THE 'GOD' WORD!

By

John Roberts (2008)

Brought-up, as I was, in a Calvinist-inspired, moral environment, the “Taking of the Name of the Lord in Vain!” was regarded as a serious Blasphemy. Hence, we children avoided the forbidden expletives, “God! or “My God!” (an even more demonstrative term), at all times. Our parents, of course, never used such an expression. Rarely, indeed, did one hear such references to the Deity used in Public, unless it happened to be spoken, legitimately, during the course of “Sacred Worship!” The adoration of Jesus of Nazareth as the “Son of God” has resulted in additional expletives, “Christ!”, “Jesus!” or “Jesus Christ!”: both of which are commonly used by many nominal Christians.

As a result of this “taboo” on references to the Deity, a large number of euphemistic terms have developed. One could give examples, randomly:

By Jove! (Possibly derived from “Jehovah.”)

My Gosh!

By Gad!

By Gum (Yorkshire expression, very mild)

By Golly!

“Crikey!” (A substitution for “Christ!”.)

In addition to the above, the use of phrases such as, “…as God is my Witness!”, or “In God’s Name”, both used profanely for the purpose of emphasis, were commonly used for many years, but are now rarely heard. In Australia the form, “My Oath!” was used extensively, but now rarely.

The formal Oath: “So help me God!”, as used in the British Legal System, was intended as a binding statement, which called upon the Deity to witness the affirmations of a Witness in proceedings before a Court or other competent authority, Criminal, Civil or Spiritual. This, in spite of the rule established by the founder of the Christian Religion, to the effect that Oaths are contrary to the Divine Law. “Swear not at all!” (Matthew, Ch 5, verse 34) Two-thousand years later, we are still burdened by the obligation to take an Oath before giving evidence, although allowance has been made for tender consciences, by permitting the use of a “Solemn Affirmation”, instead of the Oath. My own view of this practice is that it is unnecessary and futile: a formal promise to tell the truth should be sufficient. Oaths are regularly disregarded by witnesses in any sort of proceedings, as the history of human experience confirms. It is merely another form of breach of the 3rd Commandment.

References to “The Devil” were, at one time, regarded as offensive and gave rise to such terms as “The Deuce!”, “The Dickens!” and, probably, very many other euphemisms of a similar nature. E.g. “May the Deuce take me if I am lying!” In medieval times, there probably existed numerous and often colourful expressions used to give emphasis, in conversation: “By Goddes Corpus!”; “By Goddes Bones!”; come to mind, as indicative of the Catholic idea of the “oneness” of God the Father and God the Son.

Sixty and more years, down the track, the situation is far different. With the advent of, first, the Film Industry and, secondly, the Television Screen, the terms “God!” and “My God” are commonplace expressions, normally used to indicate surprise. This is true, even in such a religiously orientated country as the United States of America. One could be forgiven for expressing surprise at such a development, as the USA is regarded, generally, as the most “religious” of all the Western Nations. At least it can be affirmed that diverse religious Sects abound in that large and well-populated country. Yet, Movies frequently demonstrate this tendency for ordinary young people to exclaim “My God!”, when some trivial incident causes surprise. What this habit of “blasphemous” outpourings does indicate, is the fact that people are not so deeply religious or aware of religious ideas as was formerly the case.

My own view of this matter is that it is not necessary to use such terms, particularly, when used in flippant discourse, or merely for the purpose of seeking attention. Whether it is blasphemous or wrong to say “My God!”, for such a purpose, is a question of taste.

The majority of younger people in Western Societies are, evidently, unaware of the religious standards of yester-year. Indeed, it becomes evident that young folk have, by and large, an utter ignorance of the religious doctrines of the Christian Community. They have received little or no religious instruction, one way or another. Whether this is advantageous for them or not, could be a matter for discussion. The question is thus raised as to the matter of personal discipline in our world, today.

Of course, one has to remember that the use of the words under discussion, involves considerations as to the meaning of the words themselves. A person not having any clear concept of what we mean when we use the “God” word, might claim that, as the word is meaningless, there cannot be any legitimate objection to its use as a general expletive. It, therefore, comes down to the interpretation that we, individually, give to its use in this way. I do not deny that non-religious people would see no offence in the use of such terms.

“Blasphemous” references to “God!” are unacceptable to older people, because they indicate, only too clearly the thinking of younger generations, which have not had the benefit of, at least, some religious instruction. It should be a warning signal to the Churches, that there are millions of young people who have been untouched by the formal moral instruction, that is provided by a study of the teachings of the Christian Churches and, as a result, have not had the advantage of a full “moral” education. I refer to the laws established by Jesus of Nazareth in his “Sermon on the Mount” and his other recorded teachings. I do not believe that the teachings of the Churches, apart from the statements of the Nazarine, are necessarily beneficial to persons in this day and age, except to the extent that they honestly amplify and develop such teachings.

I, myself, being the product of an earlier Age, (when all Church-going folk believed at least some of the doctrines generally admitted to be “Christian”), do not like to hear the frivolous use of the term, “God!” I would have to admit that it is distasteful to me, although not, perhaps, so irritating as the “modern” trend to the frequent use of foul language in the Film and Television media. Such filth is positively appalling! In a similar manner, the increasing tendency to display simulated sexual material or particularly violent imagery is both revolting and intellectually unnecessary, for the ordinary person’s enjoyment of a film programme. To me, personally, such scenes detract from one’s enjoyment of the material presented to our view. A good “Movie” is often spoiled by the producer’s obsession with sexual activity as an incentive for people to watch the show. These developments have come upon us gradually, with a slow lowering of standards and a lessening of the activity of the Censors, whose task was to wean out the “filth” and prevent Society from being deleteriously affected by the introduction of “Sleaze” into our lives. The result has been outrageously successful and we are now to understand that “soft-porn” films and TV movies are here to stay. We are advised that “Times have changed!” and “Standards” are different to what they were in “Victoria’s Day”. Of course, it appears inevitable that standards will continue to be eroded, until there is no restriction on the type of sexually explicit material to be presented on the visual media, to young and old, alike. Whilst these latter remarks may be considered to be unrelated to my principle theme, there is no doubt that the same ignorance of traditional standards has led to a reduction in levels of Public Morality.

The tragedy unfolding before us, at the moment, is the fact that present and future generations will be inadequately equipped to make clear moral judgments, on issues facing each generation, in turn. We are already witness to this trend, in the evident willingness of millions of people, in Western Societies, who are happy to accept whatever is told them via the Public Media, as to the moral correctness of whatever their political leaders are doing.

My remarks equally apply to the developing techniques for the display of violent imagery in films today. Little is left to the imagination, when we observe the severed limbs and pools of imaginary gore portrayed on the screen in astonishing displays of horror. Trips into the pathological laboratories are taken, and corpses galore, in all their ghastly morbidity, are revealed to us, as the directors seek to stimulate our morbid instincts by glimpses of these things. All very “high-tech”, no doubt, and calculated to brutalize Society. It is this stimulation of individual instincts of savagery that is the most appalling and dangerous development, in all the deteriorating facets of modern life: a life in which there is combined the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by privileged communities and the swiftest descent into degradation and savagery. Assassins can readily be cultivated out of such material, to be sent out to kill, maim and destroy the innocent.

It seems true, to me, to observe that the failure of Western Societies to maintain the traditionally high standards of their forefathers, has led to a weakening of Public Morality, in general. This is demonstrated by the failure of the Churches to retain their influence over the people, with a resulting decline in the moral standards of the populace. Violent crime is more in evidence than ever before and in countries where deadly weapons are freely available, their use in robberies and assaults upon innocent persons is daily becoming more ferocious. America itself is in turmoil, with a mounting toll of young people being murdered, without reason, by their mentally-disturbed associates.

Of course, Christians are not the only people professing to be “Religious” in our world, and it may be that all the other major religions have a problem in the use of expressions, commonly held to be sacred, being used in the context of everyday life. I have little or no knowledge of the daily lives of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc., so that I am not in a position to comment on the degree to which, the abuse of “sacred” terms may be present. One would think that, at least, in Muslim communities, the traditional respect for their religious icons would discourage minor abuses of this nature.

We are all, to some extent, the product of our environment. This is particularly true, with regard to one’s religious ideas. In my own case, my rejection of many of the traditional doctrines of Protestant Christianity, together with the development of my views as to the abstract nature of the Deity, does not prevent an instant dislike arising whenever I hear irreverent references to the “God!”. Many folk, of whatever religious belief, entertain ideas as to the personal or anthropomorphic “nature” of God. They readily become accustomed to thinking of “God”, as a superior sort of “Character”, very like ourselves, in fact, who becomes annoyed, whenever individual people do or say things that upset “Him”. I suppose, it is for this reason that the early Jews introduced the taboo on the irreverent pronunciation of the “Name of God” as set out in the 3rd Commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God, in Vain”. The “People of the Book” (Jews, Muslims and Christians) all profess to observe this Commandment, down to the present day. Certainly, within Western Countries, it is evident that it might never have been written, in the first instance.

A superstitious observation of the rule is pointless, as one can never really penetrate the “Mind of God” to determine just what “His” reaction to this torrent of blasphemous outpourings will be. It is another instance of the changing nature of human religious life, saddled with a set of rules for personal conduct, which, though largely sensible and beneficial in themselves, include archaic and outmoded concepts of the Nature of Deity. When we talk about the definition of any particular point, we have to go back again and consider the nature of the underlying factors. Primitive Societies, which observe such rules, don’t worry about what “God” thinks about “Blasphemy”, they determine the issue themselves and punish offenders, accordingly. Many thousands of offenders would have been dealt-with severely, for this offence, in the somewhat violent history of the Christian Church. Young people who use the “God” word frivolously, these days, would have no idea as to the turmoil their actions might well have created, had they expressed themselves so freely, a few hundred years ago.

I don’t believe that the present tendency, within the Western Nations, to disregard the treasured customs of our forefathers will, in itself, constitute a regressive phase in the history of Nations. It is merely one indicator of change, on a massive scale, in the thinking, or absence thereof, of millions of young people today. However, a vacuum is being created, that is being replaced by a purely materialist philosophy of hedonistic self-indulgence. The world is a powder-keg of instability, that is just waiting for someone to light the fuse that will destroy everything that lives in our Planet. It is only a matter of time before that happens and it does not seem, that many years will pass before such an event.

Let us look around and witness the militarist growth that is producing both armies and high-tech weapons of every kind. Year by year, the efficiency of these killing-instruments grows phenomenally. There is no defence against such weapons, any more than there was against the V2 Rocket of World War Two. The difference is that we can no longer hide from the destructive capacity of both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, as was, at one time, possible. Governments are committed to continued production of the most horrific killing instruments and the training of both boys and girls in their use. Church leaders are silent and do not want to know. Why are they not protesting strongly about this situation: a fact of life for the last sixty years and getting worse by the hour. We all know that a confrontation between two or more of the most populous nations of the Earth, will result in inconceivable destruction and loss of life, if not the total destruction of the Globe.

We do not want to be around when this happens. In the meantime, we aught to be trying to do something to guide our children in basic questions of conduct and morality, as it is they who will bear the brunt of future conflict.

If the world does not change for the better, nuclear devices will, inevitably, be aimed at one, or more, of our major cities. When the blinding flash of the detonation erupts across the skies; from millions of indifferent lips will arise a vain and stifled cry: “Oh! My Go………!!”

One can only pray that sanity will prevail, before such an event occurs.

Finis

John Roberts

Sydney, Australia

17th March 2008

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com