1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Christian Profanity

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Greektim, Mar 18, 2013.

?
  1. Absolutely Not!

    20 vote(s)
    57.1%
  2. Sometimes

    9 vote(s)
    25.7%
  3. Only some words at any time

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Only some words at certain times

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  5. Yes!

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  1. Michaelt

    Michaelt Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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:
     
  2. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    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.
     
  3. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    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:
     
  4. Michaelt

    Michaelt Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agreed. :)
     
  5. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,438
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Awww CRUD...I just clicked in to say that and find you stole my FREAKIN thought...
     
  6. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,030
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree as well.
     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Fear not, your grammar was fine.

    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.
    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.
    Okey dokey.
    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.
     
  11. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    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?
     
  12. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    :eek: I'm embarrassed. My apologies to Greektim.
     
  13. RLBosley

    RLBosley Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :D
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    Tom, that list made me giggle out loud. :laugh:
    Am I a heathen? :love2:

    Never heard of dear gussie! LOL
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  16. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  17. shodan

    shodan Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    13
    "Christian Profanity"...isn't that what they call an oxymoron???
     
  18. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    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?
     
  19. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Me thinks, that whatever proceedeth from thy mouth....

    ...should be checked at the heart! :wavey:
     
  20. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh........
     
Loading...