BS: Thoughts on a Name

Subject: Thoughts on a Name
From: Wavestar
Date: 03 May 01 - 02:57 PM

I saw this in a recent thread, and felt like commenting, but I'm not going to do it on that thread, because I would rather it died. :) So I'll do it here.

"some get offended when you take the Lord's name in vain. There is a religious commandment that forbids it, but I realize that most disregard this today."

Now, I have problem wth this - let's get that clear. What intrigued me was another quote I read recently, which struck me, specifically the first bit.

"A cultured Mohamedan once remarked to us, 'You Christians are so occupied in misinterpreting the fourth commandment that you have never thought of making an artistic application of the second.' "

The fourth commandment is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." (Exodus 20)

Consider- for a conservative Christian, mentioning God's name, in almost any context, tends to be bad. But Moslems speak of Allah all the time - it's an inherent part of their language. "Inshallah" - If Allah wills it. "Glory be to Allah," or "Allah is good, Allah is great" are found at the end of many sentences in Arabic histories, books, and poems. They state the name of their God without fear, and, it seems, without taking it in vain.

Further thoughts - my understanding was that the early Jews did not speak the name of the Lord - in fact, where his name is written in texts, it is written as YHVH (Yod he vav he), but read aloud as Adonai, which means Our Lord. The name was considered too sacred to speak aloud. In many other religions, it is a common theme and belief that names have power - often great power. Invoking the name of a god, goddess, demon, or even just a person was an action of power. Names identify us, define us, and have power over us - this is recognised in many different cultures.

This is an intriguing concept to me, but at the moment I haven't reached any conclusions about it. I thought I'd throw it out and see what the varied masses in Mudcat make of it. So - Thoughts?

-Jessica

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 01 - 03:08 PM

I was taught in Hebrew class in college that "in vain" translates "l'shuv" or literally, "for nothing." "Shuv" ("nothing") was also a euphemism for magic or witchcraft. Hence, the commandment COULD be parsed as a prohibition of using the Lord's name in incantations. I don't know how accurate this is; I simply report what I was taught.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: GUEST,Melani
Date: 03 May 01 - 03:14 PM

Yes, names do have power. Many Native American tribes had everyday names and "real" names that were not for daily use, to protect the bearer of the name from evil power. They might also have childhood names that were later changed to adult names based on something they had done or some event.

I once knew a Hindu-like group who felt that whenever you said God's name, you were calling on Him for attention. They considered this a good thing.

If the Jews do not use G*d's name because it is too sacred (it is often written like that to avoid actually using it), then perhaps the Christians, whose religion came from Judaism, are only taking His/Her nickname in vain? I think no one knows the true name of God, but he'll probably answer to most anything if you need Him.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: MMario
Date: 03 May 01 - 03:25 PM

add to this; a lot of what most people refer to as "swearing" is scatological, and has no reference to the fourth commandment at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Jim Krause
Date: 03 May 01 - 03:32 PM

Jess, I rather thought of taking God's name in vain was rather like the slogan "In God we trust." I don't think it's so while the US Congress is busy thalking about a new Antibalistic Missle Defence System, aka Starwars.

Another example of taking God's name in vain: when the bailiff says "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" And the person taking the witness stand says, "I do." then lies like a rug without even blushing. Now a truthful person needs no oath to compel him or her to tell the truth, and no oath will prevent a liar from lying. Need an exammple? How about Richard Nixon.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Wavestar
Date: 03 May 01 - 03:55 PM

All interesting thoughts, thanks.

Alex - It makes more sense to me to take that translatation literally, actually - Don't the use the name of God for nothing, or for no reason. Seems sensible enough - like the small child who has learned to say Mommy and wanders about saying it all the time, without wanting anything. However, the incantations thought is interesting.

Melani - The name for God known to most Christians, Jehovah, is a mistranslation from Yahweh, which is an approximate transliteration of the Tetragrammaton (yod he vav he, mentioned above.) Since the Hebrews write out consonants and add on vowels as dots or lines around, above and below the consonants, and because one pronounces YHVH as Adonai, the consonants for YHVH were written with the vowels from Adonai, possibly to remind the reader that it was to be pronounced differently. Translators not familiar with the tradition simply applied the vowels as if they to be read normally - thus Y(a)H(o)V(a). The vav often took the W sound, but was translated as a V.

Or so I was taught in Hebrew class. So - it's less of a nickname than a mutilation, really :)

MMario - That is very true.

Jim - So taking the Lord's name in vain can be taken as dishonouring one's words in relation to God. Certainly true, I think, but definitely not as broad a definition as many people give it. I like your observations about people's hypocrisy, though.

I remember being told that saying "God damn it" was taking God's name in vain because you were commanding God to damn something, often something that didn't deserve damning, or it was implying that God would do something, without having the right to act as the voice of God.

Thanks everyone who responds... I'm so glad this isn't causing offense. (yet. :P )

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Kim C
Date: 03 May 01 - 04:04 PM

I think "vain" is the key word here. Sometimes people say "Oh God" just to say it, and other times it is a sincere plea.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Burke
Date: 03 May 01 - 06:04 PM

I'm with Kim on this one. Some times it's an emphasizer & sometimes it's really a plea. There was a time when I'd hear some one say "God, ... " & I'd ask them if they really wanted God involved with whatever it was. Usually I got a blank stare because they had not realized they'd even said it. That's in vain to me. I think it's the thoughtless use that's the problem & I suspect the Muslims who say it all the time may be equally thoughtless.

I do occasionally hear someone say, "God willing, we will meet same time next year," or the like. It can be truly meant & maybe appear a bit sanctimonious, or just be a throw away line. I think our (US) culture is such that we feel uncomfortable hearing & using it. Whenever my aunt's mother-in-law talked about her mother it was, "My mother, God rest her soul, ..." That hit me oddly when I was 12.

Weird, we probably feel less uncomfortable with a vain "Oh, God" than a really meant "God willing"

There are a number of religious groups that will not swear oaths in court because there's a passage in the Bible where Jesus says not to swear by anything (heaven, Jerusalem), but to let your Yes & No be for real. How did our 'Christian' nations get so far from following this injunction that we actually have people swear by the Bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: GUEST,an is guy
Date: 03 May 01 - 06:06 PM

the skyfather of the judeo-xtian-islamic mythic cycle is just that... a myth
whether or not one can take a myth's name in vain is, at best, moot and at worst deserving a a large dose of occam's razor

i was taught that the xtain bible is the directly revealed word of the skyfather
if this is so, explain the deliberate mistranslation of "suffer not a poisoner to live" as "suffer not a witch to live"

also, please explain why the "better" idea of xtianity is promulgated by such means as inquisition and heretic burning

better ideas survive and grow... the best examples being taoism and master tzu's masterpiece.
(wanders off humming "and you'll know they are xtians by their love")

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: English Jon
Date: 04 May 01 - 04:22 AM

Thats all very well, but I've never met anyone who burned anyone.

I guess the problem I have with religion is it's too bloody complicated, and factions form over niceties of translation, causing a lot of grief for all involved.

Why can't everyone play nicely together?

Atheist Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 04 May 01 - 04:34 AM

I wonder whether we ought to do a lot more talking casually about God - then it wouldn't seem so strange a concept and such a big and mysterious issue to those of us who don't participate in organised religion. I don't think we need so many rules & regulations & God-etiquette. Your relationship with God should come from the heart & we all have different hearts. Respect is a good thing, but not if it creates distance. This Mohamedan had it very clear. Sounds like a lucky man.

Kris

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Wavestar
Date: 04 May 01 - 06:35 AM

Guest,an is a guy, I'm not seeing the relevance of anything you said to my question. If you'll note, I wasn't debating the reality of the Christian God or any other God - I was simply asking a question obout theory and practice. While I'll assume your intentions were all for the best, I haven't judged anyone else's religion, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't, either.

Jon - I don't think we all have to sgree on everything to play nicely, but it's sure a nice thought, isn't it?

I settle myself with the thought that the Bible was written by men - some of them very inspired, very holy men, but men nonetheless, and they are fallible - so if the translation's not quite right, I don't feel that I'm missing the true word of God. I think I have to talk to god for that, and I'm not quite there yet.

Kris, I think you're probably right - but it does make people of differing religions uncomfortale when the god being discussed is not their own. I've had that feeling myself.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 04 May 01 - 07:01 AM

I don't believe in god. Or gods. But I use the terms associated with them. I would try not to if I thought I was offending someone, but only because I mean no offence - not because I personally think it's wrong.
When I first moved to England, I was in the pub with a couple of people and came out with the line "Jesus, Mary and Joesph!" as an exclamation of surprise. They started laughing and said they didn't think people from Ireland actually talked like that - they thought it was only a covention used on TV programmes like "Father Ted". It made me think about all the expressions used at home - "Sweet Mother of God", "In the name of Our Lord" etc., that are used in everyday speech, but unconsciously so, and certainly not used to be offensive. If you read works translated from the Irish, such as the literature from the Blasket Islands, you'll see that the sentences are peppered with phrases referring to god and the church. It's a way of conversation. It still exists today, and is not intended as irreverant. It is distinct from what we term "swearing" (e.g. "Good God!", "Jesus Christ!"). It seems a similar construct to the Moslem one that Jessica mentioned in her first post. I would be interested to know if other predominatly Catholic countries (note - I refer to Ireland as such a country even with its shifting demography) do this too.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: English Jon
Date: 04 May 01 - 07:38 AM

Well I think we DO have to agree on everything in order to play nicely, and seeing as you don't agree with me, I'm going to set fire to you. So there. And furthermore, I'm taking my Ball and I'm going home.

Teeheehee.

EJ

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Wavestar
Date: 04 May 01 - 08:08 AM

*pout* Well, fine, you just be that way, I didn't want to play anyway. *Thhhhhbbbbpppppth* And take you silly little ball, too. Ow! Ow! Put me out! :-)

Fib - thanks for that. It does sound very similar to the Moslem mode of conversation that I've found in translations and books, and it certainly doesn't sound sacriligeous to me, although I imagine it might to other people. I do recall that in Gautamala, I heard 'Dios!' and 'Santa Maria!' a lot, but I can't vouch for it being worked in to the conversation in the same way, my Spanish wasn't that good and I didn't talk to enough natives. For the record, it's a VERY Catholic country.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 May 01 - 08:12 AM

Though I don't believe that the use of "God" as an explative is what is prohibited in the commandment in question

(I think it's closer to what Alex said--though I think it's related in spirit to the New Testament warning about attributing the work of God to man or the evil of man to God. But that is often done when we use the name "lightly")

I have a problem with the use of "God" as an explative on the general principal that it coarsens and weakens the language.

It weakens the language in the same way hyperbole does. One reason that language evolves is out of a growing need to accomodate more expression. For example, when a politician, for the sake of winning a political battle, refers to a smaller problem as a "crisis", we soon have no word with which to refer to a real crisis. When we're so pissed off that we use "God" as an explative, there is nowhere to go to add more meaning to the expression (does that make sense?).

Furthermore, it is interesting that, in a politically correct atmosphere that is the current age, for some reason society feels little hesitation in using a phrase or word that would be offensive to an entire class of people. ...After all, the whole point of politically correct speech is the avoidance of what might be offensive to a group not your own.

Just my thoughts--JH

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 10:11 AM

"A cultured Mohamedan once remarked to us, 'You Christians are so occupied in misinterpreting the fourth commandment that you have never thought of making an artistic application of the second.' "

And so here we all are proving the above statement to be correct, if only in the fact that we are discussing the former and ignoring the latter.

Interestingly enough, there's at least one page on the web that seems to make a distinction between the Christian and the Catholic Christian versions of the Ten Commandments.

The first places the "graven images" one in second place, and "keep the lord's day holy" in fourth place; the second place the "name in vain" one in second place, and "honour your father and mother" in fourth place.

"'Curiouser and curiouser', said Alice."

Myself, I'm all FOR the creative application of making graven images...

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Kim C
Date: 04 May 01 - 10:24 AM

to answer GUEST's question...

Human beings all have free will, and that means free will to start an inquisition or a war or a witch-burning or whatever. A lot of us do things with or without the skyfather's blessing or guidance.

Now here's my question, and I don't mean it to be sassy. If someone who is an atheist commits perjury under oath, can they escape the charge by saying, well, I swore to a God I don't believe in, so the oath wasn't valid in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 10:33 AM

Kim C:

In a court of law perjury is a legal term. If you accept the terms of the contract (ie: swear on the bible to tell the truth) then you are legally bound to it.

If it is then proven that you lied, you have broken the contract and must take the consequences.

That is the letter of the law.

Justice, however is something else. It often has more to do with mercy, than the letter of the law. ;`)

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: hesperis
Date: 04 May 01 - 10:34 AM

I think that speaking of a Deity in casual conversation is a reminder to oneself to let that Deity into the situation. I say "Oh, God!" all the time for that purpose. Some people get offended and think that I am "taking the Lord's name in vain" but I feel closer to God by saying that, which isn't "for nothing". To me, it's a natural expression of trying to live in a sacred way.

Burke - I would be very surprised if the Mohammedans were thoughtless about saying those expressions. Aren't they the ones who pray facing East three times a day? (Or am I confused?) If you live with your spirituality that directly, you don't take the Deity's name thoughtlessly - the Deity is just there, with you, all day. If you have a whole society where spiritual living is expected and encouraged, it becomes very natural, even if you don't believe very passionately in it.

Jande - Hmmmmmm. Neither of those versions is the one I learned... now if I'd only remember the gol-darned things... :)

~*sirepseh*~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 10:47 AM

Hes ~ Yeah! =`)

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Kim C
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:10 AM

Aha. That makes sense, Jande. I mean, somebody has to wonder about these things, it might as well be me. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:15 AM

You're not the only one, I'm sure, Kim... =`)

I estimate that for every one who speaks out there are at least ten others that are thinking the same thing...

I'm always grateful to the ones who speak out.

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Wavestar
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:25 AM

Jande - I guess I am ignoring the second half - at the moment mostly because I don't feel like I have much to add on that topic. But I was surprised and intrigued by the idea that we were misinterpreting the commandment, and when I looked at it, indeed, thought he was right :) Myself, I think there is a difference between art which glorifies and makes beautiful religious images, and idols or graven images which one prays to. Myself, I don't think praying to picture, or statue, or anything else is the same as praying to God - but it might help remind people about him or her, if they need it.

Hes: I can't remember these things, so I look them up :)

However: stupidity alert. :P I just realised I was wrong. Entirely wrong. In both cases (Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5) the second in graven images, and the fourth is remembering the sabbath day.

I'm completely off base. I suddenly have no idea what the Mohamedan was saying. None at all. The question of different approaches to taking the Lord's name in vain still applies, but not to my quote. Boy do I feel dumb. I don't know what he means by misenterpreting at all. Sorry everyone. Go on and discuss stuff without me, I'll go and beat myself in a corner for not being able to read, or count. Some scholar I am.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Kim C
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:34 AM

Well, let's see....

Traditionally people did not do ANY work on the Sabbath, which for most Christians, is Sunday. I have a friend who will not do any sewing on a Sunday. Anyway... what am I trying to say here... hmmm... everyone has different ideas of what it means to "keep the Sabbath" and not everyone does it on the same day. Perhaps there are creative pursuits, such as art, that could be done on the Sabbath? I don't know.

I know people who will not miss church for anything. And that's their decision, and fine for them. But personally I don't think God is going to smite you if you decide to take your kids fishing instead of making them put on a monkey suit to stand up sit down stand up sit down kneel and sing a few hymns they don't understand anyhow.

And of course, there's always the possibility that maybe the Mohamedan didn't know which commandments he was talking about. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: mousethief
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:11 PM

Some people LIKE going to church, Kim. :-)

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Matt_R
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:22 PM

Our Father Tom said that "God damn it" is not taking the Lord's name in vain, any more than saying "God bless it". They are both asking for God to do something, so therefor, "God damn it" is actually praying. Father Tom rules!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 01 - 02:36 PM

The Amish go a number of steps further. Not only do they not 'allow' speaking God's name in vain or as an expletive, they frown on euphemisms. For instance, I remember the first time I was heard saying, Gosh! I was informed of my transgression in no uncertain terms.

They go further and teach that one day we will have to account for 'idle' talk. Ideally, they say, we would speak only what is true and helpful and loving.

Not only do they not approve of icons and saints' statues, they take the prohibition literally: Thou shalt not create graven images- and don't take pictures of themselves. (There is no picture in existence of me before the age of 17). (They ignore the next verse which says, Thou shalt not bow thereto.)

Oddly, in my opinion, they ignore the admonition to remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, but bought into the "Lord's Day" as being on Sunday, passing over the reality that the early Christians must have met on both days; as good, law-abiding Jews they must have observed the Sabbath.

The Amish have not been as strict as observant Jews have traditionally been in performing no work on the Sabbath. The Amish do their cooking and their farm chores on Sunday but they don't sew or clean house or build fence or plow or perform other elective work.

I remember, as an angry kid, suspecting darkly that sometime in the past my parents had not kept the Sabbath. I guess that was the worst transgression I could think of!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on a Name
From: Kim C
Date: 04 May 01 - 02:47 PM

Oh, Alex, I know people like to go to church. ;-) But I think there are some who go because they feel like they HAVE to, and don't enjoy it when they get there, not because they WANT to.