FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A "Commandment" breaking question

   
Author Topic: A "Commandment" breaking question
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Don't ask me how I came up with this one, but...

one of the 10 Commandments says, "Do not use the Lord's name in vain."

If a Jewish person hits their fingers with a hammer and yells out "J---- C-----!!!", are they breaking that commandment?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
It depends on whether or not Jesus really *is* God, doesn't it?

I mean, if the Jewish person is right about him not being, then no.

If the Christian is right, then yes.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
That's just a really weird question to be asking, Dan....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amka
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Amka   Email Amka         Edit/Delete Post 
I think G*d (if we are talking about this, why not actually follow the conventions?) would have a little more understanding about it. On the one hand, I don't think a Jewish person would be held as accountable for taking J C name in vain than a Christian would. But there would still be something there to having disrespect for something someone else holds sacred.

Kind of like if Christians started swearing in the name of B*dd*h. I mean, if those same Christians really hold to that commandment, it is fairly rude of them to treat another religion with such disrespect and even vulgarity. And I think G*d would hold them to that particular sin, rather than taking G*d's name in vain.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah. Leaving aside the question of whether "Jesus Christ" could be considered the Lord's name in this situation -- which it can't -- the whole "taking in vain" doesn't actually refer to that kind of usage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
It's a wierd question to ask, and I'm a weird person to be answering it, but:

My impression of the commandment is that "taking the lords name" has to do with the purpose behind using the word. Just saying the word for no purpose isn't taking it in vain.

It seems to me that this is why we use the term "swear" words. At one time they were also called "oaths." It means the same thing. Swearing an oath is making a promise using God's name for validation. If someone says, "I swear to God, [something] happened," it better be true, or God's going to be really pissed. I would be too if someone used my name as an authority in order to tell a lie.

It also doesn't matter what words you use, but the intent behind it. When someone hits his thumb with a hammer and says "God Damn It!", it may not make a lot of rational sense, but it makes perfect emotional sense. You're in pain, you're pissed, and you are requesting that God punish the hammer appropriately. Even if the only word that comes out of your mouth is "YAAAUUUUUUHHH," God would know what you meant.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
And no, it didn't occur to me that that was an alternative spelling of Yahweh.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
In that context, could taking the lord's name in vain refer to oathbreaking?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
That's actually how I view it, SM, along with, perhaps, doing something for yourself in the name of God (say a crooked televangelist merley using the concept of God for money).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I would say it is not so much oath-breaking as swearing an oath that is false or that you intend to break. Thus the taking of the Name itself is in vain.

But yes, breaking it after the fact would retroactively be a problem. This is why traditional Jews will avoid swearing oaths, and affirm instead.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
I know he's not exactly the model of an observant Jew, but Woody Allen's characters exclaim that in anger quite a bit (going back to the original post).
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
While certainly outnumbered by those who do not, there are a decent number of Jewish people who do believe that Jesus is God. Of course, arguing whether or not the definition of "Jewish" precludes believing Jesus to be God is probably about as fruitful as arguing whether or not the definition of "Christian" precludes being LDS, and we all know how useful that conversation has been thus far....
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, well, some people disagree with you. Ain't sayin' I'm one of 'em. Just sayin'.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
While they may theoretically (and horrendously and possibly offensively generalizationally*) be famous for being very good at arguing, Jews aren't the only ones who argue about it.

--Pop

*I don't care if it's not a word, and deal with the parenthetical structure as you choose, you silly Grammarians. *smile*

Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Actually, that's one of the few things Jews generally don't argue about.
Funny you should mention that. I have a friend who would be Jewish under that definition, but he unequivocally asserts that he is not. (Incidentally, his last name is a very Jewish name, which makes the whole situation that much more amusing.) So, do Jews argue about it? Depends on whether you think he's Jewish or not. [Wink]
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2