[CS-FSLUG] Words and the Usage

Jon Glass jonglass at usa.net
Thu Dec 16 01:37:53 CST 2010

On Thursday, December 16, 2010, Timothy Butler <tbutler at ofb.biz> wrote:
>         All that to say, while I prefer to stick to proper grammar and "polite" language, I'm not sure coarse language is necessarily prohibited by Scripture.

Well, if you put the issue into a "prohibited" type of category, then
I would say that that is the wrong approach. New Testament faith isn't
about "do" and "don't" It's not commandments and prohibitions. It is
about loving the brethren, and loving our neighbor. In other words,
our approach to what we do is to be such that we don't wish to cause a
weaker brother to stumble, nor to give occasion to those outside the
household of faith to condemn our faith.

The irony is that unbelievers have a higher standard than believers
often do, today (at least for believers).

And yes, coarse language is one area that fits firmly into this area.
If we take Scripture at its face value, then casual language of a
coarse nature ought to be far from our lips. But I think that most of
us wouldn't think of using some of the most coarse language (and I
won't even dignify them with letters and funky characters. We all know
what they are). However, there are words that seem to be mild by
today's standards, but what do they really mean?

That word "damn".... I think we could all say that it has legitimate
uses--and just what are those uses? Well, damnation is the cursing of
someone to eternal punishment in the lake of fire. It is the worst
fate we can imagine, and the one place that, as I read Scriptures,
that even God does not wish to send people--considering it was created
for satan and his angels. So, to say to someone, d__ you. Is quite
imprecatory, and definitely not in line with "love thy neighbor." Now
this is a serious matter, and not one to take lightly. However,
irreverent people of past ages would say such things in anger, and to
show their irreverence. Back in those days, no believer would ever
think of saying such a thing. Of course, such a word also fits to just
saying it by itself. And soon, it became a nice adjective in its own
right (as in this case). As long as it remained in the purview of
irreverent people, it stayed merely a apart of their own world. When I
was a kid, even unbelievers didn't use this word around women and
children, and if one did, he apologized profusely afterwards. And this
was steel country, PA (for the record), where coarse men were the
norm, and among them, even coarser language. ;-)

I'm getting long-winded, but let me say this, damning something is not
just a light matter. Eternal damnation is serious business--at least
it ought to be for anyone who names the name of Christ. No. there is
no prohibition of using the word--in any context, but a wise soul will
refrain from its use, and not promote it, justify it or excuse it. In
fact, IMNSHO, I think that the fact that believers have ceased in many
ways to be salt in US society has a large bearing on the coarseness of
our society today. Men no longer fear God, because those who claim the
name of Christ no longer do.

Here's a question. If we, as believers, not only allow society to
degrade, but also follow its trends, where does that put us? Ought not
our lives be a counter-point to the world? In other words, maybe in
our attempts to be "relevant" we make ourselves completely irrelevant.

More information about the Christiansource mailing list