gosh, golly, jeez and jeepers

gosh [euphemism for God] (1757)
used as a mild oath or to express surprise.

golly [euphemism for God] (1775)
used as a mild oath or to express surprise.

jeez [euphemism for Jesus] (ca 1900)
used as a mild oath.

jeepers [euphemism for Jesus]
jeepers creepers [euphemism for Jesus Christ] (1927)
used as a mild oath.

EDIT:

gee2 [euphemism for Jesus] (1895)
used as an introductory expletive or to express surprise or enthusiasm
gee whiz interj (1885): GEE

Source: Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

. . . Wally...

Cult TV - A Viewer Guide to the Shows American can't Live Without
Article by John Javna, published in 1985

Main Article
The "golly-gee" world of Leave It to Beaver is vintage white-bread America: our ‘50s fantasies were preserved forever in this series. Ward, June, Wally, and Theodore "Beaver" Cleaver lived in suburban Utopia, in a perfectly arranged household where Dad worked, Mom cooked, and the kids were as wholesome as Wheaties. It seemed similar to other 50 sitcoms, but Beaver had an important difference. In this show, TV looked at children as complete human beings, with their own needs, and personalities, independent of their parent’. What’s more, those parents were imperfect, just like in the real world. Father didn’t always know best on Beaver; though Ward’s advice to this boys sounded wise, it often went awry. But the boys took this in stride, and he remained their number one adviser. June wasn’t big in the wisdom department; she was too busy in the kitchen, fixing cookies and milk. Beaver’s life was centered on his family. But it also encompassed the world outside. He and Wally hung out with Larry, Whitey, Gilbert, and Lumpy. And Eddie, the two-faced jerk who kept this show from turning into pure molasses. Viewers got to know Beaver’s teachers at Grant Avenue Elementary and local characters like Gus, the old coot at the fire station. Mayfield was neat, self enclosed society where people where naturally nice (not counting Eddie) and problems were never too painful - the kind of America we believed in at Beaver’s age and still dream about.

Sidebars:
Half-hour sitcom. CBS/ABC. First aired Oct 4th, 1957. Last show: Sept 12, 1963. Never ranked in the Top 25 shows of a year.

Milestones: The first family sitcom that deal with life from a kid’s point of view. To many fans, it’s the ultimate portrayal of life in white, suburban America in the 50’s. Background: As more American families joined the baby boom, sitcoms featuring young nuclear families came into their own. In 1957, Danny Thomas and Father Knows Best cracked the top 25 for the first time. In 1958, The Donna Reed Show debuted, and the Real McCoys was in the Top 10. In 1959, Dennis the Menace was #16. Beaver, though not as successful in the ratings, was part of the family trend. First: The first sitcom named after a baby boomer; the first toilet ever shown on TV

I also ran into a church using Beaver's famous line as a slogan for a series of sermons . . . ?

I am feeling as if I am treading a fine line here. Initially my intention was to make others aware of what these words mean, but now find myself wondering if by "advertising" them, they are being put into peoples consciences . . .

Last night I had dinner with a person that I had never met before, and in almost every other sentence she used one of these words. While I am sure that she did not know the meaning (isn't it interesting how we have been tricked into using these words without knowing their meaning?), I did - and every time I heard it, it was as blasphemy against the name of my precious Saviour. What is worse, is that because of the other people present, I did not correct her - and I am now left wondering if I should have said something.

It was only a couple of years ago that I found out what these words mean - I was horrified and felt great sorrow to know that all of these years I have been taking the Lord's name in vain.

And then recently I learned even more about taking the Lord's name in vain - oh the things we do in the face of our awesome God.

... you need to get a life!

So that is why He wanted me to have dinner with these people. Oh Lord, why am I so very slow - and here I am complaining when I should be rejoicing!

Thank you Rivqah!

Is it of importance to get everyone aware that the definitions of these words are euphemisms for the Lord's name?

It is not important until it is understood by the one who says these words that they are taking the Lord's name in vain. Very simply put, "gosh, golly, jeez and jeepers" mean nothing of themselves. It is not until a meaning of vulgarity is contextualized synonomously with these that it becomes a burden to speak them.

It is no different than eating food sacrificed and/or offered to idols. Eat it until someone tells you it is sacrificed and/or offered to idols. Yet, not for your sake but for other's sake.

This is not unlike the terminology of the word "gay." Somehow it went from meaning "happy" to "homosexual." Yet, even now there are still people who use "gay" to express "happiness" rather than anything vulgar or offensive to God.

In my own experience I have come to the same conclusion with words like these being euphemisms for the Name of God, but I was not aware of "gee" or "golly" or "jeepers" in that same connotation.

Let everything be judged according to the heart, not the satanic hijacking of the common english language. Just as we are to be careful not to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble by our food likewise we are not to cause them to stumble by making a point of nonsensical words like these being a direct curse against God. This is bordering a delicate balance between legalism (adding the burden of external practices) and desiring to be wholly sanctified unto the Lord.

If it is your conviction to instruct others with this knowledge, please, do so with all gentleness and care. Not in terms of "this is an abomination" but rather for bringing a light and easy correction as to those who are unaware that it should be avoided.

[b]Romans 14[/b]
11. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

. . . not the satanic hijacking of the common english language.

(1) gee – [origin unknown] (1628)
used as a direction to turn to the right or move ahead

(3) gee – (1926)
1:the letter g
2[grand] slang: a thousand dollars

Satan delights in us using these words in ignorance. This is why we must pray for the Lord to show us our sin - so that we do not remain ignorant - so that we do not misrepresent Him to others - so that we do not spew forth garbage - so that we can repent and turn from our wicked ways. Light must be shown forth on these things, to expose them for what they are - an abomination in the face of the Lord for we have sinned against Him, and Him alone.

We have defined these words, and if we use them, it is our responsibility to know their meaning.

"Ignorance is the nurse of impiety."

Attributes of God - Thomas Watson

Hi everyone,

I was reading some of the sermons from solitary confinement by Pastor Wurmbrand last night and I was shocked as he mentioned some of the phrases that missionaries had used to translate phrases from the Bible into the native language because there was no equivalent otherwise in the language.

I thought of this because I agree with boG, in that it seems to me also that we need to be carefull in this case to not create an offense in someone's conscience.

God must certainly be aware of the expressions of every person's heart.

EDIT: I'd like to emphasize that I don't want to suggest these words are appropriate to use; but that I think we should [b]be carefull[/b] how we handle things like this.

EDIT: I'd like to emphasize that I don't want to suggest these words are appropriate to use; but that I think we should be carefull how we handle things like this.

Exactly ChrisJD, just because Merriam-Webster or Dictionary.com has defined these words as slang for "Jesus" or "God" does not mean that the average Christian is using them in the same vain and abusive manner.

I am not trying to discourage you, HeartSong, from bringing to light this understanding. [b]However, I am definitely trying to calm you down from using such strong language[/b].

If you approach people by saying, "when you use words like 'golly' and 'gee' you are cursing God to His face! You are ignorantly misrepresenting God and His Christ and spewing forth garbage! Repent, ye sinner! Repent from your wicked ways!"

You are going to turn people off and completely miss the point of the gospel message, especially concerning the maturing Christian life.

It is very simple, whatever is not of faith is sin. If you define these words to be vulgar then be true to your faith and conscience and personalize for yourself that these words are unclean.

If you come across anyone who calls themselves a Christian, and they often say, for example, "gee", and then you ask them, "do you know that 'gee' is a euphemism for 'Jesus'? And they say, "yes, I knew that." Then you shall have reason to give them a slap and rightly bring such strong language as "sin" and "using the Lord's name in vain."

If they say rather, "No, it is just an expression of surprise." Then handle the situation as it is -- not a sin and not using the Lord's name in meaningless jargon. Give them a simple "this is what those petty words actually mean, according to the dictionary ... etc."

As for the dinner party and the lady in question that brought this topic to mind, if she is not a born-again Christian it will not be a very convincing gospel statement to tell her she is sinning and going to hell for saying "gosh, golly, jeez and jeepers." She is going to hell because by the grace of God she needs a new heart not because of immature euphemisms that she may or may not understand to be blasphemy.

That is really the whole point. Keeping to the true heart and spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ignorance is neither a sin nor does it condemn anyone; but the Light that shines in the darkness that one despises, this is their sin and condemnation.

I have thought about the use of disguised swearwords recently. Not matter how cleverly Satan disguise them they are still swearwords. When we reduce it to them to core, they express blasphemy and uncleanliness, condemnation, arrogance, and rebellion. When we swear we take the place of God in judgement over others. When Peter denied Jesus he swore.

I cannot play the role of the Holy Spirit to convict everyone, but this I can say:

Mat 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

If you want to see God clearly, you must rid yourself of anything unclean. Compromise in this area will definitely blurr your vision.

Ps24:3
3 Who may ascend the hill of the LORD ?
Who may stand in his holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false.

Mat 5
34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I am far from clean, but swearing, even if it is just in thought always shows my unspirituality. I cannot praise God in the same sentence without renouncing the previous word or thought.

narrowpath

It is not meant as literally gain your own life, it's merely a slang here in America...

To most people it means nothing.

But Krispy, do you not see that that is exactly the problem? It is not slang - it is literal - you are saying what is in your heart. This is why America is coming under judgment. We are flying under the banner of America, instead of God and using it as an excuse for our misbehavior.

If you read the post about the description of "Leave it to Beaver," you are reading about the breakdown of family in America. On the surface, it all sounds wonderful to the ear, but look below the surface and you will see the seed of what had led to blatant homosexuality. Do you not think that the writers of the show did not know the definition of the key slogan? Do you not realize that Satan knows that if we partake of it, it will become common place. Do you not think that Satan delights in God's creatures blaspheming Him to His face?

How do you react on the inside when your child calls you a swearword - even in ignorance? How would you feel if they cursed your name?

Our Lord will forgive us if we repent - but if we do not even think it is a sin, how can we repent?

The seeds of the enemy are sown in the same manner as the seeds of Righteousness.

The are planted below the surface and watered. The roots grow down before the weeds grow up, breaking through the surface and exposing themselves to the air. This is why they are so difficult to extract.

Seems to me that HeartSong is only sharing what God is doing in his/her life and that is an important issue. Who is to say what is important and what is not? Many times there are discussions on this forum that are trivial at best, but that doesn't make them wrong. For example, "What's playing on your iPod?" Is that the most important issue we could discuss? Absolutely not. Is it worthwhile? Absolutely.

We are here to learn from each other and encourage each other.

I always appreciate hearing what God is teaching another believer. It may be something God taught me a long time ago. Or it may be something God will have to teach me in the future because I'm not quite mature enough to handle it yet. Many times, it's God using that person to teach me something right now. Or remind me of something I already know, but haven't been practicing lately because I'm not as close to Him as I need to be.

Hi everyone,

Notme, you said,

"As for the words in question, unless the Spirit in you is grieved by the use of such words, you cannot know whether they are blasphemous. Those things are spiritually discerned, brother. We cannot go by our natural understanding or standards."

And then right after this you said to another poster in regards to their use of a phrase:

"I'd be terrified to say such a thing. Don't you know that unless you LOSE YOUR LIFE, you will not receive it? What life of your own and at your own disposal are you talking about?

You need to take that statement back. For such talk is unacceptable in the church of Christ. Maybe at a rock concert, yes; but not in the church!"

As he responded to you, as far as I know this expression that he used has nothing to do with actually saving or keeping your life.

This all seems very similar to the objections that have been raised here in the first, not in the exact particulars, but in the principle: that we may not at all be certain what others mean in the things they say, even though we may have some knowledge of their( words) meaning.

And so then we may need to proceed with caution in order to be carefull not to [b]create[/b] an offense in their conscience unescessarily.

Chris

Heartsong, how are you?

About this,

"It is not slang - it is literal - you are saying what is in your heart."

I was thinking about this and thought of an example from scripture that I think we could keep in mind as we consider these things.

Remember how the Lord Jesus' statement about His physical body was misunderstood by His hearers in John 2:13-21, and how later He was even falsely accused regarding this(Mat 26:61)?

Well, it seems to me that those who heard Him erred in at least two things: one, they assumed they understood what He was referring to and two, they interpreted His words on their own terms.

Now I don't mean to suggest that this is exactly applicable here, but I do think it can give us a reminder that we may not always have the facts and can't always be sure we know what others mean in what they say. Maybe we are reading into their words something from ourselves or that is important or offensive to us?

Again, I just think we need to be carefull here.

Take care for now,

Chris

Joy, well said. I would like to add one more concept not mentioned in this thread - I think.

Idle words: What sayeth the Scriptures? Consider:
Matthew 12: 36, 37: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

ἀργός
argos
ar-gos'
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G2041; inactive, that is, unemployed; (by implication) lazy, useless: - barren, idle, slow.

Idle words - can we not learn through the aid of the Holy Spirit to make our words count, mean something when we speak?

ginnyrose

If you read the post about the description of "Leave it to Beaver," you are reading about the breakdown of family in America.

I would think if we had Leave it to Beaver displacing tonights TV lineup that we had just entered the third Great Awakening.

Is Fred Flinstone to be blamed for the proliferation of the theory of evolution? (I hope not, I really like Fruity Pebbles!)

:)

It's funny that I was just having this conversation not too far back with my step-son - The Flintstones were in essence "Prime Time" for awhile there when I was growing up ...

I am sorry to say that we are very, very far removed from those days - Days when there was at least a modicum of decency and even 'morals' were not yet taboo ...

But I will also admit that I have recognized where even the off shoots of these terms are not completely lost on me, I recognize that they were in essence a replacement for not taking the Lords name in vain, they are derivatives, "a way around it" if you will.

I tend to use "Good grief" a lot, Charlie Browns oft catch phrase.

Now if we could just get Peanuts back on the air in regular rotation ...

([i]Edit: Correction - Had "not sorry to say" there prior[/i])

You guys had bad cartoons back then hahahaha, now a days cartoons are so much better, Avatar the last airbender is like the coolest cartoon ever.

sorry to get of topic :)

is "oh my goodness" bad.. thats what i say

Greetings

I use the term "Oh my goodness!" whenever I am shocked or surprised and I sigh very heavily whenever I am annoyed or frustrated. My children will always ask me if I am angry with them, so I guess it does not always have to be certain words that we use but rather the heart behind what we say and how we behave. At least I find that to be true for me.

On a side note I vote for the Charlie Brown cartoons to come back. I loved them. As for the Flintstones, Fred was always a bit of a male chauvinist for my tastes, but that's a whole other thread. :-)

God Bless
MJ

is "oh my goodness" bad.. thats what i say

That is what I finally ended up with, but it took me awhile to get there. It is difficult to "unlearn" things that are deeply ingrained.

SPONGEBOB ALL THE WAY ....man i am 17 year old guy and i still have spongebob beadsheets....talk about manhood.....

i'm so sorry i said that, just said it for fun.

Thanks much

That is what I finally ended up with, but it took me awhile to get there. It is difficult to "unlearn" things that are deeply ingrained.

Had to come back and make a mention that this is not totally lost on me either. I have been bothered by these same eumphemisms and strangely of late. They slip out and I quietly repent of them --- You could drive yourself to distraction over all this I suppose but the "Geez" that creeps out ... I know what it means though I may never had the thought of it. But you are right, you can unlearn these things ... For crying out loud (another replacement) ;-)

I always heard it called christian cussing. It is the way people found to express themselves the way they "used to" without blatantly cussing. There is a great long list of them. I bought a couple of slang and euphemism books a couple of years ago to prove that I wasn't the only one with this thought. It started with gee whiz and now I hear "that Frickin S**ks" in the youth groups. Hey it's only words, right? As far as God's name that really is the issue. I have been praying that we would once again reverence the great name of our God. One thing that really grieves me is when christians go around saying "oh gawd" It doesn't dawn on them what they are saying or doing because it has become to acceptable to lightly esteem His wonderful name. Many of the golden years of television were committed to desensitizing christians. I know that it isn't a perfect use of the scripture, but I think that your yes should be yes and your no, no. In application, I am always telling my daughter (15) maybe there is nothing really wrong with a certain word, but always strive to use the "best" words. I grew up with a Roget's Thesaurus and was always told that we have so many words that mean almost the same thing. Mean what you say and say what you mean. I don't think it has to be legalistic to strive to be our best is treating His great name with the value He Himself placed on it.

HeartSong wrote:
gosh [euphemism for God] (1757)
used as a mild oath or to express surprise.

golly [euphemism for God] (1775)
used as a mild oath or to express surprise.

jeez [euphemism for Jesus] (ca 1900)
used as a mild oath.

jeepers [euphemism for Jesus]
jeepers creepers [euphemism for Jesus Christ] (1927)
used as a mild oath.

EDIT:

gee2 [euphemism for Jesus] (1895)
used as an introductory expletive or to express surprise or enthusiasm
gee whiz interj (1885): GEE

Source: Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

It then sounds like they were speaking curses on themselves while saying those things. It also sounds like they were murmuring and complaining. Which Biblically means, to stop overnight for a time of darkness. Joyce Green (director at our church - wife of Milton Green) use to teach on this in her teaching tapes.

Hello Mike,

I would think if we had Leave it to Beaver displacing tonights TV lineup that we had just entered the third Great Awakening.

Cult TV - A Viewer Guide to the Shows American can't Live Without
(see page 1 of this thread)

It seemed similar to other 50 sitcoms, but Beaver had an important difference. In this show, TV looked at children as complete human beings, with their own needs, and personalities, independent of their parent’.

Father didn’t always know best on Beaver; though Ward’s advice to this boys sounded wise, it often went awry. But the boys took this in stride, and he remained their number one adviser.

Mayfield was neat, self enclosed society where people where naturally nice (not counting Eddie) and problems were never too painful - the kind of America we believed in at Beaver’s age and still dream about.

Self enclosed societies breed fear, and fear brings forth hatred. This I have seen for myself. Our God is a God of diversity - there must be opposites or nothing happens. Without opposing action things wither and die.

In closing, I would like to say that if our relationship with our Lord is as it should be, we would have no interest in these things - for life in Him is rich and abounding. In Him there is no desire for diversion. Oh how I pray that we could all find our joy in Him.

It seemed similar to other 50 sitcoms, but Beaver had an important difference. In this show, TV looked at children as complete human beings, with their own needs, and personalities, independent of their parent’.

That is the reviewers opinion - Did you ever watch the show? Whatever the case may be, we are a long, long way from all this. If this was all we had to squabble over, it would be a rejoicing.

[i]Mayfield was neat, self enclosed society where people where naturally nice (not counting Eddie) and problems were never too painful - the kind of America we believed in at Beaver’s age and still dream about.[/i]

This is not reality.

Not any longer it isn't ... But believe it or not even with all the problems that era had and no era is is without it's conundrums ... This was not far from the truth. Remember art imitates life? There was at least a great deal more ... innocence if I dare to use the word, simplicity - Honesty - Character - Morals - Integrity - Whoever it is that wrote this seems to be more cynical than anything, again compare it to where we are now ...

Could but wish Ward was running for President, even Eddie Haskel, at least he had the fortitude to come clean when he got busted ...

Hi Mike,

No, I did not watch the show very much. Blessedly I have never been attracted to television to a large degree and a couple of years ago I became so disgusted with it that I quit watching it all together. And now, after seeing how it influences the way we think (or don't think) I avoid it like the plague.

The quotes are from here:

http://www.leaveittobeaver.org/magazine_articles/mag_culttv.htm

. . . children as complete human beings, with their own needs, and personalities, independent of their parent’.

I moved back to the Midwest after growing up in the West. At first I found the simplicity - Honesty - Character - Morals - Integrity to be a great relief. But as time passed I began to see that what appeared to be was not necessarily so - that below the surface was a very dark ugly monster. There is so much to say here - let me just suffice it to say that darkness is much easier to deal with when it is not disguised as light.

It is only after we allow God to shine His light upon these things that the truth will be known. We are embracing evil because we see it to be good - forgetting that we are not to trust in things that are seen but only in that which is from above.

If one small line from a television show shows itself in our language to the degree that it has - making itself a constant nuisance even though we would not have it to be - image what else is playing itself out in our every day life, seeking to divide us from a loving God that has shown Himself to be faithful and true.

Hi Heartsong...

I know that "Leave it to Beaver" appears to be harmless, but often it is the things that appear to be good that turn out to be the most lethal - for you do not realize that you are being poisoned.

Today's shows are not even close to the morality of [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i]. In fact, today's shows actually MOCK the morality and values found in that show. During one of my undergrad classes, we were shown the relatively recent film [i]Pleasantville[/i], which was a direct afront on shows like [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i] and [i]The Andy Griffith Show[/i]. The film portrayed the "colorization" of society from the wholesome moral portrayals of the 1950s into the rebellious society of the late 1960s. Of course, the film's premise came from an entirely ungodly perspective (almost as if such a move from such moral ideals was a good thing).

Yes, society is dangerous. The sins that were rampant during the days of [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i] are still existant today. I suppose that the danger of [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i] lay in the idea of living life without mention of our need for a constant relationship with God. The difference today, I think, is that the media almost boasts in the change to public displays of immorality. Instead of children being taught about the importance of honesty and kindness, children are taught to accept homosexuality, sexual immorality and rebellion against authority.

It may not have been any easier to be a Christian during the 1950s, but I think that it might have been easier to avoid the media's fascination with sinfulness or their commercial embrace of the idea that "sex sells." I would have preferred living in a society in which the media does not pimp ungodliness into every aspect of children's lives.

:-)

How can it be that we are defending a television show that blasphemes the Name of God?

Hi Heartsong...

Are you referring to me...and [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i]?

If not, please forgive this intrusion. I'm certainly not defending that show (I thought that I made that clear). However, I would also be a little hard pressed to say that it actually [u]blasphemes[/u] the Name of God. I understand that the little child (Beaver) supposedly used the word "Golly" or "Gee" -- but is it blasphemy if a person doesn't know the origin?

How many people do we know who say "Merry Christmas" without knowing the pagan and Roman Catholic origin of such a phrase? Are we to accuse such individuals of [i]blasphemy[/i]? What about all of the other pagan-Roman traditions that infiltrate the Church? The fact that we use the term "Bishop" -- which is a poor translation influenced by prerequisites in the Catholic and Anglican churches? Or the fact that we have "holidays" (as in [i]Roman[/i] holidays)? What about the entire modern Church program format -- taken from pagan-Roman cathedral temples?

Yes, I think that we should avoid the words that we learn are slights upon the Name that is above all names. Yet I think that we can mingle just a bit of patience with those who do not know any better, and educate them when it truly matters to them.

I don't watch [i]Leave it to Beaver[/i] -- although I watched quite a few cable rerun episodes of it when I was a child. I don't recall the Beaver saying such things, but I wouldn't doubt it that he did. It wasn't a "Christian" show, you know. I just wanted to interject that the show was much more moral than many of the shows that came after it.

And, of course, I don't endorse blasphemy.

;-)

Hello ccchhhrrriiisss,

No, I was not specifically replying to you - just anyone that thinks that "Leave it to Beaver" was not that bad. I have been praying about this and at the moment I feel like sticking my head in the sand, or crawling under a rock, as the Lord has been impressing upon me just exactly what it is that we have done.

We have used a small boy, taking the Lord's name in vain as a means to entertain millions across America. Certainly someone was aware of what this boy was saying - and not only did we not put a stop to it, but we are now feeding it to our own children as acceptable "entertainment."

We are now paying the price for the seeds that we have sown - for the audience of today is comprised of those that fed on the shows of that era. As is always the case with evil, more and more is required to satiate it's relentless appetite. We are now reaping what we have sown.

There will be judgment, as we are beginning to see, for we have sinned against a most holy God. I have lifted prayers to our Lord for any, and all, that can not see this - that your eyes would be opened, and that He would show forth mercy.

HeartSong,

We have used a small boy, taking the Lord's name in vain ... a means to entertain millions across America.

I must say this is getting practically absurd. With what we have at our feet and in our face in this hour, [i]this[/i] is what ails you? No The Beav wasn't that bad, good grief already, Chris well pointed out the matter ... Maybe a trip back to the West Coast would regain some perspective? ... Sigh, I am not really interested in making more ado of this and don't intend to be unduly harsh there, but ... you are coming across as a sheer legalist at this point.

[i]And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.[/i] Mat 12:32

Hi Heartsong...

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, I have been guilty of using such words in the past. I had no thought about using them and certainly didn't mean to use those words as a form of "blasphemy." In fact, I didn't know that most of them were taken from the English name "Jesus." I suppose that I simply thought of them as being similar to "Wow."

Funny story:

When I was in high school, my pastor and his wife drove myself and another guy from our youth group to summer camp. It was a long drive, so the other guy and I spent the hours talking about nearly everything under the sun. The pastor's wife, a wonderful elderly woman, overheard me using the descriptive words, "wow," "cool," and "neat" (etc...).

During a lull in the conversation, she explained how, when she was a very young girl, she learned that such words were "ungodly" and even "blasphemous." She told us that ever since then, she had never uttered such words.

My response?

"Wow!!!"

:-P

Of course, I didn't mean anything by it. It was just a natural reaction to the astonishment that someone could avoid using such words for an entire lifetime. My pastor's wife initially looked astonished by my reaction, but she smiled from the irony when she noticed that it was a natural reaction.

I would, however, like to reiterate that it might take something willful to make such a word into "blasphemy." The word "blasphemy" itself indicates a willful decision to ridicule, mock, profane, or cursing of God. Of course, I am not condoning the use of words that were taken as a light substitute for the Name of Christ. However, I am quite certain that it is possible for people to have uttered such a word without even knowing what it means. Perhaps "Beaver Cleaver" himself, along with the other actors, writers and staff, were unaware of any such connotation with Christ? I suppose that, in such a sense, ignorance is much better than willful or purposeful "blasphemy."

at the moment I feel like sticking my head in the sand, or crawling under a rock, as the Lord has been impressing upon me just exactly what it is that we have done.

Don't do that! The warrior will not flinch in the face of battle. And this is where you are. Stay strong, and be faithful! These are the ones God rewards! After all, there is eternity ahead and too many times we forget that...helps us to keep things in proper perspective, does it not? Methinks so.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

Thank you ginnyrose . . . for grabbing me by the sruff of my neck and dragging me back to my feet.

May He bless you greatly.

Well, if we wanted to be true to the theme of this thread ...

"Oh my goodness!"

Well, what is your "goodness"? Only God is good. And, He is your goodness.

Or, "Oh my word!"

Well, Jesus is the Word.

You guys had bad cartoons back then hahahaha, now a days cartoons are so much better, Avatar the last airbender is like the coolest cartoon ever.

To comment on that off topic: "Avatar: the last airbender" is steeped in eastern mysticism and spirituality. Not what I would call wholesome Christian entertainment. Much less, it is detrimental to the education of impressionable children with symbolisms, forms of channelling energies (including nature, emotions, the mind, and the spirit), repetitive mantras, suggestive (and hypnotic) musical interludes, teen angst (not to mention the pent up sexual emotions of these characters with portrayed ages between 12-16), and detailed explanations of chi, zen, karma, eastern meditation, nirvana, and the eastern religion's disciplines for practicing these ways.

Indeed, a quality "American" cartoon.

Hello Dear ones,

I am quite surprised that so many don't think this is an important issue. God said that He would not hold those guiltless that take His name in vain.

Is it no wonder that God is treated less than holy when His name is not even reverred and treated as Holy? I think to say that this topic is not important is to not really understand what is at the heart of this topic.

I am not being legalistic about this nor do I think it is the same topic as whether we eat meat offered to idols, etc. It is how we revere and respect the Holy One of Israel. It is about the awesomeness of God and how He views and desires His name to be used.

It is important that we realize that it is not just about the words we use but the actions we live. In Ezekiel 36 and 39 God spoke much about acting on the behalf of His Holy name because His people were blaspheming it with their lifestyle.

I don't wish to prolong this post but suffice it to say that it would not hurt Christians to be without entertainment and to be very careful about the entertainment that they indulge in. Leonard Ravenhill wrote quite a bit about entertainment versus spending time in prayer. I thought it interesting when he said that America is entertaining itself to hell. ( I don't know if that was his saying or if he was quoting someone else ). But to try to teach morals without teaching Christ is almost useless.

In closing I will say that anytime we correct someone that it should be done in love and with the thought that they may not know what they do. That, however, did not make Christ's crucifixion any less of a blessed atrocity.

In His service,
Steve

Hi again everyone,

Acording to the definitions that were provided here, these are words(mostly) from the 1700's.

They are not sacred names for God. Or words that God has used of Himself in the Bible.

Again, I do not want to suggest that these words are appopriate.

But is it wise or safe for us to suggest here that God is holding everyperson that uses these words as guilty of profaning His name?

Ye know not my Father, for if ye did, ye would not treat His Name as such. That which ye so jealously guard shows the condition of your heart. His ways are not our ways, and to declare Him as such is but foolishness and vain thinking. Repent and turn from your wicked ways for the day of the Lord draweth nigh.

And as I pointed out earlier we're only 4 to 6 weeks away from our annual "foolishness-fest", meaning that precious time of year when someone will come here and condemn anyone who celebrates Christmas... and we'll be off to the races yet again.

The Christmas threads won't have anywhere to gallop, and they'll just fizzle out like a wet match. Most of the strong threads here seem to die prematurely anyway - why not abort the ones that should never be born in the first place? We can exercise this caution also with the Cal/Arm ganglang wars (where it's open season year-round). Just don't show up to fight and it's one less log on the fire, and then everyone can have a merrier Christmas and a happier new year.

;-)

Brother Paul

Hi Krispy...

KrispyKrittr wrote:

How many people do we know who say "Merry Christmas" without knowing the pagan and Roman Catholic origin of such a phrase? Are we to accuse such individuals of blasphemy? What about all of the other pagan-Roman traditions that infiltrate the Church? The fact that we use the term "Bishop" -- which is a poor translation influenced by prerequisites in the Catholic and Anglican churches? Or the fact that we have "holidays" (as in Roman holidays)? What about the entire modern Church program format -- taken from pagan-Roman cathedral temples?

Oh how exciting! We are only a month or so away from our annual "Christmas debate"! I almost forgot about that.

The world must get a kick out of watching a bunch of believers argue and debate words like "golly" and fight over Christmas... what a great witness we are.

The phrase "Merry Christmas!" (and the "holiday" itself) comes from pagan origins (as does Easter). However, it isn't that big of a deal to me. While Christmas may have its origins in Roman pagan tradition, it doesn't mean that this is its modern connotation. Rather, most people are completely unaware of it's origin.

The same can be said of words like "Golly," "Gosh," or some of the others. They aren't meant to be a substitute for swearing by the Lord's name. Rather, it is usually said as a substitute for words like "Wow," "Oh," and "You don't say?" (amongst others). Now, I am not defending the use of such words (not in the least). I just want to clarify the discussion is not as "black and white" as it might appear.

I will admit that I have used those words in the past. When I was in junior high school, I used to say "Golly" with regularity (usually pronouncing as "Well Gahhh-leee" ala Gomer Pyle, probably the only "countrified" term that I ever used). However, I was unaware that it might have had origins from a Name for God. In fact, I always used it as a substitute expression for "Wow!"

It just seems like we often strain the gnat and swallow a camel. While this may be a terrible thing, it isn't the root of sin. The root of sin in society (including those who might or might not use such terms) is not an expression whose etymological origins are unknown or unconsidered. The root is that this world simply does not know Jesus Christ. If a person around me uses such a phrase, I really don't feel compelled to explain the "sinfulness" of such an expression. There is a much more pressing matter at hand -- namely, the futility of this world's attempt to live without acknowledging God.

CHris,

But is it wise or safe for us to suggest here that God is holding everyperson that uses these words as guilty of profaning His name?

And why not? The scripture (Matthew 12:36) still tells us that we will have to give account for idle words we say...Then what? How will you justify the use of these words?

ginnyrose

Hi Ginnyrose, thank you for your response to me.

About this,

"And why not? The scripture (Matthew 12:36) still tells us that we will have to give account for idle words we say...Then what? How will you justify the use of these words?"

One reason I think is that we don't want to accuse people of something that God is not holding them guilty of. Speaking unprofitable words is not the same as speaking blasphemy and I don't think it would be fair to confuse the two in pronouncing the judgement of God upon someone, or telling them that God is holding them guilty.

Would it be fair to arrest someone for making threats against the President while what they were doing was loitering outside a store?

Wish you all well

Chris

am quite surprised that so many don't think this is an important issue. God said that He would not hold those guiltless that take His name in vain.

[i]But is it wise or safe for us to suggest here that God is holding everyperson that uses these words as guilty of profaning His name?[/i]

And why not? The scripture (Matthew 12:36) still tells us that we will have to give account for idle words we say...Then what? How will you justify the use of these words?

There is some misplaced construing here - even of those who are attempting to get a perspective, how is it that their own confessions are overlooked? Some of us made mention of them ... What is more suprising is that the derivatives or innocuous, common man's language are seemingly more important than the out right - curse words that are used ... of the Lords Name. Jesus Christ as venom and vendetta, as exasperation as ... I shouldn't have to go very far with this. God's Name as well. And even those, as difficult as it might be to accept are they used with intent or is it just the sloppiness of the vernacular of the world at large? I am not speaking of whether or not it is right - That's what makes this somewhat of an overdose, how far to strain at this .... Intent or ignorance?

Connotations. We have traveled down this path before, with the emphasis on the more vulgar varieties - What our response is, what it should be. Some of us find it our duty to correct each and every mention of it when it is uttered in those exasperated tones. Others may take it to silent prayer and ask forgiveness ([i]They know not what they say[/i]).

Made mention earlier and would draw some seemingly contradictions. If we have;

Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

We also have prior;

Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:

Albert Barnes;

[b]A word against the Son of man[/b] - The Jews were offended at the humble life and appearance of the Saviour. They reproached him as being a Nazarene - sprung from Nazareth, a place from which no good was expected to proceed; with being a Galilean, from Galilee, a place from which no prophet came, Joh_7:52. Jesus says that reproaches of this kind could be pardoned. Reflections on his poverty, on his humble birth, and on the lowliness of his human nature might be forgiven; but for those which affected his divine nature, accusing him of being in league with the devil, denying his divinity, and attributing the power which manifestly implied divinity to the prince of fallen spirits, there could be no pardon. This sin was a very different thing from what is now often supposed to be the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was a wanton and blasphemous attack on the divine power and nature of Christ. Such a sin God would not forgive.

What was it to be accused\\associated with a Nazarene? A fox (The Lords word to Herod). What about [i]Fool[/i]?

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever [u]shall say[/u], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Luk 12:20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

How about the scribes and Pharisees? In some contexts and even our usage is often to spite and slay with intent '[i]Pharisee[/i]'. It is again connotation, intent - purpose, definition - meaning.

Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

In this context they are the accusers, [i]This man blasphemeth[/i]. Because the Lord said [i]Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.[/i]. And as we all know, the scribes and Phairsses were often the objects of the Lords wrath, His woes to them, His turning their legalistic, petty minds to the deadness of their surface level outward forms and rituals;

Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Did I forget [i]hypocrites![/i] ?

What about Nicodemus, a Pharisee and Gamaliel also, not to forget the Apostle Paul. The Lord was invited and dinned with them and still minced no words but the point is - Where do we see Him berating them for the language, the titles, the vernacular they often used against Him? Even Beelzebub, what was His response to such a highly charged accusation?

Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

Taken from the account in Mat 10:25;

All the Greek manuscripts, write “Beelzebul,” which undoubtedly is the right form of this word. The other reading came in no doubt from the Old Testament “Baalzebub,” the god of Ekron (2Ki_1:2), which it was designed to express. As all idolatry was regarded as devil worship (Lev_17:7; Deu_32:17; Psa_106:37; 1Co_10:20), so there seems to have been something peculiarly satanic about the worship of this hateful god, which caused his name to be a synonym of Satan. Though we nowhere read that our Lord was actually called “Beelzebul,” He was charged with being in league with Satan under that hateful name (Mat_12:24, Mat_12:26), and more than once Himself was charged with “having a devil” or “demon” (Mar_3:30; Joh_7:20; Joh_8:48). Here it is used to denote the most opprobrious language which could be applied by one to another.

JFB Commentary.

Language folks ... How far, with what connotations and intents and [i]response[/i]. The Lords own example towards it when it was leveled at Him and even His own usage of derogatory terms. Just how far do we wish to take all this? I ask again as it seems the strain is quite exaggerated and we may be showing ourselves petty, legal - inconsequential. The Lord Himself I appeal to here, His conduct and response.

Hi Roniya,

I think it is nescessary to make a distinction here between names and titles that are set apart and used of God in a sacred way, for instance as they appear in the Bible, and words like golly and so forth which some people may have used at one time or another to refer to God.

Some words may have different meanings and usages which can vary in time and culture.

Other words God has defined Himself and we take it as such by their being in the Bible.

What do you think?

Roniya, I thought of an example just now of Rab-shakeh's speech to Hezekiah and how afterwards Hezekiah tore his clothes and said it was a day of [i]...trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy[/i].

And the Lord also said that the Assyrian had blasphemed Him(2 Kings 19:6).

It seems to me that one of the ways they did this was in using language that was only appropriate for God to use; in trying to speak like God in a mocking way?

Some thoughts.

Wish you all well.

Hi Roniya, thank you for your response also :)

About this,

"One question, has time erased the original meanings of these words?"

I don't know. I think it is possible. It is certainly possible for words to change in meaning as they pass through time and usage.

Take for instance the word translated [i]addicted[/i] in the KJV of 1 Corinthains 16:15.

Or take for instance the names of the days of our week. Do they still hold the same meaning as they once did? Or Christmas?

I'm not sure that I should continue to participate in this thread. I do not want to discourage others from their convictions about these words.

Again though, I think we should be carefull in how we aproach this with others, and in charging them with guilt.

Thanks again and wish you well,

Chris

Chris wrote:

and in charging them with guilt.

Brother, is this bad? Consider, would you have come to the LORD if there had been no guilt in your heart for sins committed? Guilt is to the mind what pain is to the flesh: it will work as a preventive from doing some things that will inflict pain. So is guilt to the spirit.

Or take for instance the names of the days of our week. Do they still hold the same meaning as they once did? Or Christmas?

Is this not an altogether different subject? The original post dealt with profanity. But I do at time feel some unease in how we use the names given to the days of the week and the months of the year....

I do not want to discourage others from their convictions about these words.

Agreed. God has spoken clearly to people concerning the use of this kind of language and to infer otherwise is tantamount to fighting Him.

May I suggest that if this is not a point of conviction for you that you make this a matter of prayer and ask God to reveal His truth to you in this matter. And if you resist this is in your spirit, does this not immediately inform you that there is indeed truth in this matter, one that you are resisting?

Ya'll have a blessed day in the LORD!

ginnyrose

I went to visit some family members yesterday. There was a small boy, his father and his grandfather.

As the boy and I walked to the creek, to throw stones in the mud, he used one of these euphemisms. When I explained what the word meant, he was taken back and said he had been using the word for two years.

We also talked of his new Nintendo toy. He just got it last Tuesday, but I could already see a change - the distance - as if he is in a different world. Over and over he told me how much fun the game was and proclaimed his delight in achieving the different levels.

Later, when we all sat around the table, partaking of the bounty of the Lord, the progression became clear.

The small boy refusing to eat because the food was not prepared to his taste.

The father, in a self induced stupor, proclaiming the achievements of his son - using euphemism after euphemism as if this somehow this gave credence to his statements.

The grandfather, also in a self induced stupor, looking weathered and worn, blatantly taking the Lord's name in vain - seemingly out of nowhere, muttering same, as if the gates of hell were at his door.

In an PM I was made aware of the use of the word "euphemism" in describing these words. I got to thinking that perhaps my understanding of this term is not correct. So I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and according to it an euphemism is "the substitution of a mild or pleasant expression for one offensive or unpleasant." Now if these words - golly, jeez, Gosh - are of a milder or pleasant expression of an offensive word, are these people saying the words God and Jesus are offensive? and Christians use it?!!

I went to visit some family members yesterday. There was a small boy, his father and his grandfather.As the boy and I walked to the creek, to throw stones in the mud, he used one of these euphemisms. When I explained what the word meant, he was taken back and said he had been using the word for two years.

We also talked of his new Nintendo toy. He just got it last Tuesday, but I could already see a change - the distance - as if he is in a different world. Over and over he told me how much fun the game was and proclaimed his delight in achieving the different levels.

Later, when we all sat around the table, partaking of the bounty of the Lord, the progression became clear.

The small boy refusing to eat because the food was not prepared to his taste.

The father, in a self induced stupor, proclaiming the achievements of his son - using euphemism after euphemism as if this somehow this gave credence to his statements.

The grandfather, also in a self induced stupor, looking weathered and worn, blatantly taking the Lord's name in vain - seemingly out of nowhere, muttering same, as if the gates of hell were at his door.

HeartSong, God must have placed you there to teach the child....God bless you!

ginnyrose

I love these people. I have told each of them of my Lord - but they can not hear. If I did not know that our Father is far greater than the evil that is within them, I would be in total despair.

One of these people has hurt me terribly in the past - and I have told him that I forgive him - and that God will forgive him - but he will not believe. It is amazing how these things are carried down through the generations - and how their words are a reflection of their hearts. The Lord has said it would be so.