There’s nothing technically more offensive about “God damn” to me as a Christian than there is about the “thank God”. “God damn” tends to be used as a curse, and they tend to seem more offensive, is all. But both are a reference to God doing something, and it would bother me to have to work around someone who used the phrases a lot - unless I knew they actually believed in some kind of God who’d be doing the damning, that is. If they MEAN what they say about God, that’s fine. If they use His name unthinkingly, then it’s painful to me. It’s really the unthinking use of the word that is offensive and a bit stupid. If they literally want God to damn some hamsters, it’s hardly my problem (I might debate their theology, but the “God’s name” bit of it would be over).
Would I try to enforce my beliefs on them? Depends what you mean by enforce. If it was obviously going to go on forever, I’d certainly point out that I found it painful to listen to.
That’s all that I’d feel I needed to say to them - that I consider the name to refer to a real Person, and a Person whom I happen to love. Whether they receive that politely or assume I’m a nutcase doesn’t really matter. If they don’t adjust their speech after that, either they’re just rude or they’re trying to make some tedious point, and either way it’s no longer my problem. I’ve done what I had to do.
After a long hard fight the Scottish churches finally managed to get an advert on television this last Christmas Day, which said that Jesus Christ was the “reason for the season”. The fight was hard because the televisual authorities insisted for a long time that we weren’t allowed to use the name “Jesus Christ” in case we offended people. They finally backed down when someone pointed out that they’d already allowed the name to be used as a swearword on television, every day, all year.
I think if you say “May [tetragrammaton] damn you to Hell for all eternity” and mean it, believing in the power you invoke by uttering the ineffable Name, and without His express permission, you have truly taken the Lord’s name in vain, and comitted a cardinal sin.
Am I just totally off base here? That’s what I was taught, anyway. Has the understanding of the rule changed so much that it is veritably different now?
That’s because Jews don’t try and force their religion on everyone else, whereas Christians do. It was Jesus’s final command, after all, to “spread my Word to all corners of the world.” (I’d look up the exact chapter & verse but my Bible’s packed in a box three feet deep somewhere…just moved, heh.)
Extremely fundamentalist Christians often come up with bizarre, non-standard beliefs. I knew one guy who was so religious, he refused to read fiction books. Why? Because…“It’s all LIES!” That’s a direct quote.
I have never run into this out there in the real world. Well- yes, once or twice if used in a manner of a curse. “goddammit”. But never in a phrase such as “God only knows”.
News for ya: that’s not a non-standard belief. I know a number of Extremely Fundamentalist Christians who refuse to read fiction for just that reason. “Why would I want to read something that wasn’t true?” one of them once asked me, wide-eyed with surprise. Since the conversation was supposed to be on the topic of “Books you like to read”, and since I had just shared with her that my favorites were science fiction, with murder mysteries a close second, I was fairly speechless and could think of no adequate response.
That’s definitely inappropriate. I don’t know if it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain, but hoping that someone goes to hell is most certainly not a Christian sentiment (although it can be a tempting one at times). I try to avoid using God’s name in swear words, like "God damn or “Jesus H. Christ,” but IMHO people like the guy in the OP are taking it way too far.
Once upon a time, novels were considered somewhat immoral reading, and that was one of the reasons. Proper young ladies, 100+ years ago, read books of improving sermons, not frivolous fictions.
I was about to post a reply pointing out the irony of someone who believes the bible to be literal truth sneering at a work of fiction, but you stole my thunder.
That’s something of a false analogy, isn’t it? The OP isn’t being asked to do something that violates his personal beliefs. He has been informed that his choice of words offends someone else. It is not central to the OP’s personal beliefs that he use this choice of words, and there are ample alternate phrases available to express the utterly unknown. To me, this is a simple exercise in courtesy that should be obvious to anyone except the most confrontational iconoclast.
Courtesy is, of course a voluntary thing by definition. Thus you’re free to continue being a jerk, insulting someone’s religion after they’ve asked you not to. Or worse, explain to them that they really shouldn’t be insulted. But a truly courteous person would apologize for the behavior and then either refrain from repeating it, or explain why it is impossible to do so.
If your use of certain words upsets someone, especially words that are no more than an expression of no significance to you, and you make a big issue out of it you are being a confrontational jerk.
If you deliberately continue to use the same expression in their presence you are being a rude jerk.
If you really think the person is being unreasonable you have two choices;
avoid talking to them.
explain to them why you’re not going to see eye to eye on this issue.
As to the OP; the problem some religious people have with the use of “God” in some expressions is not the word, or what is actually being said, but in the way it is being said in an unthinking manner. When most people say “God only knows” they are not, in fact, considering what God may or may not know. It’s just an expression. Some religious people are uneasy about “God” being bandied about in conversation in such a casual manner.
Back when I was at school, one of the pupils was banned from wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt because it proclaimed “I am the God of F**k”. It wasn’t because the school thought that the F-word was unacceptable, but because the Christian Union (group of Christian students) complained that they found it offensive because of it’s blasphemous content.
I don’t think this is really on a par with the OP’s “God only knows…”, and I’m not advocating offending people’s faith, but I didn’t like the censorship. No one stopped the members of the Christian Union wearing ‘WWJD’ wrist bands and other such items of clothing that displayed their own feelings about God.
I’m moving into IMHO or GD here so back to the OP - I think Diogenes’ suggestion is the best course of action - explain that while you do not intend to offend him, you are not willing to censor yourself. Creating unnecessary friction is to be avoided if possible.
Self-censoring normal expressions out of my speech in order to to humor the overwraught religious sensibilities of someone else is deeply offensive to me and a violation of my personal beliefs. No one has the right to demand that another person conform to his religious rules of behavior. That request itself is insulting and inappropriate.
No, if someone else makes an issue of my innocuous expressions and demand that I conform to their own religious codes then that person is being an intrusive and confrontational jerk.
The rudeness is is trying to control the language of others.
Not really. God Bless America was a hit before your mother was born, though she was born a long time ago. When I was a kid, there were pop songs with other deities in the titles, such as Venus and Stupid Cupid.
I guess the example is meant to illustrate that sentiment is almost beside the point in terms of what it technically means to “take the Lord’s name in vain.” To the ancient Hebrews, one’s name was very important spiritually . Someone who knows your name (your true name) might be able to exercise some amount of power over you, such as cursing you and so forth. Then there’s the Lord’s name, which is such a awesomely, fearfully potent thing one ought to hesitate to utter it ever. To use it inappropriately is to call the wrath of the deity upon you, because with that name comes Power, and that Power is not to be invoked lightly. Mere proximity to a focus of the Lord’s spiritual Being can kill even the well-intentioned (as poor Uzzah could tell you). You don’t mess around with it, or He gets mighty irate.
Hence, it might be quite literally damnably perilous for me to even utter the ineffable Name in order to bless you. But unless I am quite mistaken, that Name isn’t “God”, and would never have been understood to be. “God” may as well be English for “Elohim”, which is not an ineffable (that’s actually a plural of Eloah, and would best be translated as “Gods”, but is commonly used as a common name for the Lord). Only the tetragrammaton has that status, and is read aloud as “Adonai”, which more closely translates to “Lord”.
My coworkers are now staring at me strangely… :dubious: