Why Legalism?

[versastyle]

Is there any BIBLICAL reason why Christians should view any of these statements as immoral, evil, or sinful:

1. Thats awful.
2. That stinks.
3. That sucks.
4. Thats bullsh*t.

I am still trying to find out why Christians feel there is an obligation, AS A CHRISTIAN, to find offense to any of these statements.

Thanks for anyone that can help.

God Bless.

[jbarcher]

Hm...depends on how they are used. :scratch:

But, I would generally only have a reaction to the fourth one. BS rather than said. Though, I can't think of a situation where I would actually say either BS or said.

[Phoebe]

I suppose because our words should bring glory to God.
I am not quite so legalistic. I do have a problem with someone taking the Lord's name in vain.

[JVAC]

Jesus said "It isn't the things that go into a person that makes them dirty, it is the things that come out of him". I don't necessarily agree with the people who say that words are dirty, but instead I focus on the Spirit of how things were said. Does your language build up or tear down? bullsh** can be used in a comical setting and induce a lot of laughter, however, it could be used to tear someone down. Language must be used in the Spirit of Love, wherein all words are permissable as long as they are said in Love (not fake love, Love Love)

I really agree with Phoebe here too, "Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by Him." Col 3:17 1Cor 12:3

[versastyle]

I understand how our words should bring glory to God, but stating how you might not like something, or how you might think something is stupid or BS or whatever is merely an expression of opinion. So biblically, since opinions are just opinions and in some case have no relevance to God's glory, should we refrain from expressing opinion?

[JVAC]

Matthew 5:37 "Simply let your Yes be Yes, and your No, be No; anything behond this comes from the evil one." I'll let you inerpret that how you will.

[versastyle]

As it is fully read (commonly used verse to judge slang):

5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

These verses are in reference to oaths, not your usage of language.

[JVAC]

;) I think someone has the KJV ;)

However, the wisdom of the statement can still come through. That you do less evil if you just answer yes or no rather than Heck yeah, or No way jose, etc.

But of course, it doesn't bother me all that much. Just thought I would send you some info, if something else comes to me I'll relay it on, I think I remember a proverb, but I don't know where to find it.

[versastyle]

Ok thank you.

The reason I bring up this issue is because I work at a Christian radio station and its a very controversial subject when it comes to the lyrical content of an artist, and what music we should listen to and/or play.

[jbarcher]

Hm...I guess you should always ask, "Does this glorify God?"

[versastyle]

Do opinions glorify God? Like:

That steak tastes bad.

or

That steak tastes like dung.

or

That steak tastes like sh*t.

Or should we not say anything about the steak?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I will leave these up to you, but I would say that not saying anything may be the best option.

MATTHEW 12:36 "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment."
37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

PROVERBS 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.

PROVERBS 15:2 The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly; but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.

EPHESIANS 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

EPHESIANS 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

COLOSSIANS 3:8 But now you must also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

I think those might answer your question.

[versastyle]

Those verses fall on everyone's daily talk. It sounds like all those are saying we should refrain from any talk at all that isn't uplifting or Godly. So in essence, its still not arguing for the Christian ban on certain words, but arguing that we shouldn't speak unless the intentions are for absolute good.
Well this would make talking about your favorite shoes a sin.

In fact one could argue that one could use "cuss words" in Godly purposes.

For instance on giving advice:

You shouldn't watch that -insert explicitive-. It is ****ing full of sinful behavior.

[A. believer]

Is there any BIBLICAL reason why Christians should view any of these statements as immoral, evil, or sinful:

1. Thats awful.
2. That stinks.
3. That sucks.
4. Thats bullsh*t.

I am still trying to find out why Christians feel there is an obligation, AS A CHRISTIAN, to find offense to any of these statements.

Thanks for anyone that can help.

God Bless.
I agree with those who say that our words should bring glory to God. Presuming they're not being used as personal insults, I can't imagine anyone having any problem with the first two. I must admit that I'm always taken aback by how casually #3 is used, even by people who I don't think of as being fond of crude language, considering what it's a reference to. People might regard me as an old fogey or something, but for Christians, I have a hard time believing that anyone could think that that kind of language glorifies God. As for number 4, that too strikes me as crude and harsh. Some people may not see it as such, but I think that the connotation is still bad enough in our culture that Christian's should give serious thought as to whether they might be able to express themselves in a more God-glorifying manner. Put it this way, I still cringe whenever I hear those expressions, especially from professing Christians, and if they strike me that way, I'm sure there are plenty of other people who are struck that way by them as well. I try to refrain from being too judgmental about those who use them, but since you're asking, I would just ask, why would a Christian want to deliberately speak in what many people consider vulgarities?

[versastyle]

Its more of a point A. Believer that we do not have a biblical justification for the "cringe" that you display when you hear those words, but should be more offended by some of their intentions.

And btw...The 4 statements above can be interchangeable by translation to mean the exact same thing and be intended the same so there is nothing Godly about cringing to any of them.

[A. believer]

Its more of a point A. Believer that we do not have a biblical justification for the "cringe" that you display when you hear those words, but should be more offended by some of their intentions.



And btw...The 4 statements above can be interchangeable by translation to mean the exact same thing and be intended the same so there is nothing Godly about cringing to any of them.Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. (Ephesians 4:29)


I'd call that verse (along with the many others posted by flesh99) sufficient biblical justification. Simply put, some language doesn't impart grace to the hearers, and crude references to sex acts and fecal matter as expressions of dissatisfaction fall into that category.

[versastyle]

Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. (Ephesians 4:29)












I'd call that sufficient biblical justification. Simply put, some language doesn't impart grace to the hearers, and crude references to sex acts and fecal matter as expressions of dissatisfaction fall into that category.Well that is your opinion. I see the multiple words of the English language to be interchangeable. The name Jimmy for instance means many things.




The following statement is not for necessary edification either, in regards to a child's rape just heard about on the news:

That is horrible.

So should we be offended by this statement as well?

[versastyle]

An illustration of todays legalistic Christian:

Jesus is walking down the street and hears a man in the corner say "Dude thats some dope ****". Jesus then covers his ears, cringes up his shoulders, and runs down the alley, grabbing up as many small children as he can along the way screaming "The devils work is back around the corner, run, run, run!"

I don't know but I would even find a conservative form of this story to be ridiculous.

I don't see Jesus cringing, frowning, or freaking out because someone is expressing an opinion about a piece of music or a car or anything else for that matter.

I see Jesus commenting on how the person is putting far too much emphasis and excitement on a material object.

[A. believer]

Do opinions glorify God? Like:

That steak tastes bad.

or

That steak tastes like dung.

or

That steak tastes like sh*t.

Or should we not say anything about the steak?
I guess that would depend on the intention of the person saying it. And your point that much of our everyday speech isn't glorifying to God is a good one and well worth making. But that point certainly doesn't justify lowering our standards still more.

[versastyle]

The problem is I have yet to find a standard we should be following biblically when it pertains to words, not intentions.

We are still making that jump from "corrupt words" to "the words momma said not to say".

[A. believer]

The problem is I have yet to find a standard we should be following biblical when it pertains to words, not intentions.

We are still making that jump from "corrupt words" to "the words momma said not to say".Words convey much more than their denotative meaning. For you to argue otherwise seems incredibly naive. If words are really "just words," then there's no reason that we should react any differently to poetry than to "sailor talk." But just as good poetry brings rapture to the soul, gutter talk does just the opposite. And I think you really know that deep down inside.

[versastyle]

Words convey much more than their denotative meaning. For you to argue otherwise seems incredibly naive. If words are really "just words," then there's no reason that we should react any differently to poetry than to "sailor talk." But just as good poetry brings rapture to the soul, gutter talk does just the opposite. And I think you really know that deep down inside.No but words are interchangeable. I can say Jimmy and cherry and hat and not have any bad intentions in them. What matters is the intentions of what is said. I used to think I had it "If I just avoid these words I'll be a better Christian." Well that was wrong. What I was truly doing is putting one set of languages above another, both idolizing "my good speech" and demonizing "those who cuss". I see no reason to say the words unless in the presence of those who don't care. Even Jesus himself said Raca, some consider one of the most offensive words in the bible, but he had good intentions for it and reason. If there are good intentions in what one says, there should be no offense taken. Those who are offended seem to be the ones with the problem, not the talker.

I seriously doubt God has a list of words in heaven that are sinful and good for every society on Earth. Does not anyone else see how ignorant that sounds?

The bible makes a reference to something being like DUNG. DUNG. That is a reference to excrement. Dung. In the bible. It wasn't talking about dung. It was saying something is LIKE DUNG.

KJV!!!!

2Ki 9:37 (http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=kjv&book=2Ki&chapter=9)And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel

Isa 36:12 (http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=kjv&book=Isa&chapter=36)But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own p*ss with you?

(btw: I can't believe this website actually sensors its own bible, reason for the * made above in p*ss)

[all2elohim]

Obviously, God didn't create cuss words and designate them as bad. Human culture has designated them as bad. I think Romans 15 sums up what we should do as Christians as far language is concerned. No one will convince me that saying BS or suck is a sin, but for the sake of those weaker in the faith I should watch my language around them. It is not legalism to refrain from cursing around those weaker in the faith out of love for them and their spiritual walk.

On the other hand when I'm around non Christians that are using colorful language I shouldn't cringe when they drop a few "bad" words. Most verses about the tongue are about making sure what I speak is not putting down someone or gossiping. I have no problem controlling my tongue, and I make sure I know the person before allowing myself to cuss around them (usually in a humourus situation or in a quote of someone else). What God hasn't designated as a sin should not be done so by man. But keep Romans 14 in mind too though.

[versastyle]

Obviously, God didn't create cuss words and designate them as bad. Human culture has designated them as bad. I think Romans 15 sums up what we should do as Christians as far language is concerned. No one will convince me that saying BS or suck is a sin, but for the sake of those weaker in the faith I should watch my language around them. It is not legalism to refrain from cursing around those weaker in the faith out of love for them and their spiritual walk.

On the other hand when I'm around non Christians that are using colorful language I shouldn't cringe when they drop a few "bad" words. Most verses about the tongue are about making sure what I speak is not putting down someone or gossiping. I have no problem controlling my tongue, and I make sure I know the person before allowing myself to cuss around them (usually in a humourus situation or in a quote of someone else). What God hasn't designated as a sin should not be done so by man. But keep Romans 14 in mind too though.
Great post! Thank you!

[A. believer]

Obviously, God didn't create cuss words and designate them as bad. Human culture has designated them as bad.
You're right that God didn't designate certain words as bad. Words, themselves, are meaningless, except for the meaning we ascribe to them. The words that are offensive are the words that are deliberately meant to be offensive. People don't just suddenly up and decide that this word or that word is "bad" and all good Christians better not say these words anymore. Rather, in our depravity, we think up words and phrases and ways of expressing ourselves that are deliberately coarse and offensive. And the problem is not that our culture is so "prudish" that we've taken perfectly neutral words and decided to call them bad. The problem is just the opposite. Our culture has become so hardened and cynical that we've taken words and expressions that were designed to cause shock and offense and become blase about them.

And if we've become so hardened that we cannot recognize that which is ugly and corrupt, then sadly, we're equally unable to recognize that which is beautiful and God-honoring.

[versastyle]

A - Did you read the verses taken from the KJ bible I posted above? You seem to be making a lot of non-biblical assumptions.

Do I really have to care about the history of a word to use it? I don't see any biblical logic there. I've never studied a bad words original intention, nor am I wasting my time trying to do so. I'm concerned about my own intentions, which is also biblical.

One of those intentions is for me not to follow a dualistic and idolistic based religion where I put one societal standard above another and think I'm doing better work for the Lord by degrading another's societal upbringing.

I don't cuss, you cuss. I am moral, you are not.

Thats what recognizing cuss words does to human pride.

Here is the question: We as Christians are to be offended by a Christian who lacks biblical and Godly morality. So....are you more moral then the Christian man who uses words on your "cuss list"?

If no. There should be no offense taken if the words are used in a healthy/uplifting manner.

If yes. Then we are following a form of hypocrisy and false judgement, placing a non-biblical moral standard above someone else's.

There is nothing one can say that proves society has a say-so in the Godliness of language.

[A. believer]

A - Did you read the verses taken from the KJ bible I posted above? You seem to be making a lot of non-biblical assumptions.
Yes, I read them.

Do I really have to care about the history of a word to use it? I don't see any biblical logic there. I've never studied a words original intention, nor am I wasting my time trying to do so. I'm concerned about my own intentions, which is also biblical.
I'm not talking about studying the etymology of every word we use. In fact, words often do eventually lose their denotative meaning over time and, in that case, words that were once offensive are no longer deemed so. That may well be becoming the case with your #3 example. I'm inclined to think that some of the people I know who use it (generally I'm thinking of non-natives) have no idea what it refers to and would be embarrassed if I told them. But because I do have that association in my mind, I still find the term jarring to the ears and utterly inappropriate. Actually, twenty years ago or so, before I became a Christian, I used words like that and worse, and I know the effect I meant for them to have, and it wasn't God-honoring or even "neutral." So it's impossible for me to hear them now without having an instinctive visceral reaction to hearing them. Perhaps in another generation or so, there won't be any more people like me who have that reaction and the words will have lost their sting. But that day hasn't arrived yet, and just as I said I try not to be judgmental about those who use them, I think you'd do well to stop being so judgmental about those who are offended by them.

[versastyle]

We are to judge Christians if they do that which is unbiblical. Right now I see taking offense to words, not intentions, as being something that should be corrected, with necessary edification. (In fact I'm having a hard time finding anything that says we should be offended [taking things personally] at all.)

I dont see Jesus walking down the street and cringing at someone saying: "Thats some dope -insert societal explicitive-".

That gives off a "holier then tho" vibe and is unhealthy to ones ego.

Fact by experience. If a nonChristian cusses and they see it in your face that you've been offended, they lose total respect in you because of your judgementalism.

[A. believer]

We are to judge Christians if they do that which is unbiblical. Right now I see taking offense to words, not intentions, as being something that should be corrected, with necessary edification. (In fact I'm having a hard time finding anything that says we should be offended [taking things personally] at all.)

I dont see Jesus walking down the street and cringing at someone saying: "Thats some dope -insert societal explicitive-".

That gives off a "holier then tho" vibe and is unhealthy to ones ego.

Fact by experience. If a nonChristian cusses and they see it in your face that you've been offended, they lose total respect in you because of your judgementalism.When I read your posts, I get the distinct impression that there's an element of talking past each other, but I'm not sure how to correct it. And frankly, I also get the impression that you're a little too convinced of the unassailability of your position to want to get past it (especially once I saw that you had another long discussion on this same topic on another forum), so I think I'll leave this one alone now.

On second thought, I want to ask you one question that might clarify your position on this matter in my own mind. Are you in any way attempting to justify the use of expletives, or are you only trying to convince Christians not to make manifest to unbelievers our own discomfort when we hear them?

[versastyle]

you only trying to convince Christians not to make manifest to unbelievers our own discomfort when we hear them.

Thats part of it.

The other part is the running in fear in general, whether you hear it in music, on the radio, or in the general public.

How would you respond if I said this to your friend while at church:

Basic English Ezekiel 16:25 You put up your high places at the top of every street, and made the grace of your form a disgusting thing, opening your feet to everyone who went by, increasing your loose ways.

KJV Ezekiel 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.

Would you ever think to say this to your daughter, or sister?

The focus tends to be on the fact that we see someone has been called a "sl*t", instead of focusing on the content of what is being said.

[A. believer]

Thats part of it.

The other part is the running in fear in general, whether you hear it in music, on the radio, or in the general public.

You made a lot of references to running away, covering the ears, etc., that seem to me to be straw men. I know of no one who behaves in such a manner in the presence of profanity.

How would you respond if I said this to your friend while at church:

Basic English Ezekiel 16:25 You put up your high places at the top of every street, and made the grace of your form a disgusting thing, opening your feet to everyone who went by, increasing your loose ways.

KJV Ezekiel 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.


The focus tends to be on the fact that we see someone has been called a "sl*t", instead of focusing on the content of what is being said.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you asking how I'd respond to you quoting Scripture or how I'd respond to you actually accusing my friend of idolatry?

[versastyle]

You made a lot of references to running away, covering the ears, etc., that seem to me to be straw men. I know of no one who behaves in such a manner in the presence of profanity.

Its not a strawman if that is what you would want to do, or what you would have done knowing it would have happened. If it is not you, then it nots directed to you. Is that you would want to do?



I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you asking how I'd respond to you quoting Scripture or how I'd respond to you actually accusing my friend of idolatry?No how would you respond to someone blatantly calling someone else a whore, or sl*t? Our own bible does exactly that.

[versastyle]

The problem is people believe we can't see intentions, we can't know someone's heart, so we object to words because that is easy, and it makes us look like "better Christians." And that is ultimately Pharisaism...

[A. believer]

[/font]

Its not a strawman if that is what you would want to do, or what you would have done knowing it would have happened. If it is not you, then it nots directed to you. Is that you would want to do?

I do avoid deliberately exposing myself and my children to profanity by seeking out entertainment that exploits it, and I'm firmly convinced that's a biblically justified thing to do. I don't, on the other hand, avoid relationships with people because of their speech habits. But your image of someone running away and covering their ears as if they're too pure to hear such filth is what I'm calling a straw man.

No how would you respond to someone blatantly calling someone else a whore, or sl*t? Our own bible does exactly that.Those verses refer to spiritual whoredom, not literal. But if someone is either a literal or a spiritual whore, then I can't think of any reason, offhand, to refrain from acknowleding that reality. But that's quite unrelated to the idea of coloring one's speech with gratuitous expletives.

[versastyle]

I do avoid deliberately exposing myself and my children to profanity by seeking out entertainment that exploits it, and I'm firmly convinced that's a biblically justified thing to do. I don't, on the other hand, avoid relationships with people because of their speech habits. But your image of someone running away and covering their ears as if they're too pure to hear such filth is what I'm calling a straw man.

People would like to do this. I can see it in their faces and intentions. Besides the mutli-translated verses in the bible you use to justify the demonization (condemnation) of specific words, can you give me any REAL events that suggested that any disciple or that Jesus said that someone should not have said a specific word, or that we should be offended by that word? If not, I can't see any justification for the belief that certain words are sinful by nature.

I've made a new word. Its crunking. Its the act of having sex with someone without love, and doing it just out of lust and a total lack of Godliness. Are you offended by my new word?


Those verses refer to spiritual whoredom, not literal. But if someone is either a literal or a spiritual whore, then I can't think of any reason, offhand, to refrain from acknowleding that reality. But that's quite unrelated to the idea of coloring one's speech with gratuitous expletives.The problem is our own God called someone a whore, literal or not. But if a father was to call his daughter a whore, for opening her legs to every passer-by, that father is seen from a Christian as both immoral and verbally abusive, whether he was justified or not.

The point is WHORE is considered offensive language to some people. Why is it not to you? Because it is not our your list.

Is the American Christian less sinful, verbally, then the Irish one, because we have a higher standard of verbal usage? Of course not. So I seriously hope you aren't offended by an Irish mans common language, in which their society doesn't demonize the same words that our society likes to.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

[QUOTE=versastyle]The problem is our own God called someone a whore, literal or not. But if a father was to call his daughter a whore, for opening her legs to every passer-by, that father is seen from a Christian as both immoral and verbally abusive, whether he was justified or not.
[QUOTE]

That father would be considered immoral from a Christian perspective? I would think the exact opposite. Please explain.

[A. believer]

[/font]

People would like to do this. I can see it in their faces and intentions. Besides the mutli-translated verses in the bible you use to justify the demonization (condemnation) of specific words, can you give me any REAL events that suggested that any disciple or that Jesus said that someone should not have said a specific word, or that we should be offended by that word? If not, I can't see any justification for the belief that certain words are sinful by nature.

I've made a new word. Its crunking. Its the act of having sex with someone without love, and doing it just out of lust and a total lack of Godliness. Are you offended by my new word?

The problem is our own God called someone a whore, literal or not. But if a father was to call his daughter a whore, for opening her legs to every passer-by, that father is seen from a Christian as both immoral and verbally abusive, whether he was justified or not.

The point is WHORE is considered offensive language to some people. Why is it not to you? Because it is not our your list.

Is the American Christian less sinful, verbally, then the Irish one, because we have a higher standard of verbal usage? Of course not. So I seriously hope you aren't offended by an Irish mans common language, in which their society doesn't demonize the same words that our society likes to.
Your posts display a severe lack of understanding in regard to how people communicate. Let me ask you another question? Do you believe that it's sinful to use certain gestures?

[versastyle]

Your posts display a severe lack of understanding in regard to how people communicate. Let me ask you another question? Do you believe that it's sinful to use certain gestures?I'd like you to respond to what I said first.

To use certain gestures intentionally means to do others harm intentionally. You can speak words and not intentionally do harm to others.

[versastyle]

btw I now have these words: Crunk, lipper, and drudge.

They are all are words used to replace currently deplorable language.

Crunk replaces the deplorable word that means to have sex in a lustful, uncommitted, unGodly manner.

Lipper replaces the deplorable word that is part of the female anatomy.

Drudge replaces the deplorable word that comes out of your buttocks while on the toilet.

Now are you offended by my new words? Or are you offended by what they mean? Or are you offended only if they are coming from people who are being intentionally derogatory?

[A. believer]

btw I now have these words: Crunk, lipper, and drudge.

They are all are words used to replace currently deplorable language.

Crunk replaces the deplorable word that means to have sex in a lustful, uncommitted, unGodly manner.

Lipper replaces the deplorable word that is part of the female anatomy.

Drudge replaces the deplorable word that comes out of your buttocks while on the toilet.

Now are you offended by me new words? Or are you offended by what they mean?
Your new words for which you've given a denotative definition don't convey any connotative meaning until and unless they're adopted into common usage. Therefore, I consider them neutral. Now will you answer my question?

[versastyle]

Your new words for which you've given a denotative definition don't convey any connotative meaning until and unless they're adopted into common usage. Therefore, I consider them neutral. Now will you answer my question?Who's common usage? My household? My city? My workplace? My church? My state? My country? My world? Where exactly are you talking about?

Don't you see thats the problem? Whore is offensive to some people. To you it is not. Thats hypocrisy. You should avoid all words on earth one might call offensive or you should realize our focus should be on content and intent.

I did answer your question.

If you intentionally use gestures derogatorily you are doing so to intentionally cause harm. That is a sin.

You can use words (a shorter version of a long definition, and/or a synonym) without having bad intentions. That is not sin.

[A. believer]

Who's common usage? My household? My city? My workplace? My church? My state? My country? My world? Where exactly are you talking about?

Don't you see thats the problem? Whore is offensive to some people. To you it is not. Thats hypocrisy. You should avoid all words on earth one might call offensive or you should realize our focus should be on content and intent.

I did answer your question.

If you intentionally use gestures derogatorily you are doing so to intentionally cause harm. That is a sin.

You can use words (a shorter version of a long definition, and/or a synonym) without having bad intentions. That is not sin.
If your point is that there's nothing inherently sinful about some particular combinations of sounds, then certainly that's true. But there are certain words that tend to provoke in the hearer certain profane images or thoughts or feelings, and if one is aware of that, and uses them anyway, then it's sinful--just as one would avoid gestures that provoke the same feelings.

And for you to say that a Christian shouldn't be provoked to such thoughts and feelings by these words is meaningless.

[versastyle]

If your point is that there's nothing inherently sinful about some particular combinations of sounds, then certainly that's true. But there are certain words that tend to provoke in the hearer certain profane images or thoughts or feelings, and if one is aware of that, and uses them anyway, then it's sinful--just as one would avoid gestures that provoke the same feelings. Exactly! I think you've got it now. The usage is not sinful. Its the how and why! Do you think its biblical that one should be force their verbal preferences on someone else? ;)


And for you to say that a Christian shouldn't be provoked to such thoughts and feelings by these words is meaningless.
Well the real question is...if the usage of the word is not intentionally derogatory (sin) but you still find offense to it anyways, what you are doing is putting your own "moral code" at a higher standard then someone else's, even though their intent may be for necessary edification.

Like my word crunk. You know what word it replaces.

This sentence is actually necessary edification:

People should not crunk, but should love each other fully in the Lord and only have sex when married.

If you find offense to the word that crunk replaces, it looks to me that you are putting your personal verbal standard ABOVE the person who would state this.

Thats the Pharisiasm.

I hate it when people say "I thought he was a Christian. I can't believe he cussed." Thats some of the biggest load of Pharisiasm you can show.

[tulc]

I hate it when people say "I thought he was a Christian. I can't believe he cussed." Thats some of the biggest load of Pharisiasm you can show.
So you find it offensive that other people are offended by the use of certain words?
tulc(trying to understand)

[versastyle]

So you find it offensive that other people are offended by the use of certain words?
tulc(trying to understand)I'm pointing out the attitude of the Pharisee. Its not biblical. We should edify that attitude.
I'll ask you: Do you think its biblical that one should feel they need to force their verbal preferences (societally grown moral code) on someone else?

Point being, what biblical reason does a Christian have to tell me they are offended by certain words (not intentions) and that I should refrain from using them for their sake?

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Whether your intention of a word is or is not vulger, and the latter is not appropriate for a Christian, there is still Romans 14 (or is it 15?) to contend with. You should not do something that offends a fellow brother. If you know that such words are offensive, then they should not be used.

[versastyle]

If you know that such words are offensive, then they should not be used.But what biblical reason does a Christian have to tell me they are offended by certain words (not intentions) and that I should refrain from using them for their sake? We need to live by the bible, and the bible says nothing about me telling you what not to do, unless it is explicitly against Gods word.

We are not obligated to avoid playing sports because some people think its dangerous.

We are not obligated to avoid talking on the phone because they think phones are evil.

We are not obligated to avoid saying certain words because some people think they are sinful or offensive.

These are their problems, not mine.

So in essence, keep your personal problems to yourself.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Most Christians shouldn't have to tell you. We are not to offend one another so if it might offend you shouldn't say it. It seems to me that you are trying to get everyone to agree that using vulgarity is acceptable for a Christian and it is not. There are verses that deal with filthy language and not corrupt or coarse language and yet you ignore those. There are non-Christians who are offended by vulgarity as well not just Christians. If it will offend or possibly offend we shouldn't say it. There is no need to use the words you have listed and there are plenty of other words to express emotion that are not vulgar. If you cannot figure out how to speak without using vulgarity you have a bigger problem than trying to justify your language.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

So in essence, keep your personal problems to yourself.

That is nowhere near an attitude of love. You should be spending time in the Bible instead of trying to justify your wanting to use language that is by and large considered vulgar.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Here is an example.

The Bible states in many locations that drinking alcohol to the point of being drunk is a sin, or at least can lead one to sin. However, does the Bible state that drinking a glass of wine, or beer if you will, is a sin in of itself? I would have to say no.

However, to drink a glass of wine for me is a sin. Why? Because my wife is offended by any consumption of alcohol. Therefore, I do not walk charitably with my wife if I drink a glass of wine around her.

None the less, I do see the points of your other arguments. However, I cannot deny that they border on being quite unusual. The only thing I can state is that people need some type of logical reason for having a problem with sports, or with a phone. One can understand, although not necessarily agree with, someone being offended by even a small consumption of alcohol.

[versastyle]

That is nowhere near an attitude of love. You should be spending time in the Bible instead of trying to justify your wanting to use language that is by and large considered vulgar.
I keep my personal problems to myself. It is not my obligation to tell people what I find to be offensive if what they are doing is not unbiblical. It is not love for me to tell them to stop using certain words. Thats Pharisaism.

I do not use cuss words in the presence of the people I know it may offend. If I accidentally offend you, and you feel it necessary to tell me about it, you seriously need to get over yourself.

[versastyle]

Here is an example.

The Bible states in many locations that drinking alcohol to the point of being drunk is a sin, or at least can lead one to sin. However, does the Bible state that drinking a glass of wine, or beer if you will, is a sin in of itself? I would have to say no.

However, to drink a glass of wine for me is a sin. Why? Because my wife is offended by any consumption of alcohol. Therefore, I do not walk charitably with my wife if I drink a glass of wine around her.

None the less, I do see the points of your other arguments. However, I cannot deny that they border on being quite unusual. The only thing I can state is that people need some type of logical reason for having a problem with sports, or with a phone. One can understand, although not necessarily agree with, someone being offended by even a small consumption of alcohol.I agree. We should avoid things that we know offends certain people, but not to the point of sacrificing our lives to their desires.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I do not use cuss words in the presence of the people I know it may offend. If I accidentally offend you, and you feel it necessary to tell me about it, you seriously need to get over yourself.

Your whole attitude is about doing what YOU want to do regardless of those around you, this is not a very Christian outlook. A Christian who uses foul language in front of non-Christians is not setting a good example. We are to set ourselves apart from the world and using foul language makes us no different than the rest of the world. If you don't know if someone will be offended it is best not to say it and if someone tells you that you have been offensive you should apologize and make an effort not to offend them again instead of telling them to get over themselves. The things you are saying are other people's problems are your problems as well, we are told to bear one another's burdens and you are saying to keep your mouth shut if you have a problem. The whole attitude you exude in your posts is full of vitriol for those who are offended by foul language and that is not Christian.

[eldermike]

Versastyle,
Where is the support for these opinions of yours?
True legalism is not about what you can or can't say. It's about how you determine what is right or wrong to say. If you determine it by rules (even those you make up to prevent legalism) then your a leagalist, if you submit to God and are led by the Spirit of God, and humble enough to be changed by His word, then you are not. It's pretty simple.

[A. believer]

Exactly! I think you've got it now. The usage is not sinful. Its the how and why! Do you think its biblical that one should be force their verbal preferences on someone else? ;)I think it's an inherently un-Christian way of thinking to even ask the question, "Why should I care about what s/he thinks?" And for a professing Christian who speaks in expletives, and even defends that speech, that's exactly the mindset they're displaying.

Well the real question is...if the usage of the word is not intentionally derogatory (sin) but you still find offense to it anyways, what you are doing is putting your own "moral code" at a higher standard then someone else's, even though their intent may be for necessary edification.Your presumption of the motives of others is the judgmentalism I was referring to. We're required to judge sin. We're not to presume bad motives on others.

Obviously no one considers it a sin for a person to verbalize a given word without any knowledge as to the connotations of the word and the negative effect that word will have on the hearer, and I've never known a Christian whom I'm aware of thinking otherwise. Therefore, I can't imagine what the purpose of this whole discussion is but to knock down a straw man, and I still haven't figured out what reason you'd have for even constructing such a straw man.

Like my word crunk. You know what word it replaces.

This sentence is actually necessary edification:

People should not crunk, but should love each other fully in the Lord and only have sex when married.

If you find offense to the word that crunk replaces, it looks to me that you are putting your personal verbal standard ABOVE the person who would state this.

Thats the Pharisiasm.

I hate it when people say "I thought he was a Christian. I can't believe he cussed." Thats some of the biggest load of Pharisiasm you can show.And by "cuss" you're referring to someone who uses a word ignorant of the implications of using it? Somehow, I think you're referring to something else. Even some Christians sometimes cuss, but if a person deliberately and knowingly uses coarse and profane language and even tries to justify doing so, s/he may still be a Christian, but s/he's certainly an immature one.

[versastyle]

Your whole attitude is about doing what YOU want to do regardless of those around you, this is not a very Christian outlook. A Christian who uses foul language in front of non-Christians is not setting a good example. We should not judge a nonChristian by his use of language. Foul language, yes I agree shouldn't be done. But words that some people consider foul, no, I don't agree those should be avoided to appease a rather unbiblical hyprcritical standard. :)

We are to set ourselves apart from the world and using foul language makes us no different than the rest of the world. If you don't know if someone will be offended it is best not to say it and if someone tells you that you have been offensive you should apologize and make an effort not to offend them again instead of telling them to get over themselves. I do apologize. Then I pray that God frees them from the legalistic societal rules they keep. Society is what says not to cuss (FCC, Laws, schools, churches, etc). So by following their standard I am actually NOT seperating myself from the rest of the world.


The things you are saying are other people's problems are your problems as well, we are told to bear one another's burdens and you are saying to keep your mouth shut if you have a problem. The whole attitude you exude in your posts is full of vitriol for those who are offended by foul language and that is not Christian.We are to bear each others burdens, but we are not to force our burdens on each other.

I don't know but maybe I'm wrong.

This word is on MY bad list. So you are speaking a bad word in MY book. These words are more appropriate in MY book. Please use them instead.

Doesn't that sound hypocritical and like Pharisaism to you?

[versastyle]

Versastyle,
Where is the support for these opinions of yours?
True legalism is not about what you can or can't say. It's about how you determine what is right or wrong to say. If you determine it by rules (even those you make up to prevent legalism) then your a leagalist, if you submit to God and are led by the Spirit of God, and humble enough to be changed by His word, then you are not. It's pretty simple.I'm using the bible as support.

1) We are not to judge outsiders.
2) We are not to force opinions of right and wrong on each other, unless it is supported by scripture, not society.
3) I don't see expressing your distaste for a specific word being a commandment in scripture.

[versastyle]

I think it's an inherently un-Christian way of thinking to even ask the question, "Why should I care about what s/he thinks?" And for a professing Christian who speaks in expletives, and even defends that speech, that's exactly the mindset they're displaying. No I did exactly that. I thought it was appropriate for me to tell people when their language (words) offended me. THAT WAS WRONG. So the question is something you should ask yourself. "Am I judging these words for my own good and my own moral standard, or am I doing so for the good of others?"


Your presumption of the motives of others is the judgmentalism I was referring to. We're required to judge sin. We're not to presume bad motives on others. We are required to judge sin of the church, not outsiders.


Obviously no one considers it a sin for a person to verbalize a given word without any knowledge as to the connotations of the word and the negative effect that word will have on the hearer, and I've never known a Christian whom I'm aware of thinking otherwise. Therefore, I can't imagine what the purpose of this whole discussion is but to knock down a straw man, and I still haven't figured out what reason you'd have for even constructing such a straw man.
And by "cuss" you're referring to someone who uses a word ignorant of the implications of using it? Somehow, I think you're referring to something else. Even some Christians sometimes cuss, but if a person deliberately and knowingly uses coarse and profane language and even tries to justify doing so, s/he may still be a Christian, but s/he's certainly an immature one.No one should justify putting a set of words in their "don't speak/get offended list". It is a rather immature mode of legalization and has yet to be shown to be biblical.

[A. believer]

Versastyle,
Where is the support for these opinions of yours?
True legalism is not about what you can or can't say. It's about how you determine what is right or wrong to say. If you determine it by rules (even those you make up to prevent legalism) then your a leagalist, if you submit to God and are led by the Spirit of God, and humble enough to be changed by His word, then you are not. It's pretty simple.
Thank you, eldermike. I like the way you expressed that.

[A. believer]

We should not judge a nonChristian by his use of language. Foul language, yes I agree shouldn't be done. But words that some people consider foul, no, I don't agree those should be avoided to appease a rather unbiblical hyprcritical standard. :)
There are no words that all people consider foul. In fact, there are many people who consider all words perfectly acceptable. Your "some people" standard is an utterly arbitrary "rule" you're using, and the only reason that I can think of for you to use it would seem to be to excuse your choice to use certain words. Sorry, but I agree with the assessments of both eldermike and flesh99 about your approach to this issue.

[versastyle]

No my only point is not that I should be able to use whatever word I want, but that I have no reason to take offense to such words and enforce those offenses on others, when biblically there is no support for such legalism. If you find support for this biblically I disagree. That is all.

[versastyle]

Again. Our example is Jesus. There is nothing scripturally that says Jesus was ever offended by a single word spoken from any mouth, nor do I see Him stating we should be offended by any single word, or set of words, whether society calls them foul or not.

There is nothing biblical about Christians making extra-biblical rules for themselves. We should live in the freedom of Christ, and the release of the bondage of sin.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You have ignored all the verses regarding coarse, foul, filthy language. If you want legalism then we should not use any word that was considered foul in Biblical times ar it's English equivalent. That is legalism. What we are saying is that we should not use words that we KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt will offend some people, especially other Christians. Look at this example, you have two men. One is a bit quiet, never raises his voice in anger and does all his work on time no matter what is assigned to him and is polite to those around him but refuses to work overtime on Sundays to go to church. The other guy has a mouth like a sailor, is frequently frustrated and verbally so, will only do what he can during his scheduled day and talks about the cute women in church that his wife gets upset at him for look at. If you were to ask the public who is a better Christian you would get the first guy every time, but the catch is that the first guy beats his wife every night to take out his frustrations at work and no-one knows about it and the second guy is extremely faithful. The problem is neither of them is a good Christian but one of them appears to be. We should give the appearance of being a good Christian to the world around us, we represent Christ to the world, and using your examples Christ never uttered a vulgar word so we should not.

[versastyle]

Translators desensitized the word of God. The original KJV and in Hebrew and Greek, coarse language, foul language, filth all pertain to slander, blasphemy, and talking about doing immoral acts. It is not so descriptive it was telling us specific words should be omitted from our language nor that we should be offended by any of them.

Christ said RACA loud, clear, and in public. That was considered one of the most offensive words in Jewish language then, and still is today.

[versastyle]

Think of it this way: Wouldn't we all just be better off if we didn't even have words to condemn? There is nothing healthy in this recognition.

There would be less judgementalism, less oppression, less offense taken, less reason to idolize.

In fact it is OUR recognition of these "foul" words that keeps these traits more prominent in our Christian culture.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Ephesians 5:4

kai aischrotes kai morologia e eutrapelia ho aneko ou aneko alla mallon eucharistia

kai - and, also, even, indeed, but, neither, nor

aischrotes - obscenity, filthiness

kai - and, also, even, indeed, but, neither, nor


morologia - foolish talking

e - nor

eutrapelia - 1) pleasantry, humour, facetiousness; 2) in a bad sense: a) scurrility, ribaldry, low jesting

ho - this, that, these, which

aneko - 1) to have come up to, arrived at, to reach to; 2) to pertain to what is due, duty, as was fitting

ou - no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

aneko - 1) to have come up to, arrived at, to reach to; 2) to pertain to what is due, duty, as was fitting

alla - 1) but: a) nevertheless, notwithstanding; b) an objection; c) an exception; d) a restriction; e) nay, rather, yea, moreover; f) forms a transition to the cardinal matter

mallon - 1) more, to a greater degree, rather: a) much, by far; b) rather, sooner; c) more willingly, more readily, sooner

eucharistia - 1) thankfulness; 2) the giving of thanks

Oddly enough the Greek does agree with your assertion. It in fact says straight out what we have been saying, but you are right we should go back to the Greek on this as it provides a much clearer definition than does any English translation. Thanks for the suggestion.

[versastyle]

You are making a broad jump from "filthiness" in biblical terms to "filthiness" in societal terms. Are you saying that in the case of filthiness it means the same biblically as it does societally? What the bible calls filthy, so does society, what society calls filthy, so does the bible?

I don't see any of that saying specific words are filthly. Its still an assumption. There can be filthy reasoning and content as well. Might it only mean that?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

What about obscenity? This was not a concept foriegn to the Greeks of the time, and it meant the same then as it does now. Why do you want to fight this at all? It is not right for a Christian to talk like a sailor. We represent Christ and Christianity to the world and it does matter what the unsaved see in our lives due to what we represent. We should not use language that soceity deems to be obscenity for the very reason of wanting to appear to lead a clean life. This is what we should strive to do and the image we should project to the world around us. If there is nothing that changes in us when we are saved then there is no reason for anyone else to come to Christ to begin with. We should strive to live lives in such a way that if we were tried for being a Christian that we would be convicted beyond any doubt. Using foul language is not projecting a Christlike image in the least.

[versastyle]

What about oscenity? This was not a concept foriegn to the Greeks of the time, and it meant the same then as it does now. Why do you want to fight this at all? It is not right for a Christian to talk like a sailor. We represent Christ and Christianity to the world and it does matter what the unsaved see in our lives due to what we represent. We should not use language that soceity deems to be obscenity for the very reason of wanting to appear to lead a clean life. This is what we should strive to do and the image we should project to the world around us. If there is nothing that changes in us when we are saved then there is no reason for anyone else to come to Christ to begin with. We should strive to live lives in such a way that if we were tried for being a Christian that we would be convicted beyond any doubt. Using foul language is not projecting a Christlike image in the least.I never said I wanted to talk like a sailor. So Christ can use RACA, a offensive word, but done with good taste, but we can't?

Appearance of evil? Another translation gone awry. Trying to look good is like a green tree trying to look blue.

Again. Christ did not display a distaste for specific words, and neither should we. If you want to make yourself look like a better person and get all puckered up because you hear a word, although the intentions of the speaker may be good, so be it. I guess you cannot explain to me your motivations for this offense.

RACA is just as offensive to Jews as **CKER is to Americans. So would you have been offended when Jesus said it?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.

[versastyle]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.
You are answering around the question. RACA is offensive. Jesus said it. It is the American equivalent to a very emotional and hateful word (when use derogatorily), **cker. Are you offended that Jesus said that?

[versastyle]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.Big Christian lie #1: 1 Thessalonians 5:22 -- in the KJV, it says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." That's a bad translation. Literally, the verse says, "Abstain from every form of evil." Try to avoid the "appearance of evil" for one minute out of a day...

Ok. So what I gather is Christians are to recognize and be offended by culturally foul words and abstain from using them as well, although we are to seperate ourselves from society and Christians cannot use foul words under any circumstances, although Jesus did. Gotcha!

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Do you miss eidos - the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape? That is what it literally says. Why do you argue that we should not watch our language and not care what others say around us? You should not go into a jewish temple and turn over tables and run about screaming angrily, you probably shouldn't turn water into wine, you might not want to shrivel up trees by the side of the road either. There are many things that Jesus did that we are not capable of doing or should not do, you cannot use "Jesus did it" as a blanket statement to justify what you want to do. The scripture speaks against the very thing you are talking about, we have gone back to the Greek and proven it why do you not accept God-breathed instruction on our language. Proverbs has all sorts of things to say about watching what comes out of your mouth, Jesus spoke if it when He stated that nothing that nothing that goes into a man's mouth defiles him but it is what comes out of it that does, it is talked about by Paul as well. Why do you have a need to try and convince people that using obscenity is allright?

[versastyle]

I never said it was ok to use anywhere and all the time. You are talking past me. I am saying WE HAVE NO REASON TO BE OFFENDED BY IT OR HEARING IT.

[versastyle]

But anyways. I'm out. Good debate. Points made. I now understand. There is no actual sin in words, but there is sin in the words society says are foul. Good stuff. And we should be offended by them as well.

God Bless

[A. believer]

You are answering around the question. RACA is offensive. Jesus said it. It is the American equivalent to a very emotional and hateful word (when use derogatorily), **cker. Are you offended that Jesus said that?
No. Not in the context in which He said it. And I doubt that even the Jews were offended at the word itself, but rather, they were offended when it was used as a descriptor. Now, when you defend your use of words that "some people" find offensive, are you talking about using them in a similar context to how Jesus used the word raca? Put it this way. I don't have any problem with someone making a statement such as, "Using the term "sucks" as a colloquialism for something unpleasant will get you in trouble at school," (which is similar to Jesus's statement about "Raca.") I do have a problem with my children actually using the term as that colloquialism.

You seem to want us to concede that there's nothing wrong with my first example, so therefore we shouldn't be bothered by the second. That's a leap I won't make, and apparently I'm not alone. The fact that so many people oppose you on this should, if nothing else, give you pause to re-evaluate your position on this. And I'm pretty sure that, if you don't change your mind about it sooner, you will when you have children of your own.

[versastyle]

I evaluated it from both positions. This is a generally conservative forum. Thats why I came here to discuss it.

I do have children and the reason why I advise them not to use words that they are TOLD NOT TO USE BY SOCIETY is for the avoidance of offending others and so SOCIETY DOESN'T BACKLASH AT THEM.

I won't make the leap of making: "Thats a bad thing to do", a good statement, and making "Thats a sucky thing to do" an evil one. Either way, the person is saying the same thing, its just that society likes to judge the words of people. I see no good in that.

I see good in avoiding being purposely or casually offensive. I see good in advising Christians to not talk about doing things of an offensive nature. I see good in teaching my children these same avoidances.

I do not see good or Godliness in judging specific words for more then specific words, nor teaching us to "cringe in agony" over the usage of any such specific words.

Thats is all.

The people discussing with me on this forum disagrees with me, but not everyone on this forum disagrees, nor in many other Christian churches around this country.

The word is not the issue. The usage is.

[A. believer]

I evaluated it from both positions. This is a generally conservative forum. Thats why I came here to discuss it.

I do have children and the reason why I advise them not to use words that they are TOLD NOT TO USE BY SOCIETY is for the avoidance of offending others and so SOCIETY DOESN'T BACKLASH AT THEM.

I won't make the leap of making: "Thats a bad thing to do", a good statement, and making "Thats a sucky thing to do" an evil one. Either way, the person is saying the same thing, its just that society likes to judge the words of people. I see no good in that.

I see good in avoiding being purposely or casually offensive. I see good in advising Christians to not talk about doing things of an offensive nature. I see good in teaching my children these same avoidances.

I do not see good or Godliness in judging specific words for more then specific words, nor teaching us to "cringe in agony" over the usage of any such specific words.

Thats is all.

The people discussing with me on this forum disagrees with me, but not everyone on this forum disagrees, nor in many other Christian churches around this country.

The word is not the issue. The usage is.
Okay, then. Use whatever words you choose and I promise not to "cringe in agony." But please don't misrepresent what I said.

[versastyle]

Heheh. No problemo!