colloquial superstition and arbitrary moral crutches have no place in Jesus.
everyone seems so concerned with moral relativism, well profanity mythology is the height of moral relativism. ie: sh*t = bad, poop = fine.
the only reason i watch my tongue or ask others to watch their tongue regarding our american buzz-words of simpleton shock is out of sensitivity and respect for others within earshot who may be plagued by these superstitions.
but assigning meaningless arbitrary moral value points as a false guide to superficial goodness strikes me as anti Holy Spirit.
it is a matter of politeness and respect that we refrain from profanity in the presence of those who might be offended by it. it’s a matter of superstition that they are offended by it.
Profanity mythology? I guess you can twist anything into anything but that doesn’t necessarily make it…anything.
A better point would be that rampant profanity is just another sign of the decline of the culture in the past 50 years.
So are you suggesting that Jesus would not be offended by profanity? Do you suppose that Jesus Himself would use profanity?
This is some VERY odd thinking as well as VERY odd posting.
i’m not suggesting Jesus would go around using words He knew offended people just to offend them. but i am suggesting Jesus would find the way in which people in a particular society categorize “bad words” to be an empty form of false, arbitrary code which has no true moral significance and is therefore dishonest to the spirit. i believe He would see it as superstition.
While I agree that “bad” words are only “bad” because humans have assigned them as such, I refrain from using them because they are offensive to others and because from my personal experience, at least in group settings, where character decreases, profanity increases. This is not a rule, just my personal experience.
Still, I would be less offended to hear someone say “Oh S—!” than if they were to take Our Lord’s name in vain.
same here, but that’s the point i’m trying to address. the offensive effect it has on others is a matter of superstition. it’s status as offensive is not good, nor healthy, nor christian in my opinion.
and because from my personal experience, at least in group settings, where character decreases, profanity increases.
as you said, its just your personal experience and i respect that. it is a fair observation (though as you said, not a rule)…and i’ll meet you here: while many good people swear and many bad people dont, it is common to see more swearing around those of lesser character. the reason for this occurrence is still due to superstition, which cuts both ways. some people avoid swears to be “good” and some people embrace swears to be “bad”.
Swear words are a result of classism. The poorer people in society made up slang words, while the rich saw these slang words as disgusting because it came from the poor. Eventually, the rich’s view on these words began to dominate in society and now we have what we call “swears”. This is a simplification, but still.
I don’t know if there’s any Scripture that forbids swearing. St. Paul does say that we need to not talk about inappropriate things, but I would think he’s not talking about swearing but rather other inappropriate things.
I’m not sure what “character” is. Bugs Bunny is a character; I’m not, and no one I spend time with is; we are human beings:) So I’m not bothered by profane language at all.
There is also no doubt that some really good jokes just would not work without profanity; and laughter is good thing in our life.:)
To answer another post: No, I do not think our LORD ever used profanity. To use it requires seeing life in a somewhat negative manner (ie, when one uses the S word, one is normally assigning the natural revulsion we have toward body-waste to a situation that does not contain it; the negative mentation is all the 2 situations have in common). Our LORD’s Divine Mind would never have seen HIS human life in such a way, since even while being dragged to HIS death, he was able to sympathize with others (the women of the city). This MIND would never have felt the need to use profanity.
But I also do not think HE’d have been offended by others using it. HIS same Divine Mind would have seen right through to the troubled human mind’s need to express itself in this way.
yes and no IMO. Slang, I feel, was more an invention of men, in both middle and lower class. Mostly soldiers and sailors, who, when separated from women, became more “crass”. Evidence today (and in the past) is the reluctance of most men to use many profanties around women and family.
I find swearing is the mark of a limited vocabulary
because there is no true moral value difference between a good word for defecation and a bad word for defecation. it is a colloquial code that was invented by classes and local simpletons which takes the place of true innate moral compass, and elicits a spiritually unnecessary reaction of scandal or power. it is a superstition.
there are many many many linguistic crutches people use that are marks of limited vocabulary, which aren’t decried as vulgar. many people who use “f-words” and “sh-words” also boast a very diverse vocab.
and the crassness of those words is not innate. it is an artificial moral designation created by classism and perpetuated by superstition.
Maybe, maybe not. Under the force of overpowering emotion, one could have a literary Nobel-winner’s use of words, and yet only the more earthy expressions will seem to express one’s state of mind.
The frequent use of bad language would then indicate not a lack of vocabulary but an emotional system that frequently allows emotions to become “overpowering.” And like everything else in our life, the emotional functioning is more than half biological.
This reminds me of an old (clean) joke:
A lady was trying to persuade her Navy-officer husband that he needed a thesaurus. “In all of your official reports,” she asked; “don’t you sometimes not know the word you need?”
“If I don’t know the word I need” her husband answered, “I use another word already in my mind.”
“But aren’t there times,” she persisted; “when only a specific word will serve?”
“Honey,” the man retorted, “the Navy doesn’t allow those words in our reporting”.
once again, it only does those things you say AFTER the fake morality points are assigned. your position assumes the premise that i’m trying to question. you may disagree, but you need to defend the premise itself.