[Mattlock]

Originally Posted by Jenacen

Sex is one implied meaning of the word, and I explained the word's usage and implications earlier. And really, you can't think of another way to say the same thing? IMO, there's not even any artistic merit in the way they use it and is better suited as a cliche, and really the only part that interests me is what's meant by Mr. November.

How is sex implied by that?

The thing about the song is that the emotion he's feeling is profane. Thus, his word choice is suitable. I certainly wouldn't use a "clean" word to describe a profane emotion, unless I was trying to be ironic, which he isn't. Would you use a harmonic minor key if you were trying to write a happy song?

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Jenacen

It's not a matter of personal conviction. Look at the definitions and you'll see exactly what it is you're extending toward someone. Is that really how you want to learn to talk?

Again, I disagree. I don't want to turn this into a debate about profanity, but I do firmly believe it is a matter of personal conviction. I've talked a lot more about this in the swearing thread in Theology, and don't really think I need to repeat most of it here.

However, I will say that I agree with Skeeter; you're completely ignoring the fact that each of the words you listed can be used a number of different ways. I could use each of those words in a conversation and have none of them "extend toward someone" any of the definitions you listed.

And really, considering what these words mean, what is it about their use that you must defend?

The same reason I would defend the use of words like "screw" or "bang" if someone went after me for saying them; words can mean more than one thing. Both can have the same definition as the f-word, but that doesn't mean they're always used that way.

Sex is one implied meaning of the word, and I explained the word's usage and implications earlier. And really, you can't think of another way to say the same thing? IMO, there's not even any artistic merit in the way they use it and is better suited as a cliche, and really the only part that interests me is what's meant by Mr. November.

No, you explained one case of the word's usage and implications. And frankly, I'd take an interesting line containing a profanity over a clean line with nothing but cliches and bland writing.

I have to agree with Jenacen. I actually feel that when a artist uses profanity it actually cheapens the whole song. There are more powerful words and phrases that can be used without using profanity. IN fact profanity, for a songwriter, really seems like an easy way out of really thinking of something usefull to put there instead of the easy yet profane rhyme.

Have you actually read or analyzed any song lyrics that contained profanities? Because I've heard a ton of profane lyrics where it was nevertheless clear from the piece as a whole that the songwriter was an incredibly gifted lyricist, in which case it seems really obvious to me that the profanities were inserted there as a deliberate and artistic choice.

I sometimes feel like half the people who say that profanity cheapens lyrics and reflects poor songwriting abilities don't even read or hear past the words that offend them, and thus completely miss the point of the overall work. And I really think that if you're willing to dismiss an entire song or poem because of one word, you're not really qualified to be judging another's writing ability at all.

And again, I could just as easily argue that trying too hard to keep song lyrics squeaky clean and unoffensive leads to a lot of trite and unimaginative writing. Refusing to go near any iffy topics or language in a song seems far more like taking "an easy way out" to me.

[Jenacen]

I could discuss profanity in theology, but it seems relevant right now as to what you should and shouldn't listen to, and I can't even make the point I want to without going here first.

How is sex implied by that?

The thing about the song is that the emotion he's feeling is profane. Thus, his word choice is suitable. I certainly wouldn't use a "clean" word to describe a profane emotion, unless I was trying to be ironic, which he isn't. Would you use a harmonic minor key if you were trying to write a happy song?

I said sex is a commonly implied meaning of the word itself, not the choral line you posted. And you treat these words like they're the only possible way to get the intended meaning across; they're not. Also, I don't know any profane emotions. Anger, sadness, joy, they're natural feelings and most definitely aren't wrong in themselves, but if they're to an extent that they can be called profane (hatred, jealousy, for example), it's better to start calming those emotions before you decide to take them out somewhere.

Again, I disagree. I don't want to turn this into a debate about profanity, but I do firmly believe it is a matter of personal conviction. I've talked a lot more about this in the swearing thread in Theology, and don't really think I need to repeat most of it here.

However, I will say that I agree with Skeeter; you're completely ignoring the fact that each of the words you listed can be used a number of different ways. I could use each of those words in a conversation and have none of them "extend toward someone" any of the definitions you listed.
...
The same reason I would defend the use of words like "screw" or "bang" if someone went after me for saying them; words can mean more than one thing. Both can have the same definition as the f-word, but that doesn't mean they're always used that way.
...
No, you explained one case of the word's usage and implications. And frankly, I'd take an interesting line containing a profanity over a clean line with nothing but cliches and bland writing.

I know that those words have more than one meaning, though I rarely ever hear them used outside the context of a curse of some kind. I think of the number of times that I've heard the term "b*st*rd" used, and I know I've heard it used many more times as an insult than to refer to someone as an illegitimate child (which I'd find it mean to make a point of someone being so anyways). I rarely hear hell and damn used in their proper contexts, except in a church service. When someone's ever said so much as "get your butt over here," it sounds rude anyways, whether or not they want to add to the sting and use a word that means donkey. I have rarely heard a female dog referred to as a b"tch and hear it used more towards women, and really, the f-bomb doesn't seem to exist for any other reason than to be an obscenity, given all the ways I've heard it used. In the way I've heard these used in music, movies, and everyday conversation, they are most definitely not in a polite or appropriate context. And really, whether or not you want to use profanity, I really hate the way we talk to each other sometimes.

And I'm sorry that you'd take the sinful over the bland, cuz I know that while God loves us greatly, He also heavily hates sin. I'd rather start with a bland line and try and make it better than take a shortcut. The Bible does clearly talk about being careful about how you use your tongue in James 3, so defending the inappropriate context in which these words are used is very pointless. Artistry is nice, but I know it also took God dying on the cross to eliminate our sins, so I'm not going to use art as an excuse to do something wrong.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Jenacen

I know that those words have more than one meaning, though I rarely ever hear them used outside the context of a curse of some kind. I think of the number of times that I've heard the term "b*st*rd" used, and I know I've heard it used many more times as an insult than to refer to someone as an illegitimate child (which I'd find it mean to make a point of someone being so anyways). I rarely hear hell and damn used in their proper contexts, except in a church service. When someone's ever said so much as "get your butt over here," it sounds rude anyways, whether or not they want to add to the sting and use a word that means donkey. I have rarely heard a female dog referred to as a b"tch and hear it used more towards women, and really, the f-bomb doesn't seem to exist for any other reason than to be an obscenity, given all the ways I've heard it used. In the way I've heard these used in music, movies, and everyday conversation, they are most definitely not in a polite or appropriate context. And really, whether or not you want to use profanity, I really hate the way we talk to each other sometimes.

By "a curse of some kind," are you referring to a curse as it's forbidden in the Bible? Because cursing refers to intent and wishing harm on or toward someone, and most of the words you're talking about can (and are often) used without ever doing that. Saying "I hope you trip over your doormat and die" is a curse; THAT is what the Bible condemns and is clearly sinful. Saying "Dude, you kicked some *** on that guitar solo this afternoon!" is, for its intent, a nice thing to say -- and, assuming your friend is not offended by your use of the word, it's nothing short of positive encouragement. The Bible forbids cursing; the use of profanity in the second example, however, is not that kind of cursing. I can't see anything wrong with it.

And like you pointed out, what's the real difference between saying "Get your butt over here" and "Get your *** over here?" If you think one is rude, you're bound to find both rude, and if you just think one is harmless banter, then how does interchanging the words make a shred of difference? I really just think intent of the person speaking and perception by the listener are what matters, not the arbitrary addition or omission of a swear word.

And I'm sorry that you'd take the sinful over the bland, cuz I know that while God loves us greatly, He also heavily hates sin. I'd rather start with a bland line and try and make it better than take a shortcut. The Bible does clearly talk about being careful about how you use your tongue in James 3, so defending the inappropriate context in which these words are used is very pointless. Artistry is nice, but I know it also took God dying on the cross to eliminate our sins, so I'm not going to use art as an excuse to do something wrong.

Mandating an unfounded, extra-Biblical list of do's and dont's is very pointless, and in my opinion that's all this is. Being careful how you use your tongue means using discretion and thinking about the intents and effects of your speech -- not jotting down and forbidding a list of every word which can be used in a sinful way, while completely ignoring any of the factors which make using those words sinful or not.

And watch the way you're throwing around loaded accusations. Your position is clearly not shared by everyone -- like a number of others who have posted, I firmly believe that using profanity the way we are describing it is not sinful. So please stop talking as though everyone who disagrees with you is doing so out of some desire to deliberately wallow in sin, because we're not. We have thought about it as you have, and come to a different conclusion. And loaded statements like "I'm sorry that you'd take the sinful over the bland" are not helping your case, just making you come off as arrogant and condescending.

[bread man]

Jenacen, please watch the tone of your posts. Things like this;

And I'm sorry that you'd take the sinful over the bland

are severely inappropriate. If you're going to accuse other members of this board of sin (which seems to be the majority of people who have posted on this page), you need to start backing your points up with some scripture. So far you haven't provided any, except for a vague reference.

[Mattlock]

I said sex is a commonly implied meaning of the word itself, not the choral line you posted. And you treat these words like they're the only possible way to get the intended meaning across; they're not. Also, I don't know any profane emotions. Anger, sadness, joy, they're natural feelings and most definitely aren't wrong in themselves, but if they're to an extent that they can be called profane (hatred, jealousy, for example), it's better to start calming those emotions before you decide to take them out somewhere.

So you're saying it's a sin to sing about hatred or jealousy?

[Jenacen]

Jenacen, please watch the tone of your posts. Things like this;

I reread my post, and you’re right, I could’ve said that all much better, and I’m very sorry (both to you and rock_show_host), I didn’t mean to come off so rude. I promise to be careful.

So you're saying it's a sin to sing about hatred or jealousy?

It's when you begin manifesting that hatred and jealousy that there is an issue. It's a matter of heart and attitude. The verses at the end of this post will clarify it.

By "a curse of some kind," are you referring to a curse as it's forbidden in the Bible? Because cursing refers to intent and wishing harm on or toward someone, and most of the words you're talking about can (and are often) used without ever doing that. Saying "I hope you trip over your doormat and die" is a curse; THAT is what the Bible condemns and is clearly sinful. Saying "Dude, you kicked some *** on that guitar solo this afternoon!" is, for its intent, a nice thing to say -- and, assuming your friend is not offended by your use of the word, it's nothing short of positive encouragement. The Bible forbids cursing; the use of profanity in the second example, however, is not that kind of cursing. I can't see anything wrong with it.

And like you pointed out, what's the real difference between saying "Get your butt over here" and "Get your *** over here?" If you think one is rude, you're bound to find both rude, and if you just think one is harmless banter, then how does interchanging the words make a shred of difference? I really just think intent of the person speaking and perception by the listener are what matters, not the arbitrary addition or omission of a swear word.

For the second paragraph, I think you missed my point. My point was whether you want to use butt or *ss doesn’t make a difference, the statement is equally rude either way.

As for the first one, why can’t it just be said another way? If you can do it in a way in which you’re guaranteed that neither God nor your friend would be offended, why not? It’s troubling though that there’s something of an excuse to use something that was once considered profane and unwholesome. Out of all the words that could be used, why that?

Mandating an unfounded, extra-Biblical list of do's and dont's is very pointless, and in my opinion that's all this is. Being careful how you use your tongue means using discretion and thinking about the intents and effects of your speech -- not jotting down and forbidding a list of every word which can be used in a sinful way, while completely ignoring any of the factors which make using those words sinful or not.

That's not what I did. I took the words that we commonly refer to as profanity and explained what the deal is with them. Yes there are other contexts for the words, but this argument boils down to their disputable uses. For further definition, I don’t really think it’s right to call someone by their euphemisms either, such as “jerk” or “nag” or whatever the case may be. It isn’t just the big seven I’m talking about, but those are the words that we typically dispute.

And watch the way you're throwing around loaded accusations. Your position is clearly not shared by everyone -- like a number of others who have posted, I firmly believe that using profanity the way we are describing it is not sinful. So please stop talking as though everyone who disagrees with you is doing so out of some desire to deliberately wallow in sin, because we're not. We have thought about it as you have, and come to a different conclusion. And loaded statements like "I'm sorry that you'd take the sinful over the bland" are not helping your case, just making you come off as arrogant and condescending.

Yes, I understand my position isn’t shared by everyone, I'm fine with that, and I don’t condemn anyone who disagrees with me (not my right anyways). Though, what you stated is that you would take an interesting line that is profane over one that is clean yet bland and uninteresting. There’s a third option; take the clean and bland one, and fix it up. Psalms is full of descriptions of pain and anguish, without using foul language. The thing is too, profanity by definition is the very opposite of pure and wholesome, which goes against Philipians 4:8—“Finally, my brothers and sisters, always think about what is true. Think about what is noble, right and pure. Think about what is lovely and worthy of respect. If anything is excellent or worthy of praise, think about those kinds of things.” I used the word “sinful” originally because that’s also part of what the word itself means. To show preference for a profane line over a clean one based on artistic merit or judgment is to say that whether it’s right or wrong doesn’t matter, and consequently, neither does God’s perspective on the matter. God does love us yes, but He does hate sin, and we do need to remember the price that He paid for it. Art doesn’t surpass that standard.

As for scriptural backing:
Matthew 5:22
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

According to this verse, the root problem is anger (and some translations add in “angry without cause”). All ‘raca’ really is, is just a term of contempt, as if to say the person it is being spoken to is worthy to be spit upon, or someone who is empty-headed. At its very base, it’s an insult. And it was a commonly used term even amongst the Jews back then, as it has been found in other Jewish writings, which is why Jesus probably made a point of it. The reference to a fool is more than just one who is weak or ignorant, but is actually condemning the subject as a wicked man, all this stemmed from the unjustified anger, which is where the use of these words goes beyond their definitions, turning them to insults and tools of injury. To call someone an *ss, *ssh*le, b*tch, or b*st*rd are perfect examples of ‘Raca,’ a word that only exists to show contempt (like the f-bomb, which also exists just to be profane altogether). ‘You fool!’ is a lot like saying “d*mn you!” because of its intention to condemn. And, as said before, just calling someone a jerk or a loser would fall under the same merits.

James 3:5-6
“5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.”

Colossians 3:8
“But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

This is why it’s not a good idea to use sh*t (or cr*p for that matter); all they do is tear down. They don’t build up, don’t provide feedback, don’t give proper correction, don’t do anything to steer the subject in a proper direction. All they’re going to do is hurt. The common uses for d*mn and h*ll fall here too as just expressions of anger, though I find d*mn is dangerous because in its casual use, it appoints its object as worthless. In its biblical sense, it’s a level of judgment that is reserved for God only, and goes back to ‘You fool!’ in Matthew 5:22. It’s an expression of condemnation on its object.

I know there are proper contexts for words, though for the words of primary concern here, I think back to all the movies I’ve seen, music I’ve heard, conversations I’ve listened to, and their context and usage too often boil down to an inappropriate one.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Jenacen

For the second paragraph, I think you missed my point. My point was whether you want to use butt or *ss doesn’t make a difference, the statement is equally rude either way.

The fact that you think it's rude doesn't mean it always is. If someone jokingly called me and said, "Get your butt over here, we're late for the movie!" I wouldn't find it rude. People all talk and perceive language slightly differently; there isn't some magical line beyond which everything is clearly "rude" or "tasteless."

Originally Posted by Jenacen

As for the first one, why can’t it just be said another way? If you can do it in a way in which you’re guaranteed that neither God nor your friend would be offended, why not? It’s troubling though that there’s something of an excuse to use something that was once considered profane and unwholesome. Out of all the words that could be used, why that?

Actually, I think the mindset of "Well, if there's any chance it's wrong, why not just condemn it altogether?" is what's troubling, because that's what leads to legalism. Christians look at something like swearing/listening to secular music/watching R-rated movies, something whose morality is not inherently clear, and they decide that if there's any doubt whatsoever over its morality, then the safe and righteous thing to do is just avoid it altogether. This is not righteousness, it's a way of avoiding the need to actually understand what makes these things wrong or right. Without that understanding, we might as well just start getting rid of whatever any Christians have mixed feelings about, just to be safe, because it might be wrong. In my opinion, this is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.

Originally Posted by Jenacen

That's not what I did. I took the words that we commonly refer to as profanity and explained what the deal is with them. Yes there are other contexts for the words, but this argument boils down to their disputable uses. For further definition, I don’t really think it’s right to call someone by their euphemisms either, such as “jerk” or “nag” or whatever the case may be. It isn’t just the big seven I’m talking about, but those are the words that we typically dispute.

Given that you're condemning those words outright and calling them sinful, you really can't ignore the other contexts. If the words can be used in contexts which would not make them sinful, then it's ridiculous to say that the words are wrong in and of themselves. So no, the argument does not boil down to the "disputable uses," it boils down to the fact that you're ignoring a number of harmless ways in which the words can be used and condemning them based on a minority of sinful uses. Calling someone a jerk, for instance -- assuming you intend it to hurt them and not just in a playful manner -- would be wrong. Saying something like "stop jerking my chain" is not wrong at all. Same word, same sounds coming out of the vocal chord, yet it can clearly be used in good and bad ways. How is profanity any different?

Originally Posted by Jenacen

Yes, I understand my position isn’t shared by everyone, I'm fine with that, and I don’t condemn anyone who disagrees with me (not my right anyways). Though, what you stated is that you would take an interesting line that is profane over one that is clean yet bland and uninteresting. There’s a third option; take the clean and bland one, and fix it up. Psalms is full of descriptions of pain and anguish, without using foul language.

Again, here you just seem to be arguing that "it's never absolutely necessary, and it could be wrong, so let's just not do it at all." As I've said before, this is merely a personal conviction, not a conclusive moral reason to abstain from profanity.

The thing is too, profanity by definition is the very opposite of pure and wholesome, which goes against Philipians 4:8—“Finally, my brothers and sisters, always think about what is true. Think about what is noble, right and pure. Think about what is lovely and worthy of respect. If anything is excellent or worthy of praise, think about those kinds of things.” I used the word “sinful” originally because that’s also part of what the word itself means. To show preference for a profane line over a clean one based on artistic merit or judgment is to say that whether it’s right or wrong doesn’t matter, and consequently, neither does God’s perspective on the matter. God does love us yes, but He does hate sin, and we do need to remember the price that He paid for it. Art doesn’t surpass that standard.

You're defining "profanity" through as limited a scope as you've been defining profane words themselves. Profanity as we're talking about it is not "by definition" sinful or in contrast to Philippians 4:8. Profanity as we're talking about it is a word society has ascribed to words that are potentially offensive. If we were talking about profaning the name of God or desecrating what is Holy, you would have a point. But we're talking about swear words in general, and swear words do not always do this.

And you're right, art doesn't surpass standards of righteousness. Since I have absolutely no reason to think that using swear words is necessarily unrighteous, it's also not a relevant point.

According to this verse, the root problem is anger (and some translations add in “angry without cause”). All ‘raca’ really is, is just a term of contempt, as if to say the person it is being spoken to is worthy to be spit upon, or someone who is empty-headed. At its very base, it’s an insult. And it was a commonly used term even amongst the Jews back then, as it has been found in other Jewish writings, which is why Jesus probably made a point of it. The reference to a fool is more than just one who is weak or ignorant, but is actually condemning the subject as a wicked man, all this stemmed from the unjustified anger, which is where the use of these words goes beyond their definitions, turning them to insults and tools of injury. To call someone an *ss, *ssh*le, b*tch, or b*st*rd are perfect examples of ‘Raca,’ a word that only exists to show contempt (like the f-bomb, which also exists just to be profane altogether). ‘You fool!’ is a lot like saying “d*mn you!” because of its intention to condemn. And, as said before, just calling someone a jerk or a loser would fall under the same merits.

Are you just saying that using certain words with the intent to hurt or insult someone is wrong? I agree. But how is that relevant to my use of swear words that don't fall under this category? Not everybody who swears does so out of anger, contempt, or desire to insult or injure.

This is why it’s not a good idea to use sh*t (or cr*p for that matter); all they do is tear down. They don’t build up, don’t provide feedback, don’t give proper correction, don’t do anything to steer the subject in a proper direction. All they’re going to do is hurt. The common uses for d*mn and h*ll fall here too as just expressions of anger, though I find d*mn is dangerous because in its casual use, it appoints its object as worthless. In its biblical sense, it’s a level of judgment that is reserved for God only, and goes back to ‘You fool!’ in Matthew 5:22. It’s an expression of condemnation on its object.

This is just plain wrong. Again, all you're doing is pigeonholing words like "s***" or "crap" into a few contexts in which they would be sinful.

Let's say my friend asked me to critique a song he'd written, and I really liked it. Now let's say I told him, "Man, that chord progression and guitar solo in the middle were the s***!" My use of that word was a compliment -- it didn't tear down my friend or his song, it built them both up. It provided relevant feedback and steered the subject in the direction my friend was asking for, which was an honest opinion of his song. None of the things you're accusing the word of apply here. Or, if I said to him, "And you did one hell of a job on the singing," how is that an expression of anger? How is it anything other than a deserved bit of encouragement?

You naming certain uses of any of these words as "common uses" is irrelevant, because they can clearly be used in a plethora of other ways.

I know there are proper contexts for words, though for the words of primary concern here, I think back to all the movies I’ve seen, music I’ve heard, conversations I’ve listened to, and their context and usage too often boil down to an inappropriate one.

And again, I think it's dangerous to so boldly proclaim something as downright sinful, as you've been doing, simply because it "too often" can be used in a wrong way. If that was the case, wouldn't the internet be sinful? It's used in far more inappropriate ways than any swear word that's been brought up here.

[JerRocks2day]

So you're saying it's a sin to sing about hatred or jealousy?

I think Jenacen is trying to say that there can be a certain spirit behind the music. In other words, the lyrics may be revealing the spirit of the person. Right?

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

I think Jenacen is trying to say that there can be a certain spirit behind the music. In other words, the lyrics may be revealing the spirit of the person. Right?

Please, for the love of all things coherent, do not bring up the "spirit behind the music" argument unless you have a sound, Biblical argument for doing so. Because I hear it used to condemn music all the time, and no one can ever back it up, and it just gets really tiresome really fast.

[Ordinary Sarah]

Originally Posted by Jerrocks2day

I think Jenacen is trying to say that there can be a certain spirit behind the music. In other words, the lyrics may be revealing the spirit of the person. Right?

I agree. It's not a sin at all.... but it's certainly not conducive to condone those things or support acting out on those emotions. However, if you're singing about hatred or jealousy because of real emotions you are feeling and real problems you honestly want to be better, I don't see why it would be wrong to listen to that. Or even harmful.

Originally Posted by Rockshowhost

Please, for the love of all things coherent, do not bring up the "spirit behind the music" argument unless you have a sound, Biblical argument for doing so. Because I hear it used to condemn music all the time, and no one can ever back it up, and it just gets really tiresome really fast.

Definitely not using it to condemn music, and I think there is a good point there. After all, lyrics do reveal a person's heart. At the same time, I think that if people paid more attention to the spirit behind the music, they would actually end up condemning less music and listening to more of it.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by SarahTheGuitarist

Definitely not using it to condemn music, and I think there is a good point there. After all, lyrics do reveal a person's heart. At the same time, I think that if people paid more attention to the spirit behind the music, they would actually end up condemning less music and listening to more of it.

Maybe I misunderstood the wording -- I've heard a ton of people claiming that music literally houses spirits, and that the music of non-Christians will resultantly be infused with an evil spirit that will work in you through the music. I've never seen any kind of logical argument for this, and think it's complete bogus. And the problem with focusing too much (or at all) on the "spirit behind the music" is that we don't know it. Songs don't come with little flashing lights advertising their inspiration or moral standards, and when we try to identify a "spirit" within or behind the music, we end up just inventing something based on how much we approve of the song. And that's just frustrating and completely unhelpful. Why can't we just analyze and appreciate lyrics as a glimpse into a person's mind and heart, and not feel the need to attach good and evil spirits to everything?

[Jenacen]

I'm going to start from the bottom up cuz I'm not convinced something is getting through here.

RSH, I know that words have other meanings, but you keep saying ignoring those definitions. I know very well they do. I'm not. I know that hell is a place of eternal torment, that d*mn means a sentencing to eternal punishment, that *ss is another word for donkey and slang term for butt, that a b*tch is a female dog, that b*st*rd is someone born from unmarried parents, and I knew "jerk" had a definition beyond just a rude and obnoxious person. I most certainly am trying to call attention to their disputable uses here. So far we agree that using them against a peson is rude, ie. "D*mn you, f*ck you, go to h*ll, that's a load of sh*t, you b*st*rd!" So we'll leave that alone.

The issue we're struggling with right now are their various other uses. To some point, it is the words themselves that are an issue.

Example, f*ck and sh*t have never had positive definitions to them, and have always been shocking and inappropriate (contrary to popular legend, neither one was ever an acronym), particularly f*ck. Both have been subject to censorship because their use always implied contempt and disrespect. There has never been anything good about them, and the only reason they're considered positive now is because people just want an excuse to use them.

For example, take the word n*gg*r. It's a very degrading term to use towards a dark-skinned man, and has never had a positive connotation to it. Never. Though, I've heard black people use it on each other like it meant nothing (and of course, if I were to use it, it's racism). How do you just spin that around into a compliment or proper greeting?

You look at words that are considered rude or tasteless (not just the "big seven," but many of the other words such as suck, blow, piss, bite, bang), a lot of them are some kind of bathroom reference or sexual reference, and that's why they are considered crude and distasteful. "Suck" is short for "suck d*ck," "blow" is a sex reference, "bite" is another way of saying it, "piss" is urine, and "bang" means sex as well. "*ss," believe it or not, is also a sex reference aside from meaning a stupid or animal or being a slang term for butt. We know that "sh*t" is another word for feces, and as mentioned before, has always been an impolite and offensive term. I can't think of anything polite, pure, noble, or tasteful about these. My use of Philipians 4:8 still stands.

Really, if you want, go ahead and keep using the words you use, I can't tell you what to do and not to do, I get what you mean by there being other ways to use them, but you seriously do need to look and consider the definitions and contexts that these words are found in. You say, "You kicked *ss" or "that solo is the sh*t," you are using words that have a degrading context to them, and it is a crude way to try and lift someone up. I don't get why people so badly want to use those words, the only inherent meanings to them are negative and vulgar ones. I don't advocate moderation of these words because there "might" be something wrong with them, but that they actually are vulgar and offensive. I don't want these found in the music I listen to because I don't want to learn to talk that way. I mentioned before, there's tons of beautiful songs and poetry out there that express incredible joy and heartfeld anguish without using any crude or vulgar terms at all, Christian or secular, and it sounds much nicer and professional. It's like taking coal over diamonds.

[Jenacen]

PS--The whole "spirit behind the music" thing... if the devil doesn't want to use one of the most powerful ways there is to influence a person's mind, then hell needs a new commander-in-chief, fast. But what I was getting at was the idea that we can just express out emotions however we want, not really caring about the impact they have. Anger and sadness, they're natural. Though, when they begin to influence the way you act and talk, you need to do some re-evaluation.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by Jenacen

I'm going to start from the bottom up cuz I'm not convinced something is getting through here.

RSH, I know that words have other meanings, but you keep saying ignoring those definitions. I know very well they do. I'm not. I know that hell is a place of eternal torment, that d*mn means a sentencing to eternal punishment, that *ss is another word for donkey and slang term for butt, that a b*tch is a female dog, that b*st*rd is someone born from unmarried parents, and I knew "jerk" had a definition beyond just a rude and obnoxious person. I most certainly am trying to call attention to their disputable uses here. So far we agree that using them against a peson is rude, ie. "D*mn you, f*ck you, go to h*ll, that's a load of sh*t, you b*st*rd!" So we'll leave that alone.

We're agreed here. No problems thus far. I would add that you can be just as equally rude to a person without using those words.

The issue we're struggling with right now are their various other uses. To some point, it is the words themselves that are an issue.

Hardly. Words rarely have a strict definition. As a popular example, take the word "gay." It started out as a synonym of "happy," with an implication of joy and festivity. It was co-opted by homosexuals to provide a positive spin to their lifestyle. For a while it was a positive word referring to a homosexual. Then it became more of an insult for a while, the point that calling someone "gay" became a popular insult. Now it has been steered back to a more positive term, though it's certainly still used as an insult.

50 years ago, I could call someone gay and they would see it as a compliment. I can't do the same thing today. Even a homosexual might see it as a disparaging remark. How does this apply? Let's take a look and see...

Example, f*ck and sh*t have never had positive definitions to them, and have always been shocking and inappropriate (contrary to popular legend, neither one was ever an acronym), particularly f*ck. Both have been subject to censorship because their use always implied contempt and disrespect. There has never been anything good about them, and the only reason they're considered positive now is because people just want an excuse to use them.

This is flat-out untrue. Both words have roots in old Germanic tribes, if I recall correctly. They were originally just words for fornication and defecation/feces. The only reason contempt and disrespect are assumed is cultural bias, in my opinion. Why aren't "fornication" and "feces" swear words? Why isn't "poop" a swear word? They have the same meaning.

In any case, the original meaning and past usage of a word is pretty useless in defining its current use. It's obvious that f*ck and sh*t now have expanded uses that don't necessarily imply contempt and disrespect. If I tell the drummer in my band that the drum solo he just played is "f***ing awesome," how have I treated him with contempt and disrespect?

The word "gay" has changed its meaning. The same thing is happening with these words.

For example, take the word n*gg*r. It's a very degrading term to use towards a dark-skinned man, and has never had a positive connotation to it. Never. Though, I've heard black people use it on each other like it meant nothing (and of course, if I were to use it, it's racism). How do you just spin that around into a compliment or proper greeting?

Time and culture. Words have different meanings in different cultures. If I tell someone to "bugger off" here in North America, they might find it a little rude, but they might also find it a little humorous. IT doesn't mean a whole lot in North America. In England, Australia, or New Zealand, they'll view it very differently and might see it as equivalent to saying "f*** you."

The fact that black people have co-opted the word "n****r" to mean "brother" or "friend" is similar in some ways to the way that homosexuals co-opted the word "gay." It's cultural warfare through language. Very postmodern.

You look at words that are considered rude or tasteless (not just the "big seven," but many of the other words such as suck, blow, piss, bite, bang), a lot of them are some kind of bathroom reference or sexual reference, and that's why they are considered crude and distasteful. "Suck" is short for "suck d*ck," "blow" is a sex reference, "bite" is another way of saying it, "piss" is urine, and "bang" means sex as well. "*ss," believe it or not, is also a sex reference aside from meaning a stupid or animal or being a slang term for butt. We know that "sh*t" is another word for feces, and as mentioned before, has always been an impolite and offensive term. I can't think of anything polite, pure, noble, or tasteful about these. My use of Philipians 4:8 still stands.

I sucked on the straw to get the last of my drink from the bottom of the glass.

I blew up the balloon.

"So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." - 1 Samuel 25:22 KJV

I bite into the sandwich.

The firecracker blew up with a bang while I was banging on a nail.

That guitar solo on that SRV album is the sh*t.

Not a single one of the above sentences goes against Philippians 4:8 as far as I can see.

Really, if you want, go ahead and keep using the words you use, I can't tell you what to do and not to do, I get what you mean by there being other ways to use them, but you seriously do need to look and consider the definitions and contexts that these words are found in. You say, "You kicked *ss" or "that solo is the sh*t," you are using words that have a degrading context to them, and it is a crude way to try and lift someone up. I don't get why people so badly want to use those words, the only inherent meanings to them are negative and vulgar ones. I don't advocate moderation of these words because there "might" be something wrong with them, but that they actually are vulgar and offensive. I don't want these found in the music I listen to because I don't want to learn to talk that way. I mentioned before, there's tons of beautiful songs and poetry out there that express incredible joy and heartfeld anguish without using any crude or vulgar terms at all, Christian or secular, and it sounds much nicer and professional. It's like taking coal over diamonds.

What's wonderful is that all of this is merely your opinion. You are acting like a Pharisee, adding restrictions on to God's word, trying to convince us that we are sinning when our consciences are clear in this matter. There is nothing inherently vulgar in a word. Words are defined by their use (just ask any Linguistics major) and the more that a word is used in a non-vulgar manner, the less its definition becomes vulgar.

Which of the following sentences is worse:
"I just had to go to the bathroom."
"I just had to go number two."
"I just had to defecate."
"I just had to poop."
"I just had to take a crap."
"I just had to take a s***."

The bottom couple sentences might be a trifle more rude, depending on the company, but I fail to see how any of those sentences could be portrayed as sinful. If you merely want us to be more polite, you might have a case, but if you're trying to argue that we are sinning by using certain words, then you are making a serious accusation against your brothers in Christ, and I strongly urge you to reconsider.




More on topic: in regards to the particular artistry of a swear word, I just found an interesting article on the usage of the f-word in various poetry and songwriting. Be warned: there is definitely some strong language in this article, as necessitated by the subject. I would rate it "R" by movie standards.