It’s about the journey not the destination.
-
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
OUR journey is supposed to be on the narrow path...not the broad path where anything goes.
If it offends your brother, abstain when in his presence. For they have a weak conscience.
“But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
1 Corinthians 8:12
As far as other profanities, each person knows by their own conscience which is often informed by their culture of origin.
It is better to prioritize being bold in the truth first, and secondly keeping peace, and kindness. To prioritize peace and kindness first, sometimes cancels out telling the truth.
“for which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”
Ephesians 6:20
“and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
Romans 12:18
Yes, however, we cannot control others and should not let let other peoples opinions wreck our day, especially on an internet thread. It will go where it will go and you’re free to continue or step off at any time. Enjoy what you can and glean what you can. See how people are reacting and weigh it out. Some are legalistic and some are just sarcastic. And sometimes you find a friend in the mess of it all. Most people have already made up their minds about things and some are open to learning. So far I like the people in this community. It’s been nice participating. I’m enjoying the journey…but I will not hesitate to get off if I find it’s going the wrong way.
Some don't like it when things get heated, so if it's too hot perhaps it's wise to step away and let things cool off. My $0.02
I guess I never noticed the temperature in the room. Must have gone right over my head.
Many HAVE left, and I have left others for similar reasons, but only because they had so little else to offer. I agree most have already made up their minds. It's just sad that on a "Biblical" forum, the Bible cannot be used as the final word, and it is culture, and Miriam-Webster who end up being the "final arbiters" and authority. This whole thing started, not from someone trying to control another, but from one brother respectfully asking another brother to exercise a little SELF control, and another expressing agreement. Why something like that should be so offensive was beyond me, until I finally realized that even this forum is a reflection of today's ineffective church as a whole. So...I give up.
Despite differing authority views, there are intelligent people here, and I hope to continue to learn from many of them, so off to other threads I go.
I find it sad that the discussion has become an argument as to who is the arbiter of what is considered politeness.
If people seriously have no problem with their young children using language that Merriam Webster labels as vulgar , then my opinion is an anomaly.
But if you wouldn’t want your children to be using it, then I am sincerely at a loss in understanding why you would defend it?
Can’t we be an oasis of politeness in this sea of debauchery?
Must we continue to debase ourselves as they do?
What does it mean to come out from among them and be separate?
One of my wives has a commercial paper that comes out twice a month. It is read and enjoyed by thousands in our little town.
She typically writes around 4,000 words per edition and would never consider using a word like this. It just isn’t necessary.
If people seriously have no problem with their young children using language that Merriam Webster labels as vulgar , then my opinion is an anomaly.
But if you wouldn’t want your children to be using it, then I am sincerely at a loss in understanding why you would defend it?
Can’t we be an oasis of politeness in this sea of debauchery?
Must we continue to debase ourselves as they do?
What does it mean to come out from among them and be separate?
One of my wives has a commercial paper that comes out twice a month. It is read and enjoyed by thousands in our little town.
She typically writes around 4,000 words per edition and would never consider using a word like this. It just isn’t necessary.
There plenty of things that are fine for adults but aren’t for children.
Let’s discuss that.
Yeshua was generally amongst groups that would have included children, what words was he using?
I agree with you if you are saying it's the dosage that needs to be moderated for children. Or childish adults.
For instance: I allow mine harsh words, harsh actions, harsh drink, and other harsh realities, all with guidance for their understanding and appreciation. They only are punished if they abuse those things. Instead of ignorance, I give them knowledge and understanding. They won't enter the world with doe eyes and doughy skin. They won't engage in drunken revelry (as is common for young adults leaving the confines of their overbearing and hypocritical father's house) because alcohol has no appeal of the forbidden to them and they understand its effects and their own limitations. They won't be taken aback by a tongue-lashing, and can hold their own and dish it as quickly and effectively. They likewise won't cower from a threat, but will answer swiftly and deliver consequences. And I teach them that a man who deliberately alters his natural language in front of you is likely withholding his true thoughts from you in other ways as well. Yes, I teach them that "polite" language, no matter what century, is the language of deceivers and the deceived.
I don't agree with you at all, and here's why: Once upon a time, a man could be pilloried for saying or printing "cock". The word was even for a time struck out of dictionaries. The Puritans are the reason it's hens and roosters, not cocks and hens. Something so simple, so innocuous, so natural, and yet because of sensibilities of the loud "moral" ones who grasped power for a time, a word was denigrated and its users scorned and sometimes punished. Likewise, the vulgarity of many of our "bad words" was decided during that time. Today, nothing is different. Dictionary definitions are being revised, common speech is being labeled offensive, and upright people are being slandered and/or punished (cancelled) for their use of language. Same screeching shills, different cause.
So, yes, it's extremely important to first know who is going to be the arbiter of politeness before agreeing to be "polite". You obviously think you are qualified for the position, and yet in this forum you use words such as "idiot" and "crap" and you engage in tongue-in-cheek mockery and you barely avoid slander. So, clearly if your opinion of polite discourse is adopted as the standard, we will have to understand fully what you think.
Edit: I singled you out, @steve , but I know you are only the torchbearer for a few others who have gone quiet or stayed quiet. I don't want you to think it's personal. I'm attacking the ideas you are championing, not your self.
@NVIII said it better than I could. It’s important to know who the arbiter is first. Today, certain powers are making certain words bad that have previously been used.
Why do I have to conform and listen to them and now remove these new bad words from my speech to appease them? Are they Bible believing Christians. No they are not.
I’ve asked this 4x now. Who is the arbiter of crude or bad language. I’m still waiting for an answer. It wasn’t a rhetorical question. If I’m going to police my own speech, I need to know who is making the rules.
Why do I have to conform and listen to them and now remove these new bad words from my speech to appease them? Are they Bible believing Christians. No they are not.
I’ve asked this 4x now. Who is the arbiter of crude or bad language. I’m still waiting for an answer. It wasn’t a rhetorical question. If I’m going to police my own speech, I need to know who is making the rules.
I find it difficult to trust people with exceptional (think southern belle) manners. I think too often they lack the courage (or give a darn) to tell you what they really think.
The same goes for people that just agree with everything you say.
One of our sons was in his teens before he realized some people consider s h I t to be a cuss word.
Totally agree that in the communication of ideas between friends and brothers "strong language" is not needed.
We keep it clean in public, even in conflicts. My husband was mistreated by deputies years ago on a search and rescue call. He used the F word, but ONLY when quoting the deputy who's first words to my trying to assist husband were "Who the F are you?"
We just don't usually ask others to change, or get offended by profanity.
I do not hold myself to be the epitome of virtue, I have had plenty of rough-and-tumble in these discussions. In fact I have been reprimanded when it became necessary, I think that I received it in good grace. At least that is what I hope, maybe I didn’t.
I did a quick search, it’s been almost 2.5 years since I’ve used idiot, the other results were all quotations of others.
But seriously, does my use of idiot and crap disqualify my opinion on the use of a-hole? To me, they hardly seem equivalent.
My case in point, sir. According to the Amish, you are a heathen. To those who attempt to draw a line on this issue, it's an impossibility, a thick fog, a moving target that shifts with the winds of time...because it's always subjective. You can't define it, but if you can, you will always be in disagreement with others who also think they can, and either way completely wrong in the eyes of generations that preceded you and those that will follow you. Censors of the past filtered words that you would roll your eyes and laugh at. Censors of the present make your blood boil with language they deem offensive. Both suffer(ed) from a lack of understanding and from a fear of those they sought to oppress. Even worse, your subjective opinion is shrouded by the actors of the past who ushered in their own particular opinions of what is wholesome speech, which became woven into the fabric of the more "polite" and "christian" (whitewashed) segments of society, and you don't realize how deeply their influence has shaped your thinking since childhood. Just think how quickly ngr (Scottish dialectal of Spanish negro) became colored became black became poc. Can't even fully print the first one nowadays for fear of retribution, but at one point in time it was the right word, totally innocuous, and nothing has really changed except perception. At each step of the way the last acceptable word was vilified, and yet at no step of the way was the word at fault. Now realize there are living, breathing ones coming up among us who have already vilified our use of the words "he", "she", "hate", "gay", etc., and in some cases have already codified into law punishments for using those words the way we always used to.
This is not correct, but close enough, and if you want to hold this position I won't fight you.
For spiritual reasons I will fight anyone who seeks to steal or destroy the God-given liberties of another, and for physical preference I will also resist the killing of our language. You can pull up verses, but I will keep coming back with, "define unwholesome" or similar, until you gnash your teeth and curse me in your frustration...orrrrr...realize that it has nothing to do with a predefined lexicon and everything to do with the heart. The latter is what I'm hoping to steer everyone toward.
"Do not move a boundary stone set up by your fathers" is exactly what our fathers did through censorship of their father's language, which is what I'd like to restore. You all have a similar interest, I know, because you are earnestly working to set back other stones repositioned by our fathers through the false doctrines of monogamy, egalitarianism, child idolatry, etc.. The truth is what I'm after here, pure and unadulterated. And maybe it is bitter at first, but I think you'll find it is sweet once you stomach it.
I really think the only reason this is an argument is because people are looking at it from the wrong end. Too many people seem to think this is about "what I am allowed to do" and "what other people are trying to stop me from doing". That's not where @steve is coming from.
This isn't about personal liberty, it's the exact opposite. It's about putting aside yourself and putting others ahead. It's about treating others as you would want them to treat you (Luke 6:31).
The following section is interestingly, in my Bible, titled "Paul's use of liberty" - and although the title is extrabiblical it frames this well:
Of course that changes from context to context, because there are no rules. This isn't about rules.
Think of the most influential speech you can remember, and count how many words in it would be considered "profanity" by whatever reasoning. You'll find there are few if any. The most influential speakers have no need to resort to this cheap gimmick to give their words more impact, there are more effective ways to speak into the world.
This isn't about personal liberty, it's the exact opposite. It's about putting aside yourself and putting others ahead. It's about treating others as you would want them to treat you (Luke 6:31).
The following section is interestingly, in my Bible, titled "Paul's use of liberty" - and although the title is extrabiblical it frames this well:
Sure you've got the liberty to use whatever words you like. The question is what words you should use in each context - and that largely comes down to "how will this be perceived by my audience". So it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with your audience. It's not about your freedom - nor is it about other people trying to control you. It's about how to best influence the world.1 Cor 9:19-22 said:
Of course that changes from context to context, because there are no rules. This isn't about rules.
Think of the most influential speech you can remember, and count how many words in it would be considered "profanity" by whatever reasoning. You'll find there are few if any. The most influential speakers have no need to resort to this cheap gimmick to give their words more impact, there are more effective ways to speak into the world.
To illustrate that point, I will quote from one of the most influential speeches of all time, Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" address:
Churchill's trick wasn't profanity, it was the use of short, familiar, Anglo-Saxon origin words. He had plenty of shortcomings in other areas (Gallipoli, racism etc), I'm no Churchill fanboy. But when it came to words the man was a genius, and the perfect illustration for this discussion.
Oh, oops, that's the one everyone forgot about because it wasn't memorable enough. This is the one everyone remembers:
See the difference. One is crap from a gutter, one is poetry. One stirs the emotions, and one does not. Profanity adds nothing to a message, on the contrary, once someone has to resort to it they've basically lost the argument or whatever's going on. It's not about what's permitted - Churchill would have been quite within his rights to talk like my first fictional quote. But he wouldn't have roused a nation that way, as he wouldn't have been speaking in a way that actually resonanted with the audience.
Churchill's trick wasn't profanity, it was the use of short, familiar, Anglo-Saxon origin words. He had plenty of shortcomings in other areas (Gallipoli, racism etc), I'm no Churchill fanboy. But when it came to words the man was a genius, and the perfect illustration for this discussion.
Doesn't sound at all like how this discussion developed, but people are putting their thumbs up on it, so let's roll with it. I like moving goalposts. If that's what we want to say now, then I suppose @MemeFan just has to go with majority opinion here. No ifs ands or buts. There are no rules, but you are ruled by your audience, and their collective opinion is the rule, except when it's not because exceptions. Sounds very much like the same doublespeak used to gaslight manipulate influence people into wearing masks and taking shots and turning in guns and snitching on their neighbors. It's not about your freedom or liberty. Put yourself aside to make others feel safer. Sure. I mean, as far as I know, you might be right. This goes back to my thread where I ask what's the point in resisting tyranny since this world isn't our home and death has no victory over us. So maybe I'm spitting in the wind fighting this muzzle and I should just humble myself and become like water and flow to whatever the prevailing opinion seems to be.
I get what you are saying about Paul. He said not to let your freedom become a stumbling block to your brother. So, if my use of my tongue causes my brother to stumble because it becomes an avenue for him to rebel and act in a way he believes to be wrong, then cut out my tongue and sew my lips. Same for what I eat or what I drink or what I wear or whether I recognize special days or treat them all the same. But, if he speaks of my faith as evil, I'm going to open a session for him just like here and at least offer him the knowledge that I possess so that he has a chance to receive it and pray and receive faith likewise.
Um, influential speeches, not that it matters, but Trump and Patton come to mind. And it's not gimmicks, it's powerful communication. Maybe they, too, know their audience? I know a couple young men I have been able to talk to when others could not because they see Christians as two-faced and they appreciate the brutal honesty within me. I suppose if you are going to chain yourself to polite speech, then at least be absolutely consistent about it. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and "sinners". Did He speak as they spoke? That's unknown, but He certainly was despised by the morally superior.
I get what you are saying about Paul. He said not to let your freedom become a stumbling block to your brother. So, if my use of my tongue causes my brother to stumble because it becomes an avenue for him to rebel and act in a way he believes to be wrong, then cut out my tongue and sew my lips. Same for what I eat or what I drink or what I wear or whether I recognize special days or treat them all the same. But, if he speaks of my faith as evil, I'm going to open a session for him just like here and at least offer him the knowledge that I possess so that he has a chance to receive it and pray and receive faith likewise.
Um, influential speeches, not that it matters, but Trump and Patton come to mind. And it's not gimmicks, it's powerful communication. Maybe they, too, know their audience? I know a couple young men I have been able to talk to when others could not because they see Christians as two-faced and they appreciate the brutal honesty within me. I suppose if you are going to chain yourself to polite speech, then at least be absolutely consistent about it. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and "sinners". Did He speak as they spoke? That's unknown, but He certainly was despised by the morally superior.