How many of us honestly would correct a brother who at coffee hour said something like ' ...gee, I don't think that is what happened ...' ??
The bottom line is that these words have come to be exclamations on their own and divorced from their etymological past. Even if one was taught at some time to use them as a polite substitute (which I'll concede was the wrong thing to do at that time) chances are that there is no longer any Holy meaning attached to them now for either the transmitter or the receiver.
If this thread has run its course, and I am resurrecting a dead animal to everyone's chagrin...please let me know and I'll shut up. I haven't checked for new posts all day, and I'm just reacting to select statements.
First, allow me to qualify my last post and this post by simply asking you to separate the issue of mild substitutions for God's name from the issue of "cursing" or "cussing" (generically considered). My agreement with Aria and Protoevangel is limited to the former. Thus far, I have not even touched on the latter. I think they are separate questions, and I don't want to be misunderstood as adopting every jot and tittle sentiment from Aria's original posts in this thread.
Second, personally I support the idea of kindly asking and allowing individuals to
voluntarily cut out the use of certain etymological substitutions for God's name. I am sensitive to the cultural issues here, and can appreciate the fact that many struggle to adopt a prohibitive posture regarding "innocent" expressions they have employed throughout the course of their own lives, apart from any sort of malevolent or willful intention to violate the Blessed and Holy Name that is above every name.
This is an issue of ongoing sanctification. People need to have the freedom to prayerfully contemplate the questions involved, reach opinions formed by spiritual knowledge, and implement changes at a pace that is commensurate with where they happen to be spiritually. We are all on a different plane in our walk, which is, in large part, shaped by our different backgrounds, experiences and influences.
I am not going to sit here from my perch on high, and declare which terms are appropriate (and only similar sounding), vs. those which are direct etymological substitutes for God - as I have not given this issue the profoundly thorough attention that it deserves.
Throughout my life, I have probably been more conscious and sensitive to avoiding vain usages of God's name than most I have been in personal contact with, although I am convicted that my inattention to the word 'gosh' is an exception to this, as I have made the unfortunate habit of invoking the word. 'Geez' is an example of a term I absolutely will
never use.
To respond very briefly to the above poster I've quoted, I don't see how it is relevant to say that certain terms may have been detached from their original etymological expression, and therefore it is now ok to invoke what were once sacrilegious substitutions for God. God is eternal, and so His Son. One may detach words from their etymological founding by infusing them with fresh, self-declared meanings, but one can never ultimately detach those terms from the Name of which they were ultimately derived.
This is a separate issue from cursing, because frankly I think there are very appropriate (albeit
extremely limited) times in which it would be perfectly fine - and even necessary - to use words such as s**t, d**n, f**k, et. al., when they are employed as a means of expressing righteous indignation over actions, behaviors, heresies, or what have you to strongly drive home a point. Evil, gross and peculiarly egregious ideas, rebellious actions, immoral behaviors, habitual sinful teachings or practices, etc. need to be identified for what they are. The descriptor should always mark the object with accuracy. A spade is a spade. Anything less is a lie and a whitewash.
(I am giving you my personal philosophy, and telling you how I approach these things in my life, and how I apply these principles spiritually. (I think there is biblical and historical support for this.) But I am NOT asking CF to change its rules.)
So anyway, all that to say this:
I agree with the majority posters here to the effect that it is inherently Pharisaical to bind others to obscurantist and doubtful standards rooted in the controversial etymological histories of words. On the other hand, the Pharisees were also known for ignoring the Spirit of the Law to the detriment and danger of their own souls. IMHO, the spiritual concern with respect to God's name still stands (regardless of the current etymological 'status' of a particular term). God and His Son were the occasion for the derivation of slang expressions (such as 'Gosh' and "Geez") intentionally designed to be phonetically congruent with their names. This was not an accident, and regardless of what we say about the current etymological understanding with regard to these, they can never be ultimately divorced from Him who was the occasion of their birth.
As I see it, both sides in this debate are making the
same error of infusing and investing too much into the etymological questions -- to the extent that we have missed the much bigger issue.