 |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article could probably do with some conceptions of the subject by non-Christian religions, as well. Hephaestos
Is it worth mentioning here the fact that to "give a dam(n)" has a double meaning, and perhaps in Gone with The Wind it was meant as "dam" (sometimes spelt damn) the small indian coin. Both uses are of course intended to show a lack of caring - the Dam had a low value, so to not give [even] a dam means you don't care very much... Tompagenet 09:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe too much space should not be given on what the minor Mormon cult thinks of damnation, even more than what the major religions think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.143.50 ( talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't done so, please look up the term as found in the KJV Bible and the other scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at http://scriptures.lds.org/ and you can also view the 'Topical Guide' which will give you a very good idea of what Mormons believe when it comes to damnation and hell. The terms 'exaltation', 'salvation', and 'heaven' and their synonyms carry a complete opposite meaning of 'damnation'.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said that while we should make judgements about everyday things, in some cases this is for our own safety and well-being, one should not make 'final judgement'. Basically, that is implied when someone uses the term 'God damn' (often written 'goddam' in some literature) it is considered strong profanity. 'Damn' on its own doesn't carry the stigma that 'God damn' does.
In other words, the phrase 'God damn you' is like saying 'I want God to damn you' to hell. While it varies from religion to religion as to who will go to heaven or hell, the call of 'final judgement', or where a person will end up going, will not be known until each of us reaches that point, beliefs and on the what and on the how that will happen also will vary from religion to religion. Therefore, for centuries in the English language, , the use of God's name coupled with 'damn' in this way has been considered by a great majority of Christians and even others, to be one method of the 'taking of the Lord's name in vain' as spoken of in the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus in the Christian Bble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.128.110 ( talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder about the origin of the phrase "Dammit", which seems strangely unlike "Damn" in all but its usage. Is this simply a contraction of "Damn it"/"Let it be damned"? Why then are two "m"s used instead of "mn"? Is this due to the terms evolving seperately, only to be rejoined in modern usage? Or perhaps it was "cleaned up" as it was contracted? Or is there just some rule of contraction I am unaware of, which would justify "mn"->"mm" at the join? -- vstarre 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's from a contracted "damnit" that you used to find in comic books, and then morphed to reflect the common pronunciation. 67.103.5.26 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No doubt it is a variant spelling, see my note about 'God damn', 'goddam' above, as that way of spelling is similar. Used as strong profanity like in 'Turn off the goddam radio!'
My understanding was that the word in an adjectivial form was conjugated in the past participle. I.e., the correct grammar would have "That damned dog" instead of "That damn dog." 67.103.5.26 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're correct. People use bad grammar. Grr at them. -- 12.116.162.162 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Use in on webpage about
The Grapes of Wrath
- I removed this example because: 1) it was not written in wikipedia style. It said: "This link says...", which violates the wikipedia accessibility guidelines (for people using screen readers and such); and 2) it is redundant, since there are other examples listed of the use of "damning" meaning condemnation by humans. Please assume good faith and don't just do a blanket revert without finding out why. I listed the reason why in my edit summary and someone (I won't say who. You know who you are.) reverted it like it was vandalism. -- 12.116.162.162 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Restored. I see no reason for readers who can read Adobe Acrobat files being hostage to a minority of readers who cannot. If it was not written in Wikipedia style, rewrite it. It was not used in The Grapes of Wrath, it was used in a web page describing The Grapes of Wrath. Anthony Appleyard 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Argumentum ad populum. Why should the link be there, soley on the basis of "most people can read an Acrobat file? The basis for keeping it should be "does it add anything to the article." The whole purpose of that link is to show an example of the word "damning" referring to condemnation by humans. Other examples of this are given, so there is no need for another example. So, no, it is not necessary.
- 2) By reverting that edit, you reverted my edit correcting the grammar of "damned" as an adjective.
- 3) Fine. It was used on a webpage describing The Grapes of Wrath. My mistake. My original point still stands that the example I removed is redundant.
- 4) Telling me to rewrite it doesn't solve the issue. I did what I felt in good faith would make the article better and you reverted it. There's no need to rewrite it if I feel it is useless information. Instead of doing blanket reverts, you could possibly take some time to write it better yourself.
- 5) Looking through the history, I see that you are the one that added the link. Why are you so personally protective of that link?
-- 12.116.162.162 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is a somewhat different type of usage from the common fixed expression "damning report".
- About reverting the edit "damn" to "damned", sorry.
- So far you have made 219 edits: why not register with a username?
- Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I accept that. I spoke in frustration yesterday and I apologize. As for having a username, I do have one, only I'm on a shared computer at work and it's time-consuming to sign in all the time. (Some of those 219 edits are random edits of co-workers). When I do sign in with my username on discussions like this, I make it clear that my user name and IP are the same to avoid the appearance of sockpuppeting -- 12.116.162.162 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm informed by some of my American friends that the word is considered a little more severe over there (particularly in the bible belt) however I don't know if it would be universally regarded as "Moderate" profanity. Should a wikipedia article really reflect the views of the United States or the wider world? Solar Eclipse ( talk) 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think yes, because the term is often used in movies and literature that goes around the world and this article and its discussion of using the term as profanity helps to provide a base for why the word is used. It is so commonly used in the ways specified in the article and this talk page, that the fact it is getting this much discussion on the back side of the page (the talk page) that it makes it that much more important to describe its extensive uses as what is termed profane speech.
Also in religious circles varying from religion to religion, the definition of 'damnation' commonly means to condemn or be condemned to hell, as stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.128.110 ( talk) 07:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think it might be worth mentioning the gulf between the usage of the word across the Atlantic. In Britain it's not considered even remotely obscene, "Oh damn" being something you might say in front of your grandmother. The contraction Goddamn doesn't really exist, except by American influence. Triangl ( talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"Damned" is also used as an adjective synonymous with "annoying" or "uncooperative," or as a means of giving emphasis. For example, "The damn(ed) furnace isn't working again!" or, "I just washed the damn(ed) car!" or, "The damn(ed) dog won't stop barking!" (The word "damned" is usually only used in North America, whereas in other English speaking countries the word is simply "damn".)
This is simply not true. "damned" and "God-damned" may have fallen out of fashion but it is certainly not US-specific usage.
I note there is no reference for this entire paragraph. I would remove it entirely unless someone has something useful to say about the use of "damned" in its original form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.73 ( talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The article states ""Damn" is a mildly profane word used in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia." They are not the only places to use the word "damn". What about Ireland and New Zealand? I think it would be over-doing it to list all the countries. How about just "western countries" or something? Also, "damn" is not profane at all outside of America as far as I'm aware. You can say it in children's programmes. There's no mention of this however. I think this sentence needs to be changed or expanded upon. McLerristarr (Mclay1) ( talk) 13:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is this article in the category Forteana? This looks like a mistake to me. 95.150.94.91 ( talk) 20:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
... Maybe because of Charles Fort's "The Book of the Damned", although this isn't referred to in the article. 95.150.90.235 ( talk) 10:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
How is "damn" considered profanity? User:Jackninja5 —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This article has two references to Abrahamic religions. The first one says "Abrahamic religions such as Christianity" but the source is explicitly related to Christianity. It's not as if there's a flood of Abrahamic religions with many holding Christianity's views. Unless somebody can rewrite this in an objective way with sources, it should be changed to reference Christianity.
The second reference refers to the Christian concept of demonology as "Abrahamic demonology." That can't be true by definition unless all Abrahamic religions hold such a view, and they don't. It needs to specify religions, or make the reference about Christianity.
Hagrinas ( talk) 20:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead makes a number of statements e.g. Egyptian practice, which are not in the article, nor cited in any way. These need to be moved to an appropriate section with references, and a lead which summarizes provided. Chemical Engineer ( talk) 13:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I put an npov tag on the article. Specifically, it only talks about certain religions (Egyptian, Christian, Hindu). Sungodtemple ( talk) 20:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ Sungodtemple:, Yes, the article is clearly unfinished. It doesn't even mention Judaism or Islam. Jarble ( talk) 19:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)