What counts as "taking God's name in vain"?

[masterjedi747]

I’m going to propose an argument here (playing devil’s advocate), and I’d like to see how people respond to it, to see if this helps me understand the arguments better in my mind.

THEORETICAL ARGUMENT, NOT MY OWN POSITION

1. The 10 Commandments are primarily opposed to mortal sins, and then to venial or lesser sins implicitly (but not as directly).
2. The second commandment refers more accurately to taking the name of God in a vain oath, which means that it is a mortal sin to call upon the name of God in order to testify to a lie, or even an insignificant and unnecessary matter. And this basically ties in with the whole “Christians should have to need to take oaths… let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no” (not an exact quote) situation that St. Paul presents for us.
3. “God” is not God’s name, YHWH is. Thus, common exclamations of surprise that use the word “God” do not count as taking God’s name in vain. Even devout Greeks and Romans had no problems with using expressions such as “by the gods!” or even “by Zeus!” in their everyday language.
4. It’s not a sin to call upon the name of “Jesus” (or even “Mary” and “Joseph”) in an exclamation, because unless you deliberately intend to offend them, all you are doing is calling upon their name, as if pleading for their help or assistance. Using these names has nothing to do with dishonoring them, and everything to do with recognizing that they are higher beings that are either in control of things or can help us (directly or indirectly).

 

[repo_man]

I’m going to propose an argument here (playing devil’s advocate), and I’d like to see how people respond to it, to see if this helps me understand the arguments better in my mind.

THEORETICAL ARGUMENT, NOT MY OWN POSITION

1. The 10 Commandments are primarily opposed to mortal sins, and then to venial or lesser sins implicitly (but not as directly).
2. The second commandment refers more accurately to taking the name of God in a vain oath, which means that it is a mortal sin to call upon the name of God in order to testify to a lie, or even an insignificant and unnecessary matter. And this basically ties in with the whole “Christians should have to need to take oaths… let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no” (not an exact quote) situation that St. Paul presents for us.
3. “God” is not God’s name, YHWH is. Thus, common exclamations of surprise that use the word “God” do not count as taking God’s name in vain. Even devout Greeks and Romans had no problems with using expressions such as “by the gods!” or even “by Zeus!” in their everyday language.
4. It’s not a sin to call upon the name of “Jesus” (or even “Mary” and “Joseph”) in an exclamation, because unless you deliberately intend to offend them, all you are doing is calling upon their name, as if pleading for their help or assistance. Using these names has nothing to do with dishonoring them, and everything to do with recognizing that they are higher beings that are either in control of things or can help us (directly or indirectly).

i would assume it has something to do with repeatedly using the word thus diminishing the effect and true meaning of it.

however, one of the first curse words to slip out of my mouth is the infamous GD. i don’t really understand exactly how that’s a mortal sin though other than what i said up there. i mean when i miss a pin bowling aren’t i just asking Him to damn it?

i think using it in that context overall in an exclamation is just givng the word a negative context … or something. i think that’s the problem.

 

[teachccd]

I think that whenever you would say the name of God as an expression rather than an invocation you would be taking His name in vain.

This is where I have a problem because even the most minuscule act of impurity against myself is a mortal sin yet I’m told by priests that running around and saying “GD it” is a venial sin at worst if even a sin at all…

 

[DaveBj]

To understand the commandment, we first need to know what the commandment actually says, which is (from the Hebrew), “You [singular] shall not take the name of Yahweh, your [singular] God, in vain.”

 

[teachccd]

To understand the commandment, we first need to know what the commandment actually says, which is (from the Hebrew), “You [singular] shall not take the name of Yahweh, your [singular] God, in vain.”

So it’s o.k. to use the name “God” in vain as long as we don’t say Yahweh?? Please clarify your definition and how it becomes pertinent to the original post…God Bless…teachccd

 

[StCsDavid]

I have a different take on this.

Exodus 3
13] Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.’”

So to take His name in vain is to is much more than the uttering of a GD when you accidentally smack your thumb with a hammer. It’s hard to explain other than saying that when one takes a casual approach to recognizing God’s presence in one’s life, then in a sense he has taken God’s very existence in vain. When you deny the “I AM” you have taken his name in vain.

 

[masterjedi747]

To understand the commandment, we first need to know what the commandment actually says, which is (from the Hebrew), “You [singular] shall not take the name of Yahweh, your [singular] God, in vain.”

For some reason I thought I remembered reading an article in which the Hebrew was said to be understood more correctly as a commandment against taking the Lord’s name “in vain oath” or “in false oath”… more along the lines of calling upon God or swearing upon His name to reinforce the truth of either a lie or a trivial matter.

So that would be against anyone intentionally saying that they “swear by the name of God” they are telling the truth, when they’re actually lying or even when it’s a simple everyday matter. And then as I mentioned before, that would tie in with what St. Paul says in the New Testament about how Christians should never even need to take oaths because they should always tell the truth and be trustworthy.

Not sure if that’s all correct, but for some reason I can’t seem to find this article that I’m remembering, or anything else really similar to it. Besides, I kind of gave up after running into a Puritan wibsite/group claiming that even to casually say “God bless you” whenever someone sneezes counts as a sin against this commandment…

 

[Scottgun]

Found this cool book called the Catechism :

**

2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name

, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.

[2147](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2147.htm’) *Promises *made to others in God’s name engage the divine honor, fidelity, truthfulness, and authority. They must be respected in justice. To be unfaithful to them is to misuse God’s name and in some way to make God out to be a liar.77

[2148](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2148.htm’) *Blasphemy *is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79
2149 *Oaths *which misuse God’s name, though without the intention of blasphemy, show lack of respect for the Lord. The second commandment also forbids magical use of the divine name.
**

 

[masterjedi747]

Found this cool book called the Catechism

Right… but that doesn’t really help answer the questions.

The second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.
I could simply change my question to “what counts as an abuse or improper use of God’s name”? (And I’m thinking much more about the common everyday variety, not so much these more serious sins that follow.) Is calling on the names of these people in anger or surprise an improper use, or are we rather acknowledging them as higher beings that can help us (in much the same way that “by the gods” and “by Zeus” turn up in Greek literature, etc.)? In some sense, might you even say that it is be natural for men to call upon higher powers when in trouble or need of help (and then what higher beings are there there than God and the saints)?

2147 Promises made to others in God’s name engage the divine honor, fidelity, truthfulness, and authority. They must be respected in justice. To be unfaithful to them is to misuse God’s name and in some way to make God out to be a liar.77
This does sound a bit like what I was talking about above.

**2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion. Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79 **
Agreed, but I don’t think we’re dealing with blasphemy (contempt towards God and the saints) in our everyday situations…?

2149 Oaths which misuse God’s name, though without the intention of blasphemy, show lack of respect for the Lord. The second commandment also forbids magical use of the divine name.
So then what do we mean by “oaths”? And again, how would you respond if someone argued that “God” is not the divine name, and thus doesn’t apply in these situations?

 

[The_Truthinator]

The Catechism helps to clarify the Church’s position on this matter a lot.

I get what you’re saying about ‘by the gods!’ or ‘by Zeus!’, but honestly, if you were to say, ‘By Christ!’ it would just sound contemptuous, even if that wasn’t your intent, and as a Christian it is important you never leave the faith open to the ridicule of non-Christians. Strangely enough, though, if you were to exclaim, ‘by the saints!’ in a dramatic way though, I think–if only because of the statement’s oddity in today’s culture–people would more readily understand your intent and would not be offended. (If this is something you just really want to do without sinning…)

I know not-so-devout Buddhists who sometimes exclaim, “Oh my Buddha!” actually, as an interesting sidenote. But anyhoo…

Good luck with… well… not… offending God…?

Ha, ha.

Pax!

 

[igeary]

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79
Agreed, but I don’t think we’re dealing with blasphemy (contempt towards God and the saints) in our everyday situations…?

I think the key here is the lack of respect due these names. Think about the AWE and REVERENCE due God’s name, and see if that is compatible with using Jesus or His Mother’s name as everyday swear words. Nope - not compatible. No, it’s not. I would be gravely offended if someone started using my mom’s name as an everyday exclamation to express anger and/or disgust. GRAVELY OFFENDED. And yet, my mother doesn’t come remotely close to deserving the REVERENCE due God.

Think about that.

 

[DaveBj]

For some reason I thought I remembered reading an article in which the Hebrew was said to be understood more correctly as a commandment against taking the Lord’s name “in vain oath” or “in false oath”… more along the lines of calling upon God or swearing upon His name to reinforce the truth of either a lie or a trivial matter.

snip

That’s about the size of it. My point is that the commandment refers specifically to the mis-use of the name “Yahweh,” not to the mis-use of the word “God” (“Elohim”) or other epithets for deity.

Now it is a whole 'nother ball of wax that nowadays we have social compunctions (among religious people, that is) about using other words for divinity as punctuation marks in our speech. That falls into a different area, about not causing scandal.

For the record, I don’t use any of the “divine words” like that in my speech. Nor do I use any of their euphemisms, like gee, gosh, golly, etc. Must be my upbringing in that holiness, pentecostal Church of God

DaveBj

 

[dacoobob]

That’s about the size of it. My point is that the commandment refers specifically to the mis-use of the name “Yahweh,” not to the mis-use of the word “God” (“Elohim”) or other epithets for deity.

Now it is a whole 'nother ball of wax that nowadays we have social compunctions (among religious people, that is) about using other words for divinity as punctuation marks in our speech. That falls into a different area, about not causing scandal.

For the record, I don’t use any of the “divine words” like that in my speech. Nor do I use any of their euphemisms, like gee, gosh, golly, etc. Must be my upbringing in that holiness, pentecostal Church of God

DaveBj

Imo it’s not just about not causing scandal/being a bad witness, although that’s an important aspect. As igeary said, it’s also a matter of one’s own overall attitude of respect/awe/reverence/fear (or lack thereof) toward God. Using “God” as an expletive subtly trains you to take a more flippant mindset with respect to your rightful Lord.

 

[BlaineTog]

THEORETICAL ARGUMENT, NOT MY OWN POSITION

1. The 10 Commandments are primarily opposed to mortal sins, and then to venial or lesser sins implicitly (but not as directly).

In general, this is correct. However, even if we assume this to be correct with respect to all ten, there are still conceivable ways in which breaking the second commandment could result in mortal sin, so even if venial sins are its most common result, they could be merely the indirect result.

2) The second commandment refers more accurately to taking the name of God in a vain oath, which means that it is a mortal sin to call upon the name of God in order to testify to a lie, or even an insignificant and unnecessary matter. And this basically ties in with the whole “Christians should have to need to take oaths… let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no” (not an exact quote) situation that St. Paul presents for us.

Yes.

3) “God” is not God’s name, YHWH is. Thus, common exclamations of surprise that use the word “God” do not count as taking God’s name in vain. Even devout Greeks and Romans had no problems with using expressions such as “by the gods!” or even “by Zeus!” in their everyday language.

By this logic, if I start out a prayer by saying “God,…” instead of “YHWH,…” then I’m not really praying to God. I think this is clearly absurd. God’s name is beyond human language. Thus, it’s a matter of intent rather than linguistic accident. If I for some reason thought God’s name were “Teeferzeka,” it would still be wrong of me to blaspheme against Teeferzeka, because to me, Teeferzeka = God = YHWH.

4) It’s not a sin to call upon the name of “Jesus” (or even “Mary” and “Joseph”) in an exclamation, because unless you deliberately intend to offend them, all you are doing is calling upon their name, as if pleading for their help or assistance. Using these names has nothing to do with dishonoring them, and everything to do with recognizing that they are higher beings that are either in control of things or can help us (directly or indirectly).

It would depend on the usage. If a bridge you were driving on were to suddenly lurch and you were to call out to Jesus as a near-instinctual, reflexive scream for help, it would not be a sin. On the other hand, if someone has annoyed you and you want to let off steam by speaking an “appropriately” severe swear word, it would be sinful to use God’s name. Additionally, “G- damn it” when used against a person is always sinful because you’re effectively asking God to send them to hell, something that is never in keeping with God’s will and going counter to God’s will is practically the definition of sin. Using it against objects and actions is a little fuzzier. In general, it would still be sin because it’s presumptuous on your part to pretend you know what things are “hellish,” especially when, to use the example given, missing a bowling pin probably isn’t. Against something like a murder… well, I don’t know. I’m inclined to think it may not be sinful, but it’s certainly not meritorious either, and I’d rather not take the risk.

I actually have a corollary question on this topic that has been nagging at me for some time. Is it sinful to take the name of God in a work of art (such as a novel, play, or movie), and if so, who is at fault? If an author is portraying a great sinner, for example, it might be necessary to show him breaking the second commandment. If so, is this tantamount to the author himself/herself breaking the second commandment? If a playwright puts it in a play, are the actors morally responsible? What about taking into account that they are not allowed to make changes to the play and may be held financially responsible even if they were to make a legitimate flub?

 

[KinseyMcGuire]

I consider myself lucky at moments like this that the most taboo word in our house has always been the GD. Now I’m trying to cut out the JC’s and OMG’s.

 

[bobzills]

I think that whenever you would say the name of God as an expression rather than an invocation you would be taking His name in vain.

This is where I have a problem because even the most minuscule act of impurity against myself is a mortal sin yet I’m told by priests that running around and saying “GD it” is a venial sin at worst if even a sin at all…

I’m not sure if you can trust everything said by this or that priest today. For example, some priests say that there is no sin, if a married couple practice ABC after having 4 children. Other priests say that the time has come for the Church to ordain women priests. Other priests are pushing for easy to get marriage annulments. There was one priest who was a co-sponsor of the immoral north American Man-Boy Love association.
I agree more with the first sentence. IMHO, I think that the use of the sacred name of God or His Son in vain is a mortal sin since it is contrary to a major commandment. This would include the use in exclamations or cursing, etc. There are those who use by-words instead of the actual names. For example, in a novel of the Catholic priest Father Greeley, an individual uses the term “Jaysus” as an exclamation. I don;t see why Catholic priests such as Father Greeley have their characters using this term. I think it is wrong, and also it is wrong to use other by-words or by-terms such as Jeez, or Gee Whiz, although it might not be a mortal sin, IMHO it still is contrary to the spirit of the law as expressed by the Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain.

 

[BlaineTog]

I think it is wrong, and also it is wrong to use other by-words or by-terms such as Jeez, or Gee Whiz, although it might not be a mortal sin, IMHO it still is contrary to the spirit of the law as expressed by the Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain.

Oh I don’t think by-terms are necessarily sinful at all. I didn’t even know that “Jimminy Cricket” was short for “JC,” as in “Jesus Christ,” until recently, and my guess is that most people don’t know that either. When the term used has become completely disassociated with God in general use and the only people who are aware of where it came from are linguists, I really don’t see the harm in it.

 

[bobzills]

Oh I don’t think by-terms are necessarily sinful at all. I didn’t even know that “Jimminy Cricket” was short for “JC,” as in “Jesus Christ,” until recently, and my guess is that most people don’t know that either. When the term used has become completely disassociated with God in general use and the only people who are aware of where it came from are linguists, I really don’t see the harm in it.

That’s where we differ. IMHO, it is important to follow the spirit of the law. The law itself is clear: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
This is a major commandment, and a violation of it would be a serious sin, IMHO. And it is also implied that it is required to obey the spirit of the law, so that by-words such as “Jaysus” which are used by Catholic priests like Father Greeley in his novels, are also condemned, IMHO. Sorry, but I don;t trust 100% what some Catholic priests are recommending today. The use by Father Greeley of by-word “Jaysus” as an exclamation is one example, and the support of the immoral North American Man-Boy Love association would be another example, and the support for the ordination of women priests which was declared at a local Mass in a sermon not too long ago, - these are a few of the areas where I would disagree.

 

[BlaineTog]

That’s where we differ. IMHO, it is important to follow the spirit of the law. The law itself is clear: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

I’m not saying not to follow the spirit of the law. I merely submit that “Jimminy Cricket” is not the name of the Lord. Though even if it were, it still wouldn’t be sinful for me to use it if I didn’t know.

 

[bobzills]

I’m not saying not to follow the spirit of the law. I merely submit that “Jimminy Cricket” is not the name of the Lord. Though even if it were, it still wouldn’t be sinful for me to use it if I didn’t know.

Jimminy Cricket is so far off that IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that expression. However, the expression used by the Catholic priest Father Greeley in his novels, “Jaysus”, IMHO, would constitute blasphemous use in vain of the name of Our Divine Lord. We hear such contradictory things these days from Catholic priests, that it is sometimes confusing. For example, one good priest gave a sermon recently on the necessity for respect and careful use of holy names. And why Catholics should use decent language in their speech. On the other hand, we have the novels of Father Greeley, where he has people using the name “Jaysus” as an exclamation.