# Cussing



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

I am convinced that cussing is no sin, and therefore should be allowed. My question is if curse words on the PB are censored, and if so why? Living in the Bible Belt this is a very hard issue as people associate people that curse as not being "christian" and sinning. However, this assumption is based off of ignorance to scripture and legalism. Just like when many a fundie in the Bible Belt sees a person smoking or drinking and assume the same thing. I know this board will not censor an alchohol or smoking post, in fact there used to be a board called the puritan pub, to discuss such things. So why the censoring? I think Ian and Gabe will back me up on this one. According to Ian, "cuss words" are not really noticed in NYC, sweet grandmas will be cussing on the subway.


----------



## pastorway

You are convinced incorrectly. Our speech is not to be corrupt and is to be edifying, full of grace, truth and love. 

If a sweet NYC grandma was mugging a person in the park does that mean it is not a sin? Relativism is not useful to help discern a Scriptural position on a subject. 

And let's not confuse an assumed position of liberty with the reality that what we say reveals the true condition of our hearts.

We have discussed this topic at length so search around for the threads to get a better idea of the positions that have been argued. 

And yes, some words are automatically censored by the board and the admins and mods do monitor language and edit as necessary. We are responsible to maintain a non-offensive, edifying and encouraging atmosphere. 

Curse words are simply not acceptable here. 

Phillip


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> You are convinced incorrectly. Our speech is not to be corrupt and is to be edifying, full of grace, truth and love.



Curse words are just words, edification and grace truth and love are relative to context of speech.



> If a sweet NYC grandma was mugging a person in the park does that mean it is not a sin? Relativism is not useful to help discern a Scriptural position on a subject.



This is an inadequate analogy. The context of her situation depending on the situation is most likely out of hate and naturally unloving. Word's are slaves to the way they are used. The act of mugging = sinful conflicts with loving God with all our being and treating our neighbor as ourselves. The act of saying a curse word= hurts no one accept with a false conviction... It is just a sound like any other word. 



> And let's not confuse an assumed position of liberty with the reality that what we say reveals the true condition of our hearts.



Yep, If I said I hate your guts that would be bad

If I said I [censored] love you man, that would be out of love and emphasis.




> And yes, some words are automatically censored by the board and the admins and mods do monitor language and edit as necessary. We are responsible to maintain a non-offensive, edifying and encouraging atmosphere.



Smoking and Alchohol Bevereges are offensive to many. 


[Edited on 7-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

#1 What makes a word a curse word?

#2 What if words are used as adjectives and not against others?

#3 Where does Scripture say using "colorful metaphors" is sin?

#4 Was Paul in sin when he used the Greek word for "poo" to refer to his former life as a Jew compared to Christ?


----------



## gwine

Consistent use of profanity shows a shallow mind. And I don't mean to imply that coming up with creative words to replace profanity is any better.

Like pastorway said, there are many Scripture texts that command us to guard our tongue.

Gen 6:5

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And so our words betray our thoughts.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Let me say from the start, I will not play games w/ you youngsters. Some of you are in university; but you wouldn't know it. Do not waste your parents time and money; do them a favor. We have not sent you there to learn to cuss, but to be refined. 

1Co 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? 

Festus said it best:

Act 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. 

We are biblical students; we will conduct ourselves with respect and dignity. We are educated, we will use proper words and sentence structure. We are Christians, we will not align ourselves with the devil and his minion. Conduct yourselves accordingly. 

Are there any curse words in the bible? I thought our bible was written in Koine Greek; the common language of the common folk; surely the common folk cuss-no? Where are the cuss words?

I believe our own government has deemed certain words unfit for the ears consumption? I understand that this is the internet and there are no rules here; well, let me tell you, the PB has rules. If you cuss, you break our rules. If you cuss, you break the rules established by the FCC and the U.S. governement. if you cuss, whether you want to admit it, the world looks upon you as one of theirs. One of the first things God cleansed me of when I was saved was the vulgar language I used. One man once said to me, Scott, why do you cuss so much; you know it shows your lack of verbosity; it says that you are uneducated and have to resort to slangs and such.

Is the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT within ye?

Jam 1:19 So that, my beloved brothers, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. 
Jam 1:20 For the wrath of man does not work out the righteousness of God. 
Jam 1:21 On account of this, putting away all filthiness and overflowing of evil, in meekness receive the implanted Word being able to save your souls. 
Jam 1:22 But become doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 
Jam 1:23 Because if anyone is a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, this one is like a man studying his natural face in a mirror; 
Jam 1:24 for he studied himself, and has gone away, and immediately he forgot of what kind he was. 
Jam 1:25 But the one looking into the perfect Law of liberty, and continuing in it, this one not having become a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his doing. 
Jam 1:26 If anyone thinks to be religious among you, yet not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, this one's religion is vain. 
Jam 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. 

Does cussing reflect Christianity? Are you unspotted from the world or does the world think you are part of them?

Jam 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. If any one does not stumble in word, this one is a mature man, able also to bridle the whole body. 
Jam 3:3 Behold, we put bits in the mouths of the horses, for them to obey us; and we turn about their whole body. 
Jam 3:4 Behold, the ships also, being so great, and being driven by violent winds, they are directed by a very small rudder, where the impulse of the one steering purposes. 
Jam 3:5 So also the tongue is a little member, and boasts great things. Behold, how little a fire kindles how large a forest! 
Jam 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity. So the tongue is set among our members, spotting all the body, and inflaming the course of nature, and being inflamed by Hell. 
Jam 3:7 For every species of beasts, both indeed of birds, of creeping things, and of sea animals, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human species; 
Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison. 

Jam 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. 2671

#2671: Excrement

Clarks Commentarys reads:

Jam 3:10 - 
Out of the same mouth - This saying is something like that, Pro_18:21 : Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and on this, for an illustration of St. James’ words, hear Vayikra Rabba, sec. 33: “Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, said to his servant Tobias, Go and bring me some good food from the market: the servant went, and he bought tongues. At another time he said to the same servant, Go and buy me some bad food: the servant went, and bought tongues. The master said, What is the reason that when I ordered thee to buy me good and bad food, thou didst bring tongues? The servant answered, From the tongue both good and evil come to man: if it be good, there is nothing better; if bad, there is nothing worse.”
A saying very like that of St. James as found in Rabbi Tanchum, fol. 10, 4: “The mouth desires to study in the law, and to speak good words; to praise God, to glorify him, and to celebrate him with hymns: but it can also slander, blaspheme, reproach, and swear falsely.” See Schoettgen.
To find a man who officiates in sacred things to be a common swearer, a slanderer, etc., is truly monstrous; but there have been many cases of this kind, and I have known several. Let me say to all such, My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.


[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

I certainly hope that settles that.


----------



## Tirian

Ephesians 4:29 (New King James Version)

29Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

Matthew Henry:

4. We are here warned against corrupt communication; and directed to that which is useful and edifying, Eph_4:29. Filthy and unclean words and discourse are poisonous and infectious, as putrid rotten meat: they proceed from and prove a great deal of corruption in the heart of the speaker, and tend to corrupt the minds and manners of others who hear them; and therefore Christians should beware of all such discourse. It may be taken in general for all that which provokes the lusts and passions of others. We must not only put off corrupt communications, but put on that which is good to the use of edifying. The great use of speech is to edify those with whom we converse. Christians should endeavour to promote a useful conversation: that it may minister grace unto the hearers; that it may be good for, and acceptable to, the hearers, in the way of information, counsel, pertinent reproof, or the like. Observe, It is the great duty of Christians to take care that they offend not with their lips, and that they improve discourse and converse, as much as may be, for the good of others.



Ephesians 5

1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. 
3But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know,[a] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not be partakers with them. 





Matthew 12:35-37 (New King James Version)

35A good man out of the good treasure of his heart[a] brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." 

Matthew Henry:

[2.] It is the character of an evil man, that he has an evil treasure in his heart, and out of it bringeth forth evil things. Lusts and corruptions dwelling and reigning in the heart are an evil treasure, out of which the sinner brings forth bad words and actions, to the dishonour of God, and the hurt of others. See Gen_6:5, Gen_6:12; Mat_15:18-20; Jam_1:15. But treasures of wickedness (Pro_10:2) will be treasures of wrath.

3. Christ speaks here concerning idle words, and shows what evil there is in them (Mat_12:36, Mat_12:37); much more is there in such wicked words as the Pharisees spoke. It concerns us to think much of the day of judgment, that that may be a check upon our tongues; and let us consider,

(1.) How particular the account will be of tongue-sins in that day: even for every idle words, or discourse, that men speak, they shall give account. This intimates, [1.] That God takes notice of every word we say, even that which we ourselves do not notice. See Psa_139:4. Not a word in my tongue but thou knowest it: though spoken without regard or design, God takes cognizance of it. [2.] That vain, idle, impertinent talk is displeasing to God, which tends not to any good purpose, is not good to any use of edifying; it is the product of a vain and trifling heart. These idle words are the same with that foolish talking and jesting which is forbidden, Eph_5:4. This is that sin which is seldom wanting in the multitude of words, unprofitable talk, Job_15:3. [3.] We must shortly account for these idle words; they will be produced in evidence against us, to prove us unprofitable servants, that have not improved the faculties of reason and speech, which are part of the talents we are entrusted with. If we repent not of our idle words, and our account for them be not balanced by the blood of Christ, we are undone.

(2.) How strict the judgment will be upon that account (Mat_12:37); By thy words thou shall be justified or condemned; a common rule in men's judgments, and here applied to God's. Note, The constant tenour of our discourse, according as it is gracious or not gracious, will be an evidence for us, or against us, at the great day. Those who seemed to be religious, but bridled not their tongue, will then be found to have put a cheat upon themselves with a vain religion, Jam_1:26. Some think that Christ here refers to that of Eliphaz (Job_15:6), Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I; or, rather, to that of Solomon (Pro_18:21), Death and life are in the power of the tongue.


Take care,

Matthew


----------



## LadyFlynt

Funny, you had started another thread on this same subject. And here was my reply....

Went to the store with a mennonite woman once (actually once of many seeing as we were part of the church) and she had asked me a question using a phrase that she meant financially, but "where I come from" it isn't so innocently used. I told her that she really shouldn't use it especially in public. Which led to why. Her comment back was to touch her covering and say "well, wouldn't THEY know (because of her covering) that I didn't mean it that way?" I said "no, they'd think you a hypocrite"

Cussing will not get you a job. Cussing will not get you a decent wife. Cussing will not win a lawsuit. Cussing is not appreciated except maybe around ignorant young folk who thinks it makes them appear older than what they are. All it does is turn ppl off. Christ did not cuss. So what would be your point in this?


----------



## BobVigneault

I agree, I have always regarded cussing as a badge of ignorance.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I am curious as to what makes a curse word a curse word, though.

For example, the word for copulate in either Dutch or German is the exact same word used in vulgarity to communicate....uh.... the same action. Why is it not a curse word in THAT language, but it is in english ?

Understand - I'm not asking for 'permission' to use the words, i'm asking WHAT EXACTLY MAKES 'THESE WORDS' SPECIFICALLY, curse words ? I understand that by using certain words, the world does look upon you as one of theirs.... but again, what makes THESE words, specifically, curse words ?


----------



## BobVigneault

Meaning Kerry, words are packages that contain meaning. It is the meaning that the word represents that is offending or edifying.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Much has to do with culture and our plum-line. For instance, the word cr*p has made it into Websters dictionary as acceptable; Back in 1913, it was not there.


----------



## LadyFlynt

We should however probably consider minced oaths though (which cr** would fall under also...but that is Webmaster's choice to have and mine not to use it)


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> We should however probably consider minced oaths though (which cr** would fall under also...but that is Webmaster's choice to have and mine not to use it)



Colleen,
Forgive me for using the term for the sake of this conversation. I agree, even the minced terms are to be avoided.


----------



## LadyFlynt

LOL...and so funny, because I misread your post, please forgive, thought you said "webmasters dictionary" not "websters dictionary".






(I should be quiet when sick...lol)


----------



## luvroftheWord

There are a lot of assumptions behind many of the statements in this thread that aren't being defended, but whatever. I think there are many more fruitful things to be discussed than this. 

But my opinion (since you asked) is this:

1. Be sure that your speech is edifying.

2. Don't feel guilty for dropping a four-letter word.

3. What is considered common/vulgar is not always proper in a given context. If you are in an environment where cussing is considered taboo or inappropriate (such as the PB), then for crying out loud, hold your tongue. Everyday speech does not require that you cuss. If that is a problem for you, then maybe you've got some self-control issues.

All that being said, I am usually the last person that will ever criticize a person for saying a "cuss word".


----------



## Scott Bushey

Colosians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."

Obviously, there is such a thing as filthy communications. Strongs#
G148
αἰσχρολογία
aischrologia
ahee-skhrol-og-ee'-ah
From G150 and G3056; vile conversation: - filthy communication.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I guess I am just goofy, because not cursing seems like common sense to me. Looking to find someway to say it's not forbidden in the scriptures *SEEMS TO ME* to be like homosexuals who say the bible does not speak to monogomous homosexual relationships.

The Colosians 3:8 passage is a great one for an example.


----------



## Jenn

*** Announcement of first REAL post ***

Ok, now that's over with..... I am most certainly not the most educated individual here, neither will I ever claim to be. However to put in my $0.02......

The question is: What makes a curse word a "curse word"?

It is my personal opinion, that curse words, while specifically defined as the many 4-letter expletives that everyone knows, that is it actually the context in which it is used that makes it a "curse word". 

Now, allow me to elaborate a bit on what others have already touched upon. 

Although it is the context of the word being used that defines it as such, I do not believe that gives anyone a right to use the words, as just because you are not using it in a derogatory context, doesn't mean that someone won't be offended. Should you go into the workplace and use those words periodically just because they aren't in the "cursing" sense? Probably not.

Ask yourself, is it really NECESSARY to use those words at all, in or out of "cursing" context? Or are there other words that can get your point across just as well?


Please note: Everything I just said is MY OPINION and I don't expect everyone to agree.


----------



## gwine

to the land of the posting! 



> Although it is the context of the word being used that defines it as such, I do not believe that gives anyone a right to use the words, as just because you are not using it in a derogatory context, doesn't mean that someone won't be offended.



Along with that, I have trouble using the "female dog" word even when I am around dog breeders.


----------



## Batman

If I happen to shoot a nail through my thumb while pounding away at something and I blurt out the "f" word, I don't think God is going to frown upon me, unless my two kids are within earshot. I occassionally let out a four letter word, but not around people I know it will offend. 
If we offend others with our language, then we need to take a step back.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> #1 What makes a word a curse word?
> 
> #2 What if words are used as adjectives and not against others?
> 
> #3 Where does Scripture say using "colorful metaphors" is sin?
> 
> #4 Was Paul in sin when he used the Greek word for "poo" to refer to his former life as a Jew compared to Christ?



#1 Common understanding that it is the case

#2 No difference

#3 A colorful metaphor is not unwholesome speech. See all Pauline passages on speech

#4 No. Please feel free to use any word you are given directly by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Be careful, however, if you are not actually given it by the Spirit, you are a false prophet and should bear the consquences.

I wonder how much non-Koine Greek anyone has read who thinks that Paul's term there was a curse word or vile word? Hint - it wasn't. It is equivalent to our "dung," or "manure" not various other words.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> #1 Common understanding that it is the case
> 
> #2 No difference
> 
> #3 A colorful metaphor is not unwholesome speech. See all Pauline passages on speech
> 
> #4 No. Please feel free to use any word you are given directly by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Be careful, however, if you are not actually given it by the Spirit, you are a false prophet and should bear the consquences.




#1 So, cultural relativism.

#2 Why? On basis of what Scripture? Scripture forbids us to curse one another or speak harshly or unwholesomely against one anther or to have conversation that is impure. It doesn't say, "don't use the following words in casual conversation:"

#3 Ok?

#4 Interesting.


----------



## pastorway

GOOD answers Fred. Thanks.




> _Originally posted by Batman_
> If I happen to shoot a nail through my thumb while pounding away at something and I blurt out the "f" word, I don't think God is going to frown upon me, unless my two kids are within earshot. I occassionally let out a four letter word, but not around people I know it will offend.
> If we offend others with our language, then we need to take a step back.



So it is only sin if kids or the easily offended hear it?

sorry. wrong answer.

"Let NO corrupt word proceed out of your mouth" Eph 4:29

"Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer." Ps 19:14

"The heart of the righteous studies how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil." Prov 15:28

"Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matt 12:34

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. " Matt 15:18

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. " Luke 6:45

For reference, I have hit my thumb with a hammer and worse often in my life and have never that I can remember uttered a curse word in response. I don't even _think_ curse words when I hit my thumb. If a curse word is the first thing that pops in your head and out your mouth when you hurt yourself then perhaps you need to renew your mind (Rom 12:1-2) and cleanse your heart.

Remember - what we put in our minds comes out our mouths. Simply put, there is no need for cussing, and those trying to defend it really need to search their hearts and ask if they are trying to justify continuation in sin.

Phillip


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Remember - what we put in our minds comes out our mouths. Simply put, there is no need for cussing, and those trying to defend it really need to search their hearts and ask if they are trying to justify continuation in sin.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

One of those fruits of the Spirit are self-control, especially your tongue. Using cuss words only shows that you lack this fruit.


----------



## pastorway

*James 3*

9With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. 11Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. 

To "cuss", or use "curse" words is the opposite of to bless. So to curse is to not bless, and we are called to bless! 

*1 Peter 3*
8Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. 9Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. 

Phillip


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Let me say from the start, I will not play games w/ you youngsters. Some of you are in university; but you wouldn't know it. Do not waste your parents time and money; do them a favor. We have not sent you there to learn to cuss, but to be refined.



I didn't learn to cuss here just like I didn't learn to say any other word here, and I'm being refined through my knowledge and understanding, so I don't get this?
Is this just an emotional rant?



> We are biblical students; we will conduct ourselves with respect and dignity. We are educated, we will use proper words and sentence structure. We are Christians, we will not align ourselves with the devil and his minion. Conduct yourselves accordingly.



How does saying a sound that means something synonymous to another sound that is not a curse word, but is labeled a curse word from society (and not scripture btw) considered aligning ourselves with the devil and his minion? How is this conduct sinful? Yes I am educated, and I do my best to use proper words and sentence structure for my own pleasure (I like the way a lot of proper sentence structure sounds), however by not doing so, I do not consider my self less educated, maybe less educated with English grammar, but not with everything else. If I hear Bahnsen or some big time theologian ending sentences with prepositions, I do not consider them uneducated and write them off because of their improper sentence structure. Education is discerned through manifested logical knowledge on certain subjects. This aside, and back to cussing: You are claiming that cuss words area inherently wrong. I beg to differ.



> Are there any curse words in the bible? I thought our bible was written in Koine Greek; the common language of the common folk; surely the common folk cuss-no? Where are the cuss words?



I don’t know what the common curse words of the time were and how common they were. The origin of curse words is really interesting to me; I don’t even know when society started deeming neutral word meanings as curse words. Anyway, I wouldn’t make such an assertion unless I had a very adequate knowledge of the context of social life and language in that specific time. When you say ‘surely the common folk cuss-no?” it seems to me that you are just paralleling that what common folks do in America or more specifically a certain area of America (the bible belt) to what common folks do every place and time all throughout history. This is just assumption and worthless for a convincing argument in my opinion. However, Paul said the most offensive form of the word dung, that we could translate to our curse word the s-word. Also Peter cursed when he was denying Christ. 



> I believe our own government has deemed certain words unfit for the ears consumption?


 You are definitely right. It also deems abortion to be relevant to the woman’s opinion. Big deal. It is not illegal to say a cuss word; we are only under the government’s penal sanctions for cursing when we communicate via certain media. This is only relevant to the medias communication. 



> I understand that this is the internet and there are no rules here; well, let me tell you, the PB has rules. If you cuss, you break our rules.



I know this, and like my opening post, I am just curious to why these rules are here. I am not trying to break the rules.



> If you cuss, you break the rules established by the FCC and the U.S. government.


 The FCC is only relevant to the U.S. media. However, there are other elements banned by the media such as nudity and grotesque killing have practical implications behind them. If I see nudity, I'm tempted to lust. If I hear a curse word, I do not get a black eye, I do not feel hated nor do I suffer anything. My ears only decipher a new sound and meaning that is synonymous to another sound and meaning. How is that wrong? How can you justify that cussing is wrong based from what our government decides is right and wrong? You know how inconsistent our government is with scriptures interpretation of right and wrong.



> if you cuss, whether you want to admit it, the world looks upon you as one of theirs. One of the first things God cleansed me of when I was saved was the vulgar language I used.



We reveal that we are not of the world through our fruits and the nature behind our actions. What fruit is cursing against? How does cursing conflict with our nature? Again, it is only a neutral sound with a meaning subjective to the context like any other word. The world looks at you as apart of theirs if you drink and smoke too. You don’t believe this as wrong, so this is inconsistent. As for the world, who is the world? The legalistic Bible belt and the front line evangelical Christians that represent it believe everything is wrong. Cursing is not scriptural it is relevant to the culture; the world you are speaking of must be split up into many different cultures. Saying that cursing is like blending with the world, is like saying eating is like blending with the world. Cursing has no moral implications. 




> One man once said to me, Scott, why do you cuss so much; you know it shows your lack of verbosity; it says that you are uneducated and have to resort to slangs and such.


 This is only a relevant opinion and thus vain for this debate. 




> Is the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT within ye?
> 
> Jam 1:19 So that, my beloved brothers, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.
> Jam 1:20 For the wrath of man does not work out the righteousness of God.
> Jam 1:21 On account of this, putting away all filthiness and overflowing of evil, in meekness receive the implanted Word being able to save your souls.
> Jam 1:22 But become doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
> Jam 1:23 Because if anyone is a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, this one is like a man studying his natural face in a mirror;
> Jam 1:24 for he studied himself, and has gone away, and immediately he forgot of what kind he was.
> Jam 1:25 But the one looking into the perfect Law of liberty, and continuing in it, this one not having become a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his doing.
> Jam 1:26 If anyone thinks to be religious among you, yet not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, this one's religion is vain.
> Jam 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.



I think you assert here that cursing is wrong because if one does he is “not bridling his tongue,” Again I ask what makes an idol curse word filthy or something to restrain the tongue from. As for being unspotted, the extent you take this is radical. If society deems certain foods offensive, then should we not eat them? Paul has addressed this and if it offends a weaker brother, then no. This is why I don’t drink, smoke, or curse around a weaker brother. Deeming neutral sounds as wrong is the same as deeming neutral words as wrong. If I say ZATE! There is no moral implication if I eat an apple there is no moral implication. 



> Does cussing reflect Christianity? Are you unspotted from the world or does the world think you are part of them?
> 
> Jam 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. If any one does not stumble in word, this one is a mature man, able also to bridle the whole body.
> Jam 3:3 Behold, we put bits in the mouths of the horses, for them to obey us; and we turn about their whole body.
> Jam 3:4 Behold, the ships also, being so great, and being driven by violent winds, they are directed by a very small rudder, where the impulse of the one steering purposes.
> Jam 3:5 So also the tongue is a little member, and boasts great things. Behold, how little a fire kindles how large a forest!
> Jam 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity. So the tongue is set among our members, spotting all the body, and inflaming the course of nature, and being inflamed by Hell.
> Jam 3:7 For every species of beasts, both indeed of birds, of creeping things, and of sea animals, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human species;
> Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison.
> 
> Jam 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. 2671
> 
> #2671: Excrement
> 
> Clarks Commentarys reads:
> 
> Jam 3:10 -
> Out of the same mouth - This saying is something like that, Pro_18:21 : Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and on this, for an illustration of St. James’ words, hear Vayikra Rabba, sec. 33: “Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, said to his servant Tobias, Go and bring me some good food from the market: the servant went, and he bought tongues. At another time he said to the same servant, Go and buy me some bad food: the servant went, and bought tongues. The master said, What is the reason that when I ordered thee to buy me good and bad food, thou didst bring tongues? The servant answered, From the tongue both good and evil come to man: if it be good, there is nothing better; if bad, there is nothing worse.”
> A saying very like that of St. James as found in Rabbi Tanchum, fol. 10, 4: “The mouth desires to study in the law, and to speak good words; to praise God, to glorify him, and to celebrate him with hymns: but it can also slander, blaspheme, reproach, and swear falsely.” See Schoettgen.
> To find a man who officiates in sacred things to be a common swearer, a slanderer, etc., is truly monstrous; but there have been many cases of this kind, and I have known several. Let me say to all such, My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
> 
> Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.




Yep the tongue is powerful, but what makes it powerful is the soul behind the words or the meaning of the sentence the words are in, which reflect the person’s message, which reflects the person’s nature, which we shouldn’t let conform to the world. To speak in anger to speak in an evil manor is to speak coarse, to speak filthy language, in need for restraining the tongue. Culture and scripture are gliding across the dance floor and we are smiling in appreciation. 


Honestly I don’t like cursing that much just because I prefer the flow and sound of proper speech. In fact If it were inherently wrong, I’d be just cool with it. However, I figure we must question everything we do, to see if it is in line with scripture. I am honestly trying to be convinced by you guys, I’m not ignoring only what I want to hear, but meditating hard on everything, and it’s just not really convincing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gabriel,
Please define the Col passage. Biblically, what is _filthy communication_? Please give me examples?

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabriel,
> Please define the Col passage. Biblically, what is _filthy communication_? Please give me examples?
> 
> [Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]



That's so easy it isn't even funny. However, to explain it I'll have to be creative as this board censors the words I'd use to describe filthy communication 

This means speaking about impure things, sexually immoral acts/jokes, crude humor, talking about girls' anatomy and guys' anatomy, etc...

The concept of "communication" does not in any way lead me to think "individual words that are bad" but the manner of your conversation with others.

This is why I do not tolerate filthy talk or talking about "dirty" jokes, etc. because doing such things leads me to think about impure ideas or lust or to not have a mind on purity or godly things.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Communication are words grouped together to make coherent statements. You cannot say that singularly, words are not communicative statements in and of themselves. For instance, when I say to my daughter, "HOT", does it not send a message? Or how about the word HOLY? 

Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees; They speak evil. Please tell me how using words that our society has deemed illicit not be in the same way evil. God has given our leaders the responbsibility in drawing standards in this regard. The bible speaks in general terms, i.e evil speaking, malicious talk, etc.

~Would you use the term you previously said in Christs presence?

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

We're not even to MOURN like heathen do! Let alone talk like them.


----------



## kceaster

I like the point that was mentioned earlier about sentiments or words being derogatory. Then I started to think, are there any curse words that are edifying? And before someone wants to take off on that and make it subjective, I would remind you that we live before the face of God.

So, are there any curse words that are not derogatory?

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey

Kevin add this in to the equation:

"1Co 10:31 Then whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all things to the glory of God."

Can you use this language to glorify God?


----------



## kceaster

Yes, Scott, good point.

KC


----------



## panta dokimazete

postmodernism, anyone?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabriel,
> Please define the Col passage. Biblically, what is _filthy communication_? Please give me examples?
> 
> [Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so easy it isn't even funny. However, to explain it I'll have to be creative as this board censors the words I'd use to describe filthy communication
> 
> This means speaking about impure things, sexually immoral acts/jokes, crude humor, talking about girls' anatomy and guys' anatomy, etc...
> 
> The concept of "communication" does not in any way lead me to think "individual words that are bad" but the manner of your conversation with others.
> 
> This is why I do not tolerate filthy talk or talking about "dirty" jokes, etc. because doing such things leads me to think about impure ideas or lust or to not have a mind on purity or godly things.
> 
> [Edited on 7-2-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
Click to expand...


And so what do you do when someone comes up to you after you use a "colorful adjective" and asks, what that means? Do you lie, or do you "speak about impure things, sexually immoral acts/jokes" ?

Hmm?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that this is the internet and there are no rules here; well, let me tell you, the PB has rules. If you cuss, you break our rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this, and like my opening post, I am just curious to why these rules are here. I am not trying to break the rules.
Click to expand...


Because it is offensive and deemed inappropriate speech for most Christians?


----------



## alwaysreforming

To add my two cents, I'm simply going to repeat my reply I made in the previous thread we had on this topic. 

"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that yes, curse words ARE inherently wrong in themselves. I took a brief tour through the other post (ref. above) and can see there is some disagreement here. But I think when all the sophistry and debate over semantics is put away, one would have to discern that there is just something wrong with words such as... (fill in the blank).

Sure, there are other words that could be translated "dung", etc. and may be found in the Bible, but that's not the point. The point is that some words are inherently harsh, and ugly. They have no place in a Christian's vocabulary OR mind! Some words have a past in racial hatred, or at a whore house, or are associated with p0rnography, etc. You can rest assured that Jesus would NEVER use language such as that which will undoubtably be argued for by some Christians! Neither would you dare stand before the throne and utter such nonsense.

And of course there are some words which are not "so" bad, but they would still be better left unused by the Christian. Even as a Christian, I say two bad words (he**, and dam*). I can't tell you how embarrassed I've been by a NON-believer telling me to "watch my language." 

Let your conscience be your guide. If you feel that something is on the edge of inappropriateness, then don't use it. If however, one's conscious says that even the most vulgar of words are not wrong, then one has a problem with his/her conscience!"

Also, if we have a doubt about a word and asked ourselves, "Would Jesus use this word?" If the answer is "No" then we must ask ourselves "Why?" If its NOT sinful, then what should keep the Lord from using it? This should be a hint that certain words/speech ARE inherently sinful.

Me two cents!


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> Sure, there are other words that could be translated "dung", etc. and may be found in the Bible, but that's not the point. The point is that some words are inherently harsh, and ugly. They have no place in a Christian's vocabulary OR mind! Some words have a past in racial hatred, or at a whore house, or are associated with p0rnography, etc. You can rest assured that Jesus would NEVER use language such as that which will undoubtably be argued for by some Christians! Neither would you dare stand before the throne and utter such nonsense.



This is the best defense I've heard so far. However when we say words if the origin was offensive, we'd know that. Involving the basic 4 letter cuss words there origin is very vauge, just like any other word. Degrading racist words are bad if they are used in a degrading way, yet many times they are used in mere jest. Some words like fool, disgusting idiot, moronic, have a more potentially sinful inheritence, as they are negative. Yet they are not sinful words, or even argued about.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are other words that could be translated "dung", etc. and may be found in the Bible, but that's not the point. The point is that some words are inherently harsh, and ugly. They have no place in a Christian's vocabulary OR mind! Some words have a past in racial hatred, or at a whore house, or are associated with p0rnography, etc. You can rest assured that Jesus would NEVER use language such as that which will undoubtably be argued for by some Christians! Neither would you dare stand before the throne and utter such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best defense I've heard so far. However when we say words if the origin was offensive, we'd know that. Involving the basic 4 letter cuss words there origin is very vauge, just like any other word. I think a few words depending on their origin could be inherently wrong, like degrading racist words, origining from hate.
Click to expand...


Timm,
Scripture has been cited and you have not heard that. However, the above post strikes a chord. This concerns me for you.............The origin of the 4 or so cuss words you refer to, are not vague, at least from my knowledge. Again I ask, would you comfortably cite these words in front of Christ? Will using these words bring God glory?


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are other words that could be translated "dung", etc. and may be found in the Bible, but that's not the point. The point is that some words are inherently harsh, and ugly. They have no place in a Christian's vocabulary OR mind! Some words have a past in racial hatred, or at a whore house, or are associated with p0rnography, etc. You can rest assured that Jesus would NEVER use language such as that which will undoubtably be argued for by some Christians! Neither would you dare stand before the throne and utter such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best defense I've heard so far. However when we say words if the origin was offensive, we'd know that. Involving the basic 4 letter cuss words there origin is very vauge, just like any other word. I think a few words depending on their origin could be inherently wrong, like degrading racist words, origining from hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timm,
> Scripture has been cited and you have not heard that. However, the above post strikes a chord. This concerns me for you.............The origin of the 4 or so cuss words you refer to, are not vague, at least from my knowledge. Again I ask, would you comfortably cite these words in front of Christ? Will using these words bring God glory?
Click to expand...


I updated this specific post. I have read the scripture and it all refers to content in my opinion, not individual words. I have no idea where the origin are derived for the basic words. Is this common knowledge? If so could you u2u me with the info? These words can bring just as much glory to God as the next sound. It's our content that brings the glory. I respectfully disagree.

Also, this is to everyone:

Can we please discuss this situation with an attitude of love and patience. I see a few post that come across as somewhat patronizing. Even though we are not being blunty mean, it is obvious in the sarcastic tones. Let's be longsuffering and remember that as reformed brothers and sisters, we are in unity with the fundamental doctrines of scripture.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are other words that could be translated "dung", etc. and may be found in the Bible, but that's not the point. The point is that some words are inherently harsh, and ugly. They have no place in a Christian's vocabulary OR mind! Some words have a past in racial hatred, or at a whore house, or are associated with p0rnography, etc. You can rest assured that Jesus would NEVER use language such as that which will undoubtably be argued for by some Christians! Neither would you dare stand before the throne and utter such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best defense I've heard so far. However when we say words if the origin was offensive, we'd know that. Involving the basic 4 letter cuss words there origin is very vauge, just like any other word. I think a few words depending on their origin could be inherently wrong, like degrading racist words, origining from hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timm,
> Scripture has been cited and you have not heard that. However, the above post strikes a chord. This concerns me for you.............The origin of the 4 or so cuss words you refer to, are not vague, at least from my knowledge. Again I ask, would you comfortably cite these words in front of Christ? Will using these words bring God glory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I updated this specific post. I have read the scripture and it all refers to content in my opinion, not individual words. I have no idea where the origin are derived for the basic words. Is this common knowledge? If so could you u2u me with the info? These words can bring just as much glory to God as the next sound. It's our content that brings the glory. I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Also, this is to everyone:
> 
> Can we please discuss this situation with an attitude of love and patience. I see a few post that come across as somewhat patronizing. Even though we are not being blunty mean, it is obvious in the sarcastic tones. Let's be longsuffering and remember that as reformed brothers and sisters, we are in unity with the fundamental doctrines of scripture.
> 
> [Edited on 7-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
Click to expand...


Tim,
For some reason you seem to be trying to overly emphasize the singular word from strings as if the singular cannot hold the same amount of information. The passages are content; filth. Socially, the words you want to embrace equate with filth; they are not ambiguous or arbitrary.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

This thread had made me think. I'm sure that _my_ usage of said terminology were sins against conscience, and against the third commandment, which enjoins sobriety and gravity in our use of the spoken (and written) word. Jesus (Mt 5:37), James (3:2-12), Paul (Col 4:6), Peter (1 Pet. 4:11), John (1 Jn 3:18), and Jude (v. 9)--all of NT writers in one place or another call us to careful use of the tongue. A _distinguishing_ use that sets us off over against the world.

Some of the examples of exclamations set forth in this thread are vulgarisms, plain and simple. They are by definition a debased form of language. God wants us to think about _what _we are saying, not carelessly toss off some convenient, comfortable phrase because we think it's expressive. Expressive of what? What does "I [Censored] love you" express? Do you want to [Censored] that person? Would you use that expression with someone you really wanted to [Censored]? Would that expressoin ever send a mixed message? Or one you would be scandalized by if it were taken seriously?

None of this will convince those of you who want to use that kind of talk, and will find a justification for it. You could take it from me and the voice of my experience (if you had a mind to) that it ultimately will bring you pain. I learned it not once, but twice, the hard way. And I'm still reaping.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> Tim,
> For some reason you seem to be trying to overly emphasize the singular word from strings as if the singular cannot hold the same amount of information. The passages are content; filth. Socially, the words you want to embrace equate with filth; they are not ambiguous or arbitrary.



The idol word is just as idol as the next. For example, dung is acceptable but a synonym of it not. Why?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
Does not Paul say their is such a thing as filthy language?

Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 

yes or no?


----------



## Ianterrell

Everybody,

Let's be clear. "That's just Common sense" isn't a good response to whether or not "cursing" or "swearing" is a sin. Just like any other issue you must be willing to explain your position. Saying we shouldn't use foul speech without seeking the biblical definition of foul speech isn't a defense for the normal evangelical position which says that a small collection of 6-10 words in english constitute the insidious foul speech category.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Did Peter sin here in cursing and swearing?

Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. 
Mat 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 
Mat 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 
Mat 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 
Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. 
Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. 
Mat 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Did Peter sin here in cursing and swearing?
> 
> Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
> Mat 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
> Mat 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
> Mat 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
> Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
> Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the <b>[Censored]</b> crew.
> Mat 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the <b>[Censored]</b> crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.



Scott,

In keeping with the logic (if it may be called such) of the anti-cussing brigade, yes Peter was a cussin machine! Words, no matter what the context or meaning, EVEN if they CAN be used in a dirty way are consequently inherantly sinful.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Everybody,
> 
> Let's be clear. "That's just Common sense" isn't a good response to whether or not "cursing" or "swearing" is a sin. Just like any other issue you must be willing to explain your position. Saying we shouldn't use foul speech without seeking the biblical definition of foul speech isn't a defense for the normal evangelical position which says that a small collection of 6-10 words in english constitute the insidious foul speech category.



Sorry Ivan, that's just how I see it. In fact, I am kind of *SHOCKED* that anyone here would even contenplate the idea of cursing being acceptable before the Lord.

Now, if I am talking to an unregenrate/retrobate person I may realize that I need to explain this to him in such detail. But amongst the brethern I am simply aghast that this is being debated so.

Do you not believe that some things just conflict with our walk without having to run to our bibles and look it up? I mean if you were a liberal I could see this argument but otherwise I just can't. If that causes some of you to question me or my walk with Christ then I am truely sorry.

I am convicted immediately the second I do anything that is out of character with my claiming Christ and I don't seek to go to the scriptures and see if there is anything that could make me feel less guilty before Him for what I did or said.

Just moments ago I said someone was acting like a b**ch and I was immediately ashamed. I only said it to my wife, in anger, because the person I spoke of had just fouled a plan up that me and a co-worker had spent 30 minutes or so figuring out! She did this with an attitude and as if she is in a position of authority that she is not in and displayed a horrible example to several children.

I had a reason to be angry, I even had a reason to speak out against it to my wife in PRIVATE. But I did not have a right to use that term and I would never seek approval within myself to have used it. In fact, I think I stumbled and used it because of this discussion "careful so that you do not fall" immediately comes to mind and I repent of that! While thinking too highly of myself in regard to this *SIN* I actually stumbled and fell into it!

So I am not here to judge those of you who curse time to time as my sins are many! But I humbly ask all of you to consider no longer seeking to justify filthy talk because the bible does is not "clear enough" in regard to what a curse word is and isn't. It is honestly breaking my heart.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tim,
> Does not Paul say their is such a thing as filthy language?
> 
> Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
> 
> yes or no?



Yep filthy content is filthy language. It's that simple.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Who determines 'filthy talk"?


----------



## ReformedWretch

If it "lessens" your witness...curse word or not, should you say it?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
OK. Well scripture states that there is such a thing as filthy talk. Peter Cursed. Obviously the term refers to singular words...........do you agree?


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Everybody,
> 
> Let's be clear. "That's just Common sense" isn't a good response to whether or not "cursing" or "swearing" is a sin. Just like any other issue you must be willing to explain your position. Saying we shouldn't use foul speech without seeking the biblical definition of foul speech isn't a defense for the normal evangelical position which says that a small collection of 6-10 words in english constitute the insidious foul speech category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ivan, that's just how I see it. In fact, I am kind of *SHOCKED* that anyone here would even contenplate the idea of cursing being acceptable before the Lord.
> 
> Now, if I am talking to an unregenrate/retrobate person I may realize that I need to explain this to him in such detail. But amongst the brethern I am simply aghast that this is being debated so.
> 
> Do you not believe that some things just conflict with our walk without having to run to our bibles and look it up? I mean if you were a liberal I could see this argument but otherwise I just can't. If that causes some of you to question me or my walk with Christ then I am truely sorry.
> 
> I am convicted immediately the second I do anything that is out of character with my claiming Christ and I don't seek to go to the scriptures and see if there is anything that could make me feel less guilty before Him for what I did or said.
> 
> Just moments ago I said someone was acting like a b**ch and I was immediately ashamed. I only said it to my wife, in anger, because the person I spoke of had just fouled a plan up that me and a co-worker had spent 30 minutes or so figuring out! She did this with an attitude and as if she is in a position of authority that she is not in and displayed a horrible example to several children.
> 
> I had a reason to be angry, I even had a reason to speak out against it to my wife in PRIVATE. But I did not have a right to use that term and I would never seek approval within myself to have used it. In fact, I think I stumbled and used it because of this discussion "careful so that you do not fall" immediately comes to mind and I repent of that! While thinking too highly of myself in regard to this *SIN* I actually stumbled and fell into it!
> 
> So I am not here to judge those of you who curse time to time as my sins are many! But I humbly ask all of you to consider no longer seeking to justify filthy talk because the bible does is not "clear enough" in regard to what a curse word is and isn't. It is honestly breaking my heart.
Click to expand...


We can have false convictions Adam. I used to have many legalistic false convictions. I don't care to justify cussing anyway. I could give it up happily, it's not that big of a deal for me. I am not saying your legalistic please don't interpret that.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tim,
> OK. Well scripture states that there is such a thing as filthy talk. Peter Cursed. Obviously the term refers to singular words...........do you agree?



Eh, I duno kinda vauge. I duno if cursed means the same as cursed in our tounge. The Bible wasn't written by an american last week.

Anyway, let's just hypothetically say it does. So what?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Filthy talk, cursing are evil and for the believer should be avoided. There is no way that this speaking glorifies God; does it?


----------



## pastorway

[thread edited and reinstated]


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Everybody,
> 
> Let's be clear. "That's just Common sense" isn't a good response to whether or not "cursing" or "swearing" is a sin. Just like any other issue you must be willing to explain your position. Saying we shouldn't use foul speech without seeking the biblical definition of foul speech isn't a defense for the normal evangelical position which says that a small collection of 6-10 words in english constitute the insidious foul speech category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ivan, that's just how I see it. In fact, I am kind of *SHOCKED* that anyone here would even contenplate the idea of cursing being acceptable before the Lord.
> 
> Now, if I am talking to an unregenrate/retrobate person I may realize that I need to explain this to him in such detail. But amongst the brethern I am simply aghast that this is being debated so.
> 
> Do you not believe that some things just conflict with our walk without having to run to our bibles and look it up? I mean if you were a liberal I could see this argument but otherwise I just can't. If that causes some of you to question me or my walk with Christ then I am truely sorry.
> 
> I am convicted immediately the second I do anything that is out of character with my claiming Christ and I don't seek to go to the scriptures and see if there is anything that could make me feel less guilty before Him for what I did or said.
> 
> Just moments ago I said someone was acting like a b**ch and I was immediately ashamed. I only said it to my wife, in anger, because the person I spoke of had just fouled a plan up that me and a co-worker had spent 30 minutes or so figuring out! She did this with an attitude and as if she is in a position of authority that she is not in and displayed a horrible example to several children.
> 
> I had a reason to be angry, I even had a reason to speak out against it to my wife in PRIVATE. But I did not have a right to use that term and I would never seek approval within myself to have used it. In fact, I think I stumbled and used it because of this discussion "careful so that you do not fall" immediately comes to mind and I repent of that! While thinking too highly of myself in regard to this *SIN* I actually stumbled and fell into it!
> 
> So I am not here to judge those of you who curse time to time as my sins are many! But I humbly ask all of you to consider no longer seeking to justify filthy talk because the bible does is not "clear enough" in regard to what a curse word is and isn't. It is honestly breaking my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can have false convictions Adam. I used to have many legalistic false convictions. I don't care to justify cussing anyway. I could give it up happily, it's not that big of a deal for me. I am not saying your legalistic please don't interpret that.
Click to expand...


Ok, then I guess I would just ask if you have prayed much about it? If so, you haven't felt convicted in prayer that it's wrong?

What about cursing in prayer? Telling Jesus how much he means to you using curse words to emphasize. I am being serious here too.

Just curious if you (or whomever) thinks that would be wrong? If so, why?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Did Peter sin here in cursing and swearing?
> 
> Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
> Mat 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
> Mat 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
> Mat 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
> Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
> Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the <b>[Censored]</b> crew.
> Mat 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the <b>[Censored]</b> crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> In keeping with the logic (if it may be called such) of the anti-cussing brigade, yes Peter was a cussin machine! Words, no matter what the context or meaning, EVEN if they CAN be used in a dirty way are consequently inherantly sinful.
Click to expand...


Ian, I don't think Scott was talking about the bird references, but rather the mention of how "Then began he [Peter] to curse and to swear."


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Did anyone ever answer the question of what specifically makes certain words 'curse words' and certain words 'not' (especially given the example that I used with the word for 'copulate' in one language being brought into derogatory slang for the same act in the english language) ?

See.... I see a lot of 'The Bible says avoid filthy communication' and a lot of 'scripture tossing' here and that's all well and fine - but behind the use of scripture to condemn what we have all come to understand as 'filthy communication' lies a presupposition about what those words are specifically. I'm asking the question of WHAT exactly makes these specific words curse words and do we avoid saying them, even if (for example) the word may NOT carry the same connotation in another language (and may just be a part of the regular language) ?

I have no desire to 'justify' cursing and I believe that cursing does nothing to build up the body of Christ nor the person using such language.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm still waiting for some form of interaction with the following things:

Is cursing not based on cultural relativism? Does the Church go by culture's relativistic moral values?

What makes certain words "filthy"?


----------



## pastorway

Yes culture plays a part. Just as culture dictates laws to us, even laws that have no basis from the Scripture. We are still bound to obey those laws unless they contradict directly Scripture.

Those who's business it is to understand language (linguists, etc), who write dictonaries and track the progression and evolution of language do list words as "vulgar" in the dictionary. A vulgar word is a word that has been deemed socially innappropriate for reasons of decency and honor. If the dictionary lists a word as vulgar then I think a Christian should avoid it. 

I would also think that we would want our speech to be pure and holy at all times. Using words that we know are identified as vulgar, dirty, cussing, swear words, etc, would not qualify as pure or holy.

We should be above reproach in the way we talk. This is not about cultural relativism, nor is it about Christian liberty. The Christian is not ever free to use his liberty as an occassion for the flesh to express itself.

Would the word make others stumble? That there is reason enough to avoid the use of that word. It is called deference, and self control. Adnd thinking we have the right, the liberty, to say whatever we want without consequence is a dangerous and licentious philosophy.

Esteem others as better than yourself. Guard your speech.
Watch your tongue. And be holy.

Phillip


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

This thread has stimulated my thinking a lot.

1.) Where is the line to draw on trying not to offend people? I am offended at school when they do communion outside of the Church. Or since I adhere to the RPW, I am offended when I hear uninspired Christian contemp and hymns being sang in church, use of instruments, and celebration of certain days as holy that are not (Christmas). However, I don't see these Christians that know I’m offended by these things refraining from doing so around me (although many tell me not to cuss because I might offend someone), because these things that I am offended by are socially acceptable to the majority of society. If we were to try to do nothing offensive to people then we would have to tense up and do nothing, because everyone is offended by everything (Zelda, Harry Potter, Disney World, R movies Secular music, Secular anything). Since when does the Bible submit to society? 

The Defenses I've heard:

a.)*The Bible Belt deems a few select words as cuss words, and they associate it with nonbelievers and believe that a Christian wouldn't use such words.* Sure, I can agree with you on this if you are directing this towards legalist in the Bible Belt, however they do the same with alcohol, cigarettes, secular music, R Movies, etc. This board lifts up alcohol and smoking as it used to have a thread for that sole purpose, where everyone would converse and pour out their knowledge of alcohol and tobacco. It also supports secular music and I’m sure many R movies. Back when I was legalistic I would see someone drinking alcohol and label him or her as a probable nonchristian. However in hindsight, I believe that since the judgment was made before I even knew the person and couldn't observe their nature and fruits, that it was merely an inadequate judgment. (If anyone cites Paul and eating meat around the weaker brother go back to my opening question, It’s interesting. I don't cuss to people who I know are offended by it.) Yet the rules of this board imply that it condemns cuss words through censoring, and some of the moderator’s defense is that cursing makes us blend with the world. This is double standard flat out. It is our nature that distinguishes if we blend in with the world! It is our nature and the content it manipulates words to mean that makes them filthy! I can speak filthy by using words that society doesn’t label as cuss words.

b.) This issue has worried me about many PB'ers interpretation of scripture. * The defense of scripture many use is not to use “filthy language”, “unwholesome speech,” etc. * Many assert not to use cuss words because there are other words that can explain it that are not cuss words. This is ludicrous in my opinion. _ How can a sound that has a meaning synonymous to another sound be offensive and the other not when all that separates them is a different sound!? _ One example comes to mind, such as when Paul was labeled to have been “cursing” as if this means what society labels as cursing. If I said the word Manson was a curse word because he was such a bad person and society eventually caught on and threw it into it’s cuss word list then Peter was saying the English equivalent of Manson? I thought we interpret scripture and words in scripture from scripture. If this seems natural or like common sense then It is most likely due to your mind being saturated with our culture, consciously or non(unconscious presuppositions). Culture is not mutable like scripture; it stands on unsteady ground. Our Culture is humanistic and this has seeped in to and modernized many of our churches because humanistic things seem “natural” and like “common sense.” Anyway I am worried about many of your hermeneutics. There is more to context than just the full thought. There is also cultural and historical context. It seems as though many of you are interpreting the Bible as if it were written in America last week. One thing I take pride in as being Presbyterian and reformed, is that the people in our circle really emphasize loving God with all your "mind" and being diligent in study, a denomination and circle of intellectuals and scholars who know their doctrines. 

So basically people see this issue as not important. However I think it is as implicitly it point towards hypocrisy and sleepily interpretation of the Bible.

2.) Can things like food and words be considered morally neutral? Or is everything good or evil?



[Edited on 9-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I can say "bloody" in America without it being a curse word, but in England it is. That is cultural relativism. This is not some kind of objective truth we can clearly define and hold to, as the meanings of words change between countries and even just between regions and states. If we begin to let culture dictate our morality and not Scripture alone, we become nothing but legalistic fundamentalists who refuse to watch movies, play cards, or dance.

What is more sinful. Saying:

"Tim, you are a son of a female dog."

or

"Tim, you are a son of a b****."

Why? Explain.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I can say "bloody" in America without it being a curse word, but in England it is. That is cultural relativism. This is not some kind of objective truth we can clearly define and hold to, as the meanings of words change between countries and even just between regions and states. If we begin to let culture dictate our morality and not Scripture alone, we become nothing but legalistic fundamentalists who refuse to watch movies, play cards, or dance.



Gabe,

It is similar to the concept of being rude. That changes from culture to culture, and time to time, and yet that changing standard is nonetheless an _expression_ of the unchanging standard of respect and honor that we are called to as Christians. For instance, in the United States, it is both rude and even inconsiderate to not tip a good waiter or waitress. But in England, tipping is not even a part of their culture, and so not doing it is not rude at all. So we see that not tipping a good server is not a sin in and of itself, yet in America, to not do so is inconsiderate, insulting and selfish - and _those_ qualities _are_ intrinsically sinful.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm sorry, I was looking for a Scriptural response, not more cultural situations and scenarios. We do not live according to subjective, wavering experiences, but Scripture alone. Please explain using Scripture.


----------



## ReformedWretch

8but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,[a] these things ought not to be so. 11Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.

21but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22Abstain from every form of evil.

The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness."

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

"Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.
Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties."

"As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."

.................
I could go on but why? It's clear that we are to talk in ways that honor God. Cursing does not honor God, even if it is our intent. It makes us look like the world, we are one with them when we talk that way.

The culture thing is just silly in my opinion. If you don't know what's considered foul in another culture you can't held accountable to it, but once you learn then you can. 

Those looking for acceptance of cursing seem to be stretching it a bit in this thread. "What about this situation" or "What about in that Country". I don't know if I've ever seen anything like it even on message boards where Lordship salvation and submission to the moral laws of GOd are questioned 

Do you expect scripture to flat out say;

"Thou shalt not use any language that is labeled foul or unpure, and when thou enterth another culture or land thou shalt learn what is not acceptable there so not to useth it amongst thy people there.

????

Since that passage can not be found, hey talk as thou wish!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gabriel and Tim,
I know from the previous exchanges that you both agree that scripture does identify 'filthy speaking'. I believe we have defined the term-no? Whether it is singular words or structured sentences, both can be defined as FS. Your concerns are in the _how_ the terms are deemed illicit, i.e. FS are founded, especially if they are not pronounced in scripture. Well, they must have been founded in some manner during early Christianity right? At that time, men did not have the pages of scripture to guide them, yet they were able to discern the illicitness of certain words or phrases as unaceptable to a Christian. Does not your premise fly in the face of this fact?


Question: Would filthy speaking in Enland be the same as in America or Greece or...?Not necessarily. Is the bible applicable to all cultures? God did not make a mistake did He? He did not leave the term FS in a state of ambiguosity. So, we can establish that the scriptures do in fact identify FS as well as keeping with the premise that the bible is still Gods word and can be applied from culture to culture-correct? Based upon this idea, terms must be identified against the backdrop of certain cultures. This is the way God intended. Logic would tell us this. This is exactly how the early church diferentiated ( of course with the assistance of the HS and Christs called leadership).

It seems as if Gabriel and Tim are arguing from the silence of scripture. The overall attitude and inference is clear. Note the previous passages offered. It cannot be denied that there was such things, even in the days of the apostles as crude or filthy speech. We are warned against using it. Cultures are different, languages are different. God knows this, hence, the general premise to to 'avoid' filthy speaking is able to cross over into all cultures.

How is filthy speaking defined. it must be defined culturally. The bible does not go into the minutia in certain subject matter. None the less, we cannot hold to the idea that if it is not in the scriptures, we are, in every case, free from responsibility. This would be pushing the intent of Gods overall idea's and inferences to a level of undermining even the scriptures we love so dearly. The premise is there. If the premise is there, Gods intent is there. If Gods intent is there, we must seek out ways to define what may be inadvertently veiled. Also, as a believer, it is better to err on the side of caution than not; we are called to be holy. If cussing is seen as a whole as _unholy_, even if cussing is defined by our cultures, should it not be avoided?

God has ordained our Governments. George W. is not a suprise to God. The government has established that cussing is not legal within the confines of mass communication. It is warranted we define 'mass communication'. Personal communication between Tim, Gabriel and myself, would be legal. The three of us wearing a t-shirt that reads *#@**# is a **%$*@ to a public event is not private and is illegal. Conversation between us three, as long as no one is intollerable to the words used in the conversation, would be acceptable. But what if we are in the workplace and someone over hears us and is offended. Next thing you know, we are in HR being written up. One of us could even be fired for it. The point I am trying to make is that the standards are established. Whether or not you want to agree with the standards is irrelevent; they are there. And they are there for a purpose.

These standards also have generational lines. For instance, 40 years ago, one would not have heard the word 'damb' in mass communication, today, well we know about today. 

Comments?



[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm sorry, I was looking for a Scriptural response, not more cultural situations and scenarios. We do not live according to subjective, wavering experiences, but Scripture alone. Please explain using Scripture.



Well, first, do you believe it would be sinful--because of inconsideration, greed, selfishness--to not tip a good server in America if one was perfectly able? Yes or no?


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Everybody,
> 
> Let's be clear. "That's just Common sense" isn't a good response to whether or not "cursing" or "swearing" is a sin. Just like any other issue you must be willing to explain your position. Saying we shouldn't use foul speech without seeking the biblical definition of foul speech isn't a defense for the normal evangelical position which says that a small collection of 6-10 words in english constitute the insidious foul speech category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ivan, that's just how I see it. In fact, I am kind of *SHOCKED* that anyone here would even contenplate the idea of cursing being acceptable before the Lord.
> 
> Now, if I am talking to an unregenrate/retrobate person I may realize that I need to explain this to him in such detail. But amongst the brethern I am simply aghast that this is being debated so.
> 
> Do you not believe that some things just conflict with our walk without having to run to our bibles and look it up? I mean if you were a liberal I could see this argument but otherwise I just can't. If that causes some of you to question me or my walk with Christ then I am truely sorry.
> 
> I am convicted immediately the second I do anything that is out of character with my claiming Christ and I don't seek to go to the scriptures and see if there is anything that could make me feel less guilty before Him for what I did or said.
> 
> Just moments ago I said someone was acting like a b**ch and I was immediately ashamed. I only said it to my wife, in anger, because the person I spoke of had just fouled a plan up that me and a co-worker had spent 30 minutes or so figuring out! She did this with an attitude and as if she is in a position of authority that she is not in and displayed a horrible example to several children.
> 
> I had a reason to be angry, I even had a reason to speak out against it to my wife in PRIVATE. But I did not have a right to use that term and I would never seek approval within myself to have used it. In fact, I think I stumbled and used it because of this discussion "careful so that you do not fall" immediately comes to mind and I repent of that! While thinking too highly of myself in regard to this *SIN* I actually stumbled and fell into it!
> 
> So I am not here to judge those of you who curse time to time as my sins are many! But I humbly ask all of you to consider no longer seeking to justify filthy talk because the bible does is not "clear enough" in regard to what a curse word is and isn't. It is honestly breaking my heart.
Click to expand...


Well, i am not going to join this discussion as of yet, unless i come up with something constructive to say, but i would just like to offer some humble comments on this.

Adam, while i definitely understand where you are coming from regarding how i can be discouraging it can be to hear fellow christians have to argue over what we consider to be blatant sins, i do think that it is necessary to be able to give biblical evidence when we condemn certain things as sins.

While our consciences are good guides as to what to abstain from, they still need to be guided by proper information (ie the scriptures). While nowadays the more common problem is that christians have uninformed consciences that do not convict them when they sin, it is also possible to go to the other extreme.

I guess i am just saying that most christians are aware they need to avoid buying into what the liberal culture tells them, but i think buying into what conservative culture says is no different. For instance if the bible says alcohol in moderation is ok ( err..i know there are some who might argue here...but i am just using it as an example) and drunkedness is sin, we should leave it at that. Most of us know not to be taken in when liberal culture tries to say ' oh...drunkeness is harmless as long as no one gets hurt' but we also need to be wary of conservative culture which tries to say ' all drinking is wrong, absolutely' . 

in conclusion, i am just saying we do need biblical backing for our convictions. Many pagans oppose drunkeness, homosexualilty, pre-martial sex and yes, cursing, but for totally unbiblical reasons. While it is good to follow your conscience, and i suppose we should do so when in doubt ( i do struggle a lot here though...) we should always endeavour to keep our consciences informed by scripture.

oh, just to be on topic, i do agree with all those who have argued that cussing is wrong...but if u asked me why i would have to say it is more a gut reaction than biblical conviction. I know about all the filthy communication verses, but probably couldn't answer very well if pressed by someone on what exactly fc was.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Mark;

I suppose I am pressing kind of hard here but understand it is honestly because this discussion just shocks me. Not because I am better than anyone, but because I honestly never expected this was an issue with anyone in the family of God.

in my opinion (please NOTE that!) I believe we are taking something that is obvious and trying to analize it to death. Do we really not know what filthy communication is? Do all the passages listed in this topic not make it fairly obvious? In fact, I just isted countless passages that I believe make it clear how we are to speak.

I dunno, I may have to bow out of this because I am just getting more and more irritated and worse than that, disappointed.


----------



## BobVigneault

One problem I'm seeing in this debate is that when we try to discuss the apropriateness of individual words we have ratcheted our microscopes up a bit too high. We may look at a printed picture of a tree and ask 'why is this pretty?' When we examine the picture with a microscope, we see just a bunch of dots and reply, 'it's not, it's just dots!'

We may say, 'these are just words' we are discussing but they are not. The big picture is communcation, expression, edification, exhortation. The Bible does not nail down the apropriateness of each word but it has lots to say about how and what we communicate. Sometimes it may be necessary to use a vulgarity, as long as we don't abuse the Lord's name, to communicate a threat.

I was in a situation over a year ago where someone was out of control in a hospital room. Things were deteriorating fast and the nurses could not control a particular troublemaker, he was becoming dangerous. I finally stepped toward him and threatened that unless he stopped I would f****** kill him.

This was a terrible thing to say and I don't use those words as a rule. However, there is a shocking violence in those words that at the time I believed would stop the trouble. It did. I apologized to everyone later, including the police who said I can't threaten someones life. I believe it was a necessary use of an extreme word that should be used very rarely and in extreme circumstances. I didn't use the Lord's name and I apologized for my vulgar language. 

The word itself is just a word, but my intent and what I was trying to communicate was intentionally weighted to fit the situation.

For me, I don't think you can come up with a mathematical formula to determine a cuss word but the man or woman of God will know when something just doesn't sound right. 
It's more like smell. Some things smell bad and some good but we can't determine all the components that make them smell bad or good.

Respect words. respect people. 

When I'm angry my favorite 'cuss' word is 'samina bastige!'. It sounds just awful but to my knowledge it means nothing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Just my four cents.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mark writes:



> i do think that it is necessary to be able to give biblical evidence when we condemn certain things as sins.



Mark, did you read my post above? Are you arguing from silence. Is not the inference clear, i.e. filthy speech?

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BobVigneault

Always think twice about what you want to say and then don't say it.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mark writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i do think that it is necessary to be able to give biblical evidence when we condemn certain things as sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, did you read my post above? Are you arguing from silence. Is not the inference clear, i.e. filthy speech?
> 
> [Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Scott, 

when i posted that i had not read your post yet, but i have now.

i hope my own post was not unclear...i was not arguing for or against cussing in that post...just making some very general comments.

Was i arguing from silence? well, i supposed if u took a very broad definition. 

i said u needed biblical evidence to condemn anything, the relevant issue here being cursing, as a sin. I think i also said that i did believe you guys had provided just that. The only thing was that i personally had not thought much about the definition of filthy speech.



> How is filthy speaking defined. it must be defined culturally. The bible does not go into the minutia in certain subject matter. None the less, we cannot hold to the idea that if it is not in the scriptures, we are, in every case, free from responsibility. This would be pushing the intent of Gods overall idea's and inferences to a level of undermining even the scriptures we love so dearly. The premise is there. If the premise is there, Gods intent is there. If Gods intent is there, we must seek out ways to define what may be inadvertently veiled. Also, as a believer, it is better to err on the side of caution than not; we are called to be holy. If cussing is seen as a whole as unholy, even if cussing is defined by our cultures, should it not be avoided?
> 
> God has ordained our Governments. George W. is not a suprise to God. The government has established that cussing is not legal within the confines of mass communication. It is warranted we define 'mass communication'. Personal communication between Tim, Gabriel and myself, would be legal. The three of us wearing a t-shirt that reads *#@**# is a **%$*@ to a public event is not private and is illegal. Conversation between us three, as long as no one is intollerable to the words used in the conversation, would be acceptable. But what if we are in the workplace and someone over hears us and is offended. Next thing you know, we are in HR being written up. One of us could even be fired for it. The point I am trying to make is that the standards are established. Whether or not you want to agree with the standards is irrelevent; they are there. And they are there for a purpose.



i think i agree with all of this here... was there anything in my post that suggest otherwise?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mark writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i do think that it is necessary to be able to give biblical evidence when we condemn certain things as sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, did you read my post above? Are you arguing from silence. Is not the inference clear, i.e. filthy speech?
> 
> [Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> when i posted that i had not read your post yet, but i have now.
> 
> i hope my own post was not unclear...i was not arguing for or against cussing in that post...just making some very general comments.
> 
> Was i arguing from silence? well, i supposed if u took a very broad definition.
> 
> i said u needed biblical evidence to condemn anything, the relevant issue here being cursing, as a sin. I think i also said that i did believe you guys had provided just that. The only thing was that i personally had not thought much about the definition of filthy speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is filthy speaking defined. it must be defined culturally. The bible does not go into the minutia in certain subject matter. None the less, we cannot hold to the idea that if it is not in the scriptures, we are, in every case, free from responsibility. This would be pushing the intent of Gods overall idea's and inferences to a level of undermining even the scriptures we love so dearly. The premise is there. If the premise is there, Gods intent is there. If Gods intent is there, we must seek out ways to define what may be inadvertently veiled. Also, as a believer, it is better to err on the side of caution than not; we are called to be holy. If cussing is seen as a whole as unholy, even if cussing is defined by our cultures, should it not be avoided?
> 
> God has ordained our Governments. George W. is not a suprise to God. The government has established that cussing is not legal within the confines of mass communication. It is warranted we define 'mass communication'. Personal communication between Tim, Gabriel and myself, would be legal. The three of us wearing a t-shirt that reads *#@**# is a **%$*@ to a public event is not private and is illegal. Conversation between us three, as long as no one is intollerable to the words used in the conversation, would be acceptable. But what if we are in the workplace and someone over hears us and is offended. Next thing you know, we are in HR being written up. One of us could even be fired for it. The point I am trying to make is that the standards are established. Whether or not you want to agree with the standards is irrelevent; they are there. And they are there for a purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think i agree with all of this here... was there anything in my post that suggest otherwise?
Click to expand...



A couple of questions:
1) So you agree that Paul condemns FS? Do you believe Paul saw FS as sin?
2) Based upon the definitions provided above and the scriptural exhortation, is cussing sin?


----------



## satz

1) yes, Paul condemns FS, and yes it is sin

2) i suppose it would depend on if cussing is FS ...

like i said, i haven't thought much about this before, but just of the top of my head, yes, most of the words that qualify as 'cussing' today would be counted as Fs in some form or another and yes, their usage would be sin.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Thank you, Pastor Way.

My future wife and I (she ain't my fianceé yet because I don't have a ring on her finger yet....but tax time is coming soon!) had this discussion a while back, but never finished up on it. 

Adam,
fact is, in dealing with unbelievers, we are called to give a *well reasoned* response to why we believe what we believe. Yes, the Bible DOES clearly state that filthy communication has no place in the Christian's mouth. Yes, the Bible is God's word. What constitutes filthy language ? WHY are these words in particular deemed filthy ?
These are the questions *I* sought to have answered in this thread. It's not 'well, duh, it's obvious, isn't it ?' because some people don't have the same linguistic presupposition about what is filthy language and what is not. *This* is what we're busy trying to determine. Even in certain contexts (i.e.- dog training, complaining), certain words don't carry the connotation of being curse words. Why is that, Adam ? Have you put thought into that ?

(sorry, it's the Bahnsen in me....)

Several people have mentioned that what constitutes filthy language is relative to the culture. I believe this is true. Knowing that we have a few English readers, I will, for example, refrain from using the word 'blood' with a 'y' attached to it, for fear of offending my brother in the UK. The word doesn't carry the connotation of a curse word in the US, but where it offends, I'll hold back just to be safe. 

My next question - if a word once considered filthy language (i.e.- the word carp with the middle two letters rearranged) no longer carries that connotation in the culture at large, is it ok to use it now ?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Thank you, Pastor Way.
> 
> My future wife and I (she ain't my fianceé yet because I don't have a ring on her finger yet....but tax time is coming soon!) had this discussion a while back, but never finished up on it.
> 
> Adam,
> fact is, in dealing with unbelievers, we are called to give a *well reasoned* response to why we believe what we believe. Yes, the Bible DOES clearly state that filthy communication has no place in the Christian's mouth. Yes, the Bible is God's word. What constitutes filthy language ? WHY are these words in particular deemed filthy ?
> These are the questions *I* sought to have answered in this thread. It's not 'well, duh, it's obvious, isn't it ?' because some people don't have the same linguistic presupposition about what is filthy language and what is not. *This* is what we're busy trying to determine. Even in certain contexts (i.e.- dog training, complaining), certain words don't carry the connotation of being curse words. Why is that, Adam ? Have you put thought into that ?
> 
> (sorry, it's the Bahnsen in me....)
> 
> Several people have mentioned that what constitutes filthy language is relative to the culture. I believe this is true. Knowing that we have a few English readers, I will, for example, refrain from using the word 'blood' with a 'y' attached to it, for fear of offending my brother in the UK. The word doesn't carry the connotation of a curse word in the US, but where it offends, I'll hold back just to be safe.
> 
> My next question - if a word once considered filthy language (i.e.- the word carp with the middle two letters rearranged) no longer carries that connotation in the culture at large, is it ok to use it now ?



Kerry,
My suggestion in regards to the 'c' word: The Christian community at large is a social component; we have deemed the term in our social circles illicit, so we should avoid it.


----------



## gwine

Another approach. What do most of the curse words have in common? Many of them refer to the sex act, the reproductive organs and as a by-product (no pun intended) the process of elimination. Another group has in common eternal punishment and a third group focuses on the divine names and Christ's sacrifice (I am thinking of the English word that rhymes with 'muddy :bigsmile:.)

All this ties into the fall. Did not Adam and Eve cover parts of their body after they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And what parts of their body did they cover? It is the same for eternal punishment. Eternal damnation to the lake of fire is not a joke, but both these words entered the vocabulary because it is to our shame that we even have to consider what would never had happened had Adam not sinned. The third catagory comes from our sinful desire to deny God and the shame He had to endure because we were incapable of redeeming ourselves.

As Paul Manata wrote recently, there are no atheists because the knowledge of God is written on every persons heart. So I believe that these catagories of curse words are words that God has told us are wrong. In our fallen nature God has placed that knowledge in our conscience.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gwine writes:



> I believe that these catagories of curse words are words that God has told us are wrong. In our fallen nature God has placed that knowledge in our conscience.



Gerry,
Conscience is based upon applied knowledge; either biblically or socially. Men cannot be convicted of sin unless it has been revealed by God to be sin (either through His word or through communication by His people). An example would be you or I. I did not know it was a sin to break the sabbath until Gods word or people defined it as such. The reference to 'The knowledge of God' is directed at Gods being; His person.

Rom 7:7
But I did not know sin except through Law; for also I did not know lust except the Law said, "You shall not lust." Ex. 20:17


----------



## gwine

> Conscience is based upon applied knowledge; either biblically or socially.



Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 


Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 

This was what I based part of my thoughts on, the idea that the law (using profane words in our thread) is written on our hearts. Am I understanding it incorrectly?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'll toss out another consideration in this debate. Most if not all of the words under consideration I believe are properly classified as expletives. 

Here is the definition of expletive: 

1. Filling up; hence, added merely for the purpose of filling up; superfluous. 

2. A word, letter, or syllable not necessary to the sense, but inserted to fill a vacancy; an oath. 

On both counts expletives fail to meet the Biblical standards of edifying speech required of Christians. 

Whether profane, obscene or vulgar, expletives serve no edifying purpose. Often they are minced oaths. 

The Third Commandment has specific reference to the name of God, which is not to be used in vain, and many expletives fall into this category. But it -- along with the many other Scriptures already cited -- ought to remind us that we are to give account for every idle (vain) word. 

I too wonder about cultural attachment to certain words and I believe many words used as expletives also have appropriate uses, but all words have meaning given to them before we arrive on the scene (though sometimes the meaning changes and context is extremely important to consider). Therefore, we need to consider what is meant and we need to think carefully about our choice of words so that our conversation may be above reproach. 

We are to speak the truth in love and our speech is to be seasoned with grace and salt. 

Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Col. 4.6)

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim. 4.12)


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> Conscience is based upon applied knowledge; either biblically or socially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
> 
> 
> Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
> 
> This was what I based part of my thoughts on, the idea that the law (using profane words in our thread) is written on our hearts. Am I understanding it incorrectly?
Click to expand...


This needs to be defined:

The passage shows that the Gentiles, in fact, do not have the law, yet , by nature they keep some parts of the law.

Calvin writes:
14. For when the Gentiles, etc. He now states what proves the former clause; for he did not think it enough to condemn us by mere assertion, and only to pronounce on us the just judgment of God; but he proceeds to prove this by reasons, in order to excite us to a greater desire for Christ, and to a greater love towards him. He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions προληψεις, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honoring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves. 

Gerry,
I dont believe the premise can be applied here. My reasoning is that this would warrant saying that men have all the required information of the law of God down to even the minutia. This is not true. The general mandates may be present, but not the minutia. These, i.e. certain words, are aquired in knowledge.

My 2 cents.


----------



## gwine

OK. Still, I thought it was interesting that many of the words that we consider to be cuss words are related to the fall . . .


----------



## gwine

> He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves.



But, if I may ask, from whence comes the natural light of righteousness, if not from God? As I read Calvin it seems he is agreeing with me. But, I am open to more . . .


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, if I may ask, from whence comes the natural light of righteousness, if not from God? As I read Calvin it seems he is agreeing with me. But, I am open to more . . .
Click to expand...


I believe the statement is key:

"He sets *nature* in opposition to a written law". 

The Gentiles had a law by _nature_, which is not Gods written law.

Whatever the case, as I mentioned, this cannot be the case of the minutia, it is meant in the general sense. The 10 commandments do not extrapulate even upon the minutia; this is the point. In this situation, I say that this must be an aquired knowledge, either by social standards or biblical.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'll toss out another consideration in this debate. Most if not all of the words under consideration I believe are properly classified as expletives.
> 
> Here is the definition of expletive:
> 
> 1. Filling up; hence, added merely for the purpose of filling up; superfluous.
> 
> 2. A word, letter, or syllable not necessary to the sense, but inserted to fill a vacancy; an oath.
> 
> On both counts expletives fail to meet the Biblical standards of edifying speech required of Christians.
> 
> Whether profane, obscene or vulgar, expletives serve no edifying purpose. Often they are minced oaths.
> 
> The Third Commandment has specific reference to the name of God, which is not to be used in vain, and many expletives fall into this category. But it -- along with the many other Scriptures already cited -- ought to remind us that we are to give account for every idle (vain) word.
> 
> I too wonder about cultural attachment to certain words and I believe many words used as expletives also have appropriate uses, but all words have meaning given to them before we arrive on the scene (though sometimes the meaning changes and context is extremely important to consider). Therefore, we need to consider what is meant and we need to think carefully about our choice of words so that our conversation may be above reproach.
> 
> We are to speak the truth in love and our speech is to be seasoned with grace and salt.
> 
> Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Col. 4.6)
> 
> Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim. 4.12)



My personal opinion is that if cuss words used as expletives are wrong than so should all expletives. 

Spending the last 8 months or so studying Japanese, I would have to conclude that Christians shouldn't use offensive language....this is always determined by the audience...

For instance, I could use certain forms of sentences in front of older folks that is only suitable for young people in Japan and this would be offensive...however, I could say all sorts of english cuss words in front of someone who doesn't know english and it wouldn't be offensive at all. The appropriateness of our language is determined by our audience, that is why there is no where whence we can use the Lord's name in vain because God is always our audience....

If the actual sounds are objectively evil, then we would never know whether we are cussing since we don't know every language and there is no standard to know such; however, language is in part culturally relative therefore offensive language is culturally relative...

However, I would take it a step further and suggest that its even more relative than culture rather its relative to each person; therefore, our audience must be taken into account as to what is offensive...I know that certain words related to sex is completely appropriate in front of the younger generation but my grandma wouldn't have me talk about sex at all in front her...it would offend her...even though the words themselves are not deemed culturally offensive they are individually offensive...however...I could in fact say certain kinds of taboo words in the privacy of my home where other christians would condemn as cussing...

Thus, I would say cussing is determined by our audience...

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## gwine

> So I believe that these catagories of curse words are words that God has told us are wrong. In our fallen nature God has placed that knowledge in our conscience.



I think I understand what you are saying, Scott. I don't believe that specific words are written on our hearts but my quote does seem to imply that. Would it be wrong then to say the pattern of right thought is written on our hearts (but our sinful nature supresses it), so that the Scriptural injunctions we have to make our speech acceptable helps us to know what kind of speech is wrong (coarse , vulgar, calling someone a fool, etc.?) Or does it only mean that we should let Roman 7:7 be the rule?

Now I will go back and re-take English 99 (I'm not ready for 101 yet :bigsmile:.)


----------



## cupotea

Thanks for all of these posts, guys. I cut swearing out of my vocabulary a year ago (except for accidental occasions when things don't go my way  ) but only because I knew that a lot of Christians condemn swearing; I couldn't actually find any Scripture that supported that view. This thread has been enlightening. Thanks!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Thank you, Pastor Way.
> 
> My future wife and I (she ain't my fianceé yet because I don't have a ring on her finger yet....but tax time is coming soon!) had this discussion a while back, but never finished up on it.
> 
> Adam,
> fact is, in dealing with unbelievers, we are called to give a *well reasoned* response to why we believe what we believe. Yes, the Bible DOES clearly state that filthy communication has no place in the Christian's mouth. Yes, the Bible is God's word. What constitutes filthy language ? WHY are these words in particular deemed filthy ?
> These are the questions *I* sought to have answered in this thread. It's not 'well, duh, it's obvious, isn't it ?' because some people don't have the same linguistic presupposition about what is filthy language and what is not. *This* is what we're busy trying to determine. Even in certain contexts (i.e.- dog training, complaining), certain words don't carry the connotation of being curse words. Why is that, Adam ? Have you put thought into that ?
> 
> (sorry, it's the Bahnsen in me....)
> 
> Several people have mentioned that what constitutes filthy language is relative to the culture. I believe this is true. Knowing that we have a few English readers, I will, for example, refrain from using the word 'blood' with a 'y' attached to it, for fear of offending my brother in the UK. The word doesn't carry the connotation of a curse word in the US, but where it offends, I'll hold back just to be safe.
> 
> My next question - if a word once considered filthy language (i.e.- the word carp with the middle two letters rearranged) no longer carries that connotation in the culture at large, is it ok to use it now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry,
> My suggestion in regards to the 'c' word: The Christian community at large is a social component; we have deemed the term in our social circles illicit, so we should avoid it.
Click to expand...


Scott - I only know a *few* Christians who consider the 'c' word  to be offensive. 

I find it funny that anyone would find the word offensive anyway, since the etymology of the word puts it on the same level of usage with the word 'dung'. 

(for those unaware, Sir Thomas Crapper was a plumber in England back in the late 1800's........ his name was on toilets in England in the early 1900's..... the word came back over to the US in the 1900's with our soldiers after WWI..... put 2 and 2 together on using the 'crapper'...)


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> I know from the previous exchanges that you both agree that scripture does identify 'filthy speaking'. I believe we have defined the term-no? Whether it is singular words or structured sentences, both can be defined as FS.



I never agreed with singular. 



> Your concerns are in the _how_ the terms are deemed illicit, i.e. FS are founded, especially if they are not pronounced in scripture. Well, they must have been founded in some manner during early Christianity right? At that time, men did not have the pages of scripture to guide them, yet they were able to discern the illicitness of certain words or phrases as unaceptable to a Christian. Does not your premise fly in the face of this fact?



Singular words are merely sounds. If two words mean the exact same thing yet one is labeled wrong and the other right, it is just illogical. I can say female dog but i can't say another word that means the exact same thing. That is insanity! How were they able to discern the illicitness of certain words or phrases as unacceptable to a Christian? What makes you think it was a single word? If I say a phrase using one of the words in the "cuss word list" and then say the phrase again without that word but one that means the exact same thing, is it not illicit anymore? 




> Question: Would filthy speaking in Enland be the same as in America or Greece or...?Not necessarily. Is the bible applicable to all cultures?



Yes, but morality isn't. Your basing morality off of words. 



> God did not make a mistake did He? He did not leave the term FS in a state of ambiguosity. So, we can establish that the scriptures do in fact identify FS as well as keeping with the premise that the bible is still Gods word and can be applied from culture to culture-correct? Based upon this idea, terms must be identified against the backdrop of certain cultures. This is the way God intended. Logic would tell us this. This is exactly how the early church diferentiated ( of course with the assistance of the HS and Christs called leadership).



This is a decent defense it made that definitely made me have to stop and think. I understand what you are saying. Still it is unreasonable, like I have said over and over again, deeming words with the same meaning as both wrong and sinful, based on different sounds is ludicrous. If I say If I am referring to this computer screen as a monitor rather than a screen, and monitor was deemed offensive by society, then the word is what the Bible means when it says filthy language or unwholesome speech? If the 'culture backdrop' of the term sexual immorality is intercourse then the biblical definition is only for intercourse? You would agree that I could form a sentence with the words hate, I, you, suck, women, men, and any word referring to the anatomy, and it could be filthy yet none of the words are "cuss words" in themselves. I am trying to justify content. I am trying to figure how society and you can justify a select sounds as "cuss words" when the meaning in the word itself, is not inherently wrong nor offensive. When I say a cuss word do I give you a black eye, do i refuse to love God with all of my being and you as I love myself?




> It seems as if Gabriel and Tim are arguing from the silence of scripture. The overall attitude and inference is clear. Note the previous passages offered. It cannot be denied that there was such things, even in the days of the apostles as crude or filthy speech. We are warned against using it. Cultures are different, languages are different. God knows this, hence, the general premise to to 'avoid' filthy speaking is able to cross over into all cultures.



Yes it seems that I am arguing from the silence of scriptures, but I am focusing on every scripture you cite and questioning the context. 

Languages are different, but sounds are still their same primary nature. The sound blawk is empty until given a meaning. If a word in the cuss word list has the same meaning as a word not in the cuss word list, then the only thing distinguishing the difference is sound. Black people are not worse than whites because they were deemed by society to be worse based on their color; they are just as human as whites, but a different color. If God said to be equally yoked, then he meant black people couldn’t be equally yoked with white since society deems them as lower, unequal and even (according to the oldschool mormons) evil? Or apply this to the Jews in Nazi Germany or to the Jews view of the Gentiles back in the day. It is not empty entities such as words, food, or bodies that are relevent to society to be labeled as sinful; it is nature. All society shares that: Nature.




> How is filthy speaking defined. it must be defined culturally.



Filthy speaking is defined through the context and meaning of words. Sounds are universally the same in morality. Intent is the same in morality everywhere. When you make morality relative to culture your getting on shaky ground. God tells us not to fornicate, I guess fornicate is relevant to the cultures definition, so the Bible would be flexible. (i know this is not what your saying but it really is) I will interpret scripture with scripture however. Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of *the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh*." 
In doing so I can not find any evidence that filthy language involves a select sounds, but rather the meaning and intent behind them. 

Again, Filthy language is dependent on the meaning of the sentence which is dependent on the nature of the person saying it. 




> The bible does not go into the minutia in certain subject matter.



So your saying scripture doesn't define what filthy language is so we must let culture define it for us or it does not fill in the detail so we should let society fill in the detail? Then apply that to sexual immorality and many other things. 



> None the less, we cannot hold to the idea that if it is not in the scriptures, we are, in every case, free from responsibility.


 My conscious is bound to scripture, and that is it. 



> Also, as a believer, it is better to err on the side of caution than not; we are called to be holy. If cussing is seen as a whole as _unholy_, even if cussing is defined by our cultures, should it not be avoided?


 Then give up secular music, R movies, alcohol, cigarettes, Harry Potter, and Disney world.



> But what if we are in the workplace and someone over hears us and is offended. Next thing you know, we are in HR being written up. One of us could even be fired for it.


 Offenses is relative. A common offense is long hair or tattoos. If someone in the workplace discovered that I had a tattoo, and was offended by it, and I were fired, does that make tattoos sinful? 



> The point I am trying to make is that the standards are established. Whether or not you want to agree with the standards is irrelevant; they are there. And they are there for a purpose.



The standards you are referring to are established on the majority rules house, which is a house rooted in the sand. Whether or not they are there for a purpose doesn't make them moral.


My dad once told me that arguing is pointless, in the end both parties end up leaving with more confidence in what they asserted. He is right if both parties begin asserting with closed minds. Lets be sure to be honest withourselves and make sure our minds are open or this entire conversation is in vain. 

I feel like I am just repeating myself over and over and over agian. For clarification I am defending singular words, specifically those that the FCC bans. 



[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Kerry,
Thanks for the refresher course; I was aware of the hx behind the term. 
Would you use the term around your pastor? 
Pastor ____, I will be right back; I've got to go take a ______.Are there not better descriptives for the man of God? "Excuse me, I will be right back; I need to use the restroom". Also, knowing that many cultures do see this as a cuss word, utilizing it may align you with the world; it could stumble a brother or sister to use it when their consciences deem it sinful.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
I fixed your quotations to be more readable.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Mark;
> 
> I suppose I am pressing kind of hard here but understand it is honestly because this discussion just shocks me. Not because I am better than anyone, but because I honestly never expected this was an issue with anyone in the family of God.
> 
> in my opinion (please NOTE that!) I believe we are taking something that is obvious and trying to analize it to death. Do we really not know what filthy communication is? Do all the passages listed in this topic not make it fairly obvious? In fact, I just isted countless passages that I believe make it clear how we are to speak.



It is not obvious at all. Arminians think it's obvious when scripture said that Christ died for the whole world that he died for every single person. You have to go deeper.



> I dunno, I may have to bow out of this because I am just getting more and more irritated and worse than that, disappointed.



I am sorry this discussion discourages you, however I believe it is needed, I think many people may have a false conviction on this issue based on the presuppositional ideas we have through being saturated by our culture.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> One problem I'm seeing in this debate is that when we try to discuss the apropriateness of individual words we have ratcheted our microscopes up a bit too high. We may look at a printed picture of a tree and ask 'why is this pretty?' When we examine the picture with a microscope, we see just a bunch of dots and reply, 'it's not, it's just dots!'


 Inadequate analogy, this isn't over an abstract question.



> We may say, 'these are just words' we are discussing but they are not. The big picture is communcation, expression, edification, exhortation. The Bible does not nail down the apropriateness of each word but it has lots to say about how and what we communicate. Sometimes it may be necessary to use a vulgarity, as long as we don't abuse the Lord's name, to communicate a threat.


 Yep, exactly


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gwine writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that these catagories of curse words are words that God has told us are wrong. In our fallen nature God has placed that knowledge in our conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gerry,
> Conscience is based upon applied knowledge; either biblically or socially. Men cannot be convicted of sin unless it has been revealed by God to be sin (either through His word or through communication by His people). An example would be you or I. I did not know it was a sin to break the sabbath until Gods word or people defined it as such. The reference to 'The knowledge of God' is directed at Gods being; His person.
> 
> Rom 7:7
> But I did not know sin except through Law; for also I did not know lust except the Law said, "You shall not lust." Ex. 20:17
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Singular words are merely sounds.



No, words have definitions; syllables, which are _actual_sounds, do not. Words carry weight, syllables do not.




> God did not make a mistake did He? He did not leave the term FS in a state of ambiguosity. So, we can establish that the scriptures do in fact identify FS as well as keeping with the premise that the bible is still Gods word and can be applied from culture to culture-correct? Based upon this idea, terms must be identified against the backdrop of certain cultures. This is the way God intended. Logic would tell us this. This is exactly how the early church diferentiated ( of course with the assistance of the HS and Christs called leadership).





> This is a decent defense it made that definitely made me have to stop and think. I understand what you are saying. Still it is unreasonable, like I have said over and over again, deeming words with the same meaning as both wrong and sinful, based on different sounds is ludicrous. If I say If I am referring to this computer screen as a monitor rather than a screen, and monitor was deemed offensive by society, then the word is what the Bible means when it says filthy language or unwholesome speech? If the 'culture backdrop' of the term sexual immorality is intercourse then the biblical definition is only for intercourse? You would agree that I could form a sentence with the words hate, I, you, suck, women, men, and any word referring to the anatomy, and it could be filthy yet none of the words are "cuss words" in themselves. I am trying to justify content. I am trying to figure how society and you can justify a select sounds as "cuss words" when the meaning in the word itself, is not inherently wrong nor offensive. When I say a cuss word do I give you a black eye, do i refuse to love God with all of my being and you as I love myself?



James says it best in answering this question:

Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison




> it seems that I am arguing from the silence of scriptures, but I am focusing on every scripture you cite and questioning the context.



You understand that to remain consistant you must do away with the trinity in your theology?




> Filthy speaking is defined through the context and meaning of words. Sounds are universally the same in morality. Intent is the same in morality everywhere. When you make morality relative to culture your getting on shaky ground. God tells us not to fornicate, I guess fornicate is relevant to the cultures definition, so the Bible would be flexible.



No, the word fornicate crosses all cultural realms; especially biblically.




> (i know this is not what your saying but it really is) I will interpret scripture with scripture however. Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of *the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh*."
> In doing so I can not find any evidence that filthy language involves a select sounds, but rather the meaning and intent behind them.



Words can be defined. they have meaning. You are confusing syllables or phonetics w/ words.





> So your saying scripture doesn't define what filthy language is so we must let culture define it for us or it does not fill in the detail so we should let society fill in the detail? Then apply that to sexual immorality and many other things.



No. It does not address the minutia, in this regard.




> My conscious is bound to scripture, and that is it.



This is good. Except that you must let go off all the issues in scripture that are brought forth by inference then.




> Then give up secular music



I agree; some of the content is horrific!



> R movies,



Discernment!



> alcohol,



Alcohol is not sinful; drunkeness is.



> cigarettes,



Cigarrettes are not sinful, abuse is.



> Harry Potter,



See Matts paper on Potter



> Disney world.



Disneys not sinful, homnosexuality is! 



> Offenses is relative. A common offense is long hair or tattoos. If someone in the workplace discovered that I had a tattoo, and was offended by it, and I were fired, does that make tattoos sinful?



Tim,
This is not the same. No one can fire you for long hair or tattoos. Yourunning but you can't hide.



[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Kerry,
> Thanks for the refresher course; I was aware of the hx behind the term.
> Would you use the term around your pastor?
> Pastor ____, I will be right back; I've got to go take a ______.Are there not better descriptives for the man of God? "Excuse me, I will be right back; I need to use the restroom". Also, knowing that many cultures do see this as a cuss word, utilizing it may align you with the world; it could stumble a brother or sister to use it when their consciences deem it sinful.



I think I *have* used that term around my pastor to describe the teachings of Benny Hinn and Clepto...er....Cr**flow....er...Creflow Dollar very RECENTLY. 

I don't think I'd say I've got to go take a _________ ..... I normally don't announce that to the world (and if I do, it's usually 'I need to go drop some kids off at the pool.'). 

And yes, I would (as much as possible) refrain from using said term in front of a general Christian audience, since some find it offensive. One man's meat is another's stumbling block.....


PS - does this mean I can't use the initals 'BS' anymore ? (that stands for _Bovine Scatulation_, not the OTHER word.... )

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## BobVigneault

I am shocked how this thread has gotten hotter than h - e - double hockey sticks! Who would have thought?


----------



## BobVigneault

What if a fellow named 'Randy' goes to visit Jonathan in London? Should Randy change his name for the trip or should he introduce himself to church goers with, "Hi, I'm Randy"?


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Singular words are merely sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [quotee]No, words have definitions; syllables, which are _actual_sounds, do not. Words carry weight, syllables do not.
Click to expand...


Fine thats exactly what I am saying. None of the single words in the cuss word list are inherently wrong. They all have synonyms that are deemed not offensive or curse words.



> God did not make a mistake did He? He did not leave the term FS in a state of ambiguosity. So, we can establish that the scriptures do in fact identify FS as well as keeping with the premise that the bible is still Gods word and can be applied from culture to culture-correct? Based upon this idea, terms must be identified against the backdrop of certain cultures. This is the way God intended. Logic would tell us this. This is exactly how the early church diferentiated ( of course with the assistance of the HS and Christs called leadership).





> This is a decent defense it made that definitely made me have to stop and think. I understand what you are saying. Still it is unreasonable, like I have said over and over again, deeming words with the same meaning as both wrong and sinful, based on different sounds is ludicrous. If I say If I am referring to this computer screen as a monitor rather than a screen, and monitor was deemed offensive by society, then the word is what the Bible means when it says filthy language or unwholesome speech? If the 'culture backdrop' of the term sexual immorality is intercourse then the biblical definition is only for intercourse? You would agree that I could form a sentence with the words hate, I, you, suck, women, men, and any word referring to the anatomy, and it could be filthy yet none of the words are "cuss words" in themselves. I am trying to justify content. I am trying to figure how society and you can justify a select sounds as "cuss words" when the meaning in the word itself, is not inherently wrong nor offensive. When I say a cuss word do I give you a black eye, do i refuse to love God with all of my being and you as I love myself?



James says it best in answering this question:



> Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison



????????



> it seems that I am arguing from the silence of scriptures, but I am focusing on every scripture you cite and questioning the context.





> You understand that to remain consistant you must do away with the trinity in your theology?



?????????




> Filthy speaking is defined through the context and meaning of words. Sounds are universally the same in morality. Intent is the same in morality everywhere. When you make morality relative to culture your getting on shaky ground. God tells us not to fornicate, I guess fornicate is relevant to the cultures definition, so the Bible would be flexible.





> No, the word fornicate crosses all cultural realms; especially biblically.


 So is filthy language, your being inconsistent. 




> (i know this is not what your saying but it really is) I will interpret scripture with scripture however. Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of *the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh*."
> In doing so I can not find any evidence that filthy language involves a select sounds, but rather the meaning and intent behind them.





> Words can be defined. they have meaning. You are confusing syllables or phonetics w/ words.


 ???? of course, we have already dealt with this.




> So your saying scripture doesn't define what filthy language is so we must let culture define it for us or it does not fill in the detail so we should let society fill in the detail? Then apply that to sexual immorality and many other things.





> No. It does not address the minutia, in this regard.



Ok? So we agree...





> My conscious is bound to scripture, and that is it.





> This is good. Except that you must let go off all the issues in scripture that are brought forth by inference then.



Well so do you... ???? huh??




> Then give up secular music





> I agree; some of the content is horrific!


 Some?? ALL!? How can anything be pure when it is not done for the motive of glorifying God or with a Christian attitude! I am offended! 




> R movies,





> Discernment!


 Cuss words. Discernment. 



> alcohol,





> Alcohol is not sinful; drunkeness is.



Cuss words are not sinful; evil content is



> cigarettes,





> Cigarrettes are not sinful, abuse is.



See above. But remember I am a fundie and since I see you smoking I consider you as part of the world and not a christian. 



> Harry Potter,





> See Matts paper on Potter



alright



> Disney world.





> Disneys not sinful, homnosexuality is!


 They support it, they support sin (i'm being sarcastic btw)



> Offenses are relative. A common offense is long hair or tattoos. If someone in the workplace discovered that I had a tattoo, and was offended by it, and I were fired, does that make tattoos sinful?





> Tim,
> This is not the same. No one can fire you for long hair or tattoos. Yourunning but you can't hide.



This is a blatent misunderstanding and is not true. I'm running and I can't hide.... alright... 




I had two guys sitting next to me reading this post and we did not understand anything you said. Most your points i've have just consistently and redundantly answered. You have no open mind, I feel like I have no legs and am trying to run a race. BTW. How do I deny the trinity?


----------



## pastorway

A cuss word (ie, CURSE word) is inherently evil when used as an expletive. (great post a while back Andrew!)

We do need to be symapthetic to our audience, and our conscience, and our culture. And if people really do not think that all the Scriptures that have been posted speak to the issue then perhaps they need to retake a language and grammar course, or reading comprehension, at the local community college.

The words we use are very important. They have the ability to convey GRACE to those who hear us (Eph 4:29). Or they can prove that we certainly have not tamed our tongue.

All in all, an expletive filled vocabulary indicates laziness in our thought patterns. Could we not offer a better more appropriate word or tell people what we think without the vulgar words. How many sentences that we speak would be better understood and even better grammatically if we left the cuss words out?

We are to strive to glorify God is all we do, to be holy in every area of life, to be self (Spirit) controlled, and we will give an account for every idle word. Why push the envelope? 

Wholesome speech is a sign of maturity. And men and women of God are to be sober minded, reverent, and temperate. 

Remember too that the works of the flesh include "outbursts of wrath", which is where we often find cuss words flying out of our mouths. So even if we could argue that the word itself is not wrong, the way we use it certainly is identified as a work of the flesh (given in Galatians 5 as a contrast to the fruit of the Spirit). 

If what we think about comes out of our mouths we must also remember that we are commanded to set our mind on things above, not on things on the earth (Col 3). This is the chapter were we are told to put off filthy language.

1 Peter 2:1 tells us to lay aside evil speaking. Eph 4 tells us to speak the truth in love and that when we are angry we are to avoid sin. Eph 4:31 tells us to put away evil speaking and clamour (an out of control outburst). Chapter 5 of Ephesians goes on to warn us about filthiness, foolish talking, and coarse jesting (all references to the words we use). In fact, look at Eph 5:4, three ways of speaking are condemned. Filthiness, foolish talking, and coarse jesting. These include in their definitions: obscenities, degrading speech, foolish or dirty speech, and suggestive immoral humor. 

The Biblical evidence is clear. We are to say what we mean, mean what we say, and tell the truth in love, using our words to edify, minister grace, and encourage one another.

One last thought. Why oush the envelope to see how many words we can say and have a "clear" conscience? Why not see how PURE our speech can be, how NON-controversial we can talk. Let's deny ourselves, defer to the weaker brother if need be, and strive to be pure without question!

Phillip


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

I'm giving up cussing defined by the FCC for ash wednesday :bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
Following this thread is getting difficult; I don't doubt those watching are having difficulty.

Here's what you admitted:



> Yes it seems that I am arguing from the silence of scriptures,



If you are arguing from the silence of scripture, to be consistant, you must take this discipline to it's farthest extreme, i.e. anything that is silent in scripture I must take for granted that it is not intended to be understood or implemented on my behalf.

Do you agree with this? You can't just pick and choose. Either there is necessary inference or there is not? Which is it?



[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

You are contradicting yourself Tim:

You previously said:


> Singular words are merely sounds.



I replied:
"No, words have definitions. Syllables, which are actual sounds, do not. Words carry weight, syllables do not."

And in your last post you say:


> Fine thats exactly what I am saying.



Which is it, sounds or words that carry definitions?

Next point:

You said: 


> When I say a cuss word do I give you a black eye, do i refuse to love God with all of my being and you as I love myself?



I replied:
Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison

You replied:


> ??????



You mention a black eye; Gods messenger mentions poison. This is easily understood.....A black eye cannot kill you; poison can! Which is worse?

You said:


> My conscious is bound to scripture, and that is it.



I replied:
This is good. Except that you must let go off all the issues in scripture that are brought forth by inference then.

Your reply:


> Well so do you... ???? huh??



Do I what? I don't reject inference.........You do. The question does not make sense. It is directed at your discipline, not mine.

Tim,
I suggest you reread my post as obviously you are not investing anytime in reviewing it.



[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tim,
> Following this thread is getting difficult; I don't doubt those watching are having difficulty.
> 
> Here's what you admitted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it seems that I am arguing from the silence of scriptures,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are arguing from the silence of scripture, to be consistant, you must take this discipline to it's farthest extreme, i.e. anything that is silent in scripture I must take for granted that it is not intended to be understood or implemented on my behalf.
> 
> Do you agree with this? You can't just pick and choose. Either their is inference or there is not? Which is it?
Click to expand...


Ok got what you saying now. I am criticizing your interpretation of verses in defense for your view on cussing. I am pulling out views contrary to scripture or picking and choosing. You are inferring just as much as I am here. You infer filthy language as certain things including the list of words that the FCC bans. You infer that the words that the FCC bans are inherently sinful. I infer that they are not sinful because it conflicts with logic and scripture, as morality (and this kind is not even logical) is not bound to culture. Labeling a word as sinful that has another meaning that isn't sinful, has no scripture to back it up except for your inference that when scripture speaks of filthy language it means what ever society (or FCC) says is bad. I define filthy through scripture not through society. What makes a word filthy? Is female dog” filthy? It has a synonym that is considered filthy, with the only difference being a different sound (phonics or whatever you want to say). Is the saying “fatherless child” filthy? It has a synonym that is considered so. Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Through interpreting scripture by scripture I've come to this conclusion that the natures (hearts, mind whatever) intent and context of words is what makes language filthy not a word in itself.

This may seem random, but just answer it honestly and i'll tie it in. Are you for the banning of guns?


----------



## Puritanhead

*Cursing*



> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> I am convinced that cussing is no sin, and therefore should be allowed.



My friend it seems you've fallen prey to an erroneous doctrine I characterize as _libertine legalism_... I often hear from those weak in faith trying to rationalize innumberable sins and say there not a sin at all. They often reason that because there is no expressed prohibition in the Bible or that the Bible doesn't prohibit saying such and such words, or doesn't prohibit gambling, certain sexual sins etc. to rationalize their actions. The Scriptures make it clear anything not of faith is a sin. 

Besides, I think the previous posters have made it clear of the innumerable verses about the sins of the tongue. And we're to be ambassadors for Christ.

I have a foot-shaped mouth at times like Simon Peter, because though I abstain from cursing... I have been prone to letting comedian episodes go off into realm of crude joking and foolish chatter... The Apostle Paul makes it clear such foolishness is bound to increase to more ungodliness. The Scripture is clear that coarse gesturing and crude joking is wrong too.

Sound speech is something we should all strive for... it is not just about NOT cursing, it's about how we carry ourselves in our dealings and interactions with others.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
Let me pose this to you another way: Do you understand the term "Necessary Inference"? From your post above, it seems apparent that you do not understand the term. Do you embrace necessary inference? If you do, then you have just undermined your premise. If you say no, you must remain consistant and discard all the other things in scripture that are infered, i.e. the trinity.

I get the feeling that you also believe that you are not holding to Sola Scriptura by accepting items that are inferred; this is wrong. Necessary inference is not the denial of sola scriptura, it is an embracing of it.


[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Curse words are just words, edification and grace truth and love are relative to context of speech.



Can you speak in edification, grace, and truth and love with all those many four-letter words? You can answer that question.

Not to step on the KJV text, but I often just say illegitimate instead of bastard. I think you need to examine your heart before you speak, and not reason that because "damn," "hell" and "bastard" are indeed found in the Bible that one should use them as part of their day to day lexicon.

As I said before, I regret saying so many stupid jokes and just foolish chatter--- but I know it's wrong and it cannot be reconciled with Scripture. It's something we should repent of and forsake if it is a problem in our lives.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You are contradicting yourself Tim:
> 
> You previously said:
> 
> 
> 
> Singular words are merely sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied:
> "No, words have definitions. Syllables, which are actual sounds, do not. Words carry weight, syllables do not."
> 
> And in your last post you say:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine thats exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it, sounds or words that carry definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is not really a contradiction. I believe Both. Word carry meaning that are not sufficient in themselves to offend by context or hate. Cuss words carry meaning that are not offensive as they all have synonyms that aren’t considered cuss words. The difference between the synonymns are the actual sounds and syllables.

Same meaning, 
Different sound, 
One good
One bad. 
Making these connections logic points to something having to be wrong with the opposing sounds and syllables. 



> Next point:
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I say a cuss word do I give you a black eye, do i refuse to love God with all of my being and you as I love myself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied:
> Jam 3:8 but no one of men is able to tame the tongue; it is an unrestrainable evil, full of death-dealing poison
> 
> You replied:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention a black eye; Gods messenger mentions poison. This is easily understood.....A black eye cannot kill you; poison can! Which is worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is just a vain argument. Cuss words are evil. 



> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> My conscious is bound to scripture, and that is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied:
> This is good. Except that you must let go off all the issues in scripture that are brought forth by inference then.
> 
> Your reply:
> 
> 
> 
> Well so do you... ???? huh??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I what? I don't reject inference.........You do. The question does not make sense. It is directed at your discipline, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


According to you:

“My conscious is bound to scripture..”= Good except for this to be one must let go off all the issues in scripture that are brought forth by inference then. 

You don’t reject inference so your conscious is not bound to scripture? Or is it that you don’t let any issues that are brought forth by inference bind to your conscious? This whole issue is about how scripture defines filthy and unwholesome speech. If your conscious is bound that an empty word is sinful then your conscious is bound by inference, not proper scripture. You infer that filthy means something that I infer scripture doesn’t. I don’t bring foreign ideas in I seek to get the full scriptural truth out. I try to stand my ground, when I believe culture pressures me to adjust and bind my conscious to something they believe as sinful, when I believe its not. Are we staying true to scripture here? 



Edited by admin for clearity

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
See my above post.........this may help explain what we are trying to accomplish here.

A good explanation can be also found on Matts site. It is a paper by Gordon Clark; "Language and Theology".

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Excerpt from Gordon's work:

With regard to crossing into religious language, leaving the miserable blunders of logical positivism behind, certain key figures are prominent. John Dewey held that language changed brute animals into thinking and knowing animals by creating the idea of “meaning.” But these “signs” (language letters) cannot give meaning to the words because these signs are just letters formed together. If they are a cause of something else, (the behaviorist theory that a thing causes a reaction) then this fails to distinguish mechanical habits from the interpretation of signs. If the sign is just a reaction, how could it have any interpretation? One would have to begin with interpretation or idea first in order to have a sign that meant something. Words must mean something unless they are just thrown together to make sounds. 


For example, the book on a professor’s desk may have various properties. It may have dimensions of a foot by ten inches by two inches, be brown, smell like an old musty closet, have gold trim on the side, and have a title that is written in Latin. But before one can perceive the book, he must perceive the qualities of the book. There is nothing in the single qualities that would make “heavy” equal a “book.” It is the combination of these properties that makes this so based on perception in space. Where did this perception of space come from to locate the spot in which the book sat? Has anyone seen, smelled, or touched space? To do so it is imperative to have a priori forms of the mind. Christianity is built on abstract principles. Empiricism, then, cannot form a solid apologetic not can it form abstract principles but only verified scientific facts. When a Christian uses the terms “Trinity”, “justification” and “theology” he is issuing a name to designate a series of propositions. Propositions, not concepts, are the objects of knowledge because only propositions can be true. To say “book” is not the same thing as saying, “That is the bible in Latin.” Induction to ascertain truth is also not possible. Christians cannot rest on “inductive bible studies.” Why? All induction winds up in a logical fallacy. If one were to inductively search the book of Isaiah for a certain truth, and rest only on Isaiah as a means for truth (say some truth about eschatology) he would not have all the information he needs to make a universal judgment on the Bible. Only by becoming aware of all the information (deductive reasoning) can someone come to a proper knowledge of the truth. Rather than be caught up in some kind of twisted logical positivism in empirical data collecting that can never furnish ultimate reality, it would be much better to rest upon the universals of logic as a beginning point for theology and language to coincide. Logic is fixed, universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. If a dog, house, car, boat, ant, pencil and computer all mean the same thing, empiricism can express nothing. One cannot depart from the law of non-contradiction without becoming irrational in everything. 


Christianity is based on revelation coming from a universal stratum – God’s mind. God gave the church revelation. The source of that revelation (God) holds universal norms which never change, giving language and the transmission of those ideas a firm basis that cannot fluctuate and always make logical sense. It is not that one uses logic simply based on logical principles, but that those logical principles are based on God. It is God’s logic that rational people use to think about Him based on the revelation that He gave men both naturally and specially. How, then, does language help men understand concepts? Language is the bearer of meaning because words are arbitrary signs the mind uses to tag thoughts. Communication is possible because all minds have some thoughts in common (even a priori forms of the mind that all have in common). God created man as a rational spirit who thinks and uses logic. Language is logical because it expresses logical thought. Even though men are fallen, and the noetic affects of sin ruin man’s mind, this does not mean that man cannot think. He can think, but his thinking is darkened by sin until the Holy Spirit changes his mind to think rightly. Language, therefore, is built on the logic God gave men as tools to think.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Why would anyone want to use a "cuss" word anyway? That to me is where the heart of the issue is. Cuss words are used to express rage or frustration, to insult, or to degrade. Is it proper for a christian to do these things? No. Not at all. That is where the principle lies, and where teh cultural application begins. Whether you use the cuss words or with nicely formed sentences which convey the same meaning doesn't change the intent at all nor the fact that it is sin. 

So in the example mentioned earlier:
to call someone the son of a female dog or son of a *****,
is not acceptable in either form since it is intended to insult. 

And when the practice is considered offensive to so many, even to those who do it themselves, then we should not do it. This isn't rocket science guys. When in doubt, hold your tongue. Be swift to listen, slow to speak. 

"Aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing." 1 Thess. 4:11-12


----------



## Authorised

Can these same meanings behind words be applied to the realm of music as well? There are entire songs that, regardless of the words, are completely able to put one in a sensuous/sexual mood. The underlying meaning behind a soft piano and saxophone is entirely different than a string ensemble. Those instruments are neutral; they can do God's service or they can glorify Satan. 

Yet how would most on this board respond to an accusation (esp. from fundamentalists) that their music style (not lyrics per se) is inherently wrong and still remain consistent with the arguments put forth in regard to curse words?


----------



## gwine

PuritanSailor said:


> Why would anyone want to use a "cuss" word anyway?



On an earlier thread someone (whom I won't name) asked, "Why would you not want to partake of the Lord's Supper weekly?" My answer to that question and I believe it applies to this one is "because we are depraved and we live in a fallen world." Our old nature is still there fighting for control every day.

But we should not have our hearts set on the things of this world and we should grow in the grace of our Lord. With all that has been said on this thread, using supporting Scripture and common sense, it is a wonder that this has dragged on so long. Like Patrick said, this isn't rocket science


----------



## pastorway

It has dragged on way too long......

so this is it boys and girls.

Thank you for your participation.


----------

