Cussing

[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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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?

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 . . .

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]