God's name in vain!

[TruthGiver]

I was curious about how many of you have been in situations at work in which co-workers use the the Lord's name in vein in the form of a cuss word? When it happens do you say anything or just ignore it? What should our response be?

[KellieJo]

Depends, close people I do let them know and people I hardly know, I say a prayer under my breath.

[PlentyGroovy]

I don't say anything, I usually wince involuntarily. It tends to be supervisors that do this and I'm not comfortable counseling them. Co-workers tend to an occasionally omg, I don't say anything to that either. :redface :(:

[Kem]

I really think that your face probably says it all anyway. That and the fact that such a thing does not come out of your mouth. They notice, believe me they notice.

[sracer]

Taking the Lord intravenously?! huh? ;):

Ah, taking the Lord's name in vain.

It depends. If they are believers, then I would quietly speak with them about it. If they aren't believers, then they are just doing what non-believers do. Sinful behavior is sinful behavior. How I react to it depends upon the person, the sin, and first and foremost the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[TruthGiver]

I don't say anything, I usually wince involuntarily. It tends to be supervisors that do this and I'm not comfortable counseling them. Co-workers tend to an occasionally omg, I don't say anything to that either.

That has pretty much been my stance also. However, I feel extremely convicted that I don't say anything. I can't help but think about how I'm sure it hurts God that I don't speak out. Anybody else feel that way?

[moss]

When I heard a young person say "Jesus Christ" in vain, I tapped him on the shoulder and said, Oh, you know him?, he just gave me a look like ok, I know what you mean.

[rdy4takeoff]

When ever I hear some one say the lords name in vain I always say "what has God have to do with it that you feel the need to curse him?" Most of the time they say I'm sorry

[LooC]

Over 25 years ago a co-worker used Jesus' name as a curse word in front of me. I said, "You shouldn't say that. That's blaspheme."

We became friends not too long after that & several years later she told me that when I said that, she had never be so ashamed in her life. God used 2 little sentences I said to make Himself known.

I've not been consistent in that type of reprimand. And I'm embarrassed that I haven't.

I was in a church worship planning meeting and our song leader had a habit of saying, "Oh, Lord..." (not followed by a prayer). I believe that's just as wrong as an unbeliver saying that. Even my Pastor looked at her strangely but didn't correct her either.

Imagine if we (she wrote, pointing finger at self) all defended Christs' name on a consistent basis?

2 little sentences, guys and self. That's all He wanted from me.

[readytofly]

It's usually my boss, so no, I don't say anything. But she's never heard me say that. So you would think she would catch on.

[Singlesis]

I think it depends on the person and how well you know them. I have been guilty of responding with things like:

Offense: God d____it
Me: Well, God bless and forgive you. OR
Me: Well, God LOVES you! OR
Me: Don't curse my Daddy!


Offense: Jesus Christ! (as expletive)
Me: Oh, you know Him too?!? OR
Me: He's back?! Where?!?


May not be appropriate, but sometimes I just can't help myself.

[BHiles]

I typically say "He didn't have anything to do with it."

That almost always causes a blush and at times an apology.

[suzugos]

I don't believe unbelievers can take the Lord's Name in vain. Unbelievers know not God and are not known of Him. He is not their Lord. I believe that taking the Lord's Name in vain is exclusively reserved for those who claim to be the people of God, or in this dispensation who claim the Name of Christ as Lord and Saviour. I believe taking the Lord's Name in vain has more to do with behavior than with mere words.

If one who professes Christ acts disobediently, he/she has taken the Name of the Lord in vain by denying His Lordship and Authority and amplifying self will. It applies to acts of fornication, thieft, lies, gossip, etc.; all which are nothing more than desolate expressions of our nature who Claim His Name.

Others may disagree, but I truly believe the most diciplined tounge can be posessed by a believer who daily denies the Lordship of Christ in his/her life - who takes the Lord's Name in vain.

Thankfully, even this awful sin was paid in full for by His shed blood. He who gave the Priceless to buy the worthless knows our frame, that we are but dust.

My 2¢ worth, συζυγος

[Legs]

Suzugos, you took the words out of my mouth! I agree wholeheartedly--

"If one who professes Christ acts disobediently, he/she has taken the Name of the Lord in vain by denying His Lordship and Authority and amplifying self will. It applies to acts of fornication, thieft, lies, gossip, etc.; all which are nothing more than desolate expressions of our nature who Claim His Name. "

[sracer]

I don't believe unbelievers can take the Lord's Name in vain. Unbelievers know not God and are not known of Him. He is not their Lord. I believe that taking the Lord's Name in vain is exclusively reserved for those who claim to be the people of God, or in this dispensation who claim the Name of Christ as Lord and Saviour. I believe taking the Lord's Name in vain has more to do with behavior than with mere words.
Using the Lord's name in vain is a sin. It is irrelevant whether that person is a believer or not. The 10 commandments are not just for the Jews. They aren't just for Christians either. They are for everyone (though not everyone acknowledges the 10 commandments).

The 10 commandments dealt with BEHAVIOR. That is how the law worked. Under grace, it goes deeper to the HEART. But that doesn't mean that the behavior no longer matters. It is in addition to.

Bottom line... an unbeliever can take the Lord's name in vain just as much as he/she can commit adultery.

[CaiperLane]

Hmmm. How come no one ever takes other gods names in vain? I mean what about "Buddah d*mn it" or "Krishna d*amn it"?

How come Jesus/God's name is always used?


I have asked people who do use His name in vain these very questions. They too are puzzled until I answer it for them.

I tell them the Bible says there is POWER in that mighty name and when they misuse it, if they think upon it they will realize that they feel the power behind it when they do that.

Everyone who I've said this too usually ends up nodding in agreement.... :(:

[sracer]

Hmmm. How come no one ever takes other gods names in vain? I mean what about "Buddah d*mn it" or "Krishna d*amn it"?

How come Jesus/God's name is always used?


I have asked people who do use His name in vain these very questions. They too are puzzled until I answer it for them.

I tell them the Bible says there is POWER in that mighty name and when they misuse it, if they think upon it they will realize that they feel the power behind it when they do that.

Everyone who I've said this too usually ends up nodding in agreement.... :(:

Excellent point!

There's also the more practical reason... that they enjoy keeping their head attached to their shoulders. ;):

[CaiperLane]

Excellent point!

There's also the more practical reason... that they enjoy keeping their head attached to their shoulders. ;):

:freaked

sracer...I would never even contemplate kickin' their butt for misusing my Savior's name in vain.



Okay...well...I've thought about how enjoyable it would be. Just for a sec. :becky

[suzugos]

Sracer, how exactly can one who has no connection to the Lord take His Name at all, in vain or otherwise? My conclusion is based upon the literal Hebrew word translated "Thy God" < אֱלֹהֶיךָ > (as in "Jehovah Thy God") the suffix "da" implies ownership. Do unbelievers own God in any way? Does He own them? Since Jehovah* is LORD to both Israel and the Church, then the grammar would apply in principle to the people whose God He is, not to those whose God He isn't. I would submit that those outside of Christ are culpable under a completely different precept: unbelief.

*I use "Jehovah" as a verbal symbol for the Tetragrammaton. In the LXX, the Tetragrammaton is translated into Greek as "Kurios" which is translated into English as "LORD" in both Testaments. The LXX supplies the theological vocabulary of the Hebrew Testament translated for the Greek New Testament, and therefore our English translations by extension.

συζυγος

[sracer]

Sracer, how exactly can one who has no connection to the Lord take His Name at all, in vain or otherwise?
It is very clear.

(Ex 20:7), "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."

That is a commandment for ALL people.


My conclusion is based upon the literal Hebrew word translated "Thy God" < אֱלֹהֶיךָ > (as in "Jehovah Thy God") the suffix "da" implies ownership. Do unbelievers own God in any way? Does He own them? Since Jehovah* is LORD to both Israel and the Church, then the grammar would apply in principle to the people whose God He is, not to those whose God He isn't. I would submit that those outside of Christ are culpable under a completely different precept: unbelief.

*I use "Jehovah" as a verbal symbol for the Tetragrammaton. In the LXX, the Tetragrammaton is translated into Greek as "Kurios" which is translated into English as "LORD" in both Testaments. The LXX supplies the theological vocabulary of the Hebrew Testament translated for the Greek New Testament, and therefore our English translations by extension.

συζυγος
The Hebrew background is nice but irrelevant. The Lord is "your" God whether you agree or not. Whether you believe in Him or not. The Lord's deity is not dependent upon a person's acceptance of that fact.

You are trying to split hairs where there is no hair to split.

[CaiperLane]

Yes the Creator of the Universe is just that, whether you believe in Him or not.

It doesn't change His status.

And, a TRUE believer who has the Holy Spirit could not take the Lord's name in vain. I can see fighting a cursing habit with man made words but using their Savior's name in vain would be contrary to the Spirit that lives within them.

Puzzling that's for sure...

[suzugos]

No, it isn't hair splitting. I substantially disagree with your eisogetical hermeneutic, that's all. Doctrine must stand on proper exegesis, not tradtional opinions. I contend that the original Decalog was intended for Israel and so were the second person pronouns found in those commandments.

It is interesting that Paul applies nine of those commanments in principle to Christians in the New Testament. The one he leaves out regards keeping Shabbat. The Church is nowhere commanded to keep Shabbat. So the second person pronouns in that commandment must apply to Israel alone, eh?. Scripture does not command gentiles to keep Shabbat. So what sound principle of hermeneutics do you employ to apply the nine commandments to unsaved gentiles?


συζυγος

[CaiperLane]

No, it isn't hair splitting. I substantially disagree with your eisogetical hermeneutic, that's all. Doctrine must stand on proper exegesis, not tradtional opinions. I contend that the original Decalog was intended for Israel and so were the second person pronouns found in those commandments.

It is interesting that Paul applies nine of those commanments in principle to Christians in the New Testament. The one he leaves out regards keeping Shabbat. The Church is nowhere commanded to keep Shabbat. So the second person pronouns in that commandment must apply to Israel alone, eh?. Scripture does not command gentiles to keep Shabbat. So what sound principle of hermeneutics do you employ to apply the nine commandments to unsaved gentiles?


συζυγος

Hope you two will excuse me intruding here:

(Hello suzugos, nice to see you again.)


The Commandments were for everyone. Jesus Himself said He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

We are to live as Christ did, walk as He walked. He followed the Commandments to a "t".

In Matthew 15, Christ taught against breaking several of God's commandments, including the third: “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders [Sixth Commandment], adulteries [Seventh Commandment], fornications, thefts [Eighth Commandment], false witness [Ninth Commandment], blasphemies [Third Commandment]” (vs. 18-19). The Greek word used here for “blasphemies” is blesphemia, which means “evil speaking,” “railing” or “vilification against God.” In other words, taking God's name in vain.

Paul also commanded Christians not to do this: “But now you also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth” (Col. 3:8).


Just another point of view. :):

[suzugos]

Hi CaiperLane,

Did not the Lord walk as a Jewish man under the Law of Moses. And yet we read that He is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes. (Rom.10:4) Much of what our Lord spoke was spoken as a Jewish teacher to Jewish listeners. Matthew is widely thought to have written to a Jewish audience.

But would not this statement:

Paul also commanded Christians not to do this: “But now you also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth” (Col. 3:8)…
…In other words, taking God's name in vain.

contradict this statement:

And, a TRUE believer who has the Holy Spirit could not take the Lord's name in vain.

I mean, since Paul has to admonish believers to put off blasphemy? Except the Greek word for blasphemy does not of necessity imply using God's Name, despite your conclusion The primary meaning of the word is defamitory speach against another. See 1Co.10:30, Paul’s reference to being evil spoken of is the verbal form of the same word for blasphemy. Paul was blasphemed.

I perceive that plenary inspiration of Biblical vocabulary and grammar mean little when pet opinions are in question. I used to preach what you and the sracer want scripture to say. Then through study of vocabulary and grammar, I concluded that gentiles cannot be indicted based upon the Decalog. There is plenty of other scripture that is exegetically suited for that, but not the Decalog. And I know evangelists apply those commandments out of context all the time.

But I also see no exegetical point will be received if it confronts a popular view. Therefore I choose to depart this discussion also, having made my point, but not wishing to make a “fight” to quote your earlier post.

συζυγος

[CaiperLane]

Hi CaiperLane,

Did not the Lord walk as a Jewish man under the Law of Moses. And yet we read that He is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes. (Rom.10:4) Much of what our Lord spoke was spoken as a Jewish teacher to Jewish listeners. Matthew is widely thought to have written to a Jewish audience.

But would not this statement:



contradict this statement:



I mean, since Paul has to admonish believers to put off blasphemy? Except the Greek word for blasphemy does not of necessity imply using God's Name, despite your conclusion The primary meaning of the word is defamitory speach against another. See 1Co.10:30, Paul’s reference to being evil spoken of is the verbal form of the same word for blasphemy. Paul was blasphemed.

I perceive that plenary inspiration of Biblical vocabulary and grammar mean little when pet opinions are in question. I used to preach what you and the sracer want scripture to say. Then through study of vocabulary and grammar, I concluded that gentiles cannot be indicted based upon the Decalog. There is plenty of other scripture that is exegetically suited for that, but not the Decalog. And I know evangelists apply those commandments out of context all the time.

But I also see no exegetical point will be received if it confronts a popular view. Therefore I choose to depart this discussion also, having made my point, but not wishing to make a “fight” to quote your earlier post.

συζυγος

Please know that my comment:


And, a TRUE believer who has the Holy Spirit could not take the Lord's name in vain.


...was just MY opinion.

So there is no contradiction persay. Just my personal assessment.

And please don't accuse me of wanting scripture to say what I personally want it to say. I doubt sracer feels that way either.

I see many verses pertaining to this issue from the O.T and the N.T.

And again I'll repeat Jesus did not come to abolish (end) the Law but to fulfill it.

Paul expounds on this idea when he speaks about not allowing sin to abound because we're saved.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is usually done in anger. As I've said before there is power in that name even to an unbeliever or they wouldn't use the True and Living God as their way to curse.

They don't use Buddah, Krishna, Mohammed, Satan, Sung Mung Moon or Jim Jones. They use the only REAL and True Almighty name in the universe.

They can feel that power when the Lord's name is used in that way. I've spoken to many who have admitted that their emotions become intensified at the use of the Lord's name within cursing.

God's name makes demons tremble.

His Holy name is so revered in Judiasm that they won't even write out his full name.

They express it as G-d. Which is why Yahweh is spelled YHVH (YHWH) because the vowels were extracted from the name of the Lord out of respect. Traditionally, observant Jews do not say this name aloud. It is believed to be too sacred to be uttered and is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name.

So as for taking the Lord's name in vain I believe it was a command for all because God is no respecter of persons. But I think the Commandments were given to show us the need for a Savior because no human being could possibly keep them.

[Blessedx4]

My pet peeve right now is OMG (and I hate to even use it here) And I see it everywhere. I guess people think abbreviating something makes it less bad.

I don't care if it's abbreviated or spelled out either way is still using the Lords name in vain imho.

[PlentyGroovy]

When I first became Christian (4? 5 years ago?) I said "God....BLESS AMERICA" alot. :redface Because I would start to curse but had to train myself to not go there anymore. Oh.my.G-- is really common, especially on tv...satan's way to try and make His name common? :(: Sometimes we pick up things without even thinking about it, I think that's where unbelievers stand on the use.

[BHiles]

I could care less of the doctrinal points of whether this commandment is for the unbeliever or not. It matters not that I believe this law was one of which was written onto the heart of man pre law, post law and for eternity.

I will get into heavy theological discussions with many concerning many points doctrine time after time but this issues has nothing to do with points of doctrine.

If somebody said my wifes name with a curse or blurted it out because they were angry you bet I would put my fist through their teeth.

My Saviour who died for me deserves no less and though we would be arrested for such it still should raise the hairs on the back of our heads to here somebody curse or mock the lover of our souls and I for one will continue to call it out.

[BlessedinHim]

saying we are a Christian but not believing would be an in vain usage as well as using it as an expletive.

I hadnt thought of it like that before, thank you. Just another reason we should focus on Him and not fight against his remolding us to be more like Him.

Thank you!