Profanity

[John Davidson]

Without a definition of what an 'idle' word is and without an explanation of how profanity fits that definition, you have a non sequitur--Christ or no Christ.

Please use common sense.

Profanity is obviously language that is included in Jesus admonition.

Christians are to use speech that is edifying.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Humor me. Define your terms.

 

[John Davidson]

Humor me. Define your terms.

Any unproductive, unloving, unedifying, useless speech would be considered idle talk.

As Christians we are taught to love and do good, as such our speech should be noble.

 

[Chesterton]

Hmm. Not sure I can say this in a polite way. People do lots of bad things. I hope you don't want to see it all on film. So, it seems more that you're just desensitized to it, which doesn't seem like a good thing.

Your post made me think a lot. I think I was desensitized from an early age. As I hinted at, there was murder and mayhem in and around the family, plus mom let me see the R-rated movies with the profanity and whatnot when I was a kid. In her defense, you have to remember the ratings system was a new thing back then, and I don't think she knew how raunchy films had suddenly gotten. I hate to sound pro profanity though. It's not like I positively enjoy it. I don't know, maybe I should find it more unpleasant than I do.

And why is it that to be "real" film must show the worst of life? My sons talk frequently of how depressing English teachers are that they always make students read dark literature but hardly anything with hope. That was born out by my film class, which focused heavily on noir.

Yeah I totally agree realism can be achieved while showing the good, and I wish it was done more often. But your point reminds me of a sort of mental phenomenon C. S. Lewis mentioned once which hit home for me because I know I feel it. I call it a depressing realization, because it feels real. It's the tendency, when we experience the bad or ugly aspect of life, to say "ah, that's what life's really like". You hear examples of it from atheists on here a lot. I think it's typified in the novel Catch 22 (it's not fully played out in the film), where a WWII bomber crew member is ripped apart by bullets and shrapnel, and when the plane lands back at base someone has to use a water hose to wash out all the dead man's viscera, just like they wash out the garbage from the floor of the mess hall. Then there's this dramatic line saying "man is garbage".

But the thing Lewis noted was the imbalance in that we don't seem to do this with the good and beautiful aspects of life. We could and should, for example, see a beautiful sunset and feel the same way - "ah, this is what life's really like!" Because logically, it is. The good and the bad are equally real parts of experience. IMO that's why films tend toward the worse things. For some weird reason, the worse tends to feel more real, and the more real tends to feel more dramatic.

Do you ever want film to encourage positive change?

Sure, I like positive films, I'm not exclusively profane.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Any unproductive, unloving, unedifying, useless speech would be considered idle talk.

As Christians we are taught to love and do good, as such our speech should be noble.

According to the Greek, taken from here, your definition doesn't seem to be what Jesus is reported to have been referring to. It seems more like a laziness or purposelessness. I'd say 'like' is more like an idle word than the f-bomb.

 

[John Davidson]

According to the Greek, taken from here, your definition doesn't seem to be what Jesus is reported to have been referring to. It seems more like a laziness or purposelessness. I'd say 'like' is more like an idle word than the f-bomb.

Purposelessness would be one describing word I would use. But I don't think you are comprehending what Jesus meant. The whole point is that we will be judged for what we say so we need to choose our words carefully.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Purposelessness would be one describing word I would use. But I don't think you are comprehending what Jesus meant. The whole point is that we will be judged for what we say so we need to choose our words carefully.

So, if I choose the f-bomb carefully, I'm good. Cool.

 

[Resha Caner]

Your post made me think a lot.

I'm not sure it's the right word, but your response humbled me. I read the whole thing, and can't really think of anything to add, so I'll just let it stand as it is. Well done.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll be honest, this whole thing kind of reminds of how people reacted to Evan Wright's book, Generation Kill, and how they couldn't believe that US Marines would swear as much or as often as they did.
People swear. Some people do it to prove a point (see the 'Atomic F-Bomb' and 'Precision F-strike' tropes), some people do it just because they can or want to, or some just do it because there's no other words to use to articulate their feelings in the situation.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not sure it's the right word, but your response humbled me. I read the whole thing, and can't really think of anything to add, so I'll just let it stand as it is. Well done.

A little off topic but I'm just curious, do you know the emotional thing Lewis was talking about? I'm curious because I don't think I've ever heard anyone else talk about it explicitly, but I figure it must be a "thing" if at least one other person experienced it. You know what he was describing?

 

[Resha Caner]

A little off topic but I'm just curious, do you know the emotional thing Lewis was talking about? I'm curious because I don't think I've ever heard anyone else talk about it explicitly, but I figure it must be a "thing" if at least one other person experienced it. You know what he was describing?

What you said of Lewis' comments makes sense. It's something I can associate with. But I'm not familiar with any formal psychological definitions that would match it. Do you recall the Lewis work it came from?

 

[John Davidson]

So, if I choose the f-bomb carefully, I'm good. Cool.

I don't appreciate you coming here to make a mockery of holiness.

 

[Chesterton]

What you said of Lewis' comments makes sense. It's something I can associate with. But I'm not familiar with any formal psychological definitions that would match it. Do you recall the Lewis work it came from?

I found it online. It's from The Screwtape Letters, chapter 30, after the war has broken out. I'll go ahead and post the whole passage. (In case you haven't read it, this is a devil talking, so when he says "they" he's referring to humans.)

I don't know that there is formal psychological recognition of it, but if there isn't, one could see why. It sort of goes against the grain of modern reductionist thinking. It could lead you to saying that a sunset is actually beautiful, rather than just a perception due to evolutionary biology, and that could open up a philosophical can of worms.

"Probably the scenes he is now witnessing will not provide material for an intellectual attack on his faith - your previous failures have put that out of your power. But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can still be tried. It turns on making him feel, when first he sees human remains plastered on a wall, that this is "what the world is really like" and that all his religion has been a fantasy. You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word "real"'. They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, "All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building"; here "Real" means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had. On the other hand, they will also say "It's all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it's really like": here "real" is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness. Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word "real" can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us. The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are "Real" while the spiritual elements are "subjective"; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an escapist. Thus in birth the blood and pain are "real", the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death "really means". The hatefulness of a hated person is "real" - in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is merely a subjective haze concealing a "real" core of sexual appetite or economic association. Wars and poverty are "really" horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments. The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting "to eat the cake and have it"; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it. Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of Reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment."​

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't appreciate you coming here to make a mockery of holiness.

This message board has a Christians Only section. Go there. Stay there.

 

[bhsmte]

When I'm watching a film and someone utters a profanity, it's often only the first use that offends/frustrates me. As the story continues and the profanities mount, my attitude descends to boredom & distraction. It would be the same to me if, rather than spouting profanity, they dangled a plastic duck from a string in front of the characters every few minutes.

To me it demonstrates a pathetic lack of creativity, and I stop following the story and start thinking of all the interesting ways the character could have conveyed the proper attitude without a tedious repetition of profanity.

So, my question: For those who don't have a problem with the extensive use of profanity in film, would it be a distraction for you to watch a film that didn't have profanity in it?

Not at all.

Films tell stories and the director has a purpose in how he or she is trying to tell a certain story. Sometimes, profanity gives a certain impact to the story, and it needs to be included. The movie "Good Fellas" is a good example of that. I believe that movie used a certain 4 letter word, more than any other movie ever made and it was very effective at creating the an accurate perception of what the reality was behind the story.

I will add this; I am no Bobby Knight fan, but I agree with him in that a certain 4 letter word is the most descriptive word in the English language when used in a certain fashion.

I understand some people are turned off by profanity and that is fine. I have been around highly intelligent people in my entire professional career and I can tell you, many of these folks use profanity as much, as those who are less educated.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Purposelessness would be one describing word I would use. But I don't think you are comprehending what Jesus meant. The whole point is that we will be judged for what we say so we need to choose our words carefully.

So, if I choose the f-bomb carefully, I'm good. Cool.

I don't appreciate you coming here to make a mockery of holiness.

This message board has a Christians Only section. Go there. Stay there.

Let me expand. This is the philosophy section of Christian Forums. One is expected to be able to defend one's statements. One is expected to make an argument ... a series of statements that make a case.

One hopes that one's interlocutor would be able to make inferences from one's rhetorical devices. Apparently, you are not. 1) My point is that the Greek word idle does not automatically imply that profanity or curse words (and they are different) are bad; 2) Profanity and curse words very often do have purpose, e.g., they could be conveying the pain of the speaker; 3) that another choice by the speaker could have been made doesn't mean that this choice is wrong; and 4) you could have made a better case by choosing better Bible verses. For example, Colossians 3:8 (ESV) references obscene talk; Ephesians 4:29 (ESV) references corrupting talk.

Of course, you would be expected to defend why any given word or phrase qualifies as obscene or corrupting. In addition, you would need to be prepared for the fact that non-believers such as myself don't automatically accept anything the Bible as authoritative on any given subject.

Philosophically speaking, or perhaps anthropologically and semiotically, the concept of words being taboo is fascinating. What is it exactly that makes a word taboo. Why is copulating ok, but f-ing not. These are interesting questions. Interesting interlocutors don't clutch pearls over such things.

Lastly, I didn't "come here to" mock your god. (You might want a rebate on your mind-reading helmet.) I came for interesting discussion. If my rhetorical device mocks anything, it is your argument.

 

[Deidre32]

I'm currently watching a tv series now on Netflix where one of the main characters uses profanity constantly, but that is supposed to be the humor about her. It is funny, but there are times, when it's overdone, and while I'm not offended by it, it isn't necessary to the storyline. There seems to be this idea out there in the literary world, that if characters in a story are using profanity on a constant basis, that this makes them appear stronger. It really isn't the case, though, but it's something I've noticed with tv shows, movies, current books, etc.

 

[John Davidson]

Let me expand. This is the philosophy section of Christian Forums. One is expected to be able to defend one's statements. One is expected to make an argument ... a series of statements that make a case.

One hopes that one's interlocutor would be able to make inferences from one's rhetorical devices. Apparently, you are not. 1) My point is that the Greek word idle does not automatically imply that profanity or curse words (and they are different) are bad; 2) Profanity and curse words very often do have purpose, e.g., they could be conveying the pain of the speaker; 3) that another choice by the speaker could have been made doesn't mean that this choice is wrong; and 4) you could have made a better case by choosing better Bible verses. For example, Colossians 3:8 (ESV) references obscene talk; Ephesians 4:29 (ESV) references corrupting talk.

Of course, you would be expected to defend why any given word or phrase qualifies as obscene or corrupting. In addition, you would need to be prepared for the fact that non-believers such as myself don't automatically accept anything the Bible as authoritative on any given subject.

Philosophically speaking, or perhaps anthropologically and semiotically, the concept of words being taboo is fascinating. What is it exactly that makes a word taboo. Why is copulating ok, but f-ing not. These are interesting questions. Interesting interlocutors don't clutch pearls over such things.

Lastly, I didn't "come here to" mock your god. (You might want a rebate on your mind-reading helmet.) I came for interesting discussion. If my rhetorical device mocks anything, it is your argument.

I am well aware that there are other verses that address speech. The one I've chosen is sufficient and I am unable to help you if you can't understand what is plainly stated by Christ.

It seems you want to argue purely for the sake of arguing.

I am leaving this conversation as I don't find it edifying.

Farewell.

 

[Resha Caner]

I found it online. It's from The Screwtape Letters, chapter 30, after the war has broken out. I'll go ahead and post the whole passage. (In case you haven't read it, this is a devil talking, so when he says "they" he's referring to humans.)

I have read Screwtape, but it was long ago. I didn't remember this specific passage.

I don't know that there is formal psychological recognition of it, but if there isn't, one could see why. It sort of goes against the grain of modern reductionist thinking. It could lead you to saying that a sunset is actually beautiful, rather than just a perception due to evolutionary biology, and that could open up a philosophical can of worms.

Yes. I've always found the demand for "evidence" a bit hollow - as if such a thing can make scientific claims "real" to a person. Very few will ever actually experience the execution of any particular experiment, and the rest of us must trust in those who perform it that it occurred as stated - that the mathematics and the data mean what it is claimed they mean. It's not that I think we need to reject all such things, but I don't understand why it is elevated so far beyond personal experience.

 

[Resha Caner]

There seems to be this idea out there in the literary world, that if characters in a story are using profanity on a constant basis, that this makes them appear stronger. It really isn't the case, though, but it's something I've noticed with tv shows, movies, current books, etc.

Agreed.