| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Taking the Lord's Name |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 12:50 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Taking The Lord's Name Posted by: Cerise May 30 2004, 09:41 PM I've just noticed something about my family and...well, really everyone else around me in regards to "taking the Lord's name in vain". It's so common place for me to say "God" without actually petitioning God. I can say "Oh my God" with little trouble. I can say "God, you guys!" and everyone else in my family says "God" all the time as well. No one lifts an eyebrow at "oh my God!" But then I think one time I said "Jesus Christ!" as an oath and not "God" and immediately my parents looked at me like I was a freak and admonished me for "my horrible language". I've noticed that even on television people say "oh my God" or other oaths with "God" in them but I hardly ever hear anyone say "Jesus Christ" as an oath. I wonder why saying "Jesus" and not simply "God" as an oath is treated like a greater crime? They are supposedly the same person, yes? How come I get smacked down for saying "Jesus Christ" and not for saying "God"? My family isn't even that religious for God's sake (and I can say that but apparently not "for Christ's sake"). Just something that puzzles me. Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 30 2004, 10:01 PM Hmmm... despite what the Christians say, everyone needs defintions and rituals and other basics of active religtion in their lives - this is why some prefer the kjv on language merits -it 'separates' it from ordinary mundane language and makes it special, sort of like how all sacred Jewish text is Hebrew, for example. Another is needing to be able to say 'oh my god'. To them, god is everywhere, and they need an 'informal' god to call upon and swear by and just speak with, but they also need a 'formal' sacred name. Posted by: Casey May 30 2004, 10:14 PM Cerise, I don't know why (maybe some devil has got a hold of me), but I thought I'd tell you this yarn. It's very likely apocryphal, but then again maybe not. When Sir William Slim was appointed Governor-General of Australia shortly after WW2, he toured the country. It's said at one stage he ended up in North Qld in high summer. Now the day being hot and he a thirsty soul, he sought out a bar. As this was an official tour, he was done up like a dog's dinner and was wearing all his military and Imperial decorations. He had enough fruit salad to make him clank like a freight train, know what I mean? The bar had just opened, and one of its regulars (an old sugar cane farmer) was there for a heart-starter after a hard day's night. Slim came in, and the old fellow woke from a doze. When he beheld THIS apparition standing beside him, he must have thought he'd finally got the DTs. All he could get out was a strangled, "Jesus Christ!" To which the said apparition replied, "No, I've not yet reached that exalted rank. Bill Slim, Governor-General, that's me. Care for another?" But to answer your question, I think it's because Christians regard Christ as having died to save them from their sins, and are therefore afraid he'll throw them into Hell for blasphemy or something like that. I notice Protestants are more like this than Catholics though, at least where I live. I don't know why that is. Casey Posted by: Lokmer May 30 2004, 11:29 PM I think it might be because most Xians believe that Jesus Christ is a name, but God is just a title for Yahweh. That "Jesus Christ" is also a title and not a name (literally "Joshua-Messiah") isn't seriously on the radar of any of them but the Society of Biblical Literature scholars. However, the really tragic thing about it is that they would equate blasphemy with such an expression at all. Taking a lord's name in vain is a monarchical concept, meaning to act fraudulently on behalf of or to sully the name of. In other words, blasphemy is when a Charismatic minister heals or casts out demons in the name of God/Jesus and nothing happens. It is false prophecy. It is collecting money for God's work and then using it to build a fancy home or church. It is purjering oneself after swearing before God to tell the truth. It is acting in a way that casts a shadow on God while claiming to be his follower/worshiper/representative. The one thing blasphemy isn't, is saying "oh god" or "Jesus Christ" or whatever. Of course, in all religions divine (or revered) names get hushed up as too secret and replaced with titles. Yahweh became Elohim, Elohim became Theos or Dios or God, God became "The Lord". The same thing happens in Buddhism, where Siddhartha Gamutu becomes Siddhartha Buddha, and then "The Buddha", etc. Mohammed becomes "The prophet" and Ahura Mazda the most High God, becomes Allah, or "The God." Siva in hiduism is also a title for another god whose name escapes me. Which is all a long-winded way of pointing out that human beings fetishize words in order to avoid dealing with reality. -Lokmer Posted by: sexkitten May 30 2004, 11:43 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 30 2004, 11:29 PM) Of course, in all religions divine names get hushed up as too secret and replaced with tiles. I think Lokmer's mixed up "divine names" with "linoleum." Posted by: Erik the Awful May 31 2004, 12:06 AM Cerise, If you really want to get 'em goin, try adding some variety to your "blastphemeing." -Jesus H. Christ! -Christ on a Cracker! -Jesus Wept! ...and for the "blessing..." Good Food, Good Meat, Good God Lets Eat! Posted by: Doug2 May 31 2004, 02:16 AM Lok, I'm interesting in taking your class on etymology with respect to religious titles, vulgarities, and curses. Will that be available next semester? Posted by: Ro-bear May 31 2004, 06:34 AM My darts partner takes the Lord's name in vain more than anyone I know, and he always follows it with "Sorry, sweet Lord; it ain't yer fault." I don't know about God, but apologies ring hollow to me when the transgression is unremitting. Maybe this is why we haven't taken first in a while. ;-) Posted by: Reach May 31 2004, 11:48 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 31 2004, 02:29 AM) However, the really tragic thing about it is that they would equate blasphemy with such an expression at all. Taking a lord's name in vain is a monarchical concept, meaning to act fraudulently on behalf of or to sully the name of... It is acting in a way that casts a shadow on God while claiming to be his follower/worshiper/representative. Exactly, Lokmer. Cerise, this topic started by Neil might interest you: http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3506 Reach Posted by: Reach May 31 2004, 05:13 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 31 2004, 02:29 AM) Of course, in all religions divine (or revered) names get hushed up as too secret and replaced with titles. Which is all a long-winded way of pointing out that human beings fetishize words in order to avoid dealing with reality. -Lokmer Perhaps a typo, now corrected, invited the humor about tiles, but this has struck me as so very profound. Titles and tiles.Men and the monuments made to them. Systems and the symbols and relics the artists fashion to honor them. Dusty and musty, moldy and belonging in a museum somewhere where patrons, after dropping in their tokens for the price of admission, may wander through and gaze upon them, like driftwood on the beaches, cast up from the depths of our oceans. Titles and tiles. Driftwood makes good firewood when it's dry but even a fire won't keep you warm for very long. Reach Posted by: Grand Atheist May 31 2004, 05:59 PM I don't use "god". Instead, I replace all "god"s and "jesus"es with Darwin. i.e.: What in the name if Darwin do you think you're doing?! Darwin damn it! Darwin! And much, much more! Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |