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]
) 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!
to be offensive. 
