Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?

What does it mean to use the Lord’s name in vain? This is a question that might seem self-evident to most people in western society. Whether you are religious or not, you would not even hesitate with your answer, “It means to say G-D.” I am sure that there are more people that can answer this than there are who can list the ten commandments, name the Gospels, or tell you the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. With all the talk about cursing pastors and the evolution of swearing going on in the blogsphere, I thought that I would try to contribute once more to this discussion by asking the question “What does it really mean to take the Lord’s name in vain?”
Obviously, I am going to say something that is at odds with the common conception among those of us who grew up in the context of our western Judeo-Christian culture, otherwise I would not have included the word “really,” and put it in italics! The reader must also be warned that I am going to use a phrase that is very offensive to many. I am assuming that I am dealing with a mature audience who understands the intentionality that I bring to this blog (most of the time!). If what I am proposing here is correct, we all need to hear this in order to overcome a serious issue of folk theology that damages the character of God and misrepresents what it means to talk in a Christian manner.
For most, the ultimate violation of the third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.” You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy. Some people will stand before God and when asked “Why should I let you in to heaven?” will proudly say, “Because I did not murder, commit adultery, and I never said “the G-D word.” (Please note, I don’t think God is going to ask that question.)
I believe we have this wrong. In fact, from a purely objective standpoint, I don’t believe that this phrase causes God to bat an eye whatsoever. Think about it this way for a moment. Why would calling on God to damn something be so bad? What does the verb “damn” mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb ”to damn” as “the act of pronouncing an adverse judgement upon.” To call upon God to damn something is neither sinful nor unbiblical. In fact, you can find people throughout Scripture, especially in the Psalms, who call upon God to bring judgement on their enemies. In other words, they are asking for God to damn those who they feel are ripe for His judgement. In this sense, saying “God damn _____” is as biblical as saying “God bless _____.”
Some may say to me the reason why this is a violation of the third commandment is because people are using God’s name in a “vain,” “worthless,” or “empty” way. In this case, to say “God damn it!” in our colloquial tongue is not the same as seriously calling upon God to damn something or someone. For these people, if you say it seriously, fine, but if you say it casually, then you have used His name in an empty way and thereby broken the third commandment.
But there are three major problems with this line of reasoning:Â
1) “God” is not the name of God, but a common phrase used to refer to deities in general. How can a generic classification be considered a formal name? It would be like you saying that my name is “person.” God gives His name to Moses in the book of Exodus. His name is Yahweh. Would you have the same offense if someone were to stub their toe and say “Yahweh damn it!”? I doubt it.
2) If the principle that we are going by is that we are not to use God’s name and not really mean it, then I believe that we are very inconsistent in what we take offense to as a culture. Why don’t people get offended when others say “God bless you?” Do you think that every time someone says this that they really mean it? Do you think that in their mind they are talking to God, beseeching on your behalf for a blessing? Just about every email I get ends with the phrase, “God bless.” I seriously doubt that that person actually said a prayer for me before he or she hit send. If this is the case, then why is saying ”God bless you” not just as much a violation of the third commandment as saying “God damn you?” Is it more biblical to ask for God’s kindness or judgment? I don’t think anyone who is honest with themselves can say that they are consistent in this regard. Saying “God damn it” and not meaning it should be just as bad as saying “God bless you” and not meaning it.
3) This is the most important so I have saved it for last. In fact, if what I am about to say is true, then the first two don’t really make a difference. The question is this: What does it mean to use God’s name in an empty or vain way? What does the third commandment really mean? It is hard to tell from a simple word study on the Hebrew term naqa (vain). As well, our understanding of a “name” and what it signifies is much different than what it meant in the context in which this commandment was given. What we have to do is to try to understand what it meant then, so that we can understand what it means now. It does us no good to anachronistically impose our understanding upon an ancient text. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we presuppose), not exegesis (letting the text speak on its own terms).
Briefly, here is what I believe your studies will show. The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.
God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect. He does not want anyone saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” if the Lord had not spoken. All of you have experienced this. You have had people say you said something you did not say. This can be very damaging to your character. It is very destructive to your name. Why? Because it makes you out to be something that you are not. How much more important is it for God to protect His character? It is fitting that God would have put this as one of the ten most important commandments as the nation of Israel moved towards Canaan.
What does this mean for us? Well, for starters we understand that the third commandment is certainly not focused on something so trivial as saying “God damn it!” The funny thing is that while some people may never think of using that phrase, people all over the Christian religious landscape are breaking the third commandment every day, damaging the Lord’s reputation. “Thus sayeth the Lord . . .” “God told me to tell you . . .” “God says that if you send in this much money, you will be blessed.” I could go on and on, but you get the point. Using the name of the Lord in vain means that you do damage to His reputation and character through false and unsure claims. Think again before you say “God said . . .” Make sure that He has really said it. If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertianty. Saying “I think God is telling you to . . .” rather than “God is telling you to . . .” may not be as authoritative, but it will keep God’s reputation safe and keep you from breaking the third commandment.
As an aside, I think that this misunderstanding of the third commandment is not only sad, but tragic. If I were Satan (and I am not
), I can’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment and misrepresent the character of God than to make people focus its essence on the phrase ”God damn it.”
Does this mean that I believe that we can now say this phrase and not worry about it? Not exactly. I think that using this phrase in a colloquial way is offensive in many (if not most) contexts. We don’t want to be offensive. It all comes back to being intentional with everything we say. While it is not a violation of the third commandment necessarily, it is offensive speech that must be used with wisdom and discretion.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- None Found

JoanieD on 07 Jun 2007 at 6:45 am #
Very well said, Michael, and very wise. Thanks and I hope you have a great day!
Joanie
C Michael Patton on 07 Jun 2007 at 7:47 am #
Thanks Joanie!
Chad Winters on 07 Jun 2007 at 8:22 am #
Thanks, Michael….
You concretely answered something that had been bugging me in a nebuluous way for awhile. I knew we had that wrong but not exactly sure how. I’m glad you fleshed it out for me and I think you are absolutely correct!!
Again we strain at gnats and swallow camels, its disheartening
Eriol on 07 Jun 2007 at 8:24 am #
This is a quite good, blog-length treatment of a subject that needs repeatedly to be addressed in evangelicalism. It is no small thing, as you say, to attach God’s name to an activity or enterprise in which He is not involved.
I had only recently finished Friessen’s Decision Making and the Will of God when I heard Bruce Waltke make much the same point you make here. The convergence of these two messages turned my nascent spiritual life upside-down for a time while I came to terms with personal responsibility for my choices and desires. Having been unchurched prior to my conversion, I quickly adopted the evangespeak that was rampant in the little Christian subculture.
(An analysis of the psychosocial reasons for prefacing one’s behavior with “God said/told/showed/revealed . . .” is a tangential but important issue itself).
The following year (1983?) I was asked by an application to seminary to “explain my call to the ministry.” Well, I had no “call to the ministry,” believing that it was a decision that God both gave me the wisdom to make and the responsibility to make. I was not courageous in saying I did not believe in such a call: the forward to Friessen’s book had been written by the then-president of the seminary! So I was pretty sure I was on holy ground and wouldn’t be kept out for that reason!
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the need for evangelicals of all ages to take responsibility for their words and actions rather than attributing their motivation to God. I know you have addressed one side here, but there is also the aspect of irresponsibility on the part of Christians who employ such language and thinking. Such behavior lies at the root, I think, of much unbalanced theology and praxis.
Again, thank you for the post.
nathanimal on 07 Jun 2007 at 12:02 pm #
Just wanted to say I completely agree. And it is very sad that we get caught up in trivial issues. I KNOW satan loves the fact that we misunderstand these things. I just wish more Christians knew this. Guess this is a good place to start as any.
Josh on 07 Jun 2007 at 3:27 pm #
Thanks for the refreshing post. I think these types of things fall under the category of “straining out a nat, but swallowing a camel” and can turn us into whitewashed tombed legalist very quickly.
One thing I would like to add that may help our perspective on issues like these is from a book (which I don’t remember the name or the author). In the book the author talked about how he used an instance where someone said “Jesus†(in the sense of throwing your hands up in the air and saying “Jesus†out of frustration), using that opportunity he asked the person, “You know my friendâ€? The guy was confused and asked “who’s your friendâ€, the author answered, “Jesus, my friend, you said his name, do you know himâ€?
This gave him an opportunity to talk about Jesus without sounding like a “crazy fundamentalist†because the other person brought it up to begin with. At this point the person has two choices (rather two paths to go down in their reasoning) either to say, “Oh a Jesus freak, your crazy†and walk away or “how do you know he’s your friend?†Which if the second line of reasoning is used, you know God is working because they are having “ears to hear†even if it’s just a tiny bit. It’s amazing what God can do with simple questions, and how He uses them to open the eyes of people you were “sure†were clamped shut.
This is also Jesus’ model, using the circumstances of the day to spread the news of the Kingdom (woman at the well, paralyzed man being lowered down etc) so this should be our ultimate goal in our everyday life’s as His disciples. Again, I affirm and thank Mr. Patton for addressing this issue, but I think if we walk away with merely “head knowledge†on the subject with have missed its point.
Thank you again for your wonderful post,
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
P.S. I’m not saying that Mr. Patton in anyway desired merely to educate, I’m just encouraging the practical application of such useful knowledge.
C Michael Patton on 07 Jun 2007 at 3:32 pm #
Josh-
I love it! Good points and valuable to the post. Thanks!
kprice on 07 Jun 2007 at 5:08 pm #
I am going to send this to my husband. He will love it! This one has come up in our household once or twice before!
-Kara
kprice on 07 Jun 2007 at 5:16 pm #
Thanks for so clearly defining what it means to use the Lord’s name in vein! I’ll be sending this on to my husband. He’ll love it! This one has come up in our household once or twice!
Kara
Threepwood on 07 Jun 2007 at 10:18 pm #
FINALLY!!! You have no idea how nice it is to hear this stuff. God Bless You. Really. More people need to hear this too.
Thanks.
tobias on 08 Jun 2007 at 7:30 pm #
Awwwwwwesome post!
It’s so refreshing to read something that enlightens issues that just don’t seem right after a minute of thought, but that we usually don’t give more than a minute of thought. And it causes me to examine myself and realize I’ve got that off thinking in me as well.
Thank you!
(Now I just need to restrain myself from throwing it a few “God said you all should..” peoples’ faces I can think of… God grant me a heart of grace!)

scotti on 18 Jun 2007 at 3:15 pm #
I tend to agree with you. But with a little added insight…
We speak of a woman who marries and changes her last name to that of her husband as “taking his name.” If she were to take his name, and then continue to act as a single woman, she would be taking his name in vain.
If we live our lives in a way that people question that we are really called by His name, we take His name in vain. So our faithlessness is actually taking His name in vain.
Having said that, I think we should not be saying the GD stuff. Because as Christians, it’s supposed to be our job to shine His light so that people can repent and escape His judgment. It’s not our job to call down His judgment.
Luke 9:54-56
And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village
C Michael Patton on 18 Jun 2007 at 6:26 pm #
Scott, thanks for the post. I am not sure that I would look at it this way. It may be a good illustration as to how a woman takes or receives her husbands name, but I don’t know of any evidence to suggest that this is what was going on in with regards to the ancient audience. We have to be very careful not to refer to the way we understand something and impose that upon how they understood it. This is called the anachronistic fallacy.
Anyway, if you could point us to any information that would suggest this is the right way to understand it, that would be appreciated.
Thanks for contributing!
scotti on 19 Jun 2007 at 2:40 am #
One Scripture that comes to mind is the book of Haggai. Where God uses the prophet’s marriage to Gomer as an illustration of Faithless Israel. Surely they took God’s name in vain just as Gomer did.
Interesting blog. I’ll be back!
Ronnie V on 15 Jul 2007 at 1:41 pm #
Seems waaay to simplistic.
So you’re saying that He really meant, “Don’t misrepresent me”? That He really meant, “Don’t lie about me”?
Wasn’t that covered under a different commandment?
This doesn’t appear to be the understanding of Jewish scribes (who were reluctant to even print His name) either.
My understanding of this is that to use His name in vain is like; knocking on His door- then running away before He opens it. Should he not be more reluctant to open the door for you in the future? Kinda like the boy who cried “Wolf”?
I would only minimize this command (as you have) with great fear and trembling. Please rethink this.
C Michael Patton on 15 Jul 2007 at 1:57 pm #
Thanks for the post!
I can see you don’t agree with me, but you gave no historical or exegetical evidence as to why other than the way Jews interpreted it. Have you really studied the way that they interpreted it fully? Are you going to follow by their hermeneutical method of protecting the law in everything? Look at the implications for interpreting the fourth commandment in Christ’s day. You could not even sneeze (literally) on Sunday. They always protected the law by emphasizing the “letter of the law” and lost the underlying principle. This is my arguement here, not only of the Jews, but our Christian culture.
Thanks for the post my friend.
Ronnie V on 16 Jul 2007 at 10:44 pm #
Thanks for your reply Mr. Patton,
Thank you for allowing me to try to figure this one out. I haven’t done any formal theology so I’m kinda slow at this. Sorry for dragging this thread out.
Now, I hear you telling me that I need more historical and exegetical evidence. I hear you telling me that I should study this more fully. I hear you asking me if I’m going to follow Jewish hermeneutics slavishly. I assure you that I feel no compulsion on “protecting the law” but rather on honoring the law-giver. The law will remain whether I protect it or not.
There is much I do not understand about your exegesis.
I do not understand why Deut 18 does not use the term vain as you seem to use it in your exegesis. Indeed, your definition fails often with a word study.
You have rendered many O.T. passages meaningless with your strict definition. Why are you so reluctant to allow the root meaning to define the semantic domain? Are you not being more strict than I am?
Your study tickles my ears but makes my eyes trickle. Please provide a better study.
P.S. Please tell me how to find the word “naqa” as well.
May God bless you in your studies,
Ron
C Michael Patton on 16 Jul 2007 at 10:54 pm #
Ronnie, the word used for vein means “empty” or “worthless.” This supplies us we a semantic domain to be sure, but the context does not narrow the meaning without historical inquiry. Therefore, we saying that God tells us not to use his name in empty or meaningless way. Now the question comes down to what does the word “name” mean in this context. Again we find that it has to do with reputation, the essence of who or what one is.
Now, here is what we have, “You shall not give our Lord an ill-reputation by throwing it around in a meaningless way.”
From here is where we find the parallel to the day of people using the name of their gods in order to gain an audience.
This is the closest parallel that we can find. The next step is to compare Scripture with Scripture to find if our interpretation is consistent with other part of the Bible. Immediately we find that God is concerned about protecting His reputation by making sure there are no false prophets. Deut 13, 18. Then we see this abused in Jer 13.
All things considered, this is the best exegesis I can do.
For a short summary of this process, the theological/exegetical process, see here. Scroll to the bottom and watch or listen to # 4 and #5. (Really, it is much more profitable if you watch).
God bless.
Ronnie V on 17 Jul 2007 at 11:49 pm #
Thanks Mr. Patton,
Thanks for the video. I can’t tell you that I learned anything from it though.
I’m still not finding the word “naqa” either. Do you mean the Hebrew for “take”?
Also, I hear you saying that the word “vain” is synonomous with “presumptuously” in Deut 18. I don’t see even a 51% parallel.
As I understand this passage- it applies only to prophets.
That with your “timeless principle” we can safely ignore this commandment because we suspect that there are no more prophets in the same sense.
I find it much safer to rely on the footnote of the NET Bible
regarding this commandment:
21tn ש×Ö¸×•Ö°× (shav’, “vainâ€) describes “unreality.†The command prohibits use of the name for any idle, frivolous, or insincere purpose (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 196). This would include perjury, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.
I find it much safer to rely only commentators like Matthew Henry, John Gill, K&D etc. regarding this commandment.
I’m reminded of F.F. Bruce saying, “If you find the sayings of Jesus easy you probably are not understanding them”.
Jesus not only expands the categories of adultery, murder, blasphemy etc. ,but refuses to minimize the commandments (as you seem to be doing). In fact, he pronounces a curse on those that do (Matt. 5:19).
May you not be among them.
Regards,
Ron
C Michael Patton on 17 Jul 2007 at 11:56 pm #
Well, all I can say is that we are held accountable by our exegesis first. While I do respect what others have said about this, not many current scholars would follow the common evangelical folk theology concerning this issue. In fact, the NET Bible quote you gave should have given you further confidence that I am not in left field on this one.
Again, it comes down more to historical inquiry and what “name” means in the context. We simply think of it as an articulated designation, but in that day (and in some cultures today) it had to do with reputation. That is where you should take your studies next. What does “name” mean?
Anthony Forsyth on 22 Jul 2007 at 4:20 pm #
Ron,
I’d just like to inteject here and say a couple of things:
1) Michael’s exegesis seems, to me, to be making the commandment harder and not easier. In addition, he has clearly stated that the use of God’s name as a curse word would be wrong still, but not on the basis of the 3rd commandment.
2) Is there any evidence to suggest that anybody was using God’s name (or any other god’s name) as a form of cursing at that time? Surely that would be necessary to understand the passage in the traditional manner?
It was a blog and not a precise article, for sure, but I thought it articulated well a good piece of exegesis.
Anthony
SharperIron » The Third Commandment on 25 Jul 2007 at 12:59 pm #
[...] & Pen’s C. Michael Patton ponders the meaning of taking God’s name in vain and concludes we are missing the [...]
It's Your Monkey... on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:17 pm #
So Should I Start Swearing?
I was pointed to an interesting perspective on the Third Commandment (not taking the Lord’s name in vain) here. It makes more sense than any other argument I have heard against taking the Lord’s name in vain.
…
RonM on 31 Jul 2007 at 5:46 pm #
I think it would be best to understand that we’re talking about two ways of using God’s name: one is to use it in a frivolous manner, the other is to use it in cursing. The third commandment is explicitly prohibiting using God’s name in a frivolous manner. It is good to point out that we can do so without cursing. Certainly we don’t want to be careless as to how we use the Lord’s name. But how much more then does this imply that the Lord’s name ought not to be used for cursing either! The Lord’s model prayer included the phrase, “Hallowed be Thy name” (Matt 6:9). I can’t imagine that anyone with a clear conscience could in a fit of frustration utter a curse using the Lord’s name and consider this a means of hallowing His name or bringing glory to Him! It may not break the letter of the law, but it certainly breaks the spirit of the law! We should be careful as to what we encourage others to do in this matter as Jesus said that, “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matt 12:36)
paulsteven on 09 Aug 2007 at 5:40 pm #
I think Mr Patton has made a good point here and reminded
us that we have a responsibility to represent the Lord as
accurately as we can. That we also have to give account
for every idle word should preclude using expressions like
GD and let our ‘yea’ really mean ‘yea’. I thought Scotti’s
insight on our being ‘the bride of Christ’ and therefore
responsible to be a true and example of Christ, our
‘bridegroom’ very helpful and supported by scripture
throughout the testaments. My only question is therefore:
What is there to argue about here?
I find it very helpful when my brethren of whichever
Christian persuasion shed a little more light on the scripture.
As long as these insights are supported by the
preponderance of scripture and point us to greater devotion
and obedience, and a closer ‘imitation of Christ’, thank God
for them! God bless you! (I mean that!)
Theological Musings » More Than Meets the Eye on 23 Aug 2007 at 7:57 am #
[...] we do use the term “God”, even with a capital G in other ways. As was pointed out in a post on another blog (a blog unfamiliar to me, and one I only found in looking for some other information about this [...]
Cage on 17 Sep 2007 at 1:15 pm #
To pick up a bit on what Anthony was saying (#2)…
It seems to me that people are denouncing a modern usage that may not have even been imaginable in biblical times. How many ancients were throwing their hands up saying “Jesus” or stubbing their toe and screaming G-D?
It appears obvious that the commandment could not directly apply to these utterances since they didn’t exist at the time. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
Great article and discussion Mr. Patton
Robb Hand on 18 Sep 2007 at 4:56 pm #
There is very little that I could add to your well thought out and presented article. All I will say is, “Well done and about time”.
SuseADoodle on 19 Sep 2007 at 9:29 pm #
I didn’t read all of the comments but did notice a couple that look at this commandment a little differently.
“Take” and “Use” are actually different.
My husband was the one who introduced me to this other way of looking at the 3rd commandment. He works in a factory and some of his co-workers get upset at anyone on the line who use any curse word and tell them they are offending God by “taking His name in vain” when the word ‘god’ wasn’t even in what they said.
The answer my husband has for that is that most of the words they hear are slang terms for functions God created and therefore not a surprise to Him. (Even so, I would suggest avoiding using those terms because they’re crude and crass.)
Hubby sees “taking” the Lord’s name as referring to something like a
(1) marketing ploy — such and such celebrity is now a Christian (hoping to break into that market — and when it turns out it isn’t quite as lucrative as they had hoped, they become a Buddhist or an Atheist).
Or,
(2) actually following the Bill Bright idea of “Try God.” But when things get tough, you say “that didn’t work” and move on to what the next self-help guru has to offer to improve your life.
Taking the Lord’s name in vain seems to be more about wearing the mantle of being one of His followers to either look right to the right people or to see how that “magical” cloak will make your own life better now.
Now, back to “swearing” — I said maybe we shouldn’t do it because it offends people. But, who is being offended? As a general rule it is people who are living a legalistic lifestyle of Christianity rather than one steeped in grace and mercy. Maybe swearing isn’t the way to do it, but a lot of these Sisters and Brothers need to be offended right out of their legalism and into a real understanding of the truth of the hymn “JUST AS I AM.” And stop telling the world they need to be pefect BEFORE they can come to God?
Rocky Johnson on 08 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am #
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for this AWESOME and ACCURATE post!
I am TOTALLY convinced that one of the biggest stumbling blocks sitting before unsaved people today is “Christians”, and by Christians… I mean, people who CLAIM to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, but may or NOT be in fact. The damage done by us (I will include myself since I am a Christian), is when we teach people “doctrines and/or traditions of men” as if it is the Word of God and not making SURE we are totally lining up with scripture. We MUST all do as YOU just did in this posting and examine the scriptures… study them for ourselves and not just fall back on what a preacher, or teacher, or friend, or Mom, or Dad, or a tradition says… but what the SCRIPTURES say and mean.
I have always had a problem with people who consider saying (G-D) to be taking the name of the Lord in vain. If anything, using the phrase “Gosh darn” is worse because by definition… when one uses that phrase they are in effect “cursing” by trying to side step “cursing” so it is a more deliberate act and thus actually makes the person guilty of BOTH offenses (as far as profanity goes). (Just a thought). I don’t use the phrase (G-D), nor do I think ANY Christian should use it to curse, (swear), but just as you so clearly explained, saying it is not what is at issue. The question is, is using that phrase taking the name of the Lord in vain?
Using that phrase is not a violation of the 3rd commandment.
Thank you again for your post and blog.
May God bless and keep you… and yes… I mean it along with prayer.
Christian American Voter on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:52 am #
Very interesting conversation. So what does everyone think about the 3rd Commandment and it’s application to Sarah Palin’s comments made to her Pentecostal church? (See Video Below)
Should Christians trust other Christians (in this case Sarah Palin’s direct quotes) which proclaim that God’s will is to unify “People & Companies to get gas pipelines built”, and promote & justify war with Iraq as being “God’s Plan”…?
It was the Bush Administration’s plan to go to war, last we all checked, and “Palin’s Plan” to get a gas pipeline built which will enhance Alaska’s wealth and her own career as a politician.
Read Luke 9:54-56 “…For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”
Mankind must be highly careful to decipher the truth between understanding a man-made wars vs “God’s Will”.
Palin’s quote that the Iraq War is God’s Plan, could potentially backfire and fuel radical Muslim desire for Jihad (Muslim Holy War) with the US. Bin Ladin’s own statements showed that he hoped to use the US stepping foot onto Muslim soil in war, as reason to ignite Muslim countries to “unite in Jihad against the US”.
Isn’t this talk from Palin, especially coming from a potential VP and possible default President of the USA (should God forbid McCain die or fall very ill in office – a highly likey event considering his age, and that 8 of 43 US presidents – that’s nearly 1 in 5 US presidents in our history having died in office, plus the fact he’s had cancer 4 times and has reportedly up to 18 current ailments), awfully dangerous speak?
…Potentially giving those radical Muslim countries video evidence (should Palin be elected to office) reason to feel the US is – via it’s leaders, instigating Jihad with Muslim countries? I find this quite worrisome…
Please see for yourself the “Sarah Palin & the Wasilla Assembly of God Video” below.
Sarah Palin DIRECT QUOTE #1 in this video below:
“I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that…”
– Sarah Palin
(Can the 3rd Commandment also mean in essence: Thou shalt not use the Lords name to gain an audience for your political gain or profit. ???)
And, Palin’s direct quote #2 in this video re: the Iraq War US Troops:
“Our national leaders are sending them [our US troops] out on a task that is from God”….”that plan is God’s plan”. – Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4LjsfWbZLA&feature=related
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5801485&page=1
I would be interested in hearing your perspective considering this very important election. Thank You.
Bob Brague on 09 Oct 2008 at 8:52 am #
I’ve often thought the widespread use, in America at least, of the phrase “Oh, my God!” (OMG) is a case of taking the Lord’s name in vain. (This was before I read — and agree with — your statement that “God” is not his name.)
OMG is everywhere, but mostly on the home makeover shows of TLC, HGTV, Ty Pennington extravaganzas, and reality shows everywhere. I suppose it is meant by the users to express surprise, joy, delight, unexpected results, etc., but OMG has become exceedingly trite. I wonder whether He really is “their” God since many times their lifestyles don’t seem to take Him into consideration.