Dirty words?... Obscene words?

[vz71]

Yes, I know that this is what you believe. So tell me, how come that poo-poo is not a “bad” word, while “sh*t” is? By the way these words are not “curse” words.

Popular usage within society.
This has been answered.
given the number of times the question has actually been answered, I am beginning to wonder if the question is really the point behind the thread.

I am interested in peaceful resolution, not exterminating the opposition.

And yet with all of the evidence that Christ’s conflict resolution strategy works you reject the conflict resolution strategy outlined by Christ.

The fact that the dumb opponents of Christianity employed a bad strategy allowed Christianity to employ their sub-optimal strategy, and still reap rewards has NOTHING to do with finding the optimal strategy.

Your game theory does not stand the scrutiny of history.
The strategy employed by the church at that time has been successful many times throughout history.
You can try to build an argument against the Catholic church in the time of Rome, but you will need to explain why it works over and over and over.
The idea that the opposition is ‘dumb’ does not fly.
Rome stood for many centuries. They ruled most of the known world and subjugated many nations. If there is one thing they were very good at, it was suppression of opposition.

 

[Luvya]

Honestly, I think most of us here would agree that the concept is what is important, not the word. However, sh*t has become a curse word because it is often used in anger. The only difference between these two words is that one has come to be used in anger. If one were to say “poo-poo” in anger, I would be equally offended by it.

Well, I am not convinced that I should list all the so called “bad” words, and point out that most of them is not used in anger. (Like the euphemism for pee-pee.) But that would be unnecessary, since using a word in anger does not make it bad.

Society as a whole does tend to legalism, meaning that some people may look at some words as “bad” just because the “rules” say so. I hope you won’t find us doing this. Spiritually speaking, legalism kills.

I see you guys doing precisely that.

No Catholic would decry any normal and natural activity as dirty or sinful. In fact, many have been condemned by the Church as heretics for doing just that. However, any natural act must be used for its intended purpose.

Taking a “dump” is hardly an unnatural use of the bowels. Giving mutual pleasure is not unnatural. Even obtaining personal pleasure is totally natural. The fact that you refer to the “intended purpose” is very revealing. Indeed it is the crux of this whole problem. To declare that some perfectly natural use is “unnatural”, and therefore it is sinful and dirty is the real explanation of the origin of “dirty” words. I was simply waiting here until someone would say this, so that I don’t have to do it. You finally did! Good job. The true explanation has emerged.

The Hebrew word “sin” means “to miss the mark.” When we take sex, a healthy, natural, sacred activity, and use it to treat another person as an object, then we have missed the mark, and so it is a sin.

There is nothing “sacred” about sex. The overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom employs it as a means of procreation. And some species employ it for pure, pleasure seeking purposes, and NOT procreation. Are you familiar with the habits of the bonobo apes? They really practice “make love, not war”. When experiencing frustration, they engage in sex - homosexual, heterosexual. Is their activity “dirty”? Anything and everything betwwen consenting adults is natural, loving and beautiful. Not sinful, disgusting or dirty. Only the Christian concept of “sin” makes it dirty.

Now I do agree that using the other person as merely an object would be improper. But a mutually agreed upon behavior is not “using”. It may happen that the pleasure giving is not simultaneous, but that simply allows the “active” party to concentrate on the “passive” one even more intensely, and as such it is an even more “agape”-like behavior.

As I said, God is not interested in offering strategies one way or another. God is interested in the greater good. This is only proof that the resolution of earthly conflicts is trivial to God.

You mean God deliberately taught the inferior method for conflict resolution, because God does not care about the outcome? To give false, misleading information is also called lying. That God is not interested in the struggle of his followers? That “the resolution of earthly conflicts is trivial to God”? Well, my friend, there is nothing new under the Sun. No matter how much I would intend to insult God (which I do not intend), I could never outdo the disrespect offered up by the believers. By the way, did not the Bible say that not one feather from the tail of the sparrow can fall that God does not care about? And now God does not care about our “earthly conflicts”?? Give me a break!

I think that sometimes you want to “win” these discussions sooo bad, that any and all nonsense is preferable to admit: “oops, I was wrong”.

 

[phoooiee]

Well, I am not convinced that I should list all the so called “bad” words, and point out that most of them is not used in anger. (Like the euphemism for pee-pee.) But that would be unnecessary, since using a word in anger does not make it bad.

I see you guys doing precisely that.

Taking a “dump” is hardly an unnatural use of the bowels. Giving mutual pleasure is not unnatural. Even obtaining personal pleasure is totally natural. The fact that you refer to the “intended purpose” is very revealing. Indeed it is the crux of this whole problem. To declare that some perfectly natural use is “unnatural”, and therefore it is sinful and dirty is the real explanation of the origin of “dirty” words. I was simply waiting here until someone would say this, so that I don’t have to do it. You finally did! Good job. The true explanation has emerged.

There is nothing “sacred” about sex. The overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom employs it as a means of procreation. And some species employ it for pure, pleasure seeking purposes, and NOT procreation. Are you familiar with the habits of the bonobo apes? They really practice “make love, not war”. When experiencing frustration, they engage in sex - homosexual, heterosexual. Is their activity “dirty”? Anything and everything betwwen consenting adults is natural, loving and beautiful. Not sinful, disgusting or dirty. Only the Christian concept of “sin” makes it dirty.

Now I do agree that using the other person as merely an object would be improper. But a mutually agreed upon behavior is not “using”. It may happen that the pleasure giving is not simultaneous, but that simply allows the “active” party to concentrate on the “passive” one even more intensely, and as such it is an even more “agape”-like behavior.

You mean God deliberately taught the inferior method for conflict resolution, because God does not care about the outcome? To give false, misleading information is also called lying. That God is not interested in the struggle of his followers? That “the resolution of earthly conflicts is trivial to God”? Well, my friend, there is nothing new under the Sun. No matter how much I would intend to insult God (which I do not intend), I could never outdo the disrespect offered up by the believers. By the way, did not the Bible say that not one feather from the tail of the sparrow can fall that God does not care about? And now God does not care about our “earthly conflicts”?? Give me a break!

I think that sometimes you want to “win” these discussions sooo bad, that any and all nonsense is preferable to admit: “oops, I was wrong”.

We are not apes. Nor are we beasts. There are consequences to sexual behavior outside the context of marriage, and these consequences do harm. God can lift us above the level of the beasts. Without Him, we remain on that level. Everything in what I am reading here screams to me that you do not believe that this is possible. That you are angry that anyone has even suggested it. Why does this suggestion anger you?

If I have been wrong, I am truly very sorry.
However, I would rather be wrong than angry. Nothing good comes of anger.

 

[Luvya]

We are not apes. Nor are we beasts.

No. But from that it simply does not follow that the same behavior for them is not “dirty” but for us it is “dirty”. Sex is simply value-neutral. Only “forced” sex, which is about power and domination is not value neutral.

There are consequences to sexual behavior outside the context of marriage, and these consequences do harm.

If only you could substantiate that… I am relatively certain that those harms you talk about are somhow connected to your belief in God. Are there any “harms” which are purely secular, non-theological in nature?

God can lift us above the level of the beasts. Without Him, we remain on that level. Everything in what I am reading here screams to me that you do not believe that this is possible.

I don’t think that the differences are due to God. But that is not really important here.

That you are angry that anyone has even suggested it. Why does this suggestion anger you?

If I have been wrong, I am truly very sorry.
However, I would rather be wrong than angry. Nothing good comes of anger.

Why on Earth would I be angry? You did not say anything that I would be (or should be) angry about. Actually I am quite happy that I did not have to point out the source of “dirtyness” in words, you did it for me. It is the Christian attitude of “sin” that makes words (and what they refer to) dirty. Only Christianty holds the concept of “sin”. The concept of “sin” is simply nonexistent outside Christianity. And thus the “dirty” nature of certain sexual activities.

 

[vz71]

No. But from that it simply does not follow that the same behavior for them is not “dirty” but for us it is “dirty”.

Yes, it does.

We are not animals, we are humans. Are nature is not an animal one, it is a human one.

Our intellect allows us to act beyond simple instinct.
Therefore we have moral considerations that no animal has.

For instance, it is possible for an animal to kill, but they cannot be guilty of violating the commandment concerning murder.

 

[phoooiee]

No. But from that it simply does not follow that the same behavior for them is not “dirty” but for us it is “dirty”. Sex is simply value-neutral. Only “forced” sex, which is about power and domination is not value neutral.

If only you could substantiate that… I am relatively certain that those harms you talk about are somhow connected to your belief in God. Are there any “harms” which are purely secular, non-theological in nature?

I don’t think that the differences are due to God. But that is not really important here.

Why on Earth would I be angry? You did not say anything that I would be (or should be) angry about. Actually I am quite happy that I did not have to point out the source of “dirtyness” in words, you did it for me. It is the Christian attitude of “sin” that makes words (and what they refer to) dirty. Only Christianty holds the concept of “sin”. The concept of “sin” is simply nonexistent outside Christianity. And thus the “dirty” nature of certain sexual activities.

Perhaps I am being presumptuous to suggest it then. It only seemed that way to me. I apologize.

Could I ask you to do a more thorough examination of all world religions? You may find that the basic code of values contained in almost all of them is more similar to that found in Christianity than you thought.

 

[vz71]

Actually I am quite happy that I did not have to point out the source of “dirtyness” in words, you did it for me. It is the Christian attitude of “sin” that makes words (and what they refer to) dirty.

Were that really the case, profane language would not be possible within a culture that has no Christian culture.

However, profanity exists in all cultures around the world…even those that are not christian.

Therefore the connection to Christian values is a false one.

 

[Luvya]

Perhaps I am being presumptuous to suggest it then. It only seemed that way to me. I apologize.

No need. There was no insult intended and none was taken.

Could I ask you to do a more thorough examination of all world religions? You may find that the basic code of values contained in almost all of them is more similar to that found in Christianity than you thought.

Most certainly there are similarities. Pretty much all ethical systems acknowledge and agree on a few basic principles, commonly known as the “golden rules” (both the direct and the inverse rules). And that is obvious, since those two rules are sufficient to build a good, working society. Do not hurt others and be be helpful toward others in the times of need. Otherwise simply respect them and leave them alone. The rest is just icing. On the other hand I am not aware of any non-Christian religion that would “frown upon” sex, or masturbation.

Now, having said that what is the relevance? You already gave me the answer to the basic question of this thread. It is the Christian outlook on life which declares something to be dirty. If you just look at Genesis, what is the first result of eating from the “tree”? The ridiculous concept that nudity is “shameful”, that one’s “private parts” should be covered. The concept of “dirty” and shameful are introduced right then and there. No need to flog this dead horse any more.

 

[vz71]

Most certainly there are similarities. Pretty much all ethical systems acknowledge and agree on a few basic principles, commonly known as the “golden rules” (both the direct and the inverse rules). And that is obvious, since those two rules are sufficient to build a good, working society. Do not hurt others and be be helpful toward others in the times of need. Otherwise simply respect them and leave them alone. The rest is just icing. On the other hand I am not aware of any non-Christian religion that would “frown upon” sex, or masturbation.

Judaism and Islam are just a couple of examples that show your contention to be incorrect.

Now, having said that what is the relevance? You already gave me the answer to the basic question of this thread. It is the Christian outlook on life which declares something to be dirty.

Referenced a few posts ago.
This is false.
I would venture to say you are correct in assessing a concept of sinfulness contributes to something being considered ‘dirty’ however this concept is common for religions of many types.
To narrow this to Christianity is a mistake.

If you just look at Genesis, what is the first result of eating from the “tree”? The ridiculous concept that nudity is “shameful”, that one’s “private parts” should be covered. The concept of “dirty” and shameful are introduced right then and there. No need to flog this dead horse any more.

Of course, this leaves a big question mark next to all of the cultures that developed clothing without the benefit of the genesis account.

You are correct, there is no need to flog a dead horse.
But it is important to be able to identify what exactly is the dead horse and what is the red herring.

 

[phoooiee]

No need. There was no insult intended and none was taken.

Most certainly there are similarities. Pretty much all ethical systems acknowledge and agree on a few basic principles, commonly known as the “golden rules” (both the direct and the inverse rules). And that is obvious, since those two rules are sufficient to build a good, working society. Do not hurt others and be be helpful toward others in the times of need. Otherwise simply respect them and leave them alone. The rest is just icing. On the other hand I am not aware of any non-Christian religion that would “frown upon” sex, or masturbation.

Now, having said that what is the relevance? You already gave me the answer to the basic question of this thread. It is the Christian outlook on life which declares something to be dirty. If you just look at Genesis, what is the first result of eating from the “tree”? The ridiculous concept that nudity is “shameful”, that one’s “private parts” should be covered. The concept of “dirty” and shameful are introduced right then and there. No need to flog this dead horse any more.

If you are not aware of non-Christian religions frowning upon sex outside of marriage, it would really help you to do some more reading. See if you can find more examples.

I think the relevance is clear. If the claim that the Christian outlook on life is what declares something to be dirty is actually false, then no answer to this thread has been given.

 

[Luvya]

If you are not aware of non-Christian religions frowning upon sex outside of marriage, it would really help you to do some more reading. See if you can find more examples.

An example, please? None of the Oriental religions fall into this category. They actually revere sex, in any shape or form. I don’t think that Islam does (but admittedly my information is limited). What else is there?

 

[vz71]

An example, please? None of the Oriental religions fall into this category. They actually revere sex, in any shape or form. I don’t think that Islam does (but admittedly my information is limited). What else is there?

Judaism and Islam are just a couple of examples that show your contention to be incorrect.

I guess somebody isn’t listening.

 

[phoooiee]

An example, please? None of the Oriental religions fall into this category. They actually revere sex, in any shape or form. I don’t think that Islam does (but admittedly my information is limited). What else is there?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality
Besides Satanism and Wicca, all of these condemn sexual conduct as you have described it.

I like the Hindu explanation very much. In many ways it is similar to the Catholic view.
en.allexperts.com/q/Hindus-946/Hinduism-Sex-Marriage.htm

What do you think, and why?

 

[phoooiee]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality
Besides Satanism and Wicca, all of these condemn sexual conduct as you have described it.

I like the Hindu explanation very much. In many ways it is similar to the Catholic view.
en.allexperts.com/q/Hindus-946/Hinduism-Sex-Marriage.htm

What do you think, and why?

Had to amend- I did also forget Unitarian Universalism.
Interestingly, the only religions that seem to support your view on sex are very new religions rather than the ones that have stood the test of time.

 

[Luvya]

Had to amend- I did also forget Unitarian Universalism.
Interestingly, the only religions that seem to support your view on sex are very new religions rather than the ones that have stood the test of time.

Shintoism is very old. Just to name one. The religions (Judaism, Islam) which consider the old testament as “special” obviously have similar relationship to Christianity, and that includes Unitarianism as well. These are pretty much the same with different window dressing.

 

[phoooiee]

Shintoism is very old. Just to name one. The religions (Judaism, Islam) which consider the old testament as “special” obviously have similar relationship to Christianity, and that includes Unitarianism as well. These are pretty much the same with different window dressing.

It is my understanding that traditional Shinto also forbids sex before marriage. Shinto, however, is a very vague and fluid religion and does not have so many rules about anything. This means it tends to take on the values of the culture that surrounds it and cannot really be discussed as such.

What did you think of the Hindu explanation that I posted above?

 

[Luvya]

It is my understanding that traditional Shinto also forbids sex before marriage. Shinto, however, is a very vague and fluid religion and does not have so many rules about anything. This means it tends to take on the values of the culture that surrounds it and cannot really be discussed as such.

What did you think of the Hindu explanation that I posted above?

Nothing, because it is not relevant. We are not talking about marital customs here. Oriental people simply do not hold sex “dirty” in any form. That is the point. The only societies which consider sex and nudity and natural functions of the body “dirty” are the ones which hold the OT “sacred”.

 

[bare_bones]

The English have too many euphemisms and Germans/Danes use vulgar speech far too much, that’s my opinion. The latter use rude language metaphorically for non-rude topics even in a formal setting, and that just comes off as bad manners to a mainland Scandinavian like me. Don’t take me too seriously though, because I try to be tolerant and I don’t think that I’m perfect.

 

[vz71]

The only societies which consider sex and nudity and natural functions of the body “dirty” are the ones which hold the OT “sacred”.

Interesting.
I am doing some google digging into the sexual viewpoints held in other religions and am finding this to be untrue.

What exactly does ‘dirty’ mean?
What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘natural functions’?

I suppose that if you define ‘dirty’ in a very specific way, you could effectively eliminate all but those religions that hold the OT to be a sacred text.
But all that really proves is that the debate is lost when we concede control of the vocabulary.

 

[phoooiee]

Nothing, because it is not relevant. We are not talking about marital customs here. Oriental people simply do not hold sex “dirty” in any form. That is the point. The only societies which consider sex and nudity and natural functions of the body “dirty” are the ones which hold the OT “sacred”.

Neither do Christians. I’m so confused. The point is that the Hindu outlook on sex outside of marriage is almost identical to the Catholic one.

May I recommend that you read Theology of the Body written by John Paul II?