Is "cussing" REALLY "cussing"?

[MartyF]

Ephesians 4:29 comes to mind, ". . . Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, . . ." With that Jesus warning, ". . . for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. . . ." -- Matthew 12:34. And then James wrote, ". . . For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. . . ." -- James 3:2. And with that brings to mind Proverbs 16:3, ". . . Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established. . . ." And what Paul wrote the Colossian church, ". . . And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; . . ." -- Colossians 3:23. And the Philippian church, ". . . brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. . . ." -- Philippians 4:8.

Ephesians 4:29

This one takes a little while longer to explain but λόγος is mistranslated "word" here when the context from Paul's letters shows that this is more likely to be "statement" or "speech". It's not specific words he is warning against but what the words communicate.

Matthew 12:34

Jesus is not responding to the Pharisees' "cuss words". A simple reading in context shows that this passage has absolutely nothing to do with "cuss words". This is what Jesus was responding to . . .

Matthew 12:24 NLT
But when the Pharisees heard about the miracle, they said, “No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons.”

James 3:2

I won't quote all twelve verses, but if one reads this verse in context, it has nothing to do with "cuss words". the following verse puts it in better context.

James 3:9 NLT
Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father, and sometimes it curses those who have been made in the image of God.

Not every non-"cuss word" said praises God. And the worst curses against other people use no "cuss words". This passage is about uplifting others as oppose to damaging or hurting others with speech or communication.

Proverbs 16:3 NLT
Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed.

Colossians 3:23 NLT
Work willingly at whatever you do, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people.

Philippians 4:8 NLT
And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise.

These passages have nothing to do with "cuss words". Now, you didn't say why you posted these passages, so if I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.

I'm not saying that one should cuss as much as possible. What I am saying is that the Bible's standards are different from that of the world. Where the world judges speech from the viewpoint of which exact words are being used, the Bible judges words from the context of what damage the words cause and with what spirit the words were expressed.

(Added color to help with reading.)

 

[GoodTidings]

I have found nothing in the Bible to support the idea that those who follow Jesus should not use “cuss words”.

Some of the most harmful speech I have heard has not used a single “cuss word”. The absolute taboo of “cuss words” in churches demonstrates how syncretism can influence the morality taught by churches as well as influence translations themselves.

It is a sin if it hurts your witness. And cussing hurts your witness with the world.

 

[Hollow Man]

I've been watching Outlander. For the record, it's a great show, but there is a LOT of stuff in it Christians should not be watching. I know I probably shouldn't be watching it, but that's for another thread.

One of the things about it I thought was interesting was when she started using the "F" word and had to explain to Jamie what the word meant, and then Jamie tried to use the word, only to keep using it wrong. It was a bit anachronistic, since, as the OP said, the word has actually been around a very long time.

I was once given detention in school for using a word that's very common now. I never thought of it as having any sexual connotations and when I went home and told my mother what happened, she was surprised, because she had never thought of that word having sexual connotations.

Now, I hear it a thousand times a day.

 

[MartyF]

It is a sin if it hurts your witness. And cussing hurts your witness with the world.

Am I a witness for the proper morality of this world or am I a witness for Jesus?

Not being circumcised hurt the "witness" of Christians to Jews. It was a big hanging point. So, why didn't all Christians get circumcised to help their witness to the Jews? It is because they were witnesses for Jesus - not Jewish or other morality.

As has been shown already in the OP and also in replies, human beings and society - not Jesus decides which words are "cuss words" and which ones aren't.

When society decides "Jesus" is a "cuss word", will you oblige the world and stop using the word in order to help your "witness"?

Paul was arrested and this "hurt" his witness as people abandoned him. Does this mean what he did was wrong? Paul committed a crime so heinous to the world, he was executed for it.

If you tell everyone to not use "cuss words" through word and practice, you are witnessing for the proper morality of the world - not Jesus.

That being said, saying things for the sole purpose of offending someone else would be wrong and I would avoid cuss words to avoid offending others - not because it is inherently wrong. Using my hands to eat a steak is not wrong, but if I'm in a restaurant, I'll use a knife and fork so I won't offend others. Saying that not using a knife and fork is disobeying God is wrong.

1 Corinthians 10:33 NLT
I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved.

 

[Roy]

J. Vernon McGee commented on Peter's cursing when he denied Christ for the third time. Dr. McGee equated Peter's cursing with cussing and said that it worked for Peter to help convince people that he did not know Jesus and cussing works even today, if we want to convince people that we don't know the Savior.

BTW, when Jesus said "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay," do you suppose that the folks in that day had a habit of saying "H-yea!" or "H-no!"?

 

[MartyF]

J. Vernon McGee commented on Peter's cursing when he denied Christ for the third time. Dr. McGee equated Peter's cursing with cussing and said that it worked for Peter to help convince people that he did not know Jesus and cussing works even today, if we want to convince people that we don't know the Savior.

BTW, when Jesus said "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay," do you suppose that the folks in that day had a habit of saying "H-yea!" or "H-no!"?

The cursing involved in this passage is a self curse such as "Cross my heart. Hope to Die. Stick a finger in my eye." Once again this passage has nothing to do with "cuss words".

The equivalence is false as are most Presbyterian beliefs.

 

[robycop3]

I think your history of "bloody" as a cuss word is incorrect. I've always thought it was a denigration of Jesus' bleeding on the cross.

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

Igot my intel about "bloody" from some British acquaintances. Several didn't know or care, while a coupla others happened to have found out why, as when they came to the US, they saw the word in common use. Aslo, please read the Wiki link Salty posted above.

Also the use of "death to you" or "a pox on you" isn't cussing so much as it is putting a curse on you or your family.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

I was referring to PAST use, several centuries ago. As we all know, "the times, they are a'changin' "

 

[GoodTidings]

Am I a witness for the proper morality of this world or am I a witness for Jesus?

Part of being a witness for Jesus is having clean language. If you are going to act and talk like the world, if there is no difference, no change, then why do they need to get saved? If it's all subjective, as you suggest then why not tell dirty jokes since you're not a "witness for proper morality?"

Our witness is supposed to glorify God. Cussing detracts from God's glory. Cuss words, dirty jokes all of that hurts our witness for Jesus. Whenever someone in the world says, "I didn't think Christians were supposed to talk like that," we detract from God's glory AND we harm our witness as a result.

[/quote]Not being circumcised hurt the "witness" of Christians to Jews. It was a big hanging point. So, why didn't all Christians get circumcised to help their witness to the Jews? It is because they were witnesses for Jesus - not Jewish or other morality.[/quote]
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that not being circumcised was poor witness of Christians to Jews. So that is not a valid argument.

As has been shown already in the OP and also in replies, human beings and society - not Jesus decides which words are "cuss words" and which ones aren't.

You're missing the point, though. If society decides which words constitute profanity, then shouldn't we seek to stay separate from the world and not use those words? Regardless of which words are deemed to be profane, shouldn't seek then to not use those profane words in an effort to remain separate from the world's system so that they notice a difference?

If someone gets saved shouldn't they stop cussing along with other bad habits and practices?

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" Colosians 3:8-10

When society decides "Jesus" is a "cuss word", will you oblige the world and stop using the word in order to help your "witness"?

Society already uses Jesus as a cuss word all of the time. But that is in a different category because it is taking the Lord's Name in vain. I can use the Name of Jesus in a reverent manner and I can honor His Name. I don't take His Name in vain as the world does. I cannot use profanity in a God-honoring manner. So, the comparison you are making is not valid.

Paul was arrested and this "hurt" his witness as people abandoned him. Does this mean what he did was wrong? Paul committed a crime so heinous to the world, he was executed for it.

It didn't hurt Paul's witness at all. The only people Paul's imprisonment offended were the false apostles who were his enemies. Paul's imprisonment, far from being a bad witness gave Paul an additional theater of ministry and the Bible tells us that Paul's witness for Christ in a Roman prison was bearing fruit and had penetrated right into Caesar's own household. People in Caesar's household were getting saved. Paul's witness for Christ was blooming in amazing ways.

If you tell everyone to not use "cuss words" through word and practice, you are witnessing for the proper morality of the world - not Jesus.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Clean language is part of our witness for Jesus.

That being said, saying things for the sole purpose of offending someone else would be wrong and I would avoid cuss words to avoid offending others - not because it is inherently wrong. Using my hands to eat a steak is not wrong, but if I'm in a restaurant, I'll use a knife and fork so I won't offend others. Saying that not using a knife and fork is disobeying God is wrong.

1 Corinthians 10:33 NLT
I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved.

Eating steak with your hands is bad manners, not necessarily morally offensive. You are comparing a moral issue with an issue of conscience. We should use clean language to glorify God, not simply to avoid offending other people. God is not glorified, He is not honored when we us profanity. And if it tarnishes our witness, it is wrong to do, inherently wrong, at that. It is inherently wrong to do anything that hurts our walk with God and offends others in the process. I am hurting my walk with God if my poor speech is offending others, especially if it causes other Christians to stumble.

And I suppose it really depends on what you want to be accountable for when you stand before the Lord.

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:34-36

Too often in our modern Christian world, we are seeking to determine how far we can go before something is a "sin." That is the wrong perspective. We should be striving to see how far away from sin we can possibly get. We should not let anything into our lives that even looks like it could tarnish our Christian walk in any way.

That means if something is questionable, if there is a chance it could harm our walk with the Lord, we should avoid it. We are supposed to flee from sin and avoid all appearance of evil. That's the standard we should be endeavoring to live up to.

 

[1689Dave]

Cussing is a substitute for thinking. It takes brains to think of the right word on time. It also reflects hatred and animosity towards others. In view of this, people still cuss and reflect these attitudes using "sanitized" cuss words. "Judas Priest", "Gosh darnit" etc.

 

[Van]

As everyone can see that is not what I said. Inappropriate language and "cuss words" are two different things. Inappropriate language is far more vague and includes "Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes". "cuss words" are not these.

If you say so.

 

[Reynolds]

Virtually all obscene or profane words, phrases, & terms in American English were once in common, every day usage as non-onscene, with the exception, of course, of using God's names or titles wrongly. Even the "F-Bomb" was in everyday language, meaning "to pierce", with no sexual connotations. For example, the kestrel, one of the few birds that can fly against a stout wind, was called the "windpiercer, with the F-word in place of "-piercer". (This was in the Middle English of the 11 & 1200s AD.) The vulgar word for "feces" was in common use as such from the 1300s to the end of the 1500s. After that, it was taboo in British print.

Otoh, the word "bloody", still in everyday use in the USA, became highly-offensive to British because it referred to "young bloods", rowdy young aristocrats much-disliked by most commoners. Seems it became offensive to British C. 1676 AD. And "back in the day, the use of the words "death, die(to cease living), devil, a pox upon thee", etc. were considered obscene.

A word that's hovered between common & vulgar for a long time is "piss". When the KJV was made, it was common usage for "urine, to urinate". It came from Old French pissier, "to urinate". It's been replaced in newer English Bible versions with "urinate".

The word "jazz" used to be used only for scatology pertaining to semen, and mostly by blacks. They also commonly used it for "stuff, a variety of things", or something they had no name for, such as the first jazz music, mostly played by whites. They started saying, "Listen to that jazz", & soon everyone began calling that music "jazz" & it became everyday usage.

Once,in HS, we were asked to name a power we'd like to have that was real, or close to it. (Nothing such as Superman's powers was allowed.) I wrote, "the power to make a common word into a cussword, and/or the power to make a cussword acceptible for everyday use." (Got an "A" on my paper!)

Now, while I won't use language considered obscene in American English, as it's considered by most to be very un-Christian, I wonder if otherwise such words are actually sinful?

(BTW, "cussing" was a hard habit for me to break after 4 years in the Navy, where almost-all English-speaking sailors I was ever around "cussed like sailors". This included British, Canadians, many English-speaking Japanese & South Koreans, Australians, New Zealanders & English-speaking French. It took the HOLY SPIRIT'S power to free me from that habit.)

Using God's name in vain is the only cussing I recognize.

 

[Gorship]

Just going to post in here to get the updates to my feed.

This is a topic I really struggle with.

 

[robycop3]

As I think about it, I believe "cussing" is dictated by the time/place, as are the appropriateness of many other actions. For instance, I don't hesitate to use the word "bloody" here in the US, but if I were to visit Britain, I'd take pains to not use it. Or, if I were a missionary on Bunga Bunga Island where the natives generally went naked, I'd retain my own clothes, and I'd show them the story of Adam & Eve that, after eating the forbidden fruit & knowing good from evil, believed their nakedness was evil & covered themselves with fig leaves.

Thus, it was with our ancestors. The words damn, hell, & piss, now considered vulgar in many usages, were everyday words, found in the KJV and older English Bible translations.And there were quite a few terms & expressions that were names for body parts, functions, & sexual activities that were in vulgar use then, but have fallen outta usage over the years, with few people nowadays having ever heard of them. And we must credit (or blame) Queen Victoria for making many words into vulgar usage. While she had little more actual power than QE2 has today, she was so beloved by her subjects that they hung on her every word. If she said a certain word wasn't polite, it became scatology overnight.

But again, I believe we should go by the current trend. If certain words or expressions are considered vulgar in the society in which we live, we should avoid using them so as to set and maintain a Christian example.

 

[GoodTidings]

But again, I believe we should go by the current trend. If certain words or expressions are considered vulgar in the society in which we live, we should avoid using them so as to set and maintain a Christian example.

That's where I am at on all of this. If it diminishes our testimony for Christ, then we should avoid it. Words invoke images and if we are invoking vulgar images, it should be something for us to avoid.

 

[GaoLu]

I am pretty sure that most Christians with even a short walk with God have a very good idea of whether or not God is honored by their words. I work in many cultures and find this almost universally true around the world in many languages. English seems to be the only language I have encountered with any disputation on this matter.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting thread. I'd like to comment.

First of all, there are two words in Mark 14:71, "curse" and "swear." The word "curse" refers to taking an oath of some kind, referencing God. It only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Acts 23, where enemies of Paul took an oath--"May God kill us if we don't kill Paul first," or something like that.

The second word, "swear," refers to taking an oath on something, as in, "I swear by the stars above." It occurs many times in the NT, and is forbidden by Christ in Matt. 5:33-36. Only God can righteously do this, as taught in Heb. 6:13, etc.

There is a third Greek word in Matt. 26:74 referring to Peter's words ("curse"), katanathematizo. It occurs only here in the NT, and simply means "curse," according to several lexicons I checked. I think this is the closest to what we call a "bad word." In linguistics we call this a "taboo word," defined as: "A word known to speakes but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc." (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 400).

There is only one word in all of the NT accused of being a taboo word. Daniel Wallace thinks skubalon, occurring only in Phil. 3:8, is "slang" (taboo) at: A Brief Word Study on Σκύβαλον | Bible.org.

However, the research I've done shows that the word was used as a medical term in the 1st century--hardly a word your mother would wash your mouth out for. It can be translated "dung" (KJV), or "excrement," or something similar: smells bad, need to throw it out, but not a bad word. In fact, I don't know why Paul would use a taboo word when he was the one who wrote in Col. 4:6, "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." I think that verse forbids us from using taboo words. (And why would we want to watch a TV show or movie that fills our minds with them?)

A taboo word is often about bodily functions, but not always. It is simply a word that polite, refined society frowns on. In Japan I once used an almost meaningless particle in a sermon, and a good church lady rebuked me. I had heard it used in a TV commercial by a little boy--so what could go wrong? The word was simply used for emphasis, having no real lexical meaning, but polite society in Japan doesn't use it. (Look at the first meaning given here: ぜ - Jisho.org)

The absolute worst thing you can call someone in Japanese--if you want a fight, go ahead--translates into English as, "You foolish country bumpkin!"

 

[robycop3]

Interesting thread. I'd like to comment.

First of all, there are two words in Mark 14:71, "curse" and "swear." The word "curse" refers to taking an oath of some kind, referencing God. It only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Acts 23, where enemies of Paul took an oath--"May God kill us if we don't kill Paul first," or something like that.

The second word, "swear," refers to taking an oath on something, as in, "I swear by the stars above." It occurs many times in the NT, and is forbidden by Christ in Matt. 5:33-36. Only God can righteously do this, as taught in Heb. 6:13, etc.

There is a third Greek word in Matt. 26:74 referring to Peter's words ("curse"), katanathematizo. It occurs only here in the NT, and simply means "curse," according to several lexicons I checked. I think this is the closest to what we call a "bad word." In linguistics we call this a "taboo word," defined as: "A word known to speakes but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc." (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 400).

There is only one word in all of the NT accused of being a taboo word. Daniel Wallace thinks skubalon, occurring only in Phil. 3:8, is "slang" (taboo) at: A Brief Word Study on Σκύβαλον | Bible.org.

However, the research I've done shows that the word was used as a medical term in the 1st century--hardly a word your mother would wash your mouth out for. It can be translated "dung" (KJV), or "excrement," or something similar: smells bad, need to throw it out, but not a bad word. In fact, I don't know why Paul would use a taboo word when he was the one who wrote in Col. 4:6, "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." I think that verse forbids us from using taboo words. (And why would we want to watch a TV show or movie that fills our minds with them?)

A taboo word is often about bodily functions, but not always. It is simply a word that polite, refined society frowns on. In Japan I once used an almost meaningless particle in a sermon, and a good church lady rebuked me. I had heard it used in a TV commercial by a little boy--so what could go wrong? The word was simply used for emphasis, having no real lexical meaning, but polite society in Japan doesn't use it. (Look at the first meaning given here: ぜ - Jisho.org)

The absolute worst thing you can call someone in Japanese--if you want a fight, go ahead--translates into English as, "You foolish country bumpkin!"

While in Tokyo in the USN, a Japanese man told me that, while taking English lessons, he was told of certain words that English speakers use that were considered "bad words" & shouldn't be used. He was surprised at the meanings of most of them, as he said that the words for body parts , functions, & sex acts were all everyday speech in Japanese, with most of these things having only one name in Japanese. He said to "cuss" someone, a Japanese might say "May a diseased false holy man relieve himself on your ancestor's grave" or equivalent. He said, during WW2, japanese usually called Americans "beasts" or "devils".

WE did something likewise. Japan had a bomber-borne manned suicide rocket calleds "Okha"(Yokosuka MXY-7) or "cherry blossom". Americans called it "baka" (a fool or very stupid person) whose pronunciation is close to okha. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, John !)

 

[John of Japan]

While in Tokyo in the USN, a Japanese man told me that, while taking English lessons, he was told of certain words that English speakers use that were considered "bad words" & shouldn't be used. He was surprised at the meanings of most of them, as he said that the words for body parts , functions, & sex acts were all everyday speech in Japanese, with most of these things having only one name in Japanese. ''

He said to "cuss" someone, a Japanese might say "May a diseased false holy man relieve himself on your ancestor's grave" or equivalent. He said, during WW2, japanese usually called Americans "beasts" or "devils".

I'd say he made that one up, but it is a curse of sorts. About 65% of Japanese are atheists, only practicing the ceremonies and holidays of Buddhism and Shinto because of tradition. So they don't normally curse (condemning someone to Hell or using a name of a god), but they do have bad words.

Concerning all of the words about bodily functions, etc., that he thinks are okay to say, he may not realize that his wife would frown on them. Man and women have different sets of vocabularies in Japanese. Also, he would not normally use such words to a superior.

There are polite words or even euphemisms for these functions that he would use in such a case. For example, the polite word for "bathroom" (which is an English euphemism) is Ote-arai, meaning "honorable hand-washing place."

WE did something likewise. Japan had a bomber-borne manned suicide rocket calleds "Okha"(Yokosuka MXY-7) or "cherry blossom". Americans called it "baka" (a fool or very stupid person) whose pronunciation is close to okha. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, John !)

You nailed it. This is all correct, except that the suicide plane is normally Romanized as
Ōka or Ohka, pron. Oh-kah, but that's a minor detail.

The word baka (fool) is very common in Japanese, and parents even use it on their children. Unfortunately, even Christian parents do so. The translators of the Japanese Bibles, though, use a more polite word for fool, orokamono, meaning they consider baka to be slang. When you add the word for "country bumpkin" mentioned above, it becomes something very nasty.

P. S. The Chinese word for "foreigner" in the 19th and 20th century was gweilo (鬼佬), meaning "foreign devil," and I understand it is still used in Canton Province (Guangdong). However, this is not a "taboo word," but simply rude.

 

[John of Japan]

Watch the film linked by questdriven.

In addition, cussing helps to relieve pain and stress. This has been proven repeatedly. Getting mad at someone you don't know reducing pain in this manner is like the rich man peeing on Lazarus.

I strongly disagree with this. Cussing may help "to relieve pain and stress" in the one doing the cussing, but it is a cause of stress in those it is directed to. If you are causing stress to others then, ergo, it will backlash on you and raise your own level of stress.

I watched some of questdriven's clip, but it cause stress in me and I quit watching.

All cultures have "cussing". What is different is the social objection to the words. For example, Mohammed used a derogatory word in Arabic to refer to back people and I'm sure it is still used in the Middle East even though they will lie and say it's not.

Japanese virtually never curse, though they do have taboo words. The reason is that Japanese religion is full of ceremonies, and 65% of Japanese are atheists, so they never think about any God unless confronted with the true God's existence, or are praying to a Shinto god or their ancestors with the goal of using said "god" for their own purposes.

 

[MartyF]

I strongly disagree with this. Cussing may help "to relieve pain and stress" in the one doing the cussing, but it is a cause of stress in those it is directed to. If you are causing stress to others then, ergo, it will backlash on you and raise your own level of stress.

I did not mean directing evil attacks against someone else. One doesn't even need "cuss words" to raise the stress of others when one directly attacks them.

Allow me to give you an example of something which doesn't happen very often in a mono-culture like Japan:

Suppose you witness a hit-and-run on your street. As you rush over you notice the man's leg is badly broken. After this happens, the man cries out and cusses.

Are you more upset that

1) the man is cussing, or
2) the man's leg is broken?

Now, I know and have met quite a few people in the U.S. who would say 1. Personally, I would be upset with 2 and ignore 1.