On Evil Euphemisms

[rusmeister]

Even the word "partner" puts a relationship in business terms, as does the term "values" replacing "morals", which create an attitude that relationships can be made and broken with the same general attitude as a business relationship rather than a lifelong commitment, and values are relative and up for sale, while morals are absolute.

And yes, the problem with the term "significant other" is that it generally IS used to mask sinful relationships, as well as valid ones. As JT said, it is great for those that want to justify sin because it doesn't make the distinction. Here's the question, Kyriaki: Just how did people say it 150-200 years ago?
If that stumps you, I'll say that they would name the first three: husband, wife, fiance, and perhaps hint at people you may be courting (while often pretending that no understanding existed), with no other special distinctions whatsoever. Being "romantically involved with someone" is a modern concept - in pre-modern societies in Christendom, if you got to the point of being "romantically involved" you got engaged pretty quickly. Before that point people kept their distance regarding any formal relations. The concept of "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" did not exist. And think about the juvenile implications of those terms!

Sometimes I think we MUST speak the language of the world in order to communicate anything at all; also, charity may require us to do so. but we should always be aware that that's what we're doing and strive for the ideal of not doing it at all.

 

[joyfulthanks]

I'll bet you could go down the list of the ten commandments and find evil euphemisms relating to each one of them. Anyone care to give it a go?

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Hi all!

I am trying to hold my tongue in responding to this thread. I have thoughts, but I don't think engaging in this discussion would be profitable for me during Lent.

I did have one comment to make now rather than later. It seems that some of the older language used to refer to people are somewhat judgmental. Fornication is a sin, true. But other people's sin is none of my business, generally speaking. Referring to two people in a relationship as just that-- two people in a relationship-- removes the burden of judgement from me. In my friendships with people, I am usually agnostic in my attitude toward whatever they may or may not be doing with their life partners and significant others. I don't know and I don't want to know. I have my hands full with my own salvation and shortcomings. I do want to love them and show Christ to them. If they ask me frankly what I think about sex outside of marriage or if it comes up naturally in conversation, I will be honest.

M.

 

[joyfulthanks]

Monica,

First of all, I should tell you that I've changed my username. You may or may not remember me from when I used to hang out in TAW. At that time, my username was contriteheart. I just thought I should give you some reference point for who I am before I continued with what I want to say.

I want to ask you to forgive me if my posts have offended you during Lent (or really anytime). Had I thought that this would be an inflammatory topic, I would not have participated in it in a forum that is not my own. So to you and anyone else offended by what I said, please forgive me.

I understand and agree with what you posted aboove. I, too, have more than enough sin of my own to deal with without going around condemning others. When I posted what I did, I wasn't trying to imply that I would go around saying things to my friends like, "Hey, why don't you come over for pizza and bring your cohabiting fornicator with you?" I would never do that.

But I do think that there is a very important point to this discussion. It's not really something that deals with the personal level, but the societal. The truth is that changing a culture's language results in changed societal behavior. PETA knows this. They recently came out with a campaign to change the name of fish to "sea kittens" so that people wouldn't want to eat them. There is something about language that has a powerful effect in preserving societal boundaries, norms, and morals. When a society changes its language, it helps change the norms makes those boundaries much easier for people to cross.

For me, anyway, that was the point of the discussion - not to judge others, but to think about how to preserve the language that God chose to use in the Bible to describe certain behaviors, in order to help preserve those boundaries and protect people (especially children) from the devastating effects of crossing them.

 

[joyfulthanks]

Aargh! There I went and apologized and still kept talking. I never have been good at controlling myself when it comes to my speech. Please forgive the intrusion. I'll be going now.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Don't feel you need to go!!! I am just worried about myself in responding to this thread. I know my temptations and this is the kind of subject that has given me problems in the past.

I agree that language is powerful. There was one phrase in the Vigil service that resonated to my soul the very first time I went to an Orthodox service: "Our God the lover of mankind..." That language sparked a revolution in how I thought and related to God. He sees my sins and he loves me. He does not regard me according to what I have done or what I do, but who I am: His child.

Language is imperfect. That is the nature of language. My concern here is that some of these terms (fornicator, sodomite, baby murderer) equate people with their sin, in a way that Jesus didn't. With the woman caught in adultery, he did not call her a harlot. No, in fact the crowd who rushed to condemn her for her sin was probably more likely to call her a harlot.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Though she made no verbal statement of repentance, Jesus restored her and called her "Woman." I can't help but think of the first Woman, Eve, who also was caught in her sin and her restoration which was being accomplished in the person of Christ. A new woman given the chance of putting away the old woman, to borrow a phrase from Paul.

Other terms mentioned in this thread serve to obfuscate rather than clarify. For instance, if sodomite and sodomy is used in reference to consenting adults, what does that mean when those same acts are forced on people (of same or different gender) without their consent? What about lesbians who tend not to engage in the act most closey associated with the word sodomy? How would you describe a celibate lesbian or gay man?

As for gender vs. sex, it is a useful distinction as someone else noted, to describe enculturated behavior. The traits of gender and the number of genders varies from culture to culture, where sex is generally the same with much fewer variations.

Wow. I have written way more than I meant to.

M.

 

[rusmeister]

Hi all!

I am trying to hold my tongue in responding to this thread. I have thoughts, but I don't think engaging in this discussion would be profitable for me during Lent.

I did have one comment to make now rather than later. It seems that some of the older language used to refer to people are somewhat judgmental. Fornication is a sin, true. But other people's sin is none of my business, generally speaking. Referring to two people in a relationship as just that-- two people in a relationship-- removes the burden of judgement from me. In my friendships with people, I am usually agnostic in my attitude toward whatever they may or may not be doing with their life partners and significant others. I don't know and I don't want to know. I have my hands full with my own salvation and shortcomings. I do want to love them and show Christ to them. If they ask me frankly what I think about sex outside of marriage or if it comes up naturally in conversation, I will be honest.

M.

Hi, Monica!
Of course you are right that we should not judge people.
I said

Sometimes I think we MUST speak the language of the world in order to communicate anything at all; also, charity may require us to do so. but we should always be aware that that's what we're doing and strive for the ideal of not doing it at all.

Now the law of charity means that we distinguish between the person and the sin. This means that sometimes we may need to use modern language. It may be a terrible tightrope, trying to call things by the true names and not even appear to engage in personal attacks on others, but there it is. I might, for example, if a person says that they are "gay", say (in the right context and at the right moment) say that they are not "gay", but rather a human being. As gently and charitably as I can work to disassociate the person from his acts. Just for example.

Let me reiterate for you: How did Christians speak of these things 100, 200, 500, 1,500 years ago? Were they all judgemental and now it is only we who are more enlightened? My whole point (expressed by JT as well) is that the modern language is used to justify the language. I even see uses of that modern language here at TAW to justify the desire to sin (this is NOT "judging my brother" - I'll let God do that, but we MUST identify that sin is sin, and the modern language (meaning that artificially inserted and used agressively via media and public education, rather than growing naturally out off what people did say minus those influences in earlier times) makes that much harder, if not impossible.

On language that equates a person with their sin, generally speaking, you are right. By that logic, we should not use words like "murderer" or "alcoholic" at all. It may be necessary to do so, but again, we should bear in mind that critical distinction of the person and their sin and try not to use language that confuses the two.

On sodomy - you actually described something that has always been called "rape", so there is no difficulty there at all. Consenting is sodomy, non-consent is rape. Again, you are asking me to use distinctions using modern language (such as "lesbian"). Look up all of these words and you will find that they all appeared in the late 19th century or later. HOW did godly, charitable people talk before that time???

Look at any traditional translation of the Church Fathers - how did they speak? (and equally relevant, what is the exact significance and etymology of the terms they used in the original?)

Now if we must invent new language that differs from that, it ought to be specifically along Orthodox lines; that is, describe how Orthodoxy sees these things. Praise to the person who thought up "same-sex attraction", which DOES describe the people's desires while not judging the people.

I can't even talk to you about "gender", because you are using a purely modern application of the word. I'm telling you that as recently as 120 years ago (one very long lifetime), NOBODY used the word gender in the sense you use it in at all.

CS Lewis said that we should read old books; that he had a rule that after every new or modern book he always read an old book. This enables one to see the fallacies of our own time, one of the causes of which is the different language and terminology which they use.

Like I said, "gender" is a grammatical concept and a social construction. It does not describe an absolute reality but something that varies from culture to culture. "Sex" describes a hard and non-negotiable fact. I don't use "gender" to mean "sex" anymore, and I don't use "have sex" to describe the marital act, and so on (as I discover how I have been conditioned by the modern world and its language).

PS - if this is not profitable for you, I am OK with waiting for a response.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I don't know if there is any point in discussing this. I appreciate history and historical used of language. But human communication is not and cannot be static. The role of a Christian is to communicate with people in a way that they will understand. Modern people will not hear these words the same way that people in the past heard them.

What in our language isn't a grammatical concept and a social construction? By definition symbolic language is a man made concept and construction.

Like the other thread on women's rights a year or so ago, I don't think I have time to really get into a good discussion on this. That makes it hard for me to engage on a topic that I feel strongly about. I am working full time and taking 12 credits. And it is Lent.

Yeah, the more I write about this the more I think I need to bow out now before I spend too much time here. Unless you can give me some sort of university credit for my responses

M.

 

[rusmeister]

I'll give you personal credit for thinking about it!

Social constructions can be based on truth or falsehood. The modern ones are decidedly based on falsehood.

You are right that modern people have been taught to hear things differently. Thus we must learn how to (charitably) communicate truth to them both with language and sometimes in spite of it. But we all have been deceived.

“Nine times out of ten, the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil and the refined word the word that excuses it.”

GK Chesterton

 

[BeforeThereWas]

And while polygamy is still fornication....

Are you saying that all forms of polygamy are fornication?

If so, then you're basically casting Abraham and most of the other Patriarchs of our faith into the pits of Hell.

If not, then what form(s) are you saying are fornication?

BTW

 

[rusmeister]

Are you saying that all forms of polygamy are fornication?

If so, then you're basically casting Abraham and most of the other Patriarchs of our faith into the pits of Hell.

If not, then what form(s) are you saying are fornication?

BTW

This is an odd thing to say - it seems to ignore the fact that Abraham and the OT patriarchs lived under...the old testament.
Of course, polygamy is fornication and specifically against the teachings of the Church. But we don't cast anyone into hell. People, in general, do that to themselves by their choices.
Welcome to Orthodoxy!

Another evil euphemism - "self-esteem" - ostensibly intended to address false and excessive self flagellation, it in fact (in public discourse, especially public schools) is used to praise and exalt the self (something generally antithetical to Orthodoxy), never mind that it calls for praise unearned in any way, shape or form. Even then, we're not supposed to esteem ourselves - we're supposed to leave that up to God.

 

[Chesterton]

we're not supposed to esteem ourselves.

we're not supposed to esteem ourselves

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Chocolatesa]

O yea, that's a big one. The youth is raised in a environment that teaches loving ones self is the most important thing and that we should always have confidence in our OWN ability at all times.

Satan works in very deceitful and tricky ways.

Yes this is very true, honestly I'm worried about how I'd raise any future children in our society because of this (among other things), but at the same time I know I shouldn't worry. I'll cross that bridge when(if) I get to it, and keep learning to trust in God.

As for the "new" terms we use today, I agree it's sad. One word that I notice is being used more often, mostly in the media from what I've seen, is partner, to describe any relationship. This is just an example of the overuse of political correctness that is rampant nowadays.

Sometimes I think we MUST speak the language of the world in order to communicate anything at all; also, charity may require us to do so. but we should always be aware that that's what we're doing and strive for the ideal of not doing it at all.

Very well said.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

This is an odd thing to say - it seems to ignore the fact that Abraham and the OT patriarchs lived under...the old testament.

How, may I ask, does the timeframe of those men's lives have anything to do with the marital form they lived out in their lives?

Of course, polygamy is fornication and specifically against the teachings of the Church.

Except that the teachings of your institutional church organization don't supercede the teachings of scripture. I agree that some forms of polygamy are indeed fornication and adultery, but that's not the case with polygyny.

Nowhere does the word of God declare polygyny to be against His express will for some men. The Lord actively gave men plural wives. Such actions speak loud volumes against the assumptions of modern, religious leaders who fancy themselves as higher authorities than the very word of God.

But we don't cast anyone into hell. People, in general, do that to themselves by their choices.

Agreed.

Welcome to Orthodoxy!

Thanks

BTW

 

[Nikolas222]

this is the funniest thread on cf ive ever read

 

[Monica child of God 1]

The Lord actively gave men plural wives.

I cannot think of one instance when God "gave men plural wives." Can you give a citation? Thanks!

M.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I cannot think of one instance when God "gave men plural wives." Can you give a citation? Thanks!

Sure. Read the context of 2 Sam. 12:7.

BTW

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I don't think that is what this passage is saying at all.

2 Samuel 12:7-12 (New International Version)

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

The Jewish understanding is/was that all things come from God, good and bad. That does not mean that God wants us to sin. It means that God gives us free will. With their free will, David and the other patriarchs chose to marry multiple wives. It never worked out very well.

M.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I don't think that is what this passage is saying at all.

Oh? What else can "....into they bosom...." mean? Every occurrance of that Hebrew terminology throughout the OT is very intimate, which goes far beyond mere care.

The Jewish understanding is/was that all things come from God, good and bad.

I'm not a Jew, and the words God spoke through the prohpet Nathan weren't a result of Jewish thought, so that point is moot.

That does not mean that God wants us to sin. It means that God gives us free will. With their free will, David and the other patriarchs chose to marry multiple wives. It never worked out very well.

You seem very sure of yourself. Applying your system of interpretation to modern times, I could carry your thinking to its logical conclcusion and state that monogamy is an utter failure, given the enormously high divorce rate resulting from wife-beating, drugs, alcohol, emotional abuse, et al. Therefore, monogamy has "....never worked out very well."

Now, if that sounds absurd to you, then I would have to agree.....which applies to both sides of that observation.

Now, if you're going to judge polygyny as a sin, what sin are you going to try and stamp upon its visage?

BTW

 

[rusmeister]

How, may I ask, does the timeframe of those men's lives have anything to do with the marital form they lived out in their lives?



Except that the teachings of your institutional church organization don't supercede the teachings of scripture. I agree that some forms of polygamy are indeed fornication and adultery, but that's not the case with polygyny.

Nowhere does the word of God declare polygyny to be against His express will for some men. The Lord actively gave men plural wives. Such actions speak loud volumes against the assumptions of modern, religious leaders who fancy themselves as higher authorities than the very word of God.



Agreed.



Thanks

BTW

First of all, let's remember that we are in TAW, not General Theology. We aren't going to engage in wild debates with people who simply want to impose their own beliefs on us in our own forum. If you'd like, we have a sub-forum where you may start a thread to debate this issue - it's called "St Justin's". Here in the main forum you may ask what we believe and engage in general fellowship with us, but should not debate. Also, I want this thread to remain a discussion of euphemisms, and if you deny Orthodox beliefs (and even just plain ol' traditional Christian beliefs accepted by all Christians until approximately 50-75 years ago) then you will only derail this thread (and I'm the OP). I think it would be beneficial for you to learn that Orthodox beliefs ARE Scriptural and do not "supercede Scripture" at all, but this thread is not the place for that.

All forms of polygamy are condemned by the Orthodox Church under the New testament, and all terms seeking to differentiate (polygyny et al) ARE seen to be sin. We don't judge Old Testament patriarchs - we let God do that - His covenant with them is different than the one for us. If it were not, we would still have to be cutting lambs' throats and burning them on altars. If you want to claim Old Testament theology, you really have to take it all, not only the parts that you like. So with "polygyny" you also have to start doing absolutely everything else you don't like described in the OT. Only I'm not aware of any Jews even that do that.

The ONLY valid expression of sexual relations in the Orthodox Church is a marriage between one man and one woman. Everything else is condemned as sin and not God's plan for our lives, and thus, all permutations of what was once identified with the general terms "bigamy" and "polygamy" (also euphemisms, when you come down to it - certainly when applied to humans) are evil euphemisms.

Again, feel free to start a thread in St Justin's if you wish to debate that.