Christian Profanity

[Michaelt]

The poll question is skewed.

"Can Christians cuss"?

Of course they can!

Should Christians cuss?

that would be the better question, would it not?? LOL

what is interesting is that it has led to 11 pages of discussion... :BangHead:

 

[convicted1]

The poll question is skewed.

"Can Christians cuss"?

Of course they can!

Should Christians cuss?

that would be the better question, would it not?? LOL

what is interesting is that it has led to 11 pages of discussion... :BangHead:

My mom told me that grandma(her mommy) used to say people who cuss don't have enough sense to say something else. I think that sums it up nicely and precisely.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It amazes me that we have people on here who are advocating that its pefectly fine for christians, who are of the Light, to have a sewer mouth. :tear:

 

[Michaelt]

It amazes me that we have people on here who are advocating that its pefectly fine for christians, who are of the Light, to have a sewer mouth. :tear:

Agreed.

 

[Benjamin]

The poll question is skewed.

"Can Christians cuss"?

Of course they can!

Should Christians cuss?

that would be the better question, would it not?? LOL

Awww CRUD...I just clicked in to say that and find you stole my FREAKIN thought...

 

[MB]

It amazes me that we have people on here who are advocating that its pefectly fine for christians, who are of the Light, to have a sewer mouth. :tear:

Why not dig a little deeper you might find something else to judge others on. Of course you have the right because you never sin.
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

It amazes me that we have people on here who are advocating that its pefectly fine for christians, who are of the Light, to have a sewer mouth. :tear:

I agree as well.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm looking at Phil 3:8.

Niv: What is more, I consider everything a loss

ESV: Indeed, I count everything as loss

NASB: More than that, I count all things to be loss

RSV: Indeed I count everything as loss

ASV: Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss

YLT: yes, indeed, and I count all things to be loss

Darby: But surely I count also all things to be loss

WEB: Yes doubtless, and I count all things [to be] loss

HNV: Yes most assuredly, and I count all things to be loss


Blue Letter Bible

Amy, you're looking at the beginning of the verse. Check the very end of the verse:

NIV: rubbish
HCSV: filth
NKJV: rubbish
TEV: garbage
ESV: rubbish

 

[John of Japan]

What about the word bloody which the British people consider a vulgar word, which has no vulgar meaning in America. In TN. a lot of people own hunting dogs. If i was to call my neighbor up on the telephone and make a statement, you have a bunch of bloody dogs out in your kennel, he would probably drop the phone and rush out to see if his dogs had been in a fight. If i made that same statement in England i would probably get cussed out. So i guess the point is, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Exactly. As I said to Greektim, taboo words are culturally related. So when I once had a bit part in a Shakespearean play, I was surprised to find various British swear words kept in the script and said by the Christians acting the parts. Fortunately someone got wise and fixed the problem before the performance.

In Japan it is polite to bow. In Bangladesh they place their hands over their heart. So in those countries the visitor should do as they do. If it is not normal to shake hands in a country, why do so? Likewise, since these words in question are taboo words in America, why would a Christian use them?

 

[John of Japan]

I am going through Buth's Greek grammar, so this is partly the prompt to take 21st century terms and put them back into Greek. But the living language method is for another discussion. (if my grammar was wrong, you mind pointing it out to me???)

Fear not, your grammar was fine.

As for your situation, you must trust that I am being wise as a serpent when I use that kind of language. In certain companies where I know it will be taken negatively, I avoid it. And the whole argument about "unbelievers who didn't know Christians talked like that" is faulty because we have put believers on a pedestal that is not realistic nor practical. The person in my example knows Christians and was quite impressed that I was willing to forcefully make my point in such a way.

I've not made the argument that lost people might be turned away from Christ but a Christian's use of taboo words, but I do believe it is possible, so why risk it?

As for Christians being on a pedestal, God's standard is not a pedestal. It is perfection. We are to do "all things for the glory of God," and I fail to see how a potty mouth can be for God's glory.

I'm glad the person in your example did not take offense, but how did you know ahead of time that would be so? How can you determine which lost person would take offense and who would not? That's very subjective, and taking a chance with your testimony, IMO.

As far as speech seasoned with salt, it is the equivalent of faithful are the wounds of friends. Some times speaking the truth in love means you use language that has a kick to it. And gracious speech does not automatically equal the avoidance of terms considered uncouth.

To me the operative phrase from Col. 4:6 is not the salt reference but "Let your speech always be with grace." For the life of me, I fail to see how potty language is gracious speech.

As for the discussion on skubalon, I didn't even realize you had mentioned something in the other thread. I'll look at it at my first chance.

Okey dokey.

As to your ps, one of the arguments used was the concept of profanity being used because of the presence of ignorance or lack of vocabulary. That's all, just answering a critique that was in my estimation quite weak.

I've not used the word ignorance. I don't think people use taboo words because of ignorance. They use them for the shock value. But I don't think the shock value outweighs the thought-producing value of more sophisticated, non-taboo language.

 

[Tom Butler]

Should believers use such expressions as:

darn
gosh darn
goldang
dern
dag-nabbit
well, shoot
Oh, crud
oh my goodness
goodness gracious
dear gussie
I don't give a hoot
That's a crock of hooey
you're full of prunes

Now, in each of these, I've sugar-coated the words that might offend. Is it okay to sugar-coat or use acceptable substitutes?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, you're looking at the beginning of the verse. Check the very end of the verse:

NIV: rubbish
HCSV: filth
NKJV: rubbish
TEV: garbage
ESV: rubbish

I'm embarrassed. My apologies to Greektim.

 

[RLBosley]

Should believers use such expressions as:

darn
gosh darn
goldang
dern
dag-nabbit
well, shoot
Oh, crud
oh my goodness
goodness gracious
dear gussie
I don't give a hoot
That's a crock of hooey
you're full of prunes

Now, in each of these, I've sugar-coated the words that might offend. Is it okay to sugar-coat or use acceptable substitutes?

I've bolded two above because I personally have a problem with these "sugarcoats."
"gosh" is derived from God and therefore if used in the right (wrong?) context I consider it a form of blasphemy.
"oh my goodness" makes no sense because we have no goodness.

Just my nitpicks with the sugarcoats. Carry on

 

[Amy.G]

Should believers use such expressions as:

darn
gosh darn
goldang
dern
dag-nabbit
well, shoot
Oh, crud
oh my goodness
goodness gracious
dear gussie
I don't give a hoot
That's a crock of hooey
you're full of prunes

Now, in each of these, I've sugar-coated the words that might offend. Is it okay to sugar-coat or use acceptable substitutes?

Tom, that list made me giggle out loud. :laugh:
Am I a heathen? :love2:

Never heard of dear gussie! LOL

 

[John of Japan]

Apparently, the folks over at the NET Bible disagree with you.

Yes, but they give no basis for their opinion. There is nothing in 1st century literature that I've been able to find that makes skubalon a taboo word.

Furthermore, if they think skubalon is a taboo word, they did not indicate it in their translation. Dung is not a taboo word. People use it all the time with no one objecting. And using the word "dung" metaphorically has impact without the stigma of the "s word." I would have no ethical problem saying to someone, "What you are saying is dung." It has all the impact of the "s word" without the stigma.

While they don't go far as to say it is the equivalent for the s word in English, the s word the way I used it had shock value, and so I find an equivalence there.

The problem with your analysis and that of the NET is that you are not translating by context. There is nothing in the context to support "dung," though I don't look at "dung" as a mistaken translation because it is a perfectly acceptable English word, not a taboo word.

If I remember, you don't have access to your library where you are. So let me fill you in with some lexical definitions.

Fribergs' Anlex (my favorite): "anything that is to be treated as worthless and thrown out, translated according to the context dung, rubbish, garbage, offscouring."

BAGD: "refuse, rubbish, leavings, dirt, dung." It then gives the plural ta skubala as "specif. of human excrament." Note that Phil. 3:8 does not have the article, so to me it's a stretch to make it have to mean "dung."

Abbot-Smith: "refuse, especially dung"

Middle Liddell: "dung, filth, refuse"

So, there is no evidence that the word must be translated "dung," and every evidence that "trash" or "rubbish" is an excellent translation.

And I disagree w/ ur interpretation of Sir 27:4. It is a comparison between the refuse left over from a sieve with the "man's dung in his speech."

You're right, I messed up by not looking at the Greek. But there is still nothing in the context to say that "dung" is to be preferred over "trash."

My conclusion: Until you can prove that skubalon was a taboo word in 1st century Greek, you have no basis in lexical semantics to compare it to the "s word" in modern English. "Dung"? Yes. "S***"? No way.

And you certainly have no Biblical basis to excuse a Christian having a potty mouth.

 

[saturneptune]

JofJ,
Great post. I cannot believe someone would try and prove first century church leaders cursed. Whether they did or did not, it is still wrong for us. Not only does is violate several verses I listed, it shows someone with a limited vocabulary and mind.

 

[shodan]

"Christian Profanity"...isn't that what they call an oxymoron???

 

[convicted1]

The kind of people I would use the kind of words being talked about are with people who see this as an amoral issue. They wouldn't cover their mouth up b/c they don't think of language in that way. And again, w/ believers, I would choose my company wisely when using those words. But a mature believer or one who is in agreement with me, I would have no problem using that kind of language.

Now, if you have to choose a certain company of people before you would use certain words, shouldn't that tell you something right there? The words we speak, we should be able to say them in front of anyone, whether they be saint or sinner, no?

 

[righteousdude2]

Me thinks, that whatever proceedeth from thy mouth....

...should be checked at the heart! :wavey:

 

[convicted1]

...should be checked at the heart! :wavey:

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh........