post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

caoclan said:


> Is it prohibited in the Bible, if so, where?



The Ten Commandments.

I'd suggest that you start with them, and the Westminster Larger Catechism's explication in Questions 99-148, and the accompanying scripture proofs. Westminster Larger Catechism 91-150


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 3, 2012)

Not everyone thinks so, Sean. I have heard godly people on both sides of the "minced oath" question.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 3, 2012)

Mrs. Rothenbuhler, I see statements like yours above brought in to a variety of contexts, so I'd like to take this opportunity to make a remark about that. "Godliness" is _not_ defined by "what godly people do or think." As the old saw goes, the best of men are men at best. Since we all have fairly generous portions of indwelling sin remaining in us, since God sanctifies us all at different rates and with a differing order of treatment, and since the amount of thought put into something and the amount of light received on it vary from person to person, it is always inadequate to say, "Well X does or says so and so, so it must not be outside the pale." The conclusion doesn't follow. A man after God's own heart was also capable of adultery, murder, and bad parenting. While we rejoice in the truth that an overall pattern of godliness is not destroyed by an occasional lapse or the existence of a blind spot, it does not mean that the lapses and blind spots can be considered as part and parcel of godliness, or even as in principle consistent with it. David was godly - but not when it came to Uriah. A generally godly person who holds to an ungodly position _on that point_ is not godly, even if the existence of that sin or blind spot does not overthrow the whole work of grace. 

Or to put it more succinctly, such cases must be decided on the _merits_ not by a comparison of the _advocates_.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 3, 2012)

There are two parts to a "minced oath." The "minced" part, and the "oath" part.

"Minced" means "trying to reduce the force of." It also has connotations of being affected in pretense of delicacy. A minced oath is therefore an oath that the speaker is trying to make seem not like an oath, or trying to make it an inoffensive oath.

"By Jove" is clearly an oath, even if a mocking one. It is calling upon a false god. And it may not be taking the name of the True God, but it is an oath in vain nonetheless.

And Jesus taught us that making oaths is a serious matter, not to be trifled with. He criticized the blind guides who tried to come up with distinctions between valid and invalid oaths in Matthew 23:16 and following.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## caoclan (Aug 3, 2012)

Edward said:


> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> > Is it prohibited in the Bible, if so, where?
> ...



This is the kind of response that bugs me. I ask a serious question, then get a wide open "The Ten Commandments". How condescending! That's akin to me asking someone where they are right now and they respond "on planet Earth." I've read those before, and have never come across the part which defines and explains minced oaths, at least not in most of the examples I gave above. I could see how "By Jove" could be considered taking an oath or swearing, but in the other examples I gave, I do not (i.e. "oh my goodness" or "gosh"). 

Is "Jove" a pagan god (I have never heard that expression, BTW, I just inserted it into my post because it was the example used in the OP)? It seems to me for some, it could cause offense because it could sound as a replacement for swearing, possibly. It is certainly not the intention with which I use it. It is simply an exclamatory phrase, with no hidden meaning. Is there an inspired list of "minced oaths" or is that left up to each believer/community of believers in each language to make those calls?

Also, you "cite" 49 catechism questions for me to review. Do they all speak on minced oaths? Not helpful, Edward.

Victor, your response was more in line with what I was looking for, and I see your point with the "by Jove" phrase (and again, I have never heard of that phrase before). But, how about my other examples?

This issue interested me, because one day, while listening to Wretched Radio, Todd Friel was going through a whole list of supposed "minced oaths" and it seemed to me to fall into the "binding another's conscious" realm.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

caoclan said:


> Also, you "cite" 49 catechism questions for me to review. Do they all speak on minced oaths? Not helpful, Edward.



Up thread, I referenced the Question and answers and the portion of the confession that directly address your question. Since you seemed unfamiliar with our confessional standards, I do commend to your attention the entire section on the 10 Commandments. 

Your initial question suggest a lack of understanding of the difference between taking the name of the Lord in vain (minced oath) and swearing by a false god (idolatry). 

But, since you want it spelled out, start with

Thou shall have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain

These are specifically dealt with in 103 - 106 and 111-114. 

In addition, since it swearing by 'something', Chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession is implicated. Chapter XXII 

Surely it is not too much to ask of a sincere seeker to read 17 questions and answers, and 7 short paragraphs of the Confession, and take a glance at the scriptural support. 

As a member of the PCA, you are not required to subscribe to the confessional documents. You have, however, taken an oath to uphold the peace and purity of the church and "that you will endeavor to live as is proper for the followers of Christ". That means guarding your tongue (and pen). 

You might also search the PB. We've had discussions of this question before. Just type 'minced oath' in the site search box.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 3, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Some guidelines, recently posted:
> 
> Minced Oaths « - The Continuing Story -
> 
> Set a watch over it! « - The Continuing Story -



If you wish to participate in this discussion please take the few minutes necessary to read the two linked documents provided here.


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Failure to do so is a display of discourtesy to those who are seeking to make progress in the ground already gained.



I'm sorry, but I don't understand that comment.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 3, 2012)

I know it's best to be on the safe side, but I'd be very happy to be assured that "holy moley" is ok to say.
For some reason it's always really amused me


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 3, 2012)

Edward said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't understand that comment.



Edward the two links provided by Wayne are spot on and to refuse to take a few minutes to read them not only despises proffered help but invites rehashing points that have been answered.


----------



## JoannaV (Aug 3, 2012)

Perhaps it is safest to retrain our tongues to say "eek" and "ow" and "argh" and "aahh" and "um" and "hmm" and "uh" and "whoa". In cases when we need a longer phrase, how about "oh my heart!" (as in shock/excitement/astonishment could cause your heart to skip a beat?) or you know, I'm sure there are other satisfactory phrases we could think up.

There are some sounds/words which are considered by some to be minced oaths but others may view them as pure sounds. Perhaps in one region/country it's used more in one way than the other. So we can learn from one another, both to avoid certain words and to be gracious in our assumptions when we run across a random person in the street who utters something slightly questionable. Personally I wince when I hear "Yikes" but had always thought of "gee" (both hard and soft g) as some kind of American word similar to "um". As in a sound made to tell someone you heard their question and are responding but need to think a bit. I see that link says golly is an euphemism for God. If I thought about it at all, I would associate it with golliwogs. So I learnt something

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 3, 2012)

Joanna, you have hit upon the problem I have with the "minced oaths" idea, in that anyone can decide what a minced oath is, and then condemn you for saying it. If not actually condemn you, then they can and sometimes do sort of shun you or decide you are a weaker brother or ignorant or not sanctified enough or whatever.

I have mentioned in another thread that I have been seriously told, by an ordained man(!), that I should not use any interjection that starts with any letter that would be a minced oath. Therefore, for example, I should not say "Aha!" because there are bad words that start with "A." I should not say, "Bother!" because there are bad words that begin with "B." I should not say "Crimeny!" because there are bad words that begin with "C." And so on.

In point of fact I say Aha, Bother and Criminy all the time, and I use interjections a lot, as I am a very expressive person and I love language. I particularly love English and descriptive words and unique adjectives and precise nouns. My emotions are generally strong and I express them (except when I discern that they are sinful emotions.) Anyone who knows me can attest to that. So I am not pretending to be that way so that I can enjoying pretending to swear or some such nonsense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Edward the two links provided by Wayne are spot on and to refuse to take a few minutes to read them not only despises proffered help but invites rehashing points that have been answered.



Thanks, I agree that they are directly on point. But when folks start talking about 'made up objections' it's probably time to go not to tracts, but to scripture, and I find the Confession and Catechisms to be one of the best indexes out there. So it wasn't intended as a discourtesy to Mr. Sparkman and his efforts on this thread to head a different direction.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 3, 2012)

One of the most relevant sections of the Westminster Larger Catechism would be Question 113, on the third commandment :



> Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is
> required;579 and the abuse of it in an ignorant,580 vain,581 irreverent, profane,582 superstitious583
> or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes,584 ordinances,585 or works,586 by
> ...



(the Scripture proofs, indicated by the footnote numbers, can be found here: http://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Larger_Catechism.pdf)

Some necessary background : The approach taken here by the Catechism is based on the idea that if Scripture says "Thou shalt not..." then by necessary inference, it is also teaching the converse "Thou shalts". With that premise in hand, Puritan exegesis would routinely come up with conclusions such as you see above in the Catechism.

But beyond all that, the direct statement of our Lord in Matthew 5:33-37 should suffice in any situation:



> 33 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’
> 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
> 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
> 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
> 37 But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.



We all tend to live by habits, and to allow a habit of using oaths, vows, and similar expressions as a regular part of your speech patterns inevitably runs the risk of abuse.

Matthew Henry is a great, freely available, almost always reliable, resource. Here's what he has to say on Mt. 5:33-37 :



> We have here an exposition of the third commandment, which we are the more concerned right to understand, because it is particularly said, that God will not hold him guiltless, however he may hold himself, who breaks this commandment, by taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now as to this command,
> 
> I. It is agreed on all hands that it forbids perjury, forswearing, and the violation of oaths and vows, Matthew 5:33. This was said to them of old time, and is the true intent and meaning of the third commandment. Thou shalt not use, or take up, the name of God (as we do by an oath) in vain, or unto vanity, or a lie. He hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, is expounded in the next words, nor sworn deceitfully, Psalms 24:4. Perjury is a sin condemned by the light of nature, as a complication of impiety toward God and injustice toward man, and as rendering a man highly obnoxious to the divine wrath, which was always judged to follow so infallibly upon that sin, that the forms of swearing were commonly turned into execrations or imprecations; as that, God do so to me, and more also; and with us, So help me God; wishing I may never have any help from God, if I swear falsely. Thus, by the consent of nations, have men cursed themselves, not doubting but that God would curse them, if they lied against the truth then, when they solemnly called God to witness to it.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Zach (Aug 3, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Some guidelines, recently posted:
> 
> Minced Oaths « - The Continuing Story -
> 
> Set a watch over it! « - The Continuing Story -



Reading these links was very helpful, thanks for sharing them Wayne. I was seriously convicted about how I speak while reading them and I am certainly hoping to endeavor, by the grace of God, to bridle my tongue. I often used to violate the third commandment and take the Lord's name in vain and while I was trying to break that habit I was often corrected and told to say, "Oh my gosh," rather than take the Lord's name in vain. I still often say, "Oh my gosh," in conversation. Many Christians, in an attempt to keep the Third Commandment, are taught to use minced oaths instead.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2012)

Some other "minced oaths"

Strewth - God's truth

Cor blimey - God blind me

Jings, Crivens, Help ma Boab! - Jesus, Christ, Help me God!

Many people have no knowledge that these expressions are minced oaths, and so use them perfectly sinlessly.


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Aha, Bother and Criminy



A-Ha was the name of a 1980s one hit band that tried to replicate ABBA. And bother appears to be used in its usual sense. So I don't see any problem with either of those. 

Crimeny, on the other hand, while there seems to be some uncertainty as to its origin, appears to be a minced reference to Christ (all 3 dictionaries I consulted agree as to that), and I'd urge you to substitute an Anglo-Saxon vulgarity as a less objectionable option.


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> and so use them perfectly sinlessly.



I'm not sure that I can go with that.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 3, 2012)

I wonder if there may not be some misunderstandings reflected in the thread: if so, it might be good to lay out the basics.

When we speak of "swearing" there are two meanings we could have in mind: one is the positive meaning of taking an oath or making a vow; the other is the negative meaning of using foul or coarse or violent or inappropriately forceful language. It is easy to see how the one meaning arose from the other, because taking an oath when one is not called for is a clear instance of inappropriately forceful language.

Now the Bible is in favor of swearing in the first sense, provided it is done intelligently, reverently, sparingly, upon proper occasion, and with invocation of the proper object. Thus the Lord himself swears, "As I live" and his people say, "As the Lord liveth". But other forms of swearing, such as "by my head," or "by my beard" or "upon my mother's grave" and so forth are ruled out: it should go without saying that swearing "By Chemosh" or "By Artemis" are not permissible forms of expression for a believer, because we cannot summon them to witness or to avenge - or not without a gross betrayal of our profession that the Lord is our God. Now since in proper swearing we invoke God as witness to the truth of what we say and as executor of vengeance if we fail in the vow we take, it is obvious that this should not be done rashly or lightly. No invocation of God is a merely _casual_ matter.

Now people use oaths to give vigor and emphasis, salt and (in the older sense) raciness to their language; but where there is recognition that invoking of God casually is irreverent, they may try to soften it: "Zounds" for "God's wounds", etc. But Christ taught us against being the sort of people who _need_ that kind of emphasis in our speech. Our yea is yea, our nay is nay, and there's an end on it. It doesn't mean our language is dry and savorless; it means we have other resources than one or two exclamations and a tiny selection of profanities and vulgarities with which to add salt to our speech.

Then there comes the matter of euphemisms. They are certainly not always wrong: they reflect a certain delicacy and restraint, and if their use sometimes means that one doesn't have the courage of his convictions, it can also mean that one seeks to avoid filthiness and folly in speech. But invoking God euphemistically is still invoking God, just as in Victorian England saying "limb" still communicated "leg". This is the argument behind opposing exclamations like "Oh my goodness." As a Christian, God is my goodness - goodness is his title and attribute. I certainly have no goodness of my own to invoke. So in any situation where it would be inappropriate to say "Oh my God" (a good and Biblical phrase, in itself), it would also be inappropriate to say "oh my goodness."

It is also important to distinguish between our own intention, and the public acceptation of something. I clearly remember my sister remarking, on the slowest and least eventful day of the year, "Man, it's hectic today." Some clever joker at camp had informed her that "hectic" meant "boring." Now her intention was not unclear; but in public acceptation, "hectic" is not an appropriate word to signalize a space of time as wearisomely uneventful. So many who used terms and phrases whose provenance is an oath minced to taste have no intention of "swearing," of invoking God casually or inappropriately: they are not aware of the public acceptation of the phrase. Intention is private, and we are to believe the best that we can of the intentions of others; but the meaning of the words is not private ("There's glory for you!"). Outside of a private area (such as our own mind or writings where we have reasons to develop a customized vocabulary), it is incumbent upon us to use words in a public way. A child or a foreigner may make sounds which to us sound obscene or blasphemous, meaning nothing of the kind; someone may use inappropriate interjections while being at the same time deeply horrified at the prospect of dishonoring God with their speech; but it is not only the intent that matters. If it were, language would be an entirely individual matter, and we would find that the curse of Babel had penetrated far deeper than we've been led to believe.

There are interjections (such as "ow" for pain, "umm" for hesitation, "oh" for surprise, "wow" for amazement, etc.) that do not have unfortunate historical antecedents. I trust we can all agree that names and titles of our Lord are inappropriate as expressions of rage or frustration, as is invoking God because we are excited about something. Between those two points there is a broad range where the propriety of inarticulate or semi-articulate expressions, the question of what emotions _ought_ to be given expression and which not, the public acceptation of words and phrases, and related points can be discussed and disagreed upon. There are complexities in the relationship of etymology, intention, current understanding, and the denaturing process that seems to be almost perpetually underway. By that I refer to the apparent fact that people become desensitized to the strength of language, and so what was originally on the outer boundary of acceptable comes to be entirely normal, and someone has to up the ante in order to add shock value to their statements. But I suspect that with the way language has become so coarse, vulgar, and casually blasphemous that we will soon run out of ways to make it worse - and I fervently hope not to be proven wrong!

There is a question of the public meaning of a phrase, and there are public meanings Christians should not express: there are difficult things that should be said, and there a euphemism is the best way forward. There are things that should not be said, even under the guise of a euphemism. That is the main point of the discussion on minced oaths, I believe. 

There is also the question of what is the abundance of our heart that we speak in a given way. My mom used to deploy a colorful expression to express frustration: "Great balls of fire." I remember the day she told us she would no longer be saying that: she had realized that while the combination of words might itself be innocuous, it came from a state of heart that she did not wish to reinforce through verbal expression. I am thankful for that example, and think it would be worthwhile if we all put that question to ourselves.

But to return to the OP, I see no evidence that "By Jove" is used as a way of mocking Zeus, just as I see no evidence that is is used seriously, as a way to invoke the son of Chronos to witness or avenge. It is an example that highlights the complexity of the use of language, because the name of a pagan god is taken up as a substitute for the name of the true God, and so is a quite distinctive way to euphemize what one expresses. These complexities can certainly serve as a reminder to think and hope the best of those whom we hear using language that is objectionable; but they should not be used to disguise the reality that there are public meanings, and that there are states of heart, and meanings of phrase, which a Christian should not have upon his lips, bowdlerized or not.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 3, 2012)

"A-Ha was the name of a 1980s one hit band that tried to replicate ABBA. And bother appears to be used in its usual sense. So I don't see any problem with either of those. "

I appreciate that you see nothing wrong with them; but some brethren do. Therein lies my point.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 3, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I appreciate that you see nothing wrong with them; but some brethren do. Therein lies my point.



That's why you ask for the reasoning. I had a lady tell me once that she wouldn't listen to opera because, not understanding French or Italian or German, how could she know but that someone who did understand those things might come into her house at the precise moment that something with an offensive meaning was being sung? That concern certainly shows a commendable heart to "give none offense" -- but it isn't a terribly strong argument for not listening to opera. Should I take that, then, and conclude that no one has any better reasons for recommending against certain pieces or genres of music? 

There are bad arguments for things we acknowledge to be true and good, like predestination, and presbyterianism, and propriety. The existence of bad arguments, and bad arguers, doesn't mean that is all there is. I regret that you felt condemned or snubbed; but if we start abandoning positions because someone once held them censoriously, we will wind up abandoning everything, including an opposition to censoriousness.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> but some brethren do.



While we shouldn't go out of our way to give offense, sometimes it really isn't worth the effort to pander to the hypersensitive. And sometimes we can earn the respect of someone trying to be manipulative. 

But that is why I look first to Scripture and the Standards.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 4, 2012)

It is true Ruben, I could ask for the reasoning. 

When I have, I get a wide variety of response. There is no consistency. I spent quite some time looking into it and considering the various arguments.

In order to avoid offending all, I'd basically have to just drop all interjections.

I am not willing to do that, because I think it is excessive, also, I am tender about joining in on what I consider to be a pharisaical trend. By pharisaical, I mean, declaring as sin what God has not called sin; and enforcing it upon others. While I believe that my husband can forbid terms for our family, for instance, in our home we are not allowed to say "shut up," I would not enforce that upon the rest of the church. 

I also think parents can forbid terms they find offensive to their children, but, I'd hope the children are instructed not to judge other children/families by the same standard. Finally, obviously, people can for whatever personal reasons forbid certain terms to themselves. This is all within Christian liberty.

What I do object to is an extra-Biblical standard being set for all in the church.

On a previous thread, I asked if anyone could provide a list of approved interjections. No one offered one, but it is my guess that if someone does, others will have various objections.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 4, 2012)

Edward said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > and so use them perfectly sinlessly.
> ...



Well genuine ignorance about certain facts does make a difference as to whether or not the subject is sinning. 

E.g. if I give you a drink from a bottle marked lemonade which contains poison and you die, I haven't committed murder. But if I knew there was poison in it, I have sinned and committed murder.

In the case of these expressions, once it has been pointed out to the individual what they mean, then they sin when they use them.

Unless you are saying it is a sin not to check out the meaning of all expressions before you use them?

It's certainly not reasonable to say that it is sinful not to test all bottles of lemonade for poison before you use them.

Sorry for havering!


----------



## Elizabeth (Aug 4, 2012)

As an aside, we were visiting an IFB church for a time this past year on Sunday evenings(now we visit with an LCMS congregation). The Pastor was just a terrific fellow, expounding on grace almost every week. Mentioning that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, quoting Ryle and Keller, etc. Really, just an intelligent, wonderful fellow, not at all what one would expect to find in a little Midwestern IFB church.

Well, some of the folks in that church were very strongly opposed to any sort of 'possible' minced oath. They debated the matter in the local paper, even. Frankly, I winced at some of their legalisms, esp toward to non-Christian community at large. At any rate, it wasn't long after that the pastor used 'oh my goodness' FROM THE PULPIT! I could see a literal physical reaction in a few of the members. 

Maybe it was a sin for him to use 'oh my goodness', I will leave that to smarter folks than myself. 

I have to say, it didn't trouble me, but maybe it should have. I'll have to give that some thought. I suppose being married to a fellow who uses such phrases on occasion, maybe my heart is hardened to it, when it should not be.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 4, 2012)

I think that Ruben is spot-on with his (somewhat lengthy) analysis. 

Characters in Wodehouse clearly mean, when they say "By Jove," to express strong emotion with a euphemism. They are in no sense mocking a pagan god; they are substituting the name of a pagan god for the Christian God because it was societally unacceptable at the time to invoke the Christian God in such a careless fashion. It is thought to be better to invoke a non-existent god as a milder form of invoking the real one. It is a minced oath. There are, as has been noted herein, many of them. It does not seem to me that determining whether something is a "minced oath" is all that dark and difficult. It's been accurately done here on the PB, I believe.

But let's step back in our consideration of inappropriate use of oaths, minced oaths, and other things, like name-calling, and think about the whole use of them. Let's think of where this occurs when driving--A nearby driver may do something that I regard as inappropriate: I can use the Lord's name, I can use a code word for the Lord's name (minced oath), I can utter a general vulgarity, and/or I may call that driver any number of things, from the most vulgar to something not regarded as such ("knucklehead!"). 

Have I done any of those? Yes, to my shame. Are any of those justified? No. Why are they not justified; What does it reflect when I do any those? They are not justified because in all cases they reflect a lack of love to God and my fellow man. The use of such evince a lack of calm in my spirit, a failure to trust the Lord who orders all my life and intends in all things, including all the suffering that He sends my way, for me to respond with submission, equanimity, trust in Him, not fretting, not murmuring and complaining. 

When someone does something I don't like on the road and I cry out "Jerk!" (about the other driver), my spirit is not where it ought to be with regards to God and my fellow man. When I am consciously resting and trusting in Christ, I don't feel that need to thus cry out. When I do--whatever it is I might say ("Yikes! Watch it, stupid! ****")--it does not reflect the fruit of the Spirit but the works of the flesh. 

Wrongful oaths and minced oaths rightly each receive their own proper consideration. But they, together with name calling and inappropriate, rude commands ("Shut up!") all reveal hearts not resting and trusting in the Lord as they should be. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Aug 4, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> It is true Ruben, I could ask for the reasoning.
> 
> When I have, I get a wide variety of response. There is no consistency. I spent quite some time looking into it and considering the various arguments.
> 
> ...



Mrs. Rothenbuhler, thank you for the reply. What you say about diversity of reasons could apply to a broad range of topics. Over the years, many arguments have been offered for paedobaptism: some of them good, some of them horrible, and some of them inconsistent with one another. Is that a reason to reject paedobaptism? On a recent thread about the relationship between foreknowledge and predestination several positions were put forward, all in favor of predestination, but taking different approaches (including a Biblical argument that "foreknowledge" means more than prescience, a theological argument from the nature of God's knowledge, and an argument that predestination is derived directly from other Biblical texts, not deduced from foreknowledge: all are somewhat correct, and all agreed that predestination is real and absolute; but the arguments deployed were diverse). I could wish that everyone who held to a correct position would be able to defend it clearly and winsomely, in a way that manifested unanimity not simply on the position itself but on the theology of the position; but I doubt that such a degree of understanding and unity will come about in my lifetime. Strictly speaking, that is irrelevant to the accuracy of a position. Baptismal regeneration and presumptive regeneration are bad reasons to baptize babies; it doesn't mean there are no good reasons to do so.

I don't believe that the question of minced oaths and interjections has primary reference to not offending others. Obviously in our society many are not offended by blasphemies too horrible to be identified in any kind of precise way on this board. Certainly part of our concern in our speech is not to give offense, and so just as you would say "trousers" instead of "pants" in the UK, you can refrain from terms and expressions you know to be offensive in other settings. But that is not the basis on which minced oaths are objected to. As I stated before, an invocation of God euphemistically is still an invocation of God. If it is right and appropriate to invoke God, to what end is this done euphemistically? If it is not right or appropriate to invoke God, what does the euphemism accomplish? Things are not as subjective as your approach would indicate: what is and isn't an euphemism is defined by public acceptation, not by personal feeling or intention.

I can certainly understand not wishing to take the conscience of another as the standard for the church at large. I'm not going to take your conscience as my standard, and it would make me a little unhappy to think that you were taking my conscience as your standard. But not everything is a matter of individual conscience: even if my conscience doesn't bother me for it, it's still wrong to take up the Lord's name in vain. Minced oaths are not about what we feel, and they are not about refraining from offending others; they are about maintaining reverence to God in our speech.

Making an "approved list" of interjections would be pharisaical, so I'm not surprised that didn't happen. There is a resource to tell you whether a word is euphemistic or not, however: the dictionary. It's not infallible, but it's where we generally turn when we want to know where a word comes from and how it is used. Of course people will object. But people object to everything. It doesn't matter, because truth isn't democratic.

Thank you, Alan - I am glad you were able to broaden the discussion. I wasn't sure how to include all that in an analysis that is publicly recognized as lengthy!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 4, 2012)

Thanks again, Ruben. I think that your contributions to this conversation have been quite valuable and are a real ministry to everyone on the PB.

BTW, the "somewhat lenghty" comment was meant to be, just so everyone is clear, a bit of good-natured ribbing of a man for whom I have great respect. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward (Aug 4, 2012)

I would like to thank Professor Strange and Mr. py3ak for their articulate and well reasoned response(s) and would commend them to those who are unsure on these issues. While I consider vulgarities 'less bad' than profanity, as Professor Strange has noted, they are not good, and they do reflect weaknesses in those (like me) who resort to them in moments of anger or frustration.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 4, 2012)

Thanks for the encouragement, Alan - the ribbing made me giggle.


----------



## Elizabeth (Aug 4, 2012)

These are very helpful posts, in thinking through this issue. Really, as I've thought about it this morning, there are a few minced oaths I use pretty often. They may not be as obvious as some, but the vehemence behind them is the same: oh dear, oh brother, shoot, bother and the like. I will be more careful, for certain. And reading Wodehouse(free kindle book I've been reading this week with 'by jove' in it) I will have to reconsider, as well.

One question I had: the ladies(IFB) I mentioned who fought this battle in the local newspaper felt that anyone(believer or no) using a minced oath(like golly or gee) was actually diminishing God's glory. I couldn't quite see how that could be possible?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 4, 2012)

Edward said:


> I would like to thank Professor Strange and Mr. py3ak for their articulate and well reasoned response(s) and would commend them to those who are unsure on these issues. While I consider vulgarities 'less bad' than profanity, as Professor Strange has noted, they are not good, and they do reflect weaknesses in those (like me) who resort to them in moments of anger or frustration.



Thanks, Edward. I'll have to ask you to move over quite a bit to make room for me in your comment about "weaknesses." I've never met anyone who struck me as more sinful in this than I am: I am, natively, in my sinful self, full of complaints, murmurings, self-importance, self-pity and all that loathsome self-centeredness that is part and parcel of my old man. It manifests itself in so many ways and is something that I am ever challenged to put to death. In our family devotional last night (we are in Romans just now), our reading was Romans 7. I can so identify with that and Paul's cri de couer, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 4, 2012)

Elizabeth said:


> And reading Wodehouse(free kindle book I've been reading this week with 'by jove' in it) I will have to reconsider, as well.



With respect to this point, you'll need to act as you understand that the Lord would have you to act. If reading someone saying "By Jove" in some way tempts you to do the same, then by all means forbear. 

If the question is, more narrowly, may one read (or watch, listen to on audio book, etc.) something in which some sort of inappropriate language is used (whether a clear violation of the Third Commandment or any of the lesser things that we've discussed in this thread), I think that's a different matter. For me it depends on the degree, frequency, purpose. If I were reading an account of actual conversation (say Nixon with his aides in the Oval Office), I would have no sense of transgressing if I read through it to see what they were maintaining (this is obviously true as a historian). I have read things with strong language that were true or true to life, making a larger point. I do not necessarily stop reading something because I come accross the Lord's name used in vain or strong vulgaraties. Again, it depends on degree and frequency. I have both stopped reading and watching things for that reason when I thought that the usage was unwarranted or could not be in any way justified. 

Wodehouse is a delight. His characters have many flaws, and this would be one of them. Why do you read Wodehouse? How do you benefit from it? I personally would not forbear reading it on these grounds. The question you seem to be asking is, more broadly, does the depicition of characters sinning involve me in sin? The answer, I think, is "not necessarily." It may well and, in some things, clearly would (p0rnography, for example). Is Bertie Wooster, or even Jeeves, without sin? No, we could identify a number of sins: the use of minced oaths is one among many, and, arguably, not the worst thing(s) that they do wrong. I could say more but that may be enough.

Peace,
Alan


----------

