1

In Is there a secular, non vulgar alternative to "for heaven's sake"? Terdon asks for something that is polite, secular, and non-offensive.

I am asking for what is a non-secular phrase that you can think of that also has known use.

For instance my aunt says, "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!"

Any religion goes as long as the phrase is discernible in English. You can mix in offensive words but really looking for the religious aspect. Bonus if the phrase could be used at work.

To clarify vulgarity is OK but the religious aspect is key.

(For the "closers" - this question would be the OPPOSITE of Terdon's)

  • 1
    How does one determine if a phrase is "more religious" (or "more non-secular") than another? I would posit that it is simply binary, either religious or not. I mean, if I formed a phrase using all 12 apostles would it be better due to length and number of references, or would "Jesus!" trump it, since he was in charge? – Digital Chris Mar 17 '14 at 14:07
  • @DigitalChris - I think that is part of the question in question. But personally I would think it would signify the "speaker's" level of knowledge in the faith. I was going to say devoutness but then I am sure some would counter that a devout person would not say the phrase at all. – RyeɃreḁd Mar 17 '14 at 14:12
  • You might want to clarify if you want vulgar answers or not. – Elliott Frisch Mar 17 '14 at 14:13
  • 1
    I think this is a bit too far the wrong side of Primarily Opinion-based. It's hard to think of anything more "non-secular" (i.e. - more "religious") than "By all that is holy!" (that's 68,000 written instances, so it obviously does or did appeal). – FumbleFingers Mar 17 '14 at 14:21
  • 1
    Jesus H. Christ, this is a silly question! – George Cummins Mar 17 '14 at 15:49
1

For God's sake!

Here is my logic.

If all things holy represent a pyramid, then God (by definition) must be at the top of the pyramid. Even the Catholic trinity represents God as the father of Jesus.

Hence, the most religious reference you can make is God.

At least in a concise form. You could proceed to list God, all of his minions, every apostle, saint, pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, nun, person who went to church, etc. and claim that their aggregate weight was greater. But if you accept the notion of an omnipotent and omnipresent God, he should already be accounted for in all of those things.

  • 1
    +1 for being able to slightly offend people of several different religions at the same time. – RyeɃreḁd Mar 17 '14 at 14:55
  • @RyeBread It is an art. Although, honestly with perhaps the exception of the last bit, I can't imagine it being too offensive. Anyone who finds the concept of Heaven applicable will likely accept God as being at the top of that chain. The name/terminology may change to be applicable, though. – David M Mar 17 '14 at 15:31

Not the answer you're looking for?Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.