Does God mind cussin'?

[Slopeshoulder]

Well Otseng does, so I can't use any examples!

But in another thread DeMaria wrote:

People can acquire holy habits or sinful habits. They can have holy rituals or sinful rituals. Just ask anyone can vouch who has fought the habit of a foul mouth by establishing the habit of speaking only that which is pleasing unto God. It is not easy, but it is worthwhile to do so.

I took that out of context as a side comment in a longer post having to do with catholic doctrine with which I had no specific quarrel. But this raises an issue:

Assuming god exists and god doesn't like hate speech, lying, disrespect to others, or false oaths (especially those that invoke his name), using language to do violence or de-create the good creation, does he really mind "dirty words"? Do they count as a "foul mouth"?
I tend to think that these words are arbitrary products of a puritan heritage and victorian bourgeois sensibility, having nothing to do with religion except as mistaken expressions of radical anti-body dualism, and that actually God smiles upon the honesty and passion associated with their use. So to praise God's integrity honesty and passion, I tend to use 'em all the time. I suspect it must please him, or that he doesn't care. So I'm at it every 5 minutes. I make no distinction, and feel that equating ceasing to use these words with some sort of spiritual progress is rather off the mark. I only stop for a few minutes if it's my self interest to do so in a particular social or professional context, temporarily ceding power to the dominant puritan-victorian narrative in these circumstances. Or sometimes if my love of language leads me to find a better way to express the thought and emotion I have in any given moment. God hates sin, but potty doesn't matter so much. It can be honest, accurate, and even poetic.

What is it with all this anti-potty crap? Is this still relevant? Or is it just part of an accidental puritan and victorian cultural heritage that obscures the real issue? Or gee golly willickers should I just shut the...H-E-double toothpicks up ? Dang it all, am I just talking bullroar here?

What say you?

[Mr.Badham]

I was in the infantry for 5 1/2 years and now I work in a machine shop. I've heard people swear.

You know who don't swear? Rich people. At least not when they talk to poor people. It's simply a form of class distinction.

The only thing that makes a word a cuss or not, is whether or not we agree it's a cuss.

Gay people lisp when they talk as a signal they're gay. People from Boston have a Boston accent to tell others they're from Boston, Newfies have a Newfie accent to tell others they're from Newfoundland, and rich people don't cuss to tell others they're rich. Sounds weird but poor people cuss more than rich.

[dianaiad]

I was in the infantry for 5 1/2 years and now I work in a machine shop. I've heard people swear.

You know who don't swear? Rich people. At least not when they talk to poor people. It's simply a form of class distinction.

The only thing that makes a word a cuss or not, is whether or not we agree it's a cuss.

Gay people lisp when they talk as a signal they're gay.

The only gay people I know who lisp are those who are making fun of the person they are talking to. I wouldn't put too much stock in either the lisp, the limp wrist or clothes by Libarace. They're 'having you on.' The only other group of people who associate lisps with gay people are, generally, either ignorant or bigots. ("ignorant," as in 'not knowing any better.")

Y'know who the biggest group of lispers are? Castillian Spanish speakers--who tend to be on the machismo side of things.

Now you know.

People from Boston have a Boston accent to tell others they're from Boston, Newfies have a Newfie accent to tell others they're from Newfoundland, and rich people don't cuss to tell others they're rich. Sounds weird but poor people cuss more than rich.

Oh, brother...there is so much wrong with that post....

People from Boston have a Boston accent BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM BOSTON. They don't choose to have one; it comes with who they are.

People who don't cuss do so because they were either raised without that in their language, or they came to study it. It's not wealth...it's education and an expanded vocabulary.

Trust me on this one, m'friend, I may be from Southern Idaho, and have indeed used the occasional "s***" or *d*** it," but as a general rule, I save those things for when their expression MEANS something. I do so because I actually know a few adverbs and adjectives that more clearly express the emotion and meaning desired.

Come to think of it, I guess you are right; the rich don't cuss, and the poor do; but you need to count the currency being evaluated here. It's not money.

It's vocabulary.

Believe it or not, vocabulary is something one can acquire without spending money.

[Mr.Badham]

I disagree.

I used to hang out with a bunch of Newfies, and when I was the only one, their accents were thicker, but if it was one on one, their accent was a lot softer.

You might have an accent because you are from Boston, but you'll use it to distinguish yourself. It's why newscasters don't have accents. They don't want to alienate themselves or anyone else.

We adhere to our labels. I'm from Boston, this is the way people from Boston talk.
I'm Catholic, this is the way Catholics behave. I'm rich, I'm poor.

I heard a thing on the radio talking about girls who get bullied. Others start calling them sluts. When the bullying started most were not promiscuous, but most became promiscuous later. We adhere to our labels.

[dianaiad]

I disagree.

I used to hang out with a bunch of Newfies, and when I was the only one, their accents were thicker, but if it was one on one, their accent was a lot softer.

You might have an accent because you are from Boston, but you'll use it to distinguish yourself. It's why newscasters don't have accents. They don't want to alienate themselves or anyone else.

We adhere to our labels. I'm from Boston, this is the way people from Boston talk.
I'm Catholic, this is the way Catholics behave. I'm rich, I'm poor.

I heard a thing on the radio talking about girls who get bullied. Others start calling them sluts. When the bullying started most were not promiscuous, but most became promiscuous later. We adhere to our labels.

So...you are saying that if you go around calling a girl a 'slut,' you are insuring that she will become one? We are what other people say we are?

Mr. Badham, I think you need to rethink your theories. Or at least rethink the way you express them. I HOPE that you are simply having problems communicating your ideas; I would truly be saddened if anyone actually believed what you just wrote, above.

[Mr.Badham]

Dianaiad,

It's called Labelling Theory. You should look it up on Wikipedia. It says something to the effect that we use others as an objective view of ourselves. We try to fill different positions in society or our group and eventually end up filling a niche given to us by others. It even mentions a self fulfilling prophesy.

It's why teachers don't call kids "Bad". They say they are "acting bad". That way they avoid labelling the kid.

It's like you said, "We are what other people say we are." What else could you be?If we could be whatever we want, then I'm the smartest guy in this entire forum. I have a feeling you and about every other person will disagree with that. So what am I?

I think it actually says something about the situation you told me about yourself. You grew up in a Mormon home and now you are a Mormon. Not surprising.

It's not my theory, it's just that I've seen it in action.

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad,

It's called Labelling Theory. You should look it up on Wikipedia.

When was the last time you tried using Wikipedia as an authoritative source in a research paper?

It says something to the effect that we use others as an objective view of ourselves. We try to fill different positions in society or our group and eventually end up filling a niche given to us by others. It even mentions a self fulfilling prophesy.

It's why teachers don't call kids "Bad". They say they are "acting bad". That way they avoid labelling the kid.

It's like you said, "We are what other people say we are." What else could you be?If we could be whatever we want, then I'm the smartest guy in this entire forum. I have a feeling you and about every other person will disagree with that. So what am I?

I think it actually says something about the situation you told me about yourself. You grew up in a Mormon home and now you are a Mormon. Not surprising.

It's not my theory, it's just that I've seen it in action.

And this is inevitable?

Not even close.

[Mr.Badham]

So did you read it?

I suppose everything written on Wikipedia is wrong? Why not read it, and see if anything about it sounds somewhat plausable. Maybe it would enlighten you a little. You're on this forum for a some reason other than just disagreeing with everything you read I hope. I came here hoping someone would say something I hadn't thought of, or told me something I didn't already know. And they did, and I'm learning a lot, for example;

You don't have to believe in the virgin Birth to be a Christian
You don't have to believe in the resurection to be a Christian
You don't have to believe in the ten commandments to be a Christian
You don't have to believe in Heaven or hell to be a Christian
You don't have to believe in the bible to be a Christian
There actually is no definition of Christianity that anyone anywhere must agree to
You don't even have to know what you believe in to call yourself a Christian, you only have to know that no one can tell you you're wrong.

So many things I didn't know, but I'm learning cause I have an open mind.

[sineporf]

It all depends on what you believe and if it's in line with the teachings of that system of belief. If you believe in that system, then it is wrong or right depending on the type of absolutism that comes with it. I'm assuming the majority reading this post are Christian plus I've never read the bible, but from what I've gathered the most devout into their denomination frown upon it and require some repentance.

[RobertUrbanek]

I think the use of profanity reveals an underlying lack of discipline and self-control. It comes down to the question: Do you really want to sound like Tony Montana in Scarface? Is that the character you emulate?

[Yahu]

Well Otseng does, so I can't use any examples!

But in another thread DeMaria wrote:

People can acquire holy habits or sinful habits. They can have holy rituals or sinful rituals. Just ask anyone can vouch who has fought the habit of a foul mouth by establishing the habit of speaking only that which is pleasing unto God. It is not easy, but it is worthwhile to do so.

I took that out of context as a side comment in a longer post having to do with catholic doctrine with which I had no specific quarrel. But this raises an issue:

Assuming god exists and god doesn't like hate speech, lying, disrespect to others, or false oaths (especially those that invoke his name), using language to do violence or de-create the good creation, does he really mind "dirty words"? Do they count as a "foul mouth"?
I tend to think that these words are arbitrary products of a puritan heritage and victorian bourgeois sensibility, having nothing to do with religion except as mistaken expressions of radical anti-body dualism, and that actually God smiles upon the honesty and passion associated with their use. So to praise God's integrity honesty and passion, I tend to use 'em all the time. I suspect it must please him, or that he doesn't care. So I'm at it every 5 minutes. I make no distinction, and feel that equating ceasing to use these words with some sort of spiritual progress is rather off the mark. I only stop for a few minutes if it's my self interest to do so in a particular social or professional context, temporarily ceding power to the dominant puritan-victorian narrative in these circumstances. Or sometimes if my love of language leads me to find a better way to express the thought and emotion I have in any given moment. God hates sin, but potty doesn't matter so much. It can be honest, accurate, and even poetic.

What is it with all this anti-potty crap? Is this still relevant? Or is it just part of an accidental puritan and victorian cultural heritage that obscures the real issue? Or gee golly willickers should I just shut the...H-E-double toothpicks up ? Dang it all, am I just talking bullroar here?

What say you?

As I understand it, there were no forbidden words in ancient Hebrew. As far as I understand, course or sexual jesting is condemned as well as taking the Name of God in vain.

Many people totally misunderstand what it means to take the name in vain. First off God ISN'T a name. The name of God is YHVH, which can be pronounced several ways. Yahweh or Yahuvah are the ones I prefer. The restriction against using the name Yahuvah in an unjust curse or associating the pagan practices as being worship of God was vanity. So IMHO saying things like 'oh my God' or 'goddamn' are not blasphemy but like you mention, puritanism. I tend to call it Phariseeism since the Pharisees had a big problem on expanding on the law by adding traditions of man. They forbade even saying Yahuvah to prevent the ability of someone to say it in vain. Even when reading scripture aloud when the name YHVH appeared in scripture, the vocalized Adonia ('My Lord') instead. The practice even got carried over into our modern english translations placing the word LORD instead of the name YHVH.

Now the Old Testament is full of sexually explicit passages. A good example is the story of Ruth. Naomi tells Ruth to uncover Boaz and have sexual intercourse with him in his sleep after he feasted and drank at the harvest celebration. Due to the puritan nature of the english translations, this is carefully hidden. Ruth was covered in depth in the 2nd semester of Hebrew at my theological college. The problem is with the puritan misunderstanding of what was actually involved in sexual sin. Ruth had the RIGHT to have a child by a close relative as a childless widow so her son conceived could regain the land inheritance of her dead husband at the next jubilee year. Her sexual activity in gaining that child was fully sanctioned in the Law.

So in conclusion. What is considered cussing by our modern society and the forbidding of saying certain words is biblically unsupported and is an example of modern day phariseeism. So IMHO avoid sexual jesting or unjust cursing while calling on the actual NAME of God is what should be avoided. Granted when in the presence of weaker/immature Christians, we are not to bring offense by our actions.