"po18guy:
So, “cussing” or profane language or by whichever term it travels, is worldly and not godly. It debases ands dehumanizes.
I think most language is worldly and not godly, and so are most of the things we talk about in day-to-day living. I do, however, agree that we should not use language to debase and to dehumanise.
I disagree entirely. I admire the British greatly for their sense of civility and decorum. The United States has slid into a pit whenever cuss words are deemed acceptable. They are not. Ever.
While that is a nice stereotype of the British, I personally do not think that it is entirely accurate these days.
However, even the differences between our two varieties of English serve to illustrate my point that it is not the actual sound formed but the intended meaning that makes a particular utterance sinful.
Should an American assume bad parenting when some British parents do not bat an eyelid when their 3 year old uses the word, “damn”? I know that some Americans are sufficiently offended by the word that they even use “darn” as an alternative, whereas here the word would be less likely to cause offence even in polite circles.
Am I to gasp in horror when an American uses the word, “f*nny,” which has a different and extremely vulgar meaning in British usage? Indeed, a few British people who are still unaware of the American meaning might indeed be confused or even shocked and scandalised. But Americans commit no mortal sin through public use of the word because the intention is different and as far as they are aware, they are following social rules regarding its usage.
Does a dog breeder commit sin by frequently using the word, “b*tch,” which is taboo when used in reference to human beings?
(I note even that this American forum software censored the word “b
tch" when I wrote it out in full but left "fnny” unchanged, and I censored it myself for the sake of British readers.)
I think we both agree in principle that the use of words to convey an evil meaning is sinful. I believe our difference is mostly idiolectical and for me, these words become empty of any negative connotations in certain contexts, whereas you understand these words in such a way that there is no context, social or grammatical, in which you could use them that they would not express a meaning contrary to Christian virtue.
I cannot therefore say that I disagree with you, because that would be like arguing about whether British English or New Zealand English or South African English or American English is the correct form of English. Having the understanding that
any use of these words is insulting to you, I could not use them in your presence in any context, as I know that doing so would cause offence, which is not an effect I intend, and it would be evil if it were. Similarly, I should be appalled should you use these words in my presence, as in your understanding they are always offensive, and so the only way I could understand it is that you were intentionally insulting me.
Despite our differences, I think we can both agree that a Christian’s language should always and everywhere be respectful of his listeners, intended and unintended, and that no evil should ever come out of his mouth.
