Using the Lord's Name in Vain Question

[porthos11]

Please, people, for the sake of this particular OP, can we all just clam up?

 

[porthos11]

Let me point out that walking through these things is not productive for scrupulosity. Because that walking track always goes in a circle with “buts” and “what ifs”. The more information and options there are to deal with, the more anxiety is produced.

No, with respect, it’s not a good sign.

^ This.

Really people, for the sake of this particular OP, can we just grind this discussion to a screeching halt?

You only need go through his posting/question history to understand his troubles and realize that this back-and-forth can be harmful to him.

 

[Wesrock]

Editing this post out of sensitivity for scrupulosity of topic creator.

 

[e_c]

Let me point out that walking through these things is not productive for scrupulosity. Because that walking track always goes in a circle with “buts” and “what ifs”. The more information and options there are to deal with, the more anxiety is produced.

The point was to show how silly it is. It is not a sin to say “Oh my goodness.” Even throw in a “gracious.” If so then every little old church lady I’ve ever known is hell bound.

Yes, the point is to say the thing without exactly saying it. You do not say the literal thing but something that stands in substitution for the thing. You can certainly be happy the literal thing was not said, but it seems to me best of all is to avoid saying something which stands in substitution for something that is by its nature designed to be like saying that which you aren’t actually saying. In other words if I was to recount stories from certain relatives I might substitute ‘gosh darn it’. But that doesn’t mean I need to exclaim ‘gosh darn it’ when something goes wrong.

I still wonder what is dangerous about this?

It is dangerous because it is wildly wrong and can contributes to people worrying about evil where there is none. I’ll start another thread soon.

You only need go through his posting/question history to understand his troubles and realize that this back-and-forth can be harmful to him.

He claims - repeatedly - that he is not scrupulous but just doesn’t understand moral theology. No, they aren’t the same thing. Since we have a hermeneutic of trust here on the boards, I am trying to take him at his word as far as possible. It seems to be a stretch but it could be that he is truly just confused about principles.

All the more reason for the OP to GO STUDY PRINCIPLES.

 

[GLam8833]

I agree that it is making this thread MORE
confusing than clarifying for the OP.
It is only a VENIAL sin to take the name of
God in vain if IN CONTEXT it makes sense
to do so. But DELIBERATELY taking His
holy Name in vain shouldn’t EVER be con-
doned.