Swearing

[mechana2015]

What do you think about Christians or people trying to be good in general, using curse words or sailor talk or whatever you happen to call them? There are all sorts of taboo words, phrases or things one could say that would be considered rude or vulgar or sinful in various settings all over the world, but I'm especially referring to those infamous "seven" (there are actually more than these by my account, if you really need a list I can PM you ) words in the English language that are basically in many hardline circles considered inexcusable to ever use.

I have, many times but especially of late, wondered if it's really so terrible to use such language depending on the setting after all. Sure, it's true that one must love thy neighbor as thyself and be friendly and polite whenever possible, there are some things that just shouldn't be said in certain contexts, especially in Church or around children or very public and formal setting, et cetera. Such objections are very reasonable, I think, and it generally isn't very difficult even for some irreligious folk to watch their mouth from time to time. All of that being said, what about the myriad of other possibilities for the use of our language? Just why is it that in the modern era we have almost arbitrarily deemed certain words "bad" and unusable? (This question is mostly rhetorical, but if anyone wants to be ironic and give us an English history lesson then be my guest, it might add to the discussion.) Especially in settings with close friends, relatives, and spouses it seems like we may be a little, well...perhaps, legalistic is one of the words I'm looking for? if we just straight up BAN certain words, which, really, only have meaning if we humans give them meaning...

And in many languages like Japanese, there are straight up different forms of words or particles or whatever that have varying levels of politeness for different settings- what if these "bad" words are just sort of like the ”だ” form of the copula for example? I wouldn't consider shonen jump heroes to be vulgar or bad, even though they usually speak in a way that could be considered rude.

Nevertheless, I don't think this a shut-book case or else I wouldn't even be asking about it. I can see some other general objections that I can't necessarily answer satisfactorily. For starters, we are called to be holy, as in set apart from the world. "To be in the world, but not of it" is a popular Christian phrase. We're supposed to be imitating Jesus and trying to be "perfect" as our heavenly Father is. I cannot, try as I may might, honestly look at any sacred image of Jesus and imagine those words coming out of that mouth.

Another objection from Scirpture I've found that bugs me on the subject is the letter of James in its entirety, especially chapter 3. I encourage you to read it and study whatever relevant footnotes and such, but here's chapter 3 in particular: http://www.usccb.org/bible/jas/3:1

It also seems to me that, whatever the reasons for it being the case, vulgarity and wrath (which is pretty indisputably bad especially from a Christian perspective), go hand-in-hand. Certainly it is easy to swear without being angry but that's seems to me to be the exception.

And whether or not one is angry it is entirely possible, nay probable, given personal experience, that the use of certain words and manners of speaking can be a source of scandal for those who may or may not follow Christ in one capacity or another to lead them further astray. So, even if my hypothesis is right and the excusable use of these words depends on context, that would still mean that MOST contexts are still off-limits if they are truly scandalous. And all of this isn't even taking into account that some words are considered racist or sexist or otherwise offensive to some group, and for that and the other reasons mentioned I can see it being difficult to be Christ for all people when you talk like a sailor.

So, if you can be bothered to read all of this and take it seriously, then please give it some thought and tell me what you think and maybe we can have an actual discussion- it could happen!

[mechana2015]

I can't exactly make out what you're getting after here, you might want to read over it since there seems to be a few words missing or something. As the site goes we tend to frown on swearing, even self censored, since we don't know the tolerances of our members in this topic well enough to determine if a majority of our users would be comfortable with that sort of use.

Just why is it that in the modern era we have almost arbitrarily deemed certain words "bad" and unusable? (This question is mostly rhetorical, but if anyone wants to be ironic and give us an English history lesson then be my guest, it might add to the discussion.) Especially in settings with close friends, relatives, and spouses it seems like we may be a little, well...perhaps, legalistic is one of the words I'm looking for? if we just straight up BAN certain words, which, really, only have meaning if we humans give them meaning...

1. I highly doubt this is a modern development. Certain words were considered profane in the middle agaes because it was thought that one was literally cursing another individual if you used the word in reference to them.

2. It's not arbitrary when a word is deemed inappropriate. It generally has to do with the common definition at the time of the offense (for the most part, some words have or are evolving past that single definition) or the implications of the word. Generally it's been considered that just arbitrarily referring to bodily functions or private anatomy in public is rude (in the western world), and tends to be the origin of a notable amount of the obscenity dictionary.

3. Close friends, relatives and spouses may have different standards than you. I'd think out of respect for them one would restrain their language if it was requested of them to maintain a healthy relationship.

[Mullet Death]

Hmm, I was afraid my writing style may result in some failures to communicate. Is there anything specific that I should try to edit or make clearer? And I don't think I'm trying to "say" anything definitive one way or the other except that swearing may not be an offense all that time and that context can lessen or even remove the "sinfullness" of speaking coarsely, and as such perhaps some Christians can occasionally make mountains out of molehills. But sorry if my posts just don't make sense.

[mechana2015]

You might want to read through most of it, out loud (if you're not in a public place), and listen to see if it comes out like you were thinking it was going to. There's quite a few sentences that seem to be missing a necessary word or punctuation to get the point across, or there's too many words burying the actual point of several of your sentences, and the whole thing kind of wanders around. I'd say tighten it up and list your discussion questions at the end. You have several questions that could result in discussion but they're buried in the middle of a paragraph, which could result in a lot of 'TLDR' responses.

I'll give an example from your second paragraph.
"I have, many times but especially of late, wondered if it's really so terrible to use such language depending on the setting after all. Sure, it's true that one must love thy neighbor as thyself and be friendly and polite whenever possible, there are some things that just shouldn't be said in certain contexts, especially in Church or around children or very public and formal setting, et cetera. Such objections are very reasonable, I think, and it generally isn't very difficult even for some irreligious folk to watch their mouth from time to time."

I have recently wondered if it's really so terrible to use such language. It's true that one must love thy neighbor as thyself whenever possible, and that there are some things that just shouldn't be said in certain contexts, especially in Church, around children or in very public and formal setting. Such objections are very reasonable.

[Mullet Death]

Fair enough. Forgive me- I haven't been in an English class for years and tend to write the way I think and talk, and borderline stream-of-consciousness probably isn't very comprehensible for this kind of thread.

[mechana2015]

Generally stream of consciousness isn't good for most kinds of formal communication, and leads to a distinct lack of comprehension. I've had someone verbally stream of consciousness a series of topics, which I presume they thought was very important to them and were connected logically, for 3 hours at me once. I don't remember any of it.

On topic, I think legalistic is too strong a word here, since legalistic is generally saying that it's sinful without really backing it up, and much of the objection to swearing isn't so much it's sinful (though there is that in some limited circles) but that it's just offensive to the general public. There's a strong social contract about swearing that's still in place, at least in the US, and unless everyone around is acceptable to swearing, you'll run into individuals, even non-religious individuals, who are against it's use for a variety of reasons. These could include that they have children and try to avoid keeping those words in their vocabulary so they don't use them by accident by their kids, that they think swearing is lazy use of language and offensive to the propriety of the english language itself, or that they just don't enjoy references to excrement and bodily function being peppered throughout normal conversation.

[drill]

I think Romans 14:23 really fits your case here, it says: "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."

1 Corinthians 8:10: "For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol's temple, won't that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?"

Basically, you won't be able to change how society thinks about this topic no matter how hard you try. Also, if a Christian is talking like a sailor that could potentially lead someone else to sin, despite you having no intentions to make them stumble. You need to first consider if using such language would cause you to sin, and then consider the people around you that might stumble because of your actions. If you have considered those options, then I do not think that using language would really be considered "bad," but you do have to consider that unless you are by yourself, both tests together do not often pass.

[K. Ayato]

I agree with what drill said. Sometimes I use swear words myself, although lately I will find myself on the verge of using them, admit that I'm close, and then quickly say something else entirely. Do I think it's bad that Christians swear? I can't really say, seeing I've done it and I have some Christian friends who will use them here and there depending on the conversation. I definitely agree that who you're with and where you happen to be are things to be taken well into consideration. Personal example is me about to have a little one. I don't want my baby one day going around the house and cussing up and down, and he/she learned it directly (whether by speaking or using less than better judgment in what shows he/she is allowed to watch) from me.

And like what drill pointed out, we as Christians are to be salt and light to those in the world around us. I can swear, but I choose not to because I don't want a new Christian who probably came out of a lifestyle where speech was saturated with profanity and now wants to use words that edify rather than tear down to be drawn back into that world. That's a wise use of the liberty in Christ that Paul talked about in I Corinthians 8. Same goes with other subjects that Believers have different views of. That's why Paul summed it up in the end by saying if eating meat (in particular, that which was offered to idols) upset a brother or sister in Christ, he would make the decision not to eat that meat anymore.

[KnightOfFive]

Well, I certainly believe Christians should do their best to avoid swearing. I mean obviously none of us are going to avoid it completely but we should still make our best effort, since the Bible seems to indicate Christians are not to swear. Case in point:

Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourself once walked when you lived in them. But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

(NKJV Colossians 3:6-8)

Some translations change it to "obscene" talk or words from the mouth.

[Xeno]

I love swearing. Swear words are like little spice bombs in your language salad.

Also, Colossians 3:8 isn't really talking about "filthy language" in the form of Carlin's "seven words you can't say on tv" though.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 8. - But now do ye put away indeed all these (things) (ver. 9; Colossians 2:11; Ephesians 4:22, 25; Romans 13:12; 1 Peter 2:1). The thought of the death of the old life gives place to that of the divesting of the old habit; the new life wears a new dress, Mark the triumphant emphasis in "but now!" (opposed to the "once" of ver. 8), characteristic of the writer (comp. Colossians 1, 21, 26; Romans 3:21; Romans 6:22, etc.). Τὰ πάντα ("all these things," "the whole" of them) summarizes the vices specified in ver. 5, and forms the starting point of another series, in which malice predominates, as impurity in the previous list; anger, wrath, malice, evil speaking, foul speech from your mouth (Ephesians 4:26-31; Ephesians 5:4; Romans 1:29-31; 1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:20, 21; Titus 3:3). There is a similar order and division between these two chief classes of sin in the parallel passages. In Ephesians 4:31, 32 and Ephesians 5:3-5 the order is reversed. "Anger" (ὀργή) is ascribed to God in ver. 6 (comp. Ephesians 4:26; Hebrews 10:30). (On "anger" and "wrath" (or "rage"), see ver. 6.) The latter is once ascribed to God by St. Paul (Romans 2:8), more frequently in the Apocalypse. In man it is universally condemned. (For κακία, malignity, badness of disposition, comp. Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Titus 3:3; see Trench's 'Synonyms.') Βλασφημία, in its original sense, includes injurious speech of any kind, either against man or God (see Romans 3:8; Romans 14:16; 1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus 3:2). Αἰσχρὸς in αἰσχρολογία (only here in the New Testament) denotes, like the English "foul," either "scurrilous" or "filthy." The former kind of speech is suggested by the foregoing blasphemia; but especially in such an atmosphere as that of Greek city life, scurrility commonly runs into filthiness. In Ephesians 5:4, where a slightly different word occurs, the latter idea is prominent. The two last vices, being sins of speech, must be put away "out of your mouth." "Your" bears the emphasis in the Greek; such utterance is quite unfit for a Christian mouth (comp. Ephesians 4:29; Ephesians 5:3, 4; James 3:10; and the prohibition of lying in the next verse).

Scurrilous: making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation.
This would imply the verse is not talking about "bad words", but instead it is talking about malicious gossiping.

[K. Ayato]

Whether the text is referring to swearing or gossip, Believers are encouraged in Scripture to allow God to control our tongues (James 3) and use our speech for edification. I know sometimes we have to be blunt with each other, and I'm no exception. Still, it should be done in a spirit of love and desire to see fellowship (with God and others) restored.

[Vilo159]

I'm of the minority who things swearing is sinful, but its not worth it to go there. If you don't think it is, then I'm not gonna try and convince you otherwise.

What drill and K. Ayato said is the most accurate, I think. Whether you think its a sin or not, its still best not to if there's even a remote chance of it causing harm to someone else or causing them to stumble. I'd add from my perspective that its probably best not to use it around people who are still going to be fine, but don't like it. I'm not gonna stumble if I hear someone swearing, but I sure don't like it, so I ask people around me to refrain when possible. Respecting a request like that is just part of being polite, I think.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Whether you think its a sin or not, its still best not to if there's even a remote chance of it causing harm to someone else or causing them to stumble.

This mentality is passed around all the time but I think this can get a bit problematic. It's one thing to display common courtesy (I never swear in front of children. I never swear in professional settings. I also will not swear around someone if they say it makes them feel uncomfortable.) but it's another to be at the absolute mercy of other people's moral standards. I'm not going to order a non-meat dish if I have a vegan friend with me who gets upset by the meat industry. And it's not like I'm going to force them to eat a steak either. This is the exact same mentality that some men use to tell women how to dress so that men do not lust at them. The intentions are noble but It disempowers people from their individuality. People need to be in control and accountable for their own behaviors too and cannot shift blame to others because they caused them to stumble. But that all being said I do think the line can get fuzzy.

Words have a multiplicity of meanings anyway. They also inherently have no meaning.

[KnightOfFive]

Words have a multiplicity of meanings anyway. They also inherently have no meaning.

If you want to make an argument in favor of your personal right to swear, that is fine by me. But, please refrain from using that line. It is an easy way to dismiss any statement whatsoever, and If firmly held to, undermines the very truthfulness of scripture by essentially ascribing to it no meaning. Heh, for that matter you could just dismiss this post as a soliloquy on the virtues of fruit.

[K. Ayato]

Knight, use the PM system next time.

Moving on. I agree with MSP's statement in that we shouldn't be so sensitive to how people will respond to our behaviors so much that we've ended up losing our own identities. There should be a balance. Granted, it won't be one-size-fits-all, but it should be in place all the same.

[Okami]

Let's just say that if I'm hurting deeply, you'll know it.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

But, please refrain from using that line. It is an easy way to dismiss any statement whatsoever, and If firmly held to, undermines the very truthfulness of scripture by essentially ascribing to it no meaning.

It's what I believe and the Christianity I subscribe to.

So welcome to the abyss.

[Vilo159]

Whether you think its a sin or not, its still best not to if there's even a remote chance of it causing harm to someone else or causing them to stumble.

This mentality is passed around all the time but I think this can get a bit problematic. It's one thing to display common courtesy (I never swear in front of children. I never swear in professional settings. I also will not swear around someone if they say it makes them feel uncomfortable.) but it's another to be at the absolute mercy of other people's moral standards. I'm not going to order a non-meat dish if I have a vegan friend with me who gets upset by the meat industry. And it's not like I'm going to force them to eat a steak either. This is the exact same mentality that some men use to tell women how to dress so that men do not lust at them. The intentions are noble but It disempowers people from their individuality. People need to be in control and accountable for their own behaviors too and cannot shift blame to others because they caused them to stumble. But that all being said I do think the line can get fuzzy.

I suppose I should've worded that better. You said what I meant, I didn't intend it to be taken that far. I was just agreeing that if someone is struggling such as a new believer, it would be better not to, even if you don't think its bad.

[Nate]

The verse about "Don't be a stumbling block to anybody" does not mean "Don't do anything that someone else finds offensive." That is an incorrect interpretation of what that verse means. If someone comes over to my house and thinks that consumption of alcohol is a sin and thinks I'm a terrible person for drinking it, I am under no obligation to stop and they have no right to tell me to stop.

What the verse means is that if someone thinks something is a sin and you cause them to be tempted to do it, then you are being a stumbling block. To use my last example, if someone who is a recovering alcoholic comes over to my house and I'm drinking alcohol in front of them and they get tempted to start drinking, then I am being a stumbling block. I am in the wrong for drinking in front of them, because I'm tempting them to do something that they shouldn't be doing.

[Mullet Death]

I don't have time to edit the OP or respond to everyone individually right now, but after giving it a whole lot of thought in the real world, I think drill's advice is very sound and reasonable and probably what I'll try to live by. Even if there are times when just using certain words isn't sinful there probably isn't much wrong with erring on the side of caution if I can and being careful about how I speak around certain people, if nothing else.