What matters in this case is Christology. Most Christian trinitarians, binitarians and unitarians accept the dual natures (divine and human) of Christ. For the Arians, Nestorians, and Jehovah's Witnesses, the chance is simply to substitute `Christ' for `God'. For the docetists and Gnostics there really is no equivalent.

The odd ones out are the few Christian groups that accept both (a) the dual natures of Jesus Christ, (b) the doctrine of original sin but deny either (c) the immaculate conception or (d) the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you accept both (a) and (b) then either (c) or (d) will defeat the holiness of the mother of God. In the traditional Reformed world, this will get you Calvinists and the like who deny the immaculate conception. In the modern Reformed world, you've got all sorts of groups that reject the perpetual virginity but I have to concede that I don't know how many of these accept the doctrine of original sin.

But there is an unspoken assumption here, that the use of the phrase as swearing is predicated on the utterer believing in its truth value. Perhaps it would become all the more pertinent as a term of swearing if the person uttering the oath thought it was blasphemy.

---

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]