Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Sorry to sound rude, but the word 'heck' is a replacement for 'hell'; please refrain from using it.
Minced Oaths: Split From Sports Thread
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
If you're concerned about being rude then I suggest using the PM system.
Fixed; at least the thread heading.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I'm just thankful no one posted 'h-e-double hockey sticks'. I HATE hockey. 
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Sorry, but I want to discourage everyone from using that word.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Bawberator
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.
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.
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!?
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
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!?
Gives me visions of this ---
Davidius
Inactive User
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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.
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
Moderator
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
Inactive User
Thank you Chris. It is important that we treat God's justice with reverence.
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.
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.
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.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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
Cancelled Commissioner
Are you able to move the posts relating to this Chris, or should I start a new thread completely?
Davidius
Inactive User
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
It is certainly something we need to give more thought to. The Lord expects us to honour Him with our words.
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.
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
Puritanboard Librarian
Thanks for putting up with a grumpy moderator; and thanks to Josh for splitting the posts to a new thread.
Are you able to move the posts relating to this Chris, or should I start a new thread completely?
Last edited:
Davidius
Inactive User
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?
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
Puritanboard Librarian
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:
And the following is from the other article that I link to:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Puritanboard Librarian
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.
- Status
