Why is it that the Christian God is the only one whose name is taken in vain. Is it a ( backhanded )recognition of His existence?
Name in vain
Posts
Total:
56
-->
@ronjs
Maybe it’s a way to disassociate God from bad experiences/actions.
-->
@ronjs
Why is it that the Christian God is the only one whose name is taken in vain.
The premise is false. Judaism and Islam worship the same God of Abraham as Christians and abide by the same Mosaic commandments. There's also a number of Abrahamic religions that are less global- Baha'i, Druze, Samaritanism, Rastafarianism, etc.
Obviously, a proscription against speaking any or every God's name in a polytheistic religion would make it difficult to distinguish Gods for prayer and worship.
Many religions like Buddhism don't believe in beings superior to humans while some religions like Sikhism think that we are all aspects of a single divine entity which has no name or independent identity.
In the time of Mosaic law, the name of God was invoked to guarantee an oath. The commandment's original intent was not to proscribe followers from saying the name of YHWH but to caution followers against breaking oaths and from taking oath-swearing lightly. By 2500 BC the priests of the Temple had reserved the privilege of speaking YHWH's name for themselves and invested much energy in denying others that privilege which seems to have corrupted the Mosaic intent of the commandment in favor of a more superficial sin of blasphemy.
-->
@ronjs
When I say OMG, I mean Oh My God Zeus.
-->
@ronjs
Have you never been in a culture wherein the Christian God [though, as oromagi advised, that God is shared, if not by name, by entity among several religions] is not the one recognized as supreme? You might find cultural diversity negates your argument. Got to get out more.
-->
@FLRW
When I say OMG, I mean Oh My God Zeus.
luv it.
-->
@Stephen
And my God is Jesus Christ, i don't hear anyone taking the name zeus or any other alleged god in vain.
-->
@ronjs
I'm not sure why your god, if it created the universe out of nothing, would really care who said its name when. Got an ideas? Honest question.
Probably because he says not to.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The question I'm asking is why the heck that would be important to it.
-->
@ronjs
Why is it that the Christian God is the only one whose name is taken in vain. Is it a ( backhanded )recognition of His existence?
Nice. That which does not exists cannot be acknowledged.
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
Would it perhaps be more prudent to state that the Christian's description of God is taken in vain? Abrahamic Religions do share a God, but none are more exposed to criticism than "Christianity," yes?
-->
@Athias
Would it perhaps be more prudent to state that the Christian's description of God is taken in vain?
I'm not sure what you mean here. That Christians are less successful at describing God? Is there any important distinction between the way Christians describe God and the way Jews or Muslims do? I'm skeptical.
Abrahamic Religions do share a God, but none are more exposed to criticism than "Christianity," yes?
As the largest religion in the world, I guess I would expect Christianity to come under a larger share of criticism, yes, but I guess we've got to define critiicism. If we mean persecution or harassment, Pew Research tells us that Jews are the most persecuted religious sect in the world followed closely by Hindus and Muslims. Christians are second to least persecuted before Buddhists but after folk religions and all other religions.
-->
@Athias
What is vain about any religion’s description of deity? Personally, I hope God serves chocolate in heaven, but I have no empiric evidence that it will be on the menu. Do you know there will be a menu? No, so don’t make waves about what any religion describes as their idea of God’s nature just because it may differ from yours.
-->
@ronjs
I don't know about other religions,
And all I have is an 'assumption for Christianity.
That is, it shows an irreverence, carelessness, a lack of respect, that deflates the currency so to speak.
A person used to saying "God damn you", for instance,
If the name of God is used careless, what value does the speaker hold God?
Maybe shows he holds God in little value.
'Maybe for people of faith, their relationship with God is supposed to be something very 'real to them,
Integral in their daily lives, He and his word, something they live by, breathe by.
Respect is common in human society.
Common for people to hold sacred, some conventions.
Flags, curse words, respect to parents.
To me, just another way a society 'keeps sacred, what they value 'as sacred.
-->
@ronjs
It's not really primarily related to swearing. It is a bit like a wife taking a husband's surname - only to be a freaking whore.
She wants all of the good stuff - but nothing of the responsibilities.
-->
@oromagi
I'm not sure what you mean here. That Christians are less successful at describing God? Is there any important distinction between the way Christians describe God and the way Jews or Muslims do? I'm skeptical.
I mean God as described by Christianity through either text or otherwise. An example of differing descriptions is the Christian's concept of the holy trinity--i.e. the plurality of God. Neither Islam nor Judaism has adopted this concept.
As the largest religion in the world, I guess I would expect Christianity to come under a larger share of criticism, yes, but I guess we've got to define critiicism. If we mean persecution or harassment,
No, I meant criticism, as in scrutinizing its merits and faults.
-->
@fauxlaw
What is vain about any religion’s description of deity?
I have not suggested that any description is vain; I suggested that it would perhaps be more prudent to concede that the Christian's description of God is "taken in vain."
I hope God serves chocolate in heaven, but I have no empiric evidence that it will be on the menu. Do you know there will be a menu?
What?
No, so don’t make waves about what any religion describes as their idea of God’s nature just because it may differ from yours.
I/Ronjs am/is neither making waves, nor propagating one religion's description over the other. Ronjs suggested that God's name being taken in vain is implicit concession of acknowledging his existence. (I suspect that this is a shot at atheists.)
-->
@Athias
more prudent to concede
The question stands: why Christians over any other religion? What advantage is gained by other religions that would conclude that it is prudent for Christians to concede, since, as oromagi demonstrated, there are other religions suffering greater criticism against them than Christians? Is it, perhaps, a perspective that just is not valid?
-->
@Athias
--> @oromagiI'm not sure what you mean here. That Christians are less successful at describing God? Is there any important distinction between the way Christians describe God and the way Jews or Muslims do? I'm skeptical.I mean God as described by Christianity through either text or otherwise. An example of differing descriptions is the Christian's concept of the holy trinity--i.e. the plurality of God. Neither Islam nor Judaism has adopted this concept.
So the Commandment means something like "don't ignore or take for granted God as described by Christians"? How do you account for the time lapse? That is, why would God mean "don't take the concept of Trinity in vain" in a message recorded 1300 years before mankind was introduced to Christianity and Trinitarian thought? How could the Israelites help but fail to take the Trinity in vain centuries before Christ was born?
As the largest religion in the world, I guess I would expect Christianity to come under a larger share of criticism, yes, but I guess we've got to define critiicism. If we mean persecution or harassment,No, I meant criticism, as in scrutinizing its merits and faults.
OK so the former statement applies. Just as big countries like China or US naturally attract more criticism than small countries like Monaco, so too big religions like Christianity should expect more criticism than smaller religions.
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
The question stands: why Christians over any other religion? What advantage is gained by other religions that would conclude that it is prudent for Christians to concede, since, as oromagi demonstrated, there are other religions suffering greater criticism against them than Christians? Is it, perhaps, a perspective that just is not valid?
Again, I suspect ronjs O.P. is a shot at atheists. I haven't suggested that other religions concluded that Christians concede; furthermore, oromagi hasn't demonstrated that other religions are criticized more, a fact submitted by oromagi himself.
So the Commandment means something like "don't ignore or take for granted God as described by Christians"?
No. I do not believe ronjs made direct reference to the meaning of the commandments when stating taking God's name in vain. I suspect this is a jab atheists who chiefly name God (as opposed to Allah, Yahweh/Elohim, or Zeus as FLRW pointed out, or Shiva, Vishnu, etc.) in their criticisms. I suspect this because of the question which immediately followed ronjs statement. Granted, atheists do scrutinize and some do criticize the concepts of a god, but generally speaking, they chiefly name God as the subject of their criticism. Now when juxtaposed with criticisms of "other gods," ronjs has a point that this is virtually exclusive.
How could the Israelites help but fail to take the Trinity in vain centuries before Christ was born?
Not that this matters at this point, but Christianity argues that the birth of Jesus has been a subject of prophecy as early as the times of Adam and Eve (i.e. being a descendant of Shem, not Ham -- sons of Noah) The Israelites by this description should have known this. But that's beside the point. Again, I suspect ronjs statement was targeted at atheists.
-->
@ronjs
Bc human ego is so easily damaged... and humans came up with that crap... so no wonder.
So, why do people only use the Christian Gods name in vain, since none have addressed the question so far.
The question I'm asking is why the heck that would be important to it.
He seems pretty full of himself. He's a jealous god. Who knows.
-->
@ronjs
Alleged GOD.
Freudian slip maybe?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's a bloke then?
-->
@oromagi
All of which has nothing to do with the question
-->
@fauxlaw
Another non answer.
-->
@ludofl3x
its not. About saying his name, it's about using it as a swear word.
-->
@ludofl3x
if it created the universe out of nothing
If is, by utility, the most useless word in existence because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Not a great beginning to an attempt at logic.