Featured Is "cussing" REALLY "cussing"?

I'm not sure what you mean, then. At what point would using taboo words be appropriate and lower one's stress level? When you're completely alone? When you are alone with your cussing friends?

Once in Japan I took my family to a very nice restaurant. Unfortunately, it was near the Yokosuka Naval Base, and three US sailors were at a nearby table, "cussing like sailors." I walked over and rebuked them, and they stopped some of it, but my family outing was ruined.

What he would probably use is "potty words," not cussing (unless by cussing you mean taboo words in general). Japanese don't "curse" or use a god's name in vain, as I've pointed out. (And he'd call the person who hit him a "---- fool!")

This should be a no-brainer for a Christian, and I don't know anyone in our church who would be more upset at the cussing than the injury. Helping the helpless is quite Biblical, and also, I have no right to expect an injured man to follow my social mores.

In Scripture, we have very clear commands about taking the Lord's name in vain, which are not limited to taboo word usage. (Some Christians use the name of the Lord carelessly and break the Decalogue without realizing it.) However, there are no specific commands to not use non-cursing taboo words, but we do have the positive command from Paul, "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man" (Col. 4:6). To me this eliminates all taboo words of any kind.

Again, we have verses like, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col 3:17). How a person could use taboo words in the name of the Lord I certainly don't know.

 

Still portraits of MacArthur--that's great! Their constitution is still called the "MacArthur Constitution," and he is greatly respected. There are probably Japanese who pray to his dead spirit, too!

I was traveling through Tokyo to teach in a Bible school the day after Hirohito died. At the Machida Train Station there was a little demo against the imperial system going on, with 3 or 4 Christians!

 

What's the intention of the word? You can speak words or make gestures that are obscene in some cultures but not in your own.
People can do similar things but for very different intentions.

 

Yes. That is what the thread is about.

Whenever someone speaks of Hell, they are using a taboo word. It is commonly considered a taboo word in many parts of the U.S.

So, if "Jesus" becomes a taboo word, should one stop using it?

Colossians 4:6 NLT
Let your conversation be gracious and attractive so that you will have the right response for everyone.

Of course I agree with this. Have I been cussing at you? (Except for Hell of course.)

Colossians 3:16-17 NLT
Let the message about Christ, in all its richness, fill your lives. Teach and counsel each other with all the wisdom he gives. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. [17] And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father.

Also, not pertinent to the current question. As I said before, if I were eating in a restaurant, I would use a knife and fork to eat my steak. While at home, I have no problems picking it up with my hands. Is eating a steak with one's hands inherently wrong?

I gave an example.

Refer to the eating steak example.

Of course some words I would avoid at all times due to the social stigma attached to them as well and their inherent derogatory meaning - such as the N-word. Several words for races, women, etc. are derogatory words by their nature and can attack entire races or sexes.

 

Yes, but the term "cussing" is ambiguous. I've been trying to distinguish on this thread the difference between a "curse" and simply "bad words." Also, taking God's name in vain is not a taboo word in common American society anymore, though it is among Christians.

I would say that taking God's name in vain is inherently sinful, since the Decalogue specifically forbids it, but social context determines whether most taboo words are sinful.

Comparison: killing someone for their cell phone is a terrible sin, but killing an intruder in your house to protect your family is a good deed.

Religion-related taboo words depend on context. They are not intrinsically taboo words, unlike the Japanese insult I've been bandying about here. This is true with both "Jesus" and "Hell."

To illustrate, I worked in a factory to put myself through Bible college, and other students worked there. One day a friend and I were discussing "damned" in Mark 16:16. A third Bible college student objected, even though it was Scripture, because in his newly saved context it was a taboo word. It took him back to his worldly life, so we stopped our discussion for his sake.

Um, no. But correct me if I'm wrong, this thread is to legitimize certain usages of taboo words, is it not?


Colossians 3:16-17 NLT
Let the message about Christ, in all its richness, fill your lives. Teach and counsel each other with all the wisdom he gives. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. [17] And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father.

Whoa, I couldn't get away with that one. My wife would be horrified. But inherently it is not a sin until there is someone else there it offends.

Tut, tut! You can't have it both ways. There is nothing inherently wrong in the racial terms you are mentioning. I understand that certain rap songs contain the "n word" as spoken from one African American to another, and no one is offended.

 

"Bad words" have been what I have been talking about and is the general discussion. In many of my other posts, I have referred to "cuss words". Going back to look it up, "cuss" isn't even listed as an adjective in Webster's so I can understand the misunderstanding. I would use "vulgar" except that is equally vague.

I'm talking about words which have been arbitrarily chosen by society to be unrespectable or forbidden.

For example, if I stubbed my toe and yelled "excrement" in pain, nobody would mind. But if I yelled the four letter word starting with "s", then I would get into trouble. The choice made in making one word respectable and the other word forbidden is completely arbitrary. Similar examples exist for other words.

This is not what I meant and I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. What if the world chose to make "Jesus" the equivalent of the "F-bomb"? The choices made by society regarding words is largely arbitrary and with just a little push they could make "Jesus" the next F-bomb.

Nothing more demonstrates how arbitrary this is than what you are discussing here.

Kendrick Lamar Corrects White Fan Rapping N-Word On Stage: Watch

The choices made by society are arbitrary and if one actually steps back and examines it rationally one will find that the choices made by society are actually quite silly.

The choices are complex in a manner you don't seem to understand. The "n word" even though used in songs is by Black people is still inherently demeaning. They won't use the "n-word" or "b-word" to refer to their mother unless they have a bad relationship with their mother. In proper Black society and in churches, you will not hear the "n-word".

No, I don't have to follow all the silly rules of the world and society. I am not bound by Satan. Biblical morals may at times coincide with the laws of society but that does not mean that I am bound by the laws of society.

In fact, the choice to take offense at certain words is trained and not inherent in our being. I do not have to be offended by certain words unless I want to be or am trained to be.

 

I agree with this except for the explanation of "arbitrarily." Words have both denotative and connotative meaning. The denotative meaning is learned through contemporary usage. The connotative meaning ls determined by different means, but is just as real and is not arbitrary, but based on its development in society, something studied in a field called sociolinguistics.

If it were arbitrary, people could simply decide something was a bad word, and everyone around would have to agree. For example, in Japan a young lady once told me that her teacher had taught them not to use the word gaijin (outside person) for foreigner, but gaikokujin (outside country person) was the proper term. So she asked me if gaijin offended me, and I told her no. In the teacher's mind it was offensive, but to us foreigners it was not. The teacher could not arbitrarily decide it was offensive based on semantic content. What was more important was the question, is the word used to denigrate foreigners.

The reason for a word being "bad" may seem arbitrary, but the development can be traced through historical linguistics.

Again, usage is important. The name of our blessed Savior is not used to denigrate. Furthermore, it is a name and not an action. In other words, it has no connection to functions which are considered "unclean." I see next to no possibility that the name Jesus will ever be considered a "bad word." The process by which a word becomes "bad" is just not there.

With all due respect, society is not alive and cannot make choices. It is people who make those choices. For obvious reasons based on white usage of the n-word being denigrating, black people in the past decided that it is a bad word for whites to say to blacks, but not for blacks to other blacks. I don't find that to be arbitrary.

I actually watched "Negro" turn into a "bad word" as I was growing up in the 1960's. I remember being confused when black people decided it was not a good word and we should call them "black." Nowadays the term seems to be "African American," but some blacks dispute that.

Please read your previous post again. You are the one who used the word "inherent," not me. I was pointing that out, however poorly I expressed it. Meanings, both denotative and connotative, are not inherent in words, which are only sounds.

And I said nothing about you having to "follow all the silly rules of the world and society." Don't know where you got that.

 

You know, thinking a little deeper about this though-provoking thread, it's part of a wider argument about social mores (pron. more-a's). A social more is an expectation from society about how one should act. It is not usually a moral question, and not necessarily wound up in religion, but it may be a matter of superstition, language (in this thread), or some kind of behavior.

Examples: in Japan when you turn down a gift, you have rejected the person. A Japanese businessman has been coming to our church when he visits the States about once a month. The second time he gave my wife and me a gift of "senbei," Japanese rice crackers (delicious!). This was an act designed to show he wants friendship. If we had turned it down it would have been very insulting. So we accepted the gift.

To apply that to this whole discussion of taboo language, if you are alone in your room and whisper a "bad word," it is not necessarily a sin per se. I would simply say it may be unwise, because if you get in a habit of using that bad word in private, it may slip out in public. I knew a famous preacher who grew up as a rough cowboy in Texas, and one day in speaking to a crowd at a ladies' meeting he said something like "You don't give a d---." Embarrassing, to say the least!