I’d have to look it all back up but the “filthy rags” thing especially was an insulting slur at the time I’ve read.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Do we need to be harsh?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
Can scripture police our language?
What does everyone find the phrases in bold to mean?
What does everyone find the phrases in bold to mean?
I remember those words too, and what they meant.
I did a search of the NT, and I cannot find them. Maybe my spelling is wrong, but I don’t think so.
Just a reference to menstrual rags.
Wasn’t that in reference to trying to win God over with works and legalism?
Yes, but I cannot find it in the NT, and certainly not as used by Yeshua, John the Baptist, or Paul as was alluded to.Just a reference to menstrual rags.
It's Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
"Filthy rags" certainly refers to menstrual cloths. However, that does not mean it is a profanity. There's nothing necessarily offensive about referring to something dirty, it's about how you say things. English has a lot of different words for excrement, and for sex - some are considered normal speech, some technical scientific terms, some profane. Rightly or wrongly, people perceive the word "faeces" differently to the word "sh*t", and the word "intercourse" differently to the word "f*ck". So just because I happen to discuss a particular topic does not mean I'm being profane, that comes more down to how I say it and the word choices I use. And that is determined by how the audience will perceive things.
As another illustration, 200 years ago it was considered polite to refer to a black person as a "negro" or even the common colloquial mispronunciation of that word, while the word "black" was considered vulgar. Then the situation reversed for a time, with "black" being considered the respectful term, and now society has shifted again and we're supposed to use the phrase "people of colour" - unless you're a black rapper, then you're allowed to use whatever word you like. Objectively, this is a bit silly - "negro" / "n*gg*r", "black" and "colour" are all just different words for colour. There's no technical reason for one to be considered offensive and another considered polite. Nevertheless, the audience will consider the "wrong" word choice deeply offensive, because of the cultural context surrounding it - the fact that our society has rightly or wrongly decided that word is wrong. I could argue that word shouldn't be wrong, and I could argue that even if it's wrong nobody can stop me using it because I have liberty to speak however I like. Both arguments could be supported by lots of sound reasoning. Or I could just speak in a way that my audience will find respectful. I could argue that everyone should see things my way, or just talk in a way that my audience already perceives as polite. The latter choice is usually the better one.
If the words being used hinder the message, its the fault of the messenger. If the message is offensive but the words appropriate those offended will reject the messenger. Such was the life and example of Jesus Christ, and has been the example of those martyred for faithfully delivering His message ever since.
You're missing the point. I've asked this 5x now. WHO gets to decide what is profanity. Who? I'd like to know. Please answer this.
All the words you mentioned in one society may be perfectly acceptable while in another, profane and obscene. From one generation to the next, from one culture to the next.
In 20 years the vulgar statement you assigned to Churchill, may be perfectly acceptable speech, maybe even presidential. We don't know. Things change.
Am I beholden to what "others" believe is crude? Whoever "they" may be.
Here is an example that I thought of. When I was teenager 35-40 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to say the word f** for a person with homosexual tendencies. Perfectly acceptable. I heard it on a daily basis from my classmates. Now, you would be cancelled forever for saying the word once (I don't say the word personally). "They" decided that the word was now offensive, derogatory, and crude. Am I beholden to society's whims about what may be "crude", "vulgar", or "profane", even thought that may change on a frequent basis. On the other hand, there were words that were never said 30 years ago and considered vulgar. They are now common speech perfectly acceptable to most if not all. Is it now OK for me to say them, and why do I have to listen to what non Christians decide I should or shouldn't say.
It's irrelevant. If you must have an answer, "nobody has a right to, but in practice the crowd defines profanity in an illogical process of gradual social contagion". I actually find it quite silly that we think some words are good and some bad which mean the same thing - but that's the reality of the society we live in, and we need to interact with people in a manner which is effective in that society.
We actually agree on the one part of the question you keep wanting to discuss. You're just stuck here:
And aren't going any further. I'm talking about the next step beyond that.
Last edited:
Nobody decides.
What is profanity is decided by free interaction between people. Same as price for bread, cars, clothes. Closest phrase is it frame market rules.
There is never need for central planners to decide proper usage of language.
What is proper language on this forum is decided by people who participate. If patricipants decide to be more profane, then admin team can't do anything. They aren't going to permaban 70-90% of active participants.
Whatever conclusion is regarding profanity and uplifting language I'm certain one thing.
If bad people aren't allowed to be called bad because that is "unpolite" or "disrespectful" there is no defence againsts bad people. And this is whole point of my writing.
Yes, in regular/usual communication you should be diplomatic/nice/uplifting as needed. I'm certain anybody here supports that. But that isn't issue. Let's go to concrete example which caused this thread.
It is right to call Godwin Emefiele, central banker from Nigeria who introduced CBDC and caused chaos in Nigeria's economy, using bad words? Yes/no on this forum, and yes/no on other media?
I would say yes for both because his fruit is bad, he is supporting and practicing evil ideals and political opponents are fair game for ridicule and offense.
If bad people aren't allowed to be called bad because that is "unpolite" or "disrespectful" there is no defence againsts bad people. And this is whole point of my writing.
Yes, in regular/usual communication you should be diplomatic/nice/uplifting as needed. I'm certain anybody here supports that. But that isn't issue. Let's go to concrete example which caused this thread.
It is right to call Godwin Emefiele, central banker from Nigeria who introduced CBDC and caused chaos in Nigeria's economy, using bad words? Yes/no on this forum, and yes/no on other media?
I would say yes for both because his fruit is bad, he is supporting and practicing evil ideals and political opponents are fair game for ridicule and offense.
Will you please stop pretending that I don’t want you to be able to call someone an evil person. That’s an absolute lie and you are intelligent enough to see that, I think.
You act as if you should be able to use any word at all, and you know full well that that also is a complete lie. There are words that are often used that no one ever uses on this site, because they know that it would be unacceptable. It’s called having a conscience. Refraining out of respect for others.
Acting as if no one should have to moderate their words would be the position that the enemy of of souls would endorse.
Thank you. At least someone answered my question. The crowd decides what is profanity through social contagion.
Now we, as Christians, have to listen to what the "crowd" says is profanity, and not say them. Basically, we need to be beholden to what the crowd says is wrong. Never mind that the crowd is unbelievers.
We have to keep up on the latest social contagion craze to determine what is right and wrong for us to say. The same social contagion that is fanatically pushing the transgender movement.
What if, in 5 years the crowd through social contagion says that it is completely and totally acceptable to say the word f**k in everyday speech. Is it now acceptable for us to say it?
Do you see how illogical that is? These are the points we are getting at.
Last edited:
What the hey?
Non-Christians might consider some terms as too vulgar for certain uses and that should be a problem?
Yeah, we need to be extremely fearful of that possibility.
You dont trust the crowd on vaccines, mask mandates, and transgenderism. Why do you trust them on the words you should or shouldn’t say. Do you like to be censored.
There aren't normal social processes pushing this. Bribery and threat of force (for example: hate speech laws) are used.
Usual methods rely on reputation and similary voluntary mechanisms. Presence of force blocks them.
What is your response to this?
You argue against having standards, if there is nothing that is off the table to you then it is worthless to try and talk to you about it.
I’m for clear cut biblical standards. “Thou shalt not steal”. Some things are not clear cut in the Bible and we’re allowed to use the brain God gave us to decide for ourselves if it is right or not. I’m not for adding ANY extra biblical standards without a clear biblical command or a crystal clear biblical principle.
@steve @FollowingHim y'all pause for a minute. You sound an awful lot like those who scream marriage is ONE man and ONE woman ONLY. You may not be aware, but you are defending the doctrines of gnostics. (Yes, this issue had its birth that far back.) You are having trouble understanding (and answering) what is being presented to you because you are emotional about this. I understand you because I was once like you, but you're dead wrong about this. You're also making me sick with your "it's not about standards/it is about standards" and "it's about conscience/it's about consequences". Steer a steady course. What the hey.
Also, @frederick, Jesus deliberately chose wording to hinder the message, e.g. parables. He also used vulgar speech, both to Herod (calling him a fox, a slanderous term at the time) and to the Samaritan woman (calling her a dog, to which her answer was beautiful). We've already covered the filthy rags, Paul wishing certain agitators would cut off their (sigh) tallywhackers(?), and Jesus using explicit language to describe how dietary laws are ultimately reduced to excrement, either in this thread or others. Vulgarity is only a tool to elicit the correct emotional conveyance. It is not evil.
But, if it's the pristine IMAGE of this forum that you want to maintain, then by all means, just say so. Give us a list of unacceptable words and I'm sure we will all find a way to be condescending and derisive in more artful ways. Just like you do.
Also, @frederick, Jesus deliberately chose wording to hinder the message, e.g. parables. He also used vulgar speech, both to Herod (calling him a fox, a slanderous term at the time) and to the Samaritan woman (calling her a dog, to which her answer was beautiful). We've already covered the filthy rags, Paul wishing certain agitators would cut off their (sigh) tallywhackers(?), and Jesus using explicit language to describe how dietary laws are ultimately reduced to excrement, either in this thread or others. Vulgarity is only a tool to elicit the correct emotional conveyance. It is not evil.
But, if it's the pristine IMAGE of this forum that you want to maintain, then by all means, just say so. Give us a list of unacceptable words and I'm sure we will all find a way to be condescending and derisive in more artful ways. Just like you do.