Swears

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='23 March 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1269326124' post='2078223']
I would rather hear the word c.rap come from a kids mouth over hearing the child say poo-poo. I would at least feel the kid would not be the other kids punching bag through life. Its amazing how we can invent words and then place a stigma upon the use of the word, thats mankind in its utmost simplicity, we strive for meaning then limit ourselves.

ed
[/quote]

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='22 March 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1269274849' post='2077624']
He didn't ask it if was a sin, he asked if it was bad. Technically vulgarities are bad. Not necessarily a sin, but definitely not good things to say. If you hear a 5 year old say "cra.p" are you going to tell them it's ok because it's a good word? No, you say "Don't say that, it's a bad word."

In Theology 101 we were taught that there is a difference between vulgarities, cursing, and swearing (all terms people use universally to refer to "bad words"). Vulgarities are words like croutons, sh**, and the f-bomb. These may or may not be sins depending on context (and generally speaking saying a word isn't going to be a mortal sin). Cursing is saying "dam,n" which literally means you want something damned to hell (and, according to my professor, is always a sin on some level). Swearing is to take an oath, as in swearing to tell the truth with your hand on the Bible in court (which, obviously, isn't sinful in nature).



All that said, I still use vulgarities more often than I'd like to admit. When I do so I also have to admit to the fact that what I say is bad.
[/quote]

If something is "bad" and it's done with full knowledge it's at least a venial sin, isn't it? I always thought it was...

I agree with ed (yeah, I don't think that sentence has ever come out of my mouth... i mean my fingers). The designation of vulgarities has been pretty arbitrary. I don't see how carp could be considered more offensive than mushy mud pie. I think the American view on language has been extremely affected by the Puritan one.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='24 March 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1269405492' post='2078820']
If something is "bad" and it's done with full knowledge it's at least a venial sin, isn't it? I always thought it was...

I agree with ed (yeah, I don't think that sentence has ever come out of my mouth... i mean my fingers). The designation of vulgarities has been pretty arbitrary. I don't see how carp could be considered more offensive than mushy mud pie. I think the American view on language has been extremely affected by the Puritan one.
[/quote]

Not exactly (in this particular case). Like I said, simply saying a word in and of itself is not a sin. The words are morally neutral, it's the context. Things like if are you angry when you say them, or could it be an occasion of scandal, etc. (Yes, there are still people who get scandalized when they hear words like croutons and piss. Even the dictionary says it's a vulgar word.) We all got a big kick out of it in class, elbowing one another and saying "Hey, we could say the f-word right now and it'd be ok, it's not a sin!"

Just because it's not inherently sinful doesn't mean it's a good word to say. I think we are called to be pure in speech, thought, and action. I fail at that all the time, but I know what I should be striving for. I think there are lots of things we say or do that are not sins but probably would be better for us if we avoided them.

I think language in America is a far cry from Puritan. When I go to the grocery store and hear people dropping f-bombs at their kids I have no doubts about that.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='24 March 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1269409624' post='2078861']
Not exactly (in this particular case). Like I said, simply saying a word in and of itself is not a sin. The words are morally neutral, it's the context. Things like if are you angry when you say them, or could it be an occasion of scandal, etc. (Yes, there are still people who get scandalized when they hear words like croutons and piss. Even the dictionary says it's a vulgar word.) We all got a big kick out of it in class, elbowing one another and saying "Hey, we could say the f-word right now and it'd be ok, it's not a sin!"

Just because it's not inherently sinful doesn't mean it's a good word to say. I think we are called to be pure in speech, thought, and action. I fail at that all the time, but I know what I should be striving for. I think there are lots of things we say or do that are not sins but probably would be better for us if we avoided them.
[/quote]

hm. I still don't understand how something bad (i.e. an evil) could be engaged in willfully without sinning.


[quote]
I think language in America is a far cry from Puritan. When I go to the grocery store and hear people dropping f-bombs at their kids I have no doubts about that.
[/quote]

No, the American [i]view[/i] on language is Puritan. It's generally agreed that certain non-sinful words should be avoided... If they're not sinful what's the all the hub-ub about? How does it make sense to speak of avoiding impure speech without also speaking of sin?

I'm trying to understand. I just don't see how one can willingly engage in an evil without sinning.


I'm avoiding a paper, so we can continue with this all night...

Edited March 24, 2010 by aalpha1989

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='24 March 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1269409976' post='2078864']
hm. I still don't understand how something bad (i.e. an evil) could be engaged in willfully without sinning.

[/quote]

I already said the words aren't evil. I could say something morally offensive and not use a single vulgarity and it would still be a sin against charity. You could say every vulgarity in the book to one person and not offend them, but say it to someone else and you could completely scandalize them. With speech context counts for a lot.


[quote]No, the American [i]view[/i] on language is Puritan. It's generally agreed that certain non-sinful words should be avoided... [/quote]

Sorry, I still don't see it. I hear way too many people speaking without regard to who is nearby and using the most foul language. They clearly do not share any Puritan views on language. lol People who practice pure speech are much fewer and further inbetween.

[quote]
If they're not sinful what's the all the hub-ub about? How does it make sense to speak of avoiding impure speech without also speaking of sin?

I'm trying to understand. I just don't see how one can willingly engage in an evil without sinning.


I'm avoiding a paper, so we can continue with this all night...
[/quote]

Context, context, context. ANY word could be an occasion of sin. They can be an occasion of sin because of how they are used or who you say it to/around.

I don't know where you're getting that words are evil. How can a word be evil in and of itself? I said that they are "bad" and should be avoided because they are vulgar, I NEVER said that words were evil.

(It's 2 am so I will not be continuing this all night. If you haven't grasped what I was getting at by now I give up.)

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='24 March 2010 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1269410961' post='2078869']
I already said the words aren't evil. I could say something morally offensive and not use a single vulgarity and it would still be a sin against charity. You could say every vulgarity in the book to one person and not offend them, but say it to someone else and you could completely scandalize them. With speech context counts for a lot.
[/quote]

The only reason anyone could be scandalized by non-sinful words is that they hold a Puritan view of said words and believe them to be sins. Americans who have a religious morality generally regard vulgar such as carp as sins. Such a belief is Puritanism. As I said before, it is completely arbitrary. If you believe carp is a bad word you [i]must reasonably[/i] be held to believe poo is a bad word.


[quote]
Sorry, I still don't see it. I hear way too many people speaking without regard to who is nearby and using the most foul language.
[/quote]

Puritanism is a system of belief, but we all fail sometimes to live up to our beliefs. If people consistently use foul (but non-sinful) language but want to "repent", they only want to repent because they have a Puritan view on the language. If they don't want to repent they've been spared Puritan influence on their beliefs. Actions don't say a whole lot about what a person (or a people) holds to be true. Wasn't it C.S. Lewis who said that aliens viewing the Earth could never conceive of this thing we call Christianity, and would think we had no morality at all?

[quote]
Context, context, context. ANY word could be an occasion of sin. They can be an occasion of sin because of how they are used or who you say it to/around.
[/quote]

No, not any word can be an occasion of sin. Some words should be avoided in certain company, but that is a question of prudence.

[quote]
I don't know where you're getting that words are evil. How can a word be evil in and of itself? I said that they are "bad" and should be avoided because they are vulgar, I NEVER said that words were evil.
[/quote]

You never said a word is evil, but if something is "bad" that means it is evil. How can you define "bad" in a way that is not also "evil" in a discussion of morality? That doesn't make any sense at all.

A "bad" action is also an "evil" one. A "bad" circumstance is also an "evil" one. A "bad" consequence is also an "evil" one. "Evil" has a "worse" connotation, but in moral discussions I see no difference.

Edited March 24, 2010 by aalpha1989

[zunshynn]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='24 March 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1269411513' post='2078873']
No, not any word can be an occasion of sin. Some words should be avoided in certain company, but that is a question of prudence.
[/quote]

Prudence is a virtue, which means its opposite, imprudence, is a sin. It can be anyway... most imprudence is hardly intentional.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='24 March 2010 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1269412048' post='2078875']
Prudence is a virtue, which means its opposite, imprudence, is a sin. It can be anyway... most imprudence is hardly intentional.
[/quote]

True, but I think the imprudence lies in the fact that the speaker offended someone, not in the fact that the speaker said a vulgar (but again, non-sinful) word. The offense is taken only because the offended has a Puritan view on morality. I don't believe the offense is justified and so I think we should work to rid America of Puritanism.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='24 March 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1269411513' post='2078873']
The only reason anyone could be scandalized by non-sinful words is that they hold a Puritan view of said words and believe them to be sins. Americans who have a religious morality generally regard vulgar such as carp as sins. Such a belief is Puritanism. As I said before, it is completely arbitrary. If you believe carp is a bad word you [i]must reasonably[/i] be held to believe poo is a bad word.

Puritanism is a system of belief, but we all fail sometimes to live up to our beliefs. If people consistently use foul (but non-sinful) language but want to "repent", they only want to repent because they have a Puritan view on the language. If they don't want to repent they've been spared Puritan influence on their beliefs. Actions don't say a whole lot about what a person (or a people) holds to be true. Wasn't it C.S. Lewis who said that aliens viewing the Earth could never conceive of this thing we call Christianity, and would think we had no morality at all?

No, not any word can be an occasion of sin. Some words should be avoided in certain company, but that is a question of prudence.

You never said a word is evil, but if something is "bad" that means it is evil. How can you define "bad" in a way that is not also "evil" in a discussion of morality? That doesn't make any sense at all.

A "bad" action is also an "evil" one. A "bad" circumstance is also an "evil" one. A "bad" consequence is also an "evil" one. "Evil" has a "worse" connotation, but in moral discussions I see no difference.
[/quote]

You're harping about Puritanism, but is it [i]Catholic [/i]to exercise impure speech?

I believe that croutons is a vulgar word, yes. I also believe that poo[i][/i]p is not a "polite" word. I don't particularly enjoy talking about defecation. But maybe that's just me. croutons is no more "evil" a word than poo, but it is more vulgar. I don't think that words, or saying certain words is always sinful. It can be an [i]occasion[/i] of sin. (You know as well as I do that some things will pose a problem for some people and be ok for others.) I still think that using vulgarities is crude and should be avoided. I think I already explained how one can use words to effectively cause scandal without using vulgarities.

"Bad" does not always have to be defined as "evil." I was using it to mean something more along the lines of "undesirable." You're talking black and white, but there's gray in there, too. There are moral goods and moral evils, but there are also moral [i]neutrals[/i].

My baby gave you a negative while I was trying to click "multi quote." Sorry about that (babies make typing difficult, I had to t put him on the floor).

[tinytherese]

I remember a professor saying that a lot of people just cuss cuss cuss, and not much else, and it makes them appear as if they have nothing of intelligent value to say and don't expand their vocabulary. Without trying to sound puritanical, wouldn't it just be better for us to use other words that are not crude instead of the vulgar words? It could even become silly. I know that when Spongebob Squarepants gets agitated that he says, "barnicles." I've also heard of someone who shouted the names of vegetables when she would get angry.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='24 March 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1269441247' post='2078995']
You're harping about Puritanism, but is it [i]Catholic [/i]to exercise impure speech?

I believe that croutons is a vulgar word, yes. I also believe that mushy mud pie is not a "polite" word. I don't particularly enjoy talking about defecation. But maybe that's just me. croutons is no more "evil" a word than poo, but it is more vulgar. I don't think that words, or saying certain words is always sinful. It can be an [i]occasion[/i] of sin. (You know as well as I do that some things will pose a problem for some people and be ok for others.) I still think that using vulgarities is crude and should be avoided. I think I already explained how one can use words to effectively cause scandal without using vulgarities.

"Bad" does not always have to be defined as "evil." I was using it to mean something more along the lines of "undesirable." You're talking black and white, but there's gray in there, too. There are moral goods and moral evils, but there are also moral [i]neutrals[/i].

My baby gave you a negative while I was trying to click "multi quote." Sorry about that (babies make typing difficult, I had to t put him on the floor).
[/quote]

Ok. I understand better (and to be frank I'm not sure I understand my own position ). And it's cool, I love babies. Only I'm sick so my parents won't let me hold my baby brother

[God Conquers]

Forever or just today?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='23 March 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1269326124' post='2078223']
I would rather hear the word c.rap come from a kids mouth over hearing the child say poo-poo. I would at least feel the kid would not be the other kids punching bag through life. Its amazing how we can invent words and then place a stigma upon the use of the word, thats mankind in its utmost simplicity, we strive for meaning then limit ourselves.

ed
[/quote]


Oh poo-poo, another minus one! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sweat.gif[/img]
ed