Why do people take the Lord's name in vain?

[Eduk]

As already mentioned that commandment is more likely to basically mean that God is the ultimate authority and wasn't intended to specifically mean that you shouldn't use his name as a swear word. Of course part of God being the ultimate authority means that you can't use his name as a swear word, so it's reasonable, in this context, to say using his name as a swear word is breaking the commandment.
Of course though what more human thing is there than some people exerting influence and proclaiming themselves authorities and making rules only for other people to immediately then break those rules (because they are rules). Just see the history of censorship for examples.

[Lark_Truth]

Taking the Lord's name in vain is showing a significant amount of disrespect to God, and when people do that they usually conjoin it with a swearword, which would be even more disrespectful. It's not censorship, just showing a little respect.
God doesn't seem to be one to give His children rules that he intends them to break as a test of their strength. I would think that He favors obedience more than disobedience.

[Togo1]

Swearing is helpful. It literally reduces the level of reported sensations of pain.

Breaking religious taboos is a useful and handy form of swearing, that most people tend to find less disturbing than breaking social sexual taboos.

[Eduk]

It's not censorship, just showing a little respect.

Asking people to show respect is not censorship. Killing people because they don't show respect seems like quite a bit of censorship. Going to hell for eternity for not showing respect really feels like rather a lot of censorship.
I mean when I look for the dictionary definition of censorship that's what it appears to mean to my understanding.

[Lark_Truth]

There has to be other ways of releasing painful sensations rather than swearing or taking the Lord's name in vain.

-- Updated March 30th, 2017, 10:13 am to add the following --

Okay, yes Eduk that wouldn't be censorship, but showing respect to God would not be censorship, would it?

[Eduk]

I said exactly that asking people to show respect is not censorship. But a commandment is not exactly the same thing as asking.

[Lark_Truth]

Fair point, Eduk, fair point.
So why would people break such a commandment?

[Eduk]

Well I think a lot of explanations have been offered already, are none of them possible?
I mean I don't think it's the case that every time someone swears that they do it for only one reason and always for the same reason. My most recent example was because someone told them not to. I'm sure that amongst other reasons this has an influence.

[Lark_Truth]

Very good point, Eduk. All points are possible, the question is which of them is true?
I have also noticed that people often fight against the restrictions placed upon them at youth. It seems to me that one of two things can happen to those sort of people: One) they get wise and stop, or Two) they keep on doing it until it becomes habit and leads to other things that are worse. Perhaps that is why God gave such a commandment, so that His children would stay on the straight and narrow, and thus: salvation.

[Eduk]

I didn't mean possible in the harsh philosophical sense, I meant it in more the every day meaning. Some of the reasons given are accurate in my opinion. But like I said there are many reasons to do things, there are lots of true answers.

I have also noticed that people often fight against the restrictions placed upon them at youth. It seems to me that one of two things can happen to those sort of people: One) they get wise and stop, or Two) they keep on doing it until it becomes habit and leads to other things that are worse.

I agree some people rebel, more many different reasons. Quite often just simply to rebel. But you have missed off an option, Three) They keep doing it and it leads to other things which are better.
Not all rebellions in the history of mankind have been negative.

[Steve3007]

Lark_Truth:

It occurs to me that I haven't answered my own question on the thread that I myself posted. So, I'd say the reason why people take the Lord's name in vain is because they haven't been taught to speak in respect to their God by their parents/guardians, and/or they pick it up from people who are their friends or who they admire, and then it just becomes habit for them. A very unfortunate pitfall.

The question of whether or not it's unfortunate (by which I presume you mean mildly immoral) depends on something else that we are taught by our parents or guardians: a moral framework.

The moral framework that existed in my family as a child and which I pass on to my children consists largely of respect for other human beings. There is no respect required for characters from stories or people from ancient history. It's not an issue one way or the other. I don't, for example, demand that my children respect Henry VIII or Santa Claus. Therefore showing respect for a fictitious character is not something that my parents, or I as a parent, regard as necessary. But different families have different attitudes. Each to their own. It takes all sorts. There's nowt so queer as folk. etc.

If another parent wishes their children to refrain from shouting "Harry Potter!" when they hit their thumb with a hammer, so as to show due deference to child wizards, then that is their business. It seems odd to me but it does no harm, so I am happy to live and let live. Likewise is they wish them to refrain from shouting "Jesus, Mary and Joseph that hurt!", or "God!" or some such thing, then I have no problem with that. But I would likewise not expect them to impose their preferences on me and my family. If I did that and accepted that people can dictate to me which fictitious characters I should respect (and also to dictate what it means to "respect" them) then obviously I leave myself open to arbitrary censorship.

If they tell me that the character in question is not fictitious then, again, they have every right to believe that. But they do not have the right to expect me to act as if that belief were true.

[Felix]

but still the commandment was given for a reason.

Perhaps the commandment was not meant to be taken literally. Assuming the translation was accurate, it may not have not been, it could be interpreted in other ways. Then again, didn't the god of the Old Testament proclaim that he was a jealous god? So maybe he was just thin skinned.

[Belindi]

Swearing is helpful. It literally reduces the level of reported sensations of pain.

Breaking religious taboos is a useful and handy form of swearing, that most people tend to find less disturbing than breaking social sexual taboos.

I agree, and I think that Lark_Truth's point of the previous post that it's disrespectful is also true. To swear "Oh my god!" can reduce pain, but only if "Oh my god!" is not used like a trendy exclamation, which it is increasingly these days.

The way that some religious describe God is so banal that they the demoting of the holy name is partly their fault. Such religious teachers seem unable to purvey a reasonable faith. Modern theologians seem to be reasonable from the little I have heard from them, and yet the preachers are unable to teach those outside of the churches. If anyone knows of a website where some sect adequately explains its theology please let me know.

[Steve3007]

I do actually sometimes exclaim "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!" but usually do it in an imitation of an Irish accent, as I tend to think of this (rightly or wrongly) as an archetypal Irish exclamation. I'd see that as being (if anything) disrespectful to the Irish because they exist now and are therefore capable of taking offence at this racial stereotype, whereas Jesus and His mum and step-dad died a long time ago.

[Lark_Truth]

I agree, and I think that Lark_Truth's point of the previous post that it's disrespectful is also true. To swear "Oh my god!" can reduce pain, but only if "Oh my god!" is not used like a trendy exclamation, which it is increasingly these days.

Thank you Belindi. But would calling upon the Lord's name or God's name in vain at all still be considered blasphemous?

The way that some religious describe God is so banal that they the demoting of the holy name is partly their fault. Such religious teachers seem unable to purvey a reasonable faith. Modern theologians seem to be reasonable from the little I have heard from them, and yet the preachers are unable to teach those outside of the churches.

That is a good point, Belindi, one that I have not considered. The way I have heard it described is that God is so vast and complex that it is difficult for mortal humans to even begin to describe Him, which may explain why it is so difficult for preachers to explain the concepts of their religion.
It seems ironic to me that preachers are unable to teach those outside of the churches as one of the core beliefs of most Christian sects concerning salvation is that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ will go to hell, even if they are kind and generous people, while an arrogant and cruel man will go to heaven merely because he believes in Jesus Christ. If the preachers can't teach people not of their faith to believe in Christ, then how are they going to save as many people as possible? Of course, there are missionaries, but I would think that the duty of gathering converts shouldn't just fall on their shoulders, but on the authorities of religion as well.

If anyone knows of a website where some sect adequately explains its theology please let me know.

Beyond Mormon.org - which you're probably tired of hearing me spout about, and with good reason too - I am stumped.