Christian Profanity

[Revmitchell]

It is not that you don't NEED to. It is that you CAN'T you can't apply this rule you are trying to force on me to ANY reasonable discussion of something that is considered to be sin.

You either HAVE Bible for it or you don't.

If you don't then you have no right to say it is sin.

You do not get to speak for God where God has not spoken.


Do you believe it is a sin to wear blue jeans.

I GUARANTEE YOU that you will not DARE go down this road because you know where it ends.

It ends showing you how stupid your argument is.

If I am wrong- try it.

Is it a sin to wear blue jeans?

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Regardless of whether or not the use of that kind of language is a sin your argument that is acceptable to God, up to this point, has been strictly made using fallacies.

In other words even if one agrees with you that an argument cannot be made that it is wrong, your arguments are still founded on fallacies. And through the use of my sources I have proven that whether you want to believe it or not.

 

[Luke2427]

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Regardless of whether or not the use of that kind of language is a sin your argument that is acceptable to God, up to this point, has been strictly made using fallacies.

What things that are not at all sin does God find unacceptable?

In other words even if one agrees with you that an argument cannot be made that it is wrong, your arguments are still founded on fallacies.

No. All fallacies do not apply to all arguments. Do you not know that?

For example, a jury is told that the accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty by the prosecution.

His innocence, by your thought that every fallacy applies to every argument, is built on FALLACIES.

EVEN IF HE IS INNOCENT your thinking says that his innocence is built on fallacies.

Now, three times you have avoided this question like the plague just as I predicted.

Do you believe wearing blue jeans is a sin?

And through the use of my sources I have proven that whether you want to believe it or not.

You have proven that you do not know how to employ the definitions of fallacies.

You have proven that you do not understand that not every fallacy is truly a fallacy in every argument.

That is all you have proven.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The term, "Christian Profanity" is an oxymoron!

Frankly when I hear someone using profanity I chalk it up to ignorance and a limited vocabulary.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The term, "Christian Profanity" is an oxymoron!

Frankly when I hear someone using profanity I chalk it up to ignorance and a limited vocabulary ... as well as no or little self-control.

 

[John of Japan]

The use of profanity is the trademark of those with a feeble mind and unable to express themselves with any dignity.

:thumbsup: Well said.

I'm reminded of the famous scene in Cyrano de Bergerac where an enemy tries to pick a fight with Cyrano in Act 1, so he insults his nose:"Monsieur, your nose... your nose is rather large." Cyrano mocks him with much more effective insults he could have used (with no taboo words):


"Oh, no, young sir. You are too simple. Why, you might have said a great many things. Why waste your opportunity? For example, thus:

• Aggressive: I, sir, if that nose were mine, I'd have it amputated on the spot.
• Practical: How do you drink with such a nose? You must have had a cup made especially.
• Descriptive: 'Tis a rock, a crag, a cape! A cape? Say rather, a peninsula!
• Inquisitive: What is that receptacle? A razor case or a portfolio?
• Kindly: Ah, do you love the little birds so much that when they come to see you, you give them this to perch on.
• Cautious: Take care! A weight like that might make you top-heavy.
• Eloquent: When it blows, the typhoon howls, and the clouds darken!
• Dramatic: When it bleeds, the Red Sea.
• Simple: When do they unveil the monument?
• Military: Beware, a secret weapon.
• Enterprising: What a sign for some perfumer!
• Respectful: Sir, I recognize in you a man of parts. A man of... prominence! Or...
• Literary: Was this the nose that launched a thousand ships?

They then have a sword fight as Cyrano composes a poem, with "Thrust home" as the last line--which Cyrano then does.

 

[Greektim]

Wow.... a 50/50 split. Nice!

Let me say for those arguing for ignorance/lack of vocabulary that I find that to be skubalon mosxou. Certain occasions call for a verbose and loquacious philology to avoid the appearance of ignorance. However, other occasions call for a short yet highly emotive saying that gets to the point fast and firm. I find profanity at certain times to do just that.

Those arguing for a lack of self control, I have already given an example above where it was methodical and not said in anger. So that is moot because not every case is banging a hammer on a thumb and dropping f-bombs out of rage or pain.

Lastly, we have to recognize that even the few Bible passages that speak to the issue of filthy communication (or whatever you prefer in translation there), these words are culturally and socially guided. In essence, to say that s**t is a "bad word" is not because the Bible says so but because culture the last 200 years (or so) has said it was. However, the culture is less dogmatic (may be a good thing or bad) on that issue and so must we since it is determined by the modern sociology of the thing.

 

[John of Japan]

Wow.... a 50/50 split. Nice!

Let me say for those arguing for ignorance/lack of vocabulary that I find that to be skubalon mosxou. Certain occasions call for a verbose and loquacious philology to avoid the appearance of ignorance. However, other occasions call for a short yet highly emotive saying that gets to the point fast and firm. I find profanity at certain times to do just that.

I find you to be crude and unimpressive in your Greek here. You have created an archaism by trying to transplant a taboo English idiom into Koine Greek.

Lastly, we have to recognize that even the few Bible passages that speak to the issue of filthy communication (or whatever you prefer in translation there), these words are culturally and socially guided. In essence, to say that s**t is a "bad word" is not because the Bible says so but because culture the last 200 years (or so) has said it was. However, the culture is less dogmatic (may be a good thing or bad) on that issue and so must we since it is determined by the modern sociology of the thing.

You are correct in that taboo language is driven by culture. But that doesn't give us spiritual license to use it. I once saw a Japanese commercial with two cute little boys using a certain word. I then used it in a sermon, because how could it be taboo with cute little boys using it right there on TV? Afterwords a mature Japanese believer rebuked me for using inappropriate language. She was offended, and rightly so. I never again used that word in any situation.

Every time you swear, you will offend not just believers, but unbelievers who didn't know Christians talked like that. The office of pastor/preacher, called by God, is so sacred, that surely we who hold it should speak with dignity and circumspection. If it is doubtful, don't.

How can you excuse swearing for a Christian in the light of this? "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Swearing an potty words are not gracious speech, in any language.

By the way, you haven't yet interacted with my discussion of the semantics of skubalon. I'm sure you know Greek well enough to do so.

P. S. What is this "to avoid the appearance of ignorance"? How is that a proper motive for any type of speech whatsoever?

 

[salzer mtn]

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.

 

[Greektim]

I find you to be crude and unimpressive in your Greek here. You have created an archaism by trying to transplant a taboo English idiom into Koine Greek.

You are correct in that taboo language is driven by culture. But that doesn't give us spiritual license to use it. I once saw a Japanese commercial with two cute little boys using a certain word. I then used it in a sermon, because how could it be taboo with cute little boys using it right there on TV? Afterwords a mature Japanese believer rebuked me for using inappropriate language. She was offended, and rightly so. I never again used that word in any situation.

Every time you swear, you will offend not just believers, but unbelievers who didn't know Christians talked like that. The office of pastor/preacher, called by God, is so sacred, that surely we who hold it should speak with dignity and circumspection. If it is doubtful, don't.

How can you excuse swearing for a Christian in the light of this? "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Swearing an potty words are not gracious speech, in any language.

By the way, you haven't yet interacted with my discussion of the semantics of skubalon. I'm sure you know Greek well enough to do so.

P. S. What is this "to avoid the appearance of ignorance"? How is that a proper motive for any type of speech whatsoever?

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???)

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Greektim]

The view expressed by several here that skubalon, translated "dung" in Phil 3:8 is analogous to the "s word" in English is linguistically lazy. Even some simple research done with elementary Bible software disproves the idea.

First of all, the word only occurs that once in the NT, but it also occurs in the Apocrypha in Sirach 27:4, where it is used to refer to what is left after something is sifted through a sieve--obviously not dung, and obviously not a taboo word! Indeed any Greek-English dictionary or lexicon, easily accessible by any of you, will give meanings for skubalon which have nothing to do with the English "s word", such as in Anlex (accessed through Bibloi software: "anything that is to be treated as worthless and thrown out, translated according to the context dung, rubbish, garbage, offscourings." This is clearly not the same as the English "s word."

Even Thayer's (being obsolete, not used by pros, but available through the free e-Sword) says, "1) any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs 1a) of things worthless and detestable"

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Apostle Paul used words which are called "taboo" in linguistics, naughty words, swear words. His style of Greek was educated, formal and difficult. If he never used taboo words elsewhere, why in the world would he use one when talking about the "excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord," which is light years away from the circumstance in which Greektim says he would use the "s word"??? Skubalon in Phil. 3:8 is very clearly not a swear word, not a taboo word. Anyone who uses Paul in this verse to excuse using English taboo words is just looking for an excuse to be vulgar.

"Slang regularly transgresses other social norms, making free use of taboo expressions. The use of words like ... 's***' in public media has become a mark of liberation or a sign of revolt, depending on one's point of view" (Sociolinguistics, by Bernard Spolsky, 1998 p. 36).

Why avoid taboo words? To me they are a sign of weakness of expression. There is always a better, more effective way to communicate than using swear words, taboo words. "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man" (Col. 4:6).

Edited in: the normal Koine Greek word for fecal matter was kopros, not skubalon, and Paul never used this word, though it appears 11 times im the LXX. The word skubalon had a much wider meaning than "dung," but taboo words usually have a narrow range of core meaning, though contemporary usage (the range of insult intended, for example) may be wide.

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

The word here translated “dung” was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.

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.

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."

 

[Amy.G]

In all translations I checked, the word skubalon is translated "loss". Where did this idea come from that it means fecal matter?

 

[convicted1]

In all translations I checked, the word skubalon is translated "loss". Where did this idea come from that it means fecal matter?

Well, do you keep your fecal matter, or lose it when you flush? LOL :tongue3:

 

[convicted1]

I honestly don't think that the words "s" "d" "h", etc are cuss words as pertaining to the scriptures. But it does shed a negative light to those who are on the outside, and will offend our fellow believers. Shedding light upon the lost is hard enough without giving them something that they can "cover their mouth with one hand, and point at us with the other", imo.

 

[Amy.G]

Well, do you keep your fecal matter, or lose it when you flush? LOL :tongue3:

Not gonna go there brother. :laugh:

 

[convicted1]

Not gonna go there brother. :laugh:

 

[Arbo]

I honestly don't think that the words "s" "d" "h", etc are cuss words as pertaining to the scriptures. But it does shed a negative light to those who are on the outside, and will offend our fellow believers. Shedding light upon the lost is hard enough without giving them something that they can "cover their mouth with one hand, and point at us with the other", imo.

:thumbs: I wonder how many who are outside the Faith have discounted it because of the language of some Christians. Most don't care about Greek translations or drawn-out arguments about what is or is not included on the list of Biblically approved words. People have a sense of what is acceptable speech and what is not.

It seems sad to me, especially with the Scripture pointed out, that some here continue to justify the use of profanity.

 

[Greektim]

In all translations I checked, the word skubalon is translated "loss". Where did this idea come from that it means fecal matter?

Are you sure you are looking at the right word??? Skubalon comes at the end of the sentence. Geneva used dung. KJV used dung. NET used dung. RV used dung. NIV went w/ garbage. NASB & ESV used rubbish. HCSB used filth. My guess is that some more modern translations avoided such a detestable idea and opted for garbage or trash (or the idea at least).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

:thumbs: I wonder how many who are outside the Faith have discounted it because of the language of some Christians.

My honest guess would be Zero. The "hypocrisy escuse" is just that usually, an excuse IMO. These same people of whom you speak would find another excuse as soon as we rob them of the hypocrisy one. That's just a personal observation on my part...I simply don't usually buy it.

 

[Greektim]

I honestly don't think that the words "s" "d" "h", etc are cuss words as pertaining to the scriptures. But it does shed a negative light to those who are on the outside, and will offend our fellow believers. Shedding light upon the lost is hard enough without giving them something that they can "cover their mouth with one hand, and point at us with the other", imo.

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.

 

[Amy.G]

Are you sure you are looking at the right word??? Skubalon comes at the end of the sentence. Geneva used dung. KJV used dung. NET used dung. RV used dung. NIV went w/ garbage. NASB & ESV used rubbish. HCSB used filth. My guess is that some more modern translations avoided such a detestable idea and opted for garbage or trash (or the idea at least).

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