Minced Oaths: Split From Sports Thread

[Kevin]

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]

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
"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.).
"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"
(Exodus 20:7) Consider some of the words
that are used as substitutes for the Name of
God. Look up these words in a good dictionary
and you will find the following: GOSH is "a
substitute for God used in minced oaths."
GOLLY is "a euphemism for God." EGAD is “a
softened or euphemistic form of the oath ‘by
God.’” GOODNESS is a word substituted for
God (compare Matthew 19:16-17).
GOODNESS GRACIOUS are two key attributes
of God used in a careless and irreverent way.
The expression MERCY or MERCY SAKES is
another thoughtless use of a precious attribute
of God. HOLY COW, HOLY MACKEREL, HOLY
SMOKE are expressions that make fun or make
light of the awesome holiness of our God. If
we really believe Revelation 15:4 ("for Thou
only are holy") then we will not call other
things holy in a thoughtless and frivolous way.
May the Holy Spirit control our lips.
Those who are outwardly lawless and wicked
often are heard saying, "for God's sake" or "for
Christ's sake." It is done in an irreverent,
blasphemous way. Those who are more
cultured use substitutes: "for Goodness sake"
"for Pete's sake" "for the love of Mike" "for
crying out loud" etc.
In a similar way the Name of Christ is abused.
GEE is a "euphemistic contraction of Jesus."
The same is true of other words such as GEE,
GEEWHIZ, Yikes or CHEEZ, CHEESE, CHEECE,
SHEECE, "all of which relate back to the Lord
Jesus Christ when used as an exclamatory
remark" (Ibid.). It's not difficult to figure out
the origin of such expressions as JIMMINY
CRICKETS and JEEPERS CREEPERS.
Curse words and swear words have also been
softened by minced substitutes. Remember,
garbage is still garbage, even if it is placed in a
nice container. We need to detest all curse
words and realize that the substitutes stink as
well.
It is of interest how the ungodly so often speak
on themes of judgment, hell and damnation.
Deep in their hearts they blaspheme and rebel
against a God whose right it is to damn all those
who reject His beloved Son (John 3:18). DARN
is simply a substitute for "damn, a euphemism
for the curse." HECK is "an exclamation used as
a euphemism for hell."

 

[Kevin]

yes.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!) .

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!)