Talk:Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Issues

Folks, this article is a joke. It refers to "the ancients", meaning, I assume, anyone that lived a long time age, anywhere in the world. It talks about modern court procedure, as if its some sort of universal standard, under the heading "ancient understanding" While it may be mildly interesting to some, to see what some people think about some very specific part of some religon; if the thing is done so poorly as this, should it really be done at all. Steve kap (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

it is not "a joke", it is simply one of tens of thousands of very bad Wikipedia aricles. It can be improved. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"swearing"

Since the word 'swear' has come to mean more 'making a declaration of anger using specific words intended to express seriousness' i.e. cussing, rather than any actual oath, there's a very large number of Christians who prohibit the use of the generic term 'god' (as if it was his name, rather than his species) in any such use, with varying severity. This ought to be reflected in the article, along with the very well written sections on the Jewish and Catholic interpretations, etc.. but would something so obvious and run of the mill be citation-able? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Irony

its a bit iroonic that under the exact wording of the rule you are not ment to use god's "name" in vain yet we do nto actually know gods name at all.(god is his title not name in most religions/bibles and the known name yaweh is an ancient word that means god). i love how this has been simplified by several religions to just not using the word god, lord or jesus in anger at all (if you follow norse though its still fine, and socially expected, to use a diety in anger)152.91.9.153 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

I've noticed that "Third Commandment" redirects to the ten commandment page, not this page. Could we change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.16.104 (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to do so (unless the redirect is protected). --217/83 17:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Message from God

God has asked me to deliver this message, "The trappings of religion are the trappings of Man, using God's name in vain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.105.40 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Using God's name in vain

Who used God's name in vain 102.89.45.144 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

you Synotia (moan) 16:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Christianity

The section labelled "In Christianity" has a subsection regarding the Mormons, who are not Christians. This should be moved 2001:44B8:31A7:E100:49CC:F595:6D47:2FAE (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That is arguable. It's true that their #1 primary text isn't the Bible, which would make then unique among all the other forms of Christianity, I think. On the other hand, Jesus Christ is right in their name and they do read the Bible and so on, but most important, hella people (most I think) think of them as Christians, and the customer is always right. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

God damn it

My experience is that 100% of the people I've ever discussed it with believe that the commandment is against curse-typeswearing, And only that, in that the've never thought about it beyond that. That is, swears like "God damn it, Ellen" and "Jesus Christ that hurts" and "that goddamn cat" etc are what the commandment is about preventing. I am American but guess is that this is true in other Anglosphere countries, willing to be corrected on that.

Historically accurate or not, this is what most believe (most everyone I think), so this should be front and center in the lede, and well expanded on in the body. I'm confident that there're refs.

I propose to do this absent objection. Herostratus (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)