Minced Oaths

A minced oath is a bad word that has been altered into a different word. For example, people don't want to say "Of my god", so they say "Oh my gosh".

UPDATE: The following few paragraphs present one of many perspectives, so I am leaving them on here; however, my stance has since changed. Please see this post: https://www.memverse.com/forums/theology-discussions/topics/minced-oaths?page=2#post-339154.

Gosh is a perversion of God's name. I'm not opposed to it because of its origins; the purpose of an invention cannot make it unredeemable. I am opposed to it because it is playing around with something holy. People didn't want to use God's name in vain, so they altered it–in other words, they changed around God's name so they could use it in vain. That's just as blasphemous, if not more so, than using God's real name in vain. People will argue that as long as they don't have sinful thoughts, then it's okay–but it is not only the motives with which we speak that determines the morality of our speech. It's both how we say it and what we say. The definition of Gosh is what it is, and to use it is disrespectful whether the user realizes/intends it or not. It means what it means. Just because we don't mean something in our heart doesn't mean we can speak it. If a different definition was officially applied to the word, then I wouldn't have such a problem, but as far I know, that hasn't been done.

Some people say that it's okay to say "Oh my god" as long as we're not actually using the name "Jehovah" in vain. Nope. "God" is one of the names of God.

Darn and heck are similar–they're messing around with things that should not be taken lightly (damnation and Hell)–and to do so is to take them lightly.

EDIT: If you find yourself agree with/leaning toward this idea, please read this post so you can fairly consider both sides: https://www.memverse.com/forums/theology-discussions/topics/minced-oaths?page=2#post-339154.

My theory is that a word is only as bad as its meaning. Shoot is a euphemism for a word that is considered profane, the definition of the word is not something that needs to be respected as a weighty matter, although it should be talked about with discretion. We use words with the same definition very frequently that are perfectly acceptable. The profane word is only profane because picky people decided to get offended by it, which is logically absurd. Therefore, I do not think it is wrong to say shoot.

Is it wrong to say words that are considered profane even if the definition is appropriate? Well, even if the word is not bad in and of itself, it would be a very bad example and would cause others to stumble. At this point, it would be wrong for those reasons.

I agree. Also in our house, we aren't allowed to use any word at all in replacement of a swear word or anything like that. My parents ^ and I^ believe if it is used that way, it is the exact same as a swear word.

Well, one definition of a swear word is simply any interjection (eg. "wow").

Well, one definition of a swear word is simply any interjection (eg. "wow").

Really?! Where is it defined that way?

Well, one definition of a swear word is simply any interjection (eg. "wow").

Really?! Where is it defined that way?

I don't think it's official or even common… so I guess I should have specified that.

You know what–on second thought, I'm probably wrong. I think I was confusing that with the word expletive. Sorry for the confusion.

My parents don't let us use swear words at all… mostly. Although we are allowed to say 'shoot' (which is practically all) :)

Darn. Definition: mend (knitted material or a hole in this) by weaving yarn across the hole with a needle.
It seems like an expression of frustration…or am i missing something?

Do you know anything about the expression dang-nab-it ? I haven't looked to hard but google wasn't vary helpful.

Darn. Definition: mend (knitted material or a hole in this) by weaving yarn across the hole with a needle. It seems like an expression of frustration...or am i missing something?

"Darn" when used as an exclamation is a substitute for a word considered vulgar slang.

I would argue that only misuses of God's name are inherently sinful. God expressly states that to misuse His name is a sin. There is no stepping around that. But words like "Hell," "darn," and "shoot" are not God's name, nor are they derived from God's name. As a result, the words themselves are not wrong and to say them as exclamations is not inherently sinful either.

Of course, language should never tear others down, but if you take away social stigmas on words that are commonly called bad, the use of those words does not necessarily harm others. On their own, they are just words.

I would emphasize that words like "Hell" and "da**" have certain meanings with which we should tread lightly. It is not always a good thing to treat topics like Sheol with such lightness, and so it is a wise policy to treat them with some measure of respect. However, to use those words as exclamations is not inherently a sin.

@Peter~ I don't know about that expression… but I do know that you're committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you define "darn". If someone says "Go put these darned socks in the laundry", that's different.

@Matthew~ The point is that, whether or not it's considered vulgar by man, it takes damnation lightly… which is a frightful sin because it makes fun of the due justice for sin.

@jimmy~ To use those words as exclamations makes a mockery of God's wrath. How much more sinful can it get?

Yes, I know… I was just explaining because it seemed as if our friend the Swagman might not know exactly what it was. :)

Yes, I know... I was just explaining because it seemed as if our friend the Swagman might not know exactly what it was. :)

I figured. ;-)

Could you explain how it is a direct violation of God's Biblical law, though?

It is logical fallacy?…
well, after what Mathew said I would agree that the use of the word is wrong. If your just replacing vulgar words.
however Darn (according to the definition) would make the object relatively unsightly. dirty socks would do the same (only the ed on the the end would be incorrect).

I was thinking of the expression "Darn it." once again its wrong if its just a further confusration of the English language. But I thought it just meant that something could never be returned to a state of perfection, and hence frustration.
Am I still wrong? i'm not attached to the word if I am, I just want to have a clearer understanding of how its used.

Here's a question: Is a word bad if society thinks its bad, or that some people use it in place of vulgar words? Must a word be tied to its social perception? For instance, I can say "darn" in the less vulgar sense that Swagman speaks of, not using it as a replacement fora vulgar word, just as a normal exclamation. Am I still wrong for saying it because many people think it stands in place of something else?

^ This. That is how I use "gosh" "darn" "shoot" and "heck," though I don't use them too regularly. I do not use them to "conveniently replace," or cover up my desire to use, a real curse word; I use them as verbal expressions of frustration, surprise, etc. So I ask, with Jimmy, why are the words inherently wrong if it's only the technical, social perception of the words that could potentially make them sinful? If I use the words around people who know I would never use the actual curse words (and do not in any way intend to), why is it still sinful?

Just as a side note, I'm careful not to use them around people who are offended by them – not because I believe the words are sinful, but because I want to honor their convictions.

@Peter~ When someone uses darn as an exclamation, it is an adaptation of damn. And when someone frustratedly calls something darned, well, that's an adaptation of damned. It will be obvious when someone uses it legitimately, eg. "darn these socks".

@jimmy~ Mocking God's wrath and justice is sin. We all agree on that, right? And no, a word is not made bad by its social perception, it is made appropriate or inappropriate by its definition. (But–side note–regarding words that are considered profane but do not have bad definitions: it is wrong to use them in a place where you would be a bad example of Christ, but the word itself is not bad.)

@Christian~ The words mean what they mean, regardless of whether or not people know what they mean or of what you're thinking in your heart when you say them. If I said the F word and tried to justify it by saying that I wasn't thinking the definition in my heart and that lots of people say it without thinking at all about what it means, you would be appalled. And yet you wouldn't be offended if I uttered an mockery of God's name with those excuses. You might say "But the F word is still considered profane by society–regardless of what people think or know." Then I will say "And God considers it profane when we utter mockeries of His name–regardless of what people think or know."

…I can accept it only on this forum, but if you can, try to refer to those words as "the D-word", etc. please. :)

Regarding mocking God's wrath and justice, would you mind explaining

1. How it is "mocking"? By that I mean, speaking lightly of something is not, in my opinion, the same thing as mocking. The latter is more extreme than the former, and

2. Can you put somewhere in the Bible where referring to a serious topic lightly constitutes sin? I am not saying you can't (you probably can), I just would like to see what specific Biblical law is broken by using "Hell" as an exclamation.

Regarding your response to Christian, I think you fail to understand that words have multiple social connotations, and just because one is bad, does not mean that saying the word prevents me from offering any legitimate excuse for my action. For instance, let's say I find a word popularly used in society, but which is derived from the language of the primitive French from the 1100s, and in that language served as a swear word. You know what that word means, but not everyone else does. In fact, few do. They tack it on sentences like the word, "wow." If someone uses that word, and then explains that they had no idea what it meant and was in fact using it in its other social meaning, I would be perfectly fine with that. Words have different meanings and different uses, and just because one meaning is bad to some does not mean the word cannot be used correctly by others. So, if someone used the F word, I would be appalled, but only temporarily. I would be forgiving if the person did not know what the word meant and used it in a proper social context. How people use the words and their intents behind that use is more important than the word itself. Words are simply conveyors of ideas, and people can use the same word as the conveyor for very different ideas.

Does God consider it profane when we utter mockeries of His name? To a certain extent, yes. There are certain words that really one cannot excuse as meaning different things (such as someone explicitly cursing the King of Kings), but with most words there is a level of implicitness: for it to be bad, you need to know the badness of the word and use it according to that definition. If I am a two year old and say "Hell" because I heard my Father say it, is that a sin? I would argue no. The same goes for the F-word. God holds us accountable, but He also, as the creator of language, understands how language works and knows that words can have different meanings. What some use for bad, others can use for good, or at least neutral, purposes.

Swearing is the feeble attempt of an unintelligent being attempting to express itself forcibly. ~ a vary wise person I cant remember.

Nathan: I just don't hear it that way. Sorry.

1. It's basically saying "The wrath of God is a low, flippant thing that I can joke about and badmouth.

2. 2 Timothy 2:16; James 3:10. Also, Ephesians 5:1-20 is a good portion of Scripture that talks about foolish talk.

Of course if the person doesn't know what "darn" or "heck" means, I wouldn't say they're wrong to use it. Does the word "gosh" have a definition other than an alteration of the most holy name in the universe? If it does, I wouldn't have a problem with people using it by that definition; but if it doesn't, and people use it knowing that that's what it means, I'd rather they use the F word.

Regarding languages, that's totally different. We say "How ya doing?" all the time. Well, how we'd pronounce "ya" is the same as how you would say God's name, Jehovah, in Hebrew. But of course that's not blasphemy, because we don't speak Hebrew!

Minced oaths? What about sliced oaths? Or diced oaths? Or cubed oaths? Y'gotta be inclusive.

Minced oaths? What about sliced oaths? Or diced oaths? Or cubed oaths? Y'gotta be inclusive.

Should I say it? ;-P

Surprising news. I have new views about "gosh". This does NOT mean that I'm in favor of it, but simply that I no longer consider it sinful or inherently inappropriate.

I've realized that someone invented a whole new word, and that a word can only have a definition if a definition is applied to it. A word can't inherently be defined by a derivative. And no one has given a definition to the word "gosh", therefore it has none. It's just kind of a word people use as an expletive… an idle word. :-P However, I still discourage its usage, as the origin is still known and it has no benefit.

We have dried onions in our spice drawer, and as I was glancing through it, I thought for a moment that the label said 'Minced Oaths', instead of 'Minced Onions'.

We have dried onions in our spice drawer, and as I was glancing through it, I thought for a moment that the label said 'Minced Oaths', instead of 'Minced Onions'.

Haha! Minced oaths in a spice drawer–that's only good to be tossed into the streets and trampled under people's feet!

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

I just wonder why the inspired authors of the New Testament didn't feel the need to cross out parts of those words when they were writing inspired Scripture.

@ Nathan, You don't like onions? Edit: [now feels rather thick headed; didn't get what part was a joke]
@ Sarah, I think it is because what people say they believe and what they do doesn't always align. Usually, because we don't think things through logically.
@Christian, Interesting thought, seems to be a good example for us to follow. I think that the Jewish practice of omitting part of God's name while writing it, may be used by some sincerely in an effort to not take his name in vain, or show it reverence. However, I think that it is predominantly a legalistic action, used to replace a reverence for his name in ones heart which would likely cause one not to use minced blasphemies.

@Miles~ I was referring to minced oaths as a joke. But I only like onions if they're raw.

@Sarah~ Pretty much what Christian said.

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.
–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._ --Matthew 12:36-37

Yup. To me, this says, be careful! I mean, really–there's no benefit to saying words like "gosh", and I think God would be more honored if we didn't?

Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
~Ecclesiastes 5:2

I totally agree. I think our speech is very important to God…there are sooo many verses about our words and keeping our tongues.

_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._ --Matthew 12:36-37

Yup. To me, this says, *be careful!* I mean, really--there's no benefit to saying words like "gosh", and I think God would be more honored if we didn't? _Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few._ ~Ecclesiastes 5:2

There's also no benefit to saying words like "like" or "y'know" or "LOL" and the like – at least not in the way we typically use them. Not saying I disagree with the application of the verses, but I just wanted to point out that if we're going to apply that standard to "gosh," we should probably apply it across the board to things we say that have no true benefit. ;)

There's also no benefit to saying words like "like" or "y'know" or "LOL" and the like -- at least not in the way we typically use them. Not saying I disagree with the application of the verses, but I just wanted to point out that if we're going to apply that standard to "gosh," we should probably apply it across the board to things we say that have no true benefit. ;)

I'm not saying that just because something has no benefit means it's bad–but in the the case of the word "gosh", it sounds very similar to, and often reminds people, of something wrong. So there's either no effect or negative effect. The best that can happen is nothing. Again, that doesn't make it sinful; but I believe it does make it wiser just to avoid them.

I would still argue that "LOL" and "like" and "y'know," etc. are idle words in the same sense that "gosh" is.

I would still argue that "LOL" and "like" and "y'know," etc. are idle words in the same sense that "gosh" is.

LOL is a way of expression amusement, so it's not idle. But "like" and "y'know", speaking technically, definitely are, as we say them all the time without meaning, just… because. It's out of place (grammatically, not morally). When Jesus says "idle words", I believe He means words that are spoken recklessly.

"You slam your arm in a car door–*somthing's* coming out your mouth!"
~Brad Stine

However, if you react to something by saying something that doesn't have a bad meaning, I wouldn't call that wrong. I'm perfectly fine with "shoot", because it comes from a word that shouldn't even be bad at all. And while I'm not comfortable with "gosh", it does fall in the same category. So I believe idle words would be words that are deliberately profane–or, in the case of most "profanities" these days, just offensive.

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

I just wonder why the inspired authors of the New Testament didn't feel the need to cross out parts of those words when they were writing inspired Scripture.

Because Hebrew didn't have vowels. :-P Really though, that's a good point. :-)

There's also no benefit to saying words like "like" or "y'know" or "LOL" and the like -- at least not in the way we typically use them. Not saying I disagree with the application of the verses, but I just wanted to point out that if we're going to apply that standard to "gosh," we should probably apply it across the board to things we say that have no true benefit. ;)

I'm not saying that just because something has no benefit means it's bad--but in the the case of the word "gosh", it sounds very similar to, and often reminds people, of something wrong. So there's either no effect or negative effect. The best that can happen is nothing. Again, that doesn't make it sinful; but I believe it does make it wiser just to avoid them.

^ That.

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

I just wonder why the inspired authors of the New Testament didn't feel the need to cross out parts of those words when they were writing inspired Scripture.

Because Hebrew didn't have vowels. :-P Really though, that's a good point. :-)

When the Bible was written, I've heard that the authors would put God's name in there. Then below or above they would put another "less holy" name for God… Then whenever somebody read it they couldn't read the "holy" name for God; they had to read the "less holy" name for God. If that makes sense…

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

I just wonder why the inspired authors of the New Testament didn't feel the need to cross out parts of those words when they were writing inspired Scripture.

Because Hebrew didn't have vowels. :-P Really though, that's a good point. :-)

When the Bible was written, I've heard that the authors would put God's name in there. Then below or above they would put another "less holy" name for God... Then whenever somebody read it they couldn't read the "holy" name for God; they had to read the "less holy" name for God. If that makes sense...

You are partially correct, I believe. That was certainly true of Old Testament Hebrews. They thought it was blasphemous to use God's covenant name Yahweh. However, it is also correct that Hebrew did not have vowels. Thus the difficulty we have sometimes in translating/transliterating proper names into English. So a Jew reading something like Exodus 3:14 would have probably seen the Hebrew equivalent of YHWH, but then the Hebrew equivalent of Adonai (don't know what that looks like without vowels) would have been written above it. So they would have said Adonai.

(At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it worked.)

Oooo. xD The session by James White is coming in handy and makes this all make a lot more sense. ;) This is exactly what he talked about at the G3 conference!

Thanks to everyone who gave interesting historical information!

To anyone who believes that minced oaths are inherently sinful: My friend Hannah is Messianic Jewish, and when she's writing "God" or "Lord", she always dashes out the "o". However, she uses the expression "Oh my gosh" quite frequently. Is there any explanation you might give for this?

I just wonder why the inspired authors of the New Testament didn't feel the need to cross out parts of those words when they were writing inspired Scripture.

Because Hebrew didn't have vowels. :-P Really though, that's a good point. :-)

When the Bible was written, I've heard that the authors would put God's name in there. Then below or above they would put another "less holy" name for God... Then whenever somebody read it they couldn't read the "holy" name for God; they had to read the "less holy" name for God. If that makes sense...

You are partially correct, I believe. That was certainly true of Old Testament Hebrews. They thought it was blasphemous to use God's covenant name Yahweh. However, it is also correct that Hebrew did not have vowels. Thus the difficulty we have sometimes in translating/transliterating proper names into English. So a Jew reading something like Exodus 3:14 would have probably seen the Hebrew equivalent of YHWH, but then the Hebrew equivalent of Adonai (don't know what that looks like without vowels) would have been written above it. So they would have said Adonai. (At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it worked.

Yeah…that's what I meant. Thanks for putting it more clearly. :)

Does anyone know anything about what heck means, where it came from, etc? A little boy I know says it a lot to express frustration, and when I first heard him say it I immediately thought, He shouldn't say that, but then I wondered if it really was bad, or if I just thought it was.

It's a substitute for the H-word (an interesting word because it's one of at least two "vulgar slang" words that are used in the Bible with their original meanings. :P)

Interesting. Do you know where in the Bible it is?

@anna~ It's a substitute for "Hell."

@Matthew~ We can't always resort to initials here. No particular word is commonly called the H word, so some people will probably be confused by it. Similarly, the D word is not d-mn; there's another vulgar word that is called by that term. So I recommend using hyphens in place of the vowels in words we don't want to type out on here. (Don't use asterisks, because a censor might pick that up and think it's a foul page.)

Her name is Anna BTW :P

Okay, true. That word is not terrible anyways unless it's used in the wrong setting :P

Oops! I got confused when you called it the H-word. I know that the word hell ^or Sheol^ is used in the Bible, of course! :)

So is that to some extent similar to saying gosh?