DAVEH:� Thanx for your reply to my question, Terry & Izzy.�� I took a look at the MINCED web site you referred to Terry, and found it rather interesting.� IF he is correct in his conclusions, then I too am guilty......as I've used many of those euphemisms.� And I've used some of them on TT.�� Did my use of "golly" or "dang" or "holy cow" offend any TTers, or did it make any of you cringe when you read it?
<http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/minced.pdf> ��� Regarding my cousin's comment that drew the ire of my other cousin:� When I read it, I understood it to be a term of endearment.� If I remember correctly, I've heard the term before (used in movies I think) depicting Southern Blacks who express their feelings about the Lord by using that phrase.� To me it denoted a very personal relationship with the Lord, much as a spouse would say something like "sweetie pie" when speaking to/about his wife.� I just had no impression at all that my cousin was cursing the Lord vainly. ��� A couple weeks ago Perry had posted.......... "2. Blasphemy. (Prohibits a curse directed at the Supreme Being.)" .......in defining blasphemy.� While that may not be the only definition, at least my cousin's comment did not meet that criteria.� In pondering the context of why she said what she did, I can think of no other reason for her saying it than to glorify the Lord at the same time she was parentally proud of her kid.� To me, it simply did not strike me as blasphemous in the least.� By using such a term of endearment, she is not ashamed to proclaim her fond and close relationship with the Lord. ��� Now.......to change directions slightly, what about the movie ALMIGHTY BRUCE?� Do Protestants deem that blasphemous?� And, is it sinful to watch/enjoy it?� I have not seen it, so I don't know much about the content.� But I did see OH GOD (John Denver & George Burns) and was not at all offended by it.� On the contrary, I thought it taught an important message.� What do other TTers think? Izzy wrote: >� Yes, it is taking the Lord's name in vain. Izzy Terry Clifton wrote: > Responding to DaveH: > > I think that this is what some call a minced oath, along with terms such as > Heck, Jeepers, darn and so forth. To some, this is as bad� as using God's > name in vain.� I do not see this in the Bible, so I discount it until > someone can show me otherwise.� God, who knows a little more about this than > I do, usually looks at the heart. > As for me, I cannot understand why she put these words in her > correspondence.� They don't seem to compliment or add to her statement about > the kid, and taking it out would subtract nothing from the message.� If I > had to guess at her motive, I would assume that she was crediting Jesus > (glorifying Him ) for the gift of this fine young person instead of cursing > Him. > Terry > > > > > DAVEH: I'd like to ask other TTers their thoughts on something. My > > cousin posted a picture of her kid to our family email list and > > said......... > > > > " Hey All- So, here is Matthew's Spring Picture- Sweet Jesus, he's > > getting big ( and quite handsome, I must say) We hope you all are doing > > > > well." > > > > ..........One of my other cousins took offense, saying that "Sweet > > Jesus" is blasphemous and is the same as taking the Lord's name in > > vain. How do other TTers feel about this??? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
