A "Hell"ish Inconsistency

Often, we think it a very grievous offense against God when someone speaks lightly of hell. One may say, "to hell with that idea," expressing their disgust, for example, and we would count it to him as blasphemy.

However, why do we not think it a very grievous offense against God when someone speaks lightly of heaven? Should one say "that's positively heavenly," expressing their delight, we think it to be no offense at all, and yet they have treated God's authority with respect to eternal destiny no less lightly than if they had used "hell" in their dialogue.

If someone says "Oh hell!" because they are frustrated, we would condemn them for using "bad language." But if someone says "Good heavens!" because they are surprised, we think nothing of it.

How can we so slight the good things of God, as to care not how or what people ascribe to the blessed state, and yet concern ourselves greatly with people's ascriptions of the state of the damned? Do we really truly believe that God is not concerned equally with His authority and glory and rightful attribution with respect to both sides of His office as eternal judge and arbiter?

This inconsistency is not right. We should either count expressions on both sides as equally harmless, or as equally serious offenses. We cannot count them harmless, for it is indeed a serious thing to usurp God’s authority; we must therefore guard our tongues (and our friends’ tongues) carefully, so that we speak without offense to God.