Cussing

[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.

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Singular words are merely sounds.

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

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?

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.

Which is it, sounds or words that carry definitions?

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:

??????

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

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??

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

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.