Swearing (again)

[Enigma7457]

Does it really matter if we swear? I know we've had this hashed out before, but I'm trying to figure something out for myself. So, I'm going to babble on for a few minutes and then we will revisit the question.

My boss is a strong Baptist (by strong, I mean he is a powerful Christian [I only mention the Baptist to give you an idea of his personality, not to put him in any box]). Anyway, he doesn't swear and he doesn't let his kids swear, which is a good idea (I believe). He says the words stinking and dogs. He doesn't say them angrily, but they are obviously replacements of swear words. For example, when he is frustrated, he says “Dogs.” Not angrily, just casually, like saying darn.

Now, I do swear (a habit I am trying to kick), though never in public (like at work or in a meeting, etc.). Instead of dogs, I will (sometimes) say s***. Sounds much worse, doesn't it? Though, I also don't say it angrily. I say it casually, just like saying darn. So, I ask you, what is the difference?

The word s*** comes from old shipping days. When they shipped manure (sp), there was some sort of danger with putting the barrels in the bottom of the ship (I think the mixture of manure and sea air produced carbon monoxide, but I'm not sure). So, they used to write [poop] High In Transit on barrels, so that they put it up high in the storage of the ship, preventing the mixture (the swear word being the acronym of the phrase).

So what's so bad about saying it? I know it comes off as crude and rude in certain environments (which is the main reason I am trying to break the habit), but if we don't have the attitude behind it (the angriness often associated with swear words) what is so wrong about it?

Another good example: My boss's daughter (she was 6 at the time) was having a tantrum and refused to get out of their van and come inside. So, they left her in the van (they could see her) until she stopped pouting. From the van, she shouts 'I hate you, you stinking mom!' Kids will be kids and she only said it because she was mad, but he took issue with her use of stinking (and not the 'I hate you') because of the word it was replacing.

So, I ask, what is the difference in using stinking or *expletive* if you mean the same thing? Like the phrase “By Jove” (Jove is a replacement for Jesus, I'm told). Isn't it the same thing? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the attitude and not the word?

Anyway, I'm just looking for some input.

[jenna]

I think swearing is wrong, although I know I still do it several times. Old habits die hard. Using "stinking" instead of a cuss word is, in my opinion, not acceptable, especially for children. What exactly is this teaching them? What examples are we setting for others when we use harsh language in front of others? What is so bad about saying it? How do you think God would feel if He constantly heard bad language coming out of our mouths? And replacement words can be just as bad, since even though replacement words come out of our mouths, the actual word is in our heads. The words "by Jove", and "jeez", are also just different words for God and Jesus. And since we aren't supposed to take God's name in vain, is using "different" versions acceptable? Just my thoughts here. I know I'm not really one to talk on bad language.

[BavarianWheels]

So, they used to write [poop] High In Transit on barrels, so that they put it up high in the storage of the ship, preventing the mixture (the swear word being the acronym of the phrase).

Actually I believe it was/is Ship/Store High In Transit.

I somewhat agree with you in asking what is the problem. However, I don't agree that it's just saying words. Having to use expletives to get your point across and/or make yourself heard is simply a lack of being able to communicate properly. It is a sign of lack of education and lack of tact (sp?).

Any words you would refrain from using in front of kids, in church, in a meeting, in business (albeit depending on the business) dealings, and so on is probably left out of these conversations for a good reason.

I don't practice using expletives, but I'm certainly not immune to slips of the tongue. I don't condone anyone in my family to use such words, but at the same time it's not expressly forbidden. (My kids are old enough that they hear and probably use the language at times, I realize) We use the language (not the extreme words) at times in joking around...NEVER in anger. That's just wrong. One can make a point without having to revert to such demeaning and socially unacceptable language.
.
.

[Himantolophus]

the cursing thing is confusing to me.

Many of these words were created by man with a certain meaning. For some reason, man decided these words were "bad words". Using the same logic, they could have easily made the F-word mean something non-vulgar and it would be just another word. So, because man made the words in recent times, why would God judge you for using the words? I agree that it is the attitude that makes the word bad, not the word itself. It's just a word. Jesus didn't know what the F-word or S-word was. But when you call someone a vulgarity or say something in anger, it is wrong simply because you said it in anger and hurt someone else.

Which leads me to "OMG". If you say it in wonder, like seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time and saying "OMG", how is that a curse. In my opinion you are expressing amazement at what you may consider to be God's work. It's not even in the same leage as a real curse, "GD". Is God going to take offense to a positive or even neutral use of a curse word?

On a personal note, I use the "minor" curse words but try not to use the bad ones

[jenna]

"Which leads me to "OMG".
I guess it is dependent on how it is said. If it were talking about something God made, or in some other way would make a difference. I think.

[zoegirl]

the cursing thing is confusing to me.

Many of these words were created by man with a certain meaning. For some reason, man decided these words were "bad words". Using the same logic, they could have easily made the F-word mean something non-vulgar and it would be just another word. So, because man made the words in recent times, why would God judge you for using the words? I agree that it is the attitude that makes the word bad, not the word itself. It's just a word. Jesus didn't know what the F-word or S-word was. But when you call someone a vulgarity or say something in anger, it is wrong simply because you said it in anger and hurt someone else.

I agree that the anger behind the words are just as important. Watching some of the movies and hearing the words over and over shows just how prevalent these words are. But by that same token, the level of nonchalant usage is simply ridiculous. And when they are used both in anger and with great frequency, what does this indicate about our society? That collectively we are becoming angry, ignorant, and selfish.

Those who are considerate of others think about the words they use in the company of others

Those that are ignorant resort to foolish and empty words to express themselves, cevoid of communication

Those that are angry and cannot control their anger spew that viciousness in their language.

I think every generation and culture probably had words that shocked others, and that shocking nature of course was what made those words preferred by those who wanted to shock others. Sure, these words changed, but that doesn't negate the fact that these words are offensive within that generation and culture.

We wouldn;t go to another country and think it would be ok to flippantly use the words they consider offensive, and yet somehow this notion of blithely rattling off curse words should somehow be acceptable and even cool

Which leads me to "OMG". If you say it in wonder, like seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time and saying "OMG", how is that a curse. In my opinion you are expressing amazement at what you may consider to be God's work. Is God going to take offense to a positive or even neutral use of a curse word?

But here you need to understand that the very name of God is meant to convey an incredible concept of God and His nature. The commandments God gave presented a very clear command, to treat God's name so uniquely that we revere it. To not take God's name in vain (and I think we can do this in other ways besides OMG).

If it truly is meant as a prayer, then that is great, but far more often I think OMG has become *too easy* and that ease with which we throw around OMG rather cheapens it.

I think God takes offense when He is not honored as He deserves and that applies to our appreciation of His name and consequently, Him.

(think of it this way....if your name is peter would you really appreciate it if your name was used as a mild or neutral phrase without regard to you? "Oh my peter" suddenly people don't treat your name properly and that would merely be a reflection of how they treat you. )

On a personal note, I use the "minor" curse words but try not to use the bad ones

Overall, I have felt far more convicted when I flippantly use God than when I occasionally slip and use the other words. But language is that elemental part of us that communicates to others how we deal with people and circumstances.

[Himantolophus]

I agree that the anger behind the words are just as important. Watching some of the movies and hearing the words over and over shows just how prevalent these words are. But by that same token, the level of nonchalant usage is simply ridiculous. And when they are used both in anger and with great frequency, what does this indicate about our society? That collectively we are becoming angry, ignorant, and selfish.

I agree that cursing is WAY too frequent amongst the younger generation. I am a 20-something and I consider it ridiculous how someone could use the f-word every sentence.

But, if cursing is wrong in the way we use them in a negative way or as an insult to other people, why should it be a problem if we use them by ourselves? What's the difference if you drop a glass and say "s***!" as opposed to "fluffer-nutters!" or "d***!" instead of "dag-gammit!". They are just words and man is the only ones that have judged them to be "curses", not God.

think of it this way....if your name is peter would you really appreciate it if your name was used as a mild or neutral phrase without regard to you? "Oh my peter" suddenly people don't treat your name properly and that would merely be a reflection of how they treat you. )

haha... I think I WOULD be honored if I was the "Peter" that everybody was talking about. I don't think I would care to be honest.

[zoegirl]

I agree that the anger behind the words are just as important. Watching some of the movies and hearing the words over and over shows just how prevalent these words are. But by that same token, the level of nonchalant usage is simply ridiculous. And when they are used both in anger and with great frequency, what does this indicate about our society? That collectively we are becoming angry, ignorant, and selfish.

I agree that cursing is WAY too frequent amongst the younger generation. I am a 20-something and I consider it ridiculous how someone could use the f-word every sentence.

But, if cursing is wrong in the way we use them in a negative way or as an insult to other people, why should it be a problem if we use them by ourselves? What's the difference if you drop a glass and say "s***!" as opposed to "fluffer-nutters!" or "d***!" instead of "dag-gammit!". They are just words and man is the only ones that have judged them to be "curses", not God.

think of it this way....if your name is peter would you really appreciate it if your name was used as a mild or neutral phrase without regard to you? "Oh my peter" suddenly people don't treat your name properly and that would merely be a reflection of how they treat you. )

haha... I think I WOULD be honored if I was the "Peter" that everybody was talking about. I don't think I would care to be honest.

SAying them to oneself would perhaps be less controversail (must confess so far that's the only time I have used them, but I worry that I get int the habit and would slip).

As to the "OH my peter" I think, though, if your name loses meaning throughout that usage, if those people cease to think of you when that say your name? I think each of us would be more upset than we are willing to admit.

[Canuckster1127]

The Ship High in Transit story is a myth. The word goes back to middle english well before the time cited.

Words are relative and only have the meaning that people agree they have and whether it is an offensive word is pretty much just an agreed upon social norm.

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Also as a Christian, I think using profanity simply for emphasis or to shock and offend people is a poor testimony and not in keeping with what I think we should be doing as Christians and so I generally don't use the typical words deemed swearing. I can be much more creative when I need to be with my language. Not a legalistic thing for me. There are actually some very colorful phrases in Scripture that are used for emphasis that are translated softer than the original language. Use sparingly, if at all.

[BavarianWheels]

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Standards...you mean the 10? But we're not under Law...it can't be "wrong".

However I would agree that using profanity is questionable as a Christian.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Standards...you mean the 10? But we're not under Law...it can't be "wrong".

However I would agree that using profanity is questionable as a Christian.
.
.

Arguing against legalism isn't the same as arguing for antinomianism, but I suspect you know that.

[BavarianWheels]

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Standards...you mean the 10? But we're not under Law...it can't be "wrong".

However I would agree that using profanity is questionable as a Christian.
.
.

Arguing against legalism isn't the same as arguing for antinomianism, but I suspect you know that.

As God is the author of the 10 you must be calling Him a legalist.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Standards...you mean the 10? But we're not under Law...it can't be "wrong".

However I would agree that using profanity is questionable as a Christian.
.
.

Arguing against legalism isn't the same as arguing for antinomianism, but I suspect you know that.

As God is the author of the 10 you must be calling Him a legalist.
.
.

As God sent His Son Jesus Christ, God Himself to accomplish what we could not under the Law, in order that we might be adopted as Sons and Daughters by His grace and no longer attempt to earn our righteousness under the old system, I rather suspect it is those who wish to add anything to that who have more to be concerned about legalism. It certainly isn't God issuing demands in that regard to His children today.

[FFC]

As a Christian, I believe using God's name in vain is simply wrong and something I don't want to do and so I don't. It goes against my desire to worship God and violates Scriptual standards.

Standards...you mean the 10? But we're not under Law...it can't be "wrong".

However I would agree that using profanity is questionable as a Christian.
.
.

Arguing against legalism isn't the same as arguing for antinomianism, but I suspect you know that.

As God is the author of the 10 you must be calling Him a legalist.
.
.

As God sent His Son Jesus Christ, God Himself to accomplish what we could not under the Law, in order that we might be adopted as Sons and Daughters by His grace and no longer attempt to earn our righteousness under the old system, I rather suspect it is those who wish to add anything to that who have more to be concerned about legalism. It certainly isn't God issuing demands in that regard to His children today.

Amen

[BavarianWheels]

As God sent His Son Jesus Christ, God Himself to accomplish what we could not under the Law, in order that we might be adopted as Sons and Daughters by His grace and no longer attempt to earn our righteousness under the old system, I rather suspect it is those who wish to add anything to that who have more to be concerned about legalism. It certainly isn't God issuing demands in that regard to His children today.

Again you misconstrue the point. Point being that the Law NEVER was meant to earn righteousness...hence Abraham being saved according to the promise...Faith...as is from first to last. I'm not adding anything God hasn't already written down Himself. I'm not promoting an "11th" commandment. Simply God's own words of, "Remember..."
.
.