Paladin21 said:
**NOTE: It was brought to my attention after writing this review that the word "damned" is used at the end of the band's song "Hooray, It's L.A.," featuring Billy Corgan. The lyric is written in the CD jacket as such... "As it's a damned cold night now." The band has explained that the word was not intended as used in an offensive or profane way, but in a Biblical sense -- the night was "damned" (a.k.a. "condemned"). It's a legitimate use of the word, and therefore not profane.
Makes me feel a bit better but still does not clear it for me. I question their morals when they say things like this. "It was not intended" ok great thats cool thanks for clearing that up. But didn't that grab you as a little wrong when you put it down.
No. Perhaps you have different convictions when it comes to language than they do. They are using the word in it's proper context. C.S. Lewis uses it in a similar context; most importantly the Bible uses it in a similar context. If you have a conviction about listening to it, then don't listen to it, but it's not your place to enforce an extrabiblical rule as a universal morality for all christians.
I have often told my friends that if they swore in front of me I would be wondering...but if they actualy take the time to write/publish it...it makes me wonder the more.
Where in the Bible does it say that certain words are good and certain words are bad? Language is amoral. It is like a chair. A chair is not good or evil. But if I pick up a chair in an angry stupor and throw it at my friend, then I have used the chair to sin. It is the sin that is wrong, not the chair. So it is with language. If a Christian does not have convictions about using certain language and they are not being a stumbling block to others, then why would it be wrong for them to say a word that best expresses how they feel about something? Is it any better to use a euphemism that means the same thing as the other word? I would think that it is the intent and mindset behind the words that are important.
The fact still remains that they could have chose words that were not QUESTIONABLE, but did not...which makes me question them.
Jesus said some things that were controversial too in his day. The pharisees were highly respected church leaders and he called them a "brood of vipers". That's about as controversial as it gets. That was probably pretty questionable in that time, but He was right to do it. Paul says some things that were probably questionable: namely that he would rather be castrated than circumsized into the old law, and he also used the Greek equivalent of our "s-word" in Philippians.
Are they Christians...most likely, do they have good morals? Thats a toss up.
The Bible is what morality is based on, not the personal convictions of some people. Some people can't drink without being tempted; that doesn't mean that no Christian should ever drink, it just means that people have different convictions.
I don't judge them, and I feel sorry for them and pray for them often. Do you really think I enjoy not listening to them? I liked them sense their first stuff
Well, if you stop listening to them, then you obviously think that they are doing something wrong. Thus, you are imposing your convictions on them. There is a difference between personal conviction and sin. If listening to them is going to cause you to sin, then by all means don't listen to them, but otherwise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to them.
