Why is it a sin to take the Lord's name in vain?

[skadistic]

1.fair enough.
2.fair enough.
3.1300 or so years ago, by one man. doesnt make it any better, but christian clergy
have done the same.
4. he went to war. all war is murder, except when we do it, of course.
5. in your atheist opinion, you distinguish between false and true prophets? i couldnt call that atheist.
6. same here.

on topic: i think it is considered disrespectful, and of course post #3 has a valid reason.

All prophets are false.

The diffrence between Muhamid and priests is one is a prophet and to be a good muslim you must be like Muhamid. And a bunch of priests molesting kids is foul and vile, they aren't the focus of the religion to be a good christian you must be like Jesus.

 

[Leatherneck]

Just to be clear: I wasn't questioning God or His word, I was merely curious as to the reason for such.

Because God says so in those commandment things ...

 

[Dionysius]

1.All prophets are false.

2. The diffrence between Muhammad and priests is one is a prophet and to be a good muslim you must be like Muhamid. 3.And a bunch of priests molesting kids is foul and vile, they aren't the focus of the religion to be a good christian you must be like Jesus.

1. i think so too. it just seemed you were making a distinction.
2. er, i dont think muslims aspire to be child rapers.
3. agreed

 

[silver 2039]

There is no such thing as sin. Sin is a human religous concept created for societal reasons.

 

[Sidhe]

God knows? I can't believe no one made that joke yet

Replace Sin with morally unconscienable behaviour and you can devoid it of any religious connotation.

Which came first sin or religion

 

[puglover]

There is no such thing as sin. Sin is a human religous concept created for societal reasons.

I suggest you read the first couple chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He has some great things to say on the subject of whether or not morality is a human invention, and our innate moral law.

 

[North King]

If someone's arrogant enough to think that someone saying their name is disrespectful, then they really should reexamine their own insecurities. Especially when their "name" is really also a non-proper noun which can be used to describe a deity in general.

And thinking that does or does not count against you in the afterlife? Well, I would hope that an enlightened, infinite being would care more about the deeds you did in life instead of the curse words you use.

If the Bible is true, then the Christian god is a pretty silly person.

 

[mdwh]

I suggest you read the first couple chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He has some great things to say on the subject of whether or not morality is a human invention, and our innate moral law.

*Sin*, not morality. Whether or not morality is a human invention, "sin" is specifically breaking a religious law, or disobeying what some consider to be God's will. So I agree, it is a human invention, and the word is not synonymous with morality.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was raised to think that the important part of that commandment was the 'in vain' part.

It was perfectly acceptable to invoke the Lord with a pronouncement or a blessing. It was perfectly acceptable to use it to swear an oath.

It was not acceptable to not be emotional or not reverent when invoking the Lord's name

 

[CaptainF]

I don't see how saying "god damn it" is using his name in vain. You are recognizing that god is great, and do this by asking him to damn something that you don't like.

Just the way I see it.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's the way I was raised.

It might not be Christian to curse someone ("bless those who curse you" according to Jesus), but it was well within the theme of the OT laws.

 

[EdCase]

Fair enough. It's your mouth, use it as you please. It's not for me to judge, as that is purely God's domain. If you don't respect the authority of God, then act as you will, but know that if God is real, you will be judged accordingly.

God deserves respect as a Creator and Lord, and that's why we can't envoke his name in vain.

But we can maim and kill HIS children in HIS name?

Some pretty wacky rules you have there.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Fair enough. It's your mouth, use it as you please. It's not for me to judge, as that is purely God's domain. If you don't respect the authority of God, then act as you will, but know that if God is real, you will be judged accordingly.

God deserves respect as a Creator and Lord, and that's why we can't envoke his name in vain.

That's if your God is real.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The power of the priesthood is verbal and psychological. The "name in vain" commandment was written to forbid the dilution of God's name in the laity's mouths, thus retaining its potency in the mouths of priests.

Such commandments are indicative of a "mystery" religion (which ancient Judaism was) where the clergy/priesthood claim to have more or greater divine knowledge than the laity. This is why, for instance, God's "true name" is secret and unspoken (Jehova is just an approximation).

Populist religions (like American Protestantism) have kept the commandment largely because the name of God is a political tool (e.g. "God wants you to send me money, God wants this man to be Preznit.")

The Protestants have certainly not shown the same respect to any of the other commandments such as the graven-image commandment.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess if any God is real, I might be judged accordingly ...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Protestants have certainly not shown the same respect to any of the other commandments such as the graven-image commandment.

Um . . . huh?

I've heard Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accused of making graven images before, but this is the first time I have seen that accusation leveled against Protestants.