5 ms·

Can someone explain for non-native English speakers what’s the problem with “goddamn”?

by hk__2 13y ago

serf 13y ago
It's considered profane. Television in the United States is okay with the word 'damn', but there are people who consider the combined use with 'God' to be disrespectful to the word 'God' (and believers), stemming from the belief that many religions have that 'God' (and other synonyms) should be reserved for when a person is addressing that deity. Also, many believers consider it a faux pas to impose on the deity of their chosen religion. (Goddamn, meaning "God, please damn .." is issuing a direct command rather than asking for an assistance) This means that often times on television the word 'Goddamn' has 'God' bleeped from it, to form 'Bleeep-damn', which is okay, apparently. (Apparently it's not disrespectful to overwrite the deity's name/title with an obnoxious noise)
- sitkack 13y ago
  If I start a religion where god is named, "bleep" can I get it covered with "God" instead?
  - serf 13y ago
    You've got my vote.
Crito 13y ago
Some people who are members of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc), interpret the (2nd or 3rd Commandment, depending on how you are counting) "shall not take the lords name in vain" thing to imply that you must not say the word "god" (You will frequently see 'g-d' used by these people). Others see it as a prohibition against using the word "god" irreverently. Others see it as a prohibition against using the word "god" when combined with other "swear words" (this is the "goddamn" case, "damn" being an extremely mild "swear word" that can be found in PG movies). Others still go further and say that the commandment forbids the use of 'minced oaths', such as 'heck' (hell), 'darn' or 'dang' (damn), 'gosh' (god). For the most part, everybody considers this restriction something that they should only expect of themselves (very similar to how it is unheard of for a Jewish or Muslim person in America to object to somebody else eating pork). Rarely, you encounter somebody who does not have a strong grasp on that concept.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  Incidentally, there is yet another interpretation of "taking the Lord's name in vain"[1] to mean "to speak as if you have the authority of God." Some people seem to believe that certain words, by their nature, have different power than other words of equivalent meaning. So you see this sanctimonious abolition of "cursing", where it's okay to say "darn" instead of "damn" and "butt" instead of "ass" and "I am displeased" instead of "this is fucking bullshit". So this notion of "taking the Lord's name in vain" must mean something else. A little study of context tells us that many shamans and prophets and priests of various religions would "invoke" the name of their god when making decrees to lend authority to their statements. Which doesn't work if you're trying to prove out the legitimacy of God. Whomever wrote The Bible understood some things about logic[2]. He knew that appeal to authority was a logical fallacy, and thus much of the judeochristian system is predicated on the personal relationship between man and God and the dangers of overtrusting Church leadership. "The devil will quote scripture to you." And intent matters. If you say "it's a pleasure to meet you" with your jaw and fists clenched, you probably don't really mean it, and are basically telling a lie. A poor lie, but a lie nonetheless. Does saying "gosh darnit" really make a difference to an omnipotent and omniscient being such as God? I think He would know that you meant, "God fucking dammit all to burning hell in a whore's handbasket"[3]. Because one must understand the reasoning behind God's laws. It doesn't matter if you literally pushed the knife into a man's heart or just arranged for it to happen that someone else kill the man, you killed the man. To follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law is duplicitous, dishonest. This sort of behavior is held up throughout the Bible as that of the "Gentiles", the non-Jews who mince the Lord's law. So this is where the prohibition against "taking the Lord's name in vain" comes in. It's about "do not deign to speak for God." And with that understanding, it becomes clear that it is the people who say, "you shouldn't say Goddammit, it's offensive to God" are the ones who are committing said sin in the first place. So yeah, fuck em.[4] [1] If you don't already, for a moment, assume the existence of the judeochristian God, if only to allow for me an easier writing job. It is not meant as an assumption that you believe in such things. [2] emphasis on some. [3] for example. [4] okay, you may revert to your regularly schedule religion now.
  - freshhawk 13y ago
moron4hire 13y ago
Some people believe in magic, i.e. the ability of words to have power over their environment completely separate from the bare meaning of them.
tragic 13y ago
Apparently, Hy is the favoured Python-targeting Lisp dialect of the Great Adversary. (Which piques my interest.)

Can someone explain for non-native English speakers what’s the problem with “goddamn”?

by hk__2 13y ago

Can someone explain for non-native English speakers what’s the problem with “goddamn”?

serf 13y ago

It's considered profane. Television in the United States is okay with the word 'damn', but there are people who consider the combined use with 'God' to be disrespectful to the word 'God' (and believers), stemming from the belief that many religions have that 'God' (and other synonyms) should be reserved for when a person is addressing that deity. Also, many believers consider it a faux pas to impose on the deity of their chosen religion. (Goddamn, meaning "God, please damn .." is issuing a direct command rather than asking for an assistance) This means that often times on television the word 'Goddamn' has 'God' bleeped from it, to form 'Bleeep-damn', which is okay, apparently. (Apparently it's not disrespectful to overwrite the deity's name/title with an obnoxious noise)

sitkack 13y ago
If I start a religion where god is named, "bleep" can I get it covered with "God" instead?
- serf 13y ago
  You've got my vote.

Crito 13y ago

Some people who are members of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc), interpret the (2nd or 3rd Commandment, depending on how you are counting) "shall not take the lords name in vain" thing to imply that you must not say the word "god" (You will frequently see 'g-d' used by these people). Others see it as a prohibition against using the word "god" irreverently. Others see it as a prohibition against using the word "god" when combined with other "swear words" (this is the "goddamn" case, "damn" being an extremely mild "swear word" that can be found in PG movies). Others still go further and say that the commandment forbids the use of 'minced oaths', such as 'heck' (hell), 'darn' or 'dang' (damn), 'gosh' (god). For the most part, everybody considers this restriction something that they should only expect of themselves (very similar to how it is unheard of for a Jewish or Muslim person in America to object to somebody else eating pork). Rarely, you encounter somebody who does not have a strong grasp on that concept.

moron4hire 13y ago
Incidentally, there is yet another interpretation of "taking the Lord's name in vain"[1] to mean "to speak as if you have the authority of God." Some people seem to believe that certain words, by their nature, have different power than other words of equivalent meaning. So you see this sanctimonious abolition of "cursing", where it's okay to say "darn" instead of "damn" and "butt" instead of "ass" and "I am displeased" instead of "this is fucking bullshit". So this notion of "taking the Lord's name in vain" must mean something else. A little study of context tells us that many shamans and prophets and priests of various religions would "invoke" the name of their god when making decrees to lend authority to their statements. Which doesn't work if you're trying to prove out the legitimacy of God. Whomever wrote The Bible understood some things about logic[2]. He knew that appeal to authority was a logical fallacy, and thus much of the judeochristian system is predicated on the personal relationship between man and God and the dangers of overtrusting Church leadership. "The devil will quote scripture to you." And intent matters. If you say "it's a pleasure to meet you" with your jaw and fists clenched, you probably don't really mean it, and are basically telling a lie. A poor lie, but a lie nonetheless. Does saying "gosh darnit" really make a difference to an omnipotent and omniscient being such as God? I think He would know that you meant, "God fucking dammit all to burning hell in a whore's handbasket"[3]. Because one must understand the reasoning behind God's laws. It doesn't matter if you literally pushed the knife into a man's heart or just arranged for it to happen that someone else kill the man, you killed the man. To follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law is duplicitous, dishonest. This sort of behavior is held up throughout the Bible as that of the "Gentiles", the non-Jews who mince the Lord's law. So this is where the prohibition against "taking the Lord's name in vain" comes in. It's about "do not deign to speak for God." And with that understanding, it becomes clear that it is the people who say, "you shouldn't say Goddammit, it's offensive to God" are the ones who are committing said sin in the first place. So yeah, fuck em.[4] [1] If you don't already, for a moment, assume the existence of the judeochristian God, if only to allow for me an easier writing job. It is not meant as an assumption that you believe in such things. [2] emphasis on some. [3] for example. [4] okay, you may revert to your regularly schedule religion now.
- freshhawk 13y ago

moron4hire 13y ago

Some people believe in magic, i.e. the ability of words to have power over their environment completely separate from the bare meaning of them.

tragic 13y ago

Apparently, Hy is the favoured Python-targeting Lisp dialect of the Great Adversary. (Which piques my interest.)