[tmlfan123]

A thought I've been dealing with over the past few weeks:

Where do we draw the line on swearing? The Bible says not to take the Lord's name in vain very clearly, but it also makes mention of things like "obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking"(Ephesians 5:4). What is an "obscenity"? Is the f-word an "obscenity"?

Several of my friends, strong Christians, swear all the time. F-words down to "crap" and everything in between. I personally don't use the f-word, but it doesn't particularly offend me. My heritage is Dutch, so in my family "s---" and "a--" are not terrible words, and I do use those.

As a second question, even if we don't believe that some or all of swearing is necessarily bad, should we refrain from it when speaking with non-Christians? You would not believe the stares I get from my sports teammates when I use "crap" or say "what the heck". It's just not in their vocabulary. Could this be just one more way to be a light to those who haven't met Christ?

[rock_show_host]

Eww, I stepped in some worms. Who left the can out again?

Originally Posted by tmlfan123

Where do we draw the line on swearing? The Bible says not to take the Lord's name in vain very clearly, but it also makes mention of things like "obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking"(Ephesians 5:4). What is an "obscenity"? Is the f-word an "obscenity"?

The f-word is just that – a word. It is considered obscene and inappropriate for polite conversation because society has deemed it such. The word “bloody” is similarly obscene in England but perfectly innocent in America. Examples like this make it hard for me to believe that a single word, regardless of context, can be inherently obscene the way Paul is describing. Does society determine what God considers to be sinful?

The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret this:

1) The f-word, along with other “swear words,” is sinful and obscene in and of itself because society considers it profane, no matter how it’s used or in what context.
2) The f-word, like any word, is sinful when misused, and admittedly has a social stigma attached which makes it easier to misuse.

In the first interpretation, society is put in God’s place. Suppose social standards evolved such that the f-word was no longer considered profane or impolite – based on the first argument, saying that word would no longer be a sin. Thus, society, not God, would have the power to define what is sinful, and God’s standard of “obscene speech” would be completely relative.

In the second interpretation, society’s view of the word is virtually irrelevant. Even if social standards evolved to permit the word in polite conversation, the standards for misusing it would still be the same. For example, we as Christians are instructed to abstain from cursing one another. If I say “f*** you” with malicious intent, that is a curse, and it is wrong regardless of how society views the word. Had I said “screw you” with the same intent, it may have sounded less shocking, but it would have been every bit as sinful. Thus, under this interpretation, society’s standards have no bearing on what makes my use of the f-word sinful or not sinful – God still defines the occasion when the word becomes sinful, and his standard does not depend on that of the culture.

This is why I believe in the second interpretation. The first, to me, is legalism, elevating a man-made law over God’s law.

Also, consider the entirety of that verse in Ephesians 5:

4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Here, Paul points to types of speech from which we are to abstain as Christians, but he also points to what we are to replace them with: thanksgiving. Not a list of "happy words" to replace a forbidden list of "cuss words," but a quality which should pervade all of our speech. It seems to clear to me that this verse isn't referring to a list of words or phrases, but rather the nature of anything we say, no matter how culturally taboo. Honestly, based on this verse and under the right circumstances, I see no reason why a Christian can't use a cuss word for emphasis in expressing thanksgiving. Would that word be necessary? No, but I also don't believe it would be wrong.

Originally Posted by tmlfan123

Several of my friends, strong Christians, swear all the time. F-words down to "crap" and everything in between. I personally don't use the f-word, but it doesn't particularly offend me. My heritage is Dutch, so in my family "s---" and "a--" are not terrible words, and I do use those.

This is a perfect example. Biblically, what makes the f-word obscene and sinful where “crap” is generally not considered to be? Both are considered crass at best, and both are inappropriate in certain circumstances – the f-word happens to be appropriate in fewer circumstances, true, but how does that make it sinful? Is the righteousness of a word determined by how many venues it’s banned in?

I’ve said it before – language is not divided into “polite language” and “cuss words.” Language has hierarchies, and the appropriateness of a certain word depends on the circumstances. When I worked as a lifeguard at a pool mostly populated by 7-year-olds, saying “s***” would have been considered highly inappropriate. At the job I’m working now, I just recently had to transcribe a video interview between a couple in therapy, in which one of the speakers regularly used the word “s***,” which meant that I had to recite it out loud in addition to typing it out a number of times. I was forbidden from using the word in one job and required to use it in another.

I also recently wrote a school essay analyzing a poet’s use of the c-word throughout a famously crass poem of his (the poet is Rochester, anyone who’s familiar with his work will know what I mean). The poem was mandatory reading in a class required for my English concentration. Had I been in middle school, that essay would almost definitely have gotten me punished and for good reason, but I’m in college, and the essay was not only acceptable but earned me my highest paper grade of the entire year. Go figure.

Originally Posted by tmlfan123

As a second question, even if we don't believe that some or all of swearing is necessarily bad, should we refrain from it when speaking with non-Christians? You would not believe the stares I get from my sports teammates when I use "crap" or say "what the heck". It's just not in their vocabulary. Could this be just one more way to be a light to those who haven't met Christ?

I personally think that the way we use our speech around non-Christians is a much better witness, and will make a much deeper impression, than making a big deal out of the fact that we avoid a certain list of words. In my experience, Christians' holier-than-thou attitude toward cuss words is actually a huge turn off for a lot of unbelievers.

I do believe that we are called to keep others from stumbling, and so if I know a non-Christian friend has a problem with cursing or if I’m not sure what his/her attitude is toward it, I should abstain for the sake of being at peace with them. But for those who aren’t offended, yes, I absolutely think this is a way to be a light – by showing non-Christians that being a Christian isn’t about adhering needlessly to a set of arbitrary, culturally-defined rules, but about conforming my speech to God’s standards, which are eternal and unchanging.

[OiBoyz]

Good points. Still, I have a hard time imagining Jesus using the F word under any circumstances. Having said that, yes I do occasionally let it slip out too. But I'm never proud of it.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Good points. Still, I have a hard time imagining Jesus using the F word under any circumstances. Having said that, yes I do occasionally let it slip out too. But I'm never proud of it.

Frankly, I have a hard time imagining Jesus braiding a whip and furiously knocking over tables.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Good points. Still, I have a hard time imagining Jesus using the F word under any circumstances. Having said that, yes I do occasionally let it slip out too. But I'm never proud of it.

Certainly he would have a hard time using it, since his time spent here on earth was in a completely different culture in which the word "fu**" was not even a word. In fact, I don't even believe the English language as we now know it was established at that time either.

From what I understand there were no "bad words", in the first century culture, at least not in there area. A word was considered good or bad depending on the context.
Nevertheless, while I didn't read Rockshowhosts answer, I am certain he covered everything, especially since this is the 100th time this subject has come up....


maybe those with questions should search the site for those threads, read them, and if they have questions come back??

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Frankly, I have a hard time imagining Jesus braiding a whip and furiously knocking over tables.

HAHAHA!
Very good point....

It also brings up the important point that this really shouldn't depend upon our point of view. The proof is in the pudding.

Let us live with the truth wherever it truly lays.
If the truth is that a word is merely that, a word, then let us act accordingly and drop the whole pious bullcrap. Too many people are hurt and turned away from the church and Christianity because of Christians and churches making huge deals about minute things.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Frankly, I have a hard time imagining Jesus braiding a whip and furiously knocking over tables.

Really? Cuz it's right there in my Bible.

In fact, I don't even believe the English language as we now know it was established at that time either.

Oh, come on. You're putting up a straw man. Of course he wouldn't have said it in English. He wouldn't have said "You must be born again" in English either.

Certainly he would have a hard time using it, since his time spent here on earth was in a completely different culture in which the word "fu**" was not even a word.

There have always been slang words for the sexual act and body parts. In every culture and in every time. Gimme a break.

My point, which I think you understood perfectly well, is that He wouldn't have used a course word, in anger/frustration/whatever that denigrates something that shouldn't be denigrated. I don't know why you decided to be cute with your answer, but whatever.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Really? Cuz it's right there in my Bible.

I know. That was my point. It's hard for me, with my modern sensibilities, to imagine the Son of God doing those things, but He sure did.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Oh, come on. You're putting up a straw man. Of course he wouldn't have said it in English. He wouldn't have said "You must be born again" in English either.

It's not a straw man. It's a valid reason to question the idea that Jesus's and Paul's teachings were meant to correspond to a particular set of words in a language neither spoke at the time, instead of simply being guidelines for speech in any language with any set of words.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

There have always been slang words for the sexual act and body parts. In every culture and in every time. Gimme a break.

So you think there was a pretty close equivalent to the f-word in Jesus's language? Prove it. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there was.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

My point, which I think you understood perfectly well, is that He wouldn't have used a course word, in anger/frustration/whatever that denigrates something that shouldn't be denigrated. I don't know why you decided to be cute with your answer, but whatever.

You're making two arguments here and meshing them into one:

1) Jesus wouldn't have used a word that society considered offensive.
2) Jesus wouldn't have used a word in anger/frustration that denigrates something that shouldn't be denigrated.

Swear words (#1) don't always do what you described in #2. Jesus wouldn't have let anger overcome His speech, and He wouldn't have profaned that which was holy, because speaking that way would have been sinful. But "cuss words" or their equivalents don't have to do any of those things. They can be as uplifting as any other word. So in light of that, while it's hard for our modern sensibilities to imagine, I don't think we should assume that Jesus never used any language that would to his listeners have been considered as crass as modern day cuss words. I'm not saying that He definitely did, but I think we're a little too comfortable assuming that Christ would take the conservative stance on every modern issue.

[OiBoyz]

The "Straw Man" I was referring to was the reference to Him not speaking English.

And I didn't say anything about "Jesus wouldn't have used a word that society considered offensive." He went out of His way at times to do things that would offend a society that put their rules above God's law. And He did, in fact, use language that was intended to shock and offend, for example "whitewashed tombstones." It doesn't translate to our culture, but it was deeply offensive to theirs.

But I do like how you summed up my actual argument: Jesus wouldn't have let anger overcome His speech, and He wouldn't have profaned that which was holy, because speaking that way would have been sinful.

I also don't think He said anything that wasn't intentional. If He offended, it was because He intended to, not because He was unaware of what He was saying.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

The "Straw Man" I was referring to was the reference to Him not speaking English.

And I didn't say anything about "Jesus wouldn't have used a word that society considered offensive." He went out of His way at times to do things that would offend a society that put their rules above God's law. And He did, in fact, use language that was intended to shock and offend, for example "whitewashed tombstones." It doesn't translate to our culture, but it was deeply offensive to theirs.

But I do like how you summed up my actual argument: Jesus wouldn't have let anger overcome His speech, and He wouldn't have profaned that which was holy, because speaking that way would have been sinful.

I also don't think He said anything that wasn't intentional. If He offended, it was because He intended to, not because He was unaware of what He was saying.

Aha -- I am better informed now. Thanks for clarifying

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Jesus wouldn't have let anger overcome His speech, and He wouldn't have profaned that which was holy, because speaking that way would have been sinful.

Which is what I find offensive about the F word. It cheapens something that we should respect. You're right that "cuss words" don't necessarily do that. When I am speaking to someone at work and tell them that the day was going well until (whatever) happened and then the day went to hell, it's a description of the day. Is the use of the word "hell" necessarily, in itself wrong? I don't think so, But if I told someone to go to hell, that's a very different thing.

[RK_lover]

deja vu...

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Which is what I find offensive about the F word. It cheapens something that we should respect.

When used a certain way, yes. But the f-word has more than one definition. Words like "screw" and "bang" can mean the exact same thing as the f-word, to the exact same cheapening effect. But those words have other meanings, and using them in other contexts is neither wrong nor profane.

Having said that, it's entirely understandable to personally abstain from using that word because of its associations -- a bunch of people close to me have a problem with it, and so I've done my best to remove it from my vocabulary for their sakes.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

When I am speaking to someone at work and tell them that the day was going well until (whatever) happened and then the day went to hell, it's a description of the day. Is the use of the word "hell" necessarily, in itself wrong? I don't think so, But if I told someone to go to hell, that's a very different thing.

Exactly. The second example is a curse, and THAT is what makes it Biblically wrong, not the fact that includes a societal no-no word.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by RK_lover

deja vu...

And how do you suggest we discuss in a closed topic? Or do you think we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it simply because it's been done in the past?

If that's the case, there's no point in trying to discuss anything. There is nothing new under the sun, after all.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Exactly. The second example is a curse, and THAT is what makes it Biblically wrong, not the fact that includes a societal no-no word.

Ok, then we agree. I think.

But the f-word has more than one definition.

It does?