Why Legalism?

[versastyle]

No my only point is not that I should be able to use whatever word I want, but that I have no reason to take offense to such words and enforce those offenses on others, when biblically there is no support for such legalism. If you find support for this biblically I disagree. That is all.

 

[versastyle]

Again. Our example is Jesus. There is nothing scripturally that says Jesus was ever offended by a single word spoken from any mouth, nor do I see Him stating we should be offended by any single word, or set of words, whether society calls them foul or not.

There is nothing biblical about Christians making extra-biblical rules for themselves. We should live in the freedom of Christ, and the release of the bondage of sin.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You have ignored all the verses regarding coarse, foul, filthy language. If you want legalism then we should not use any word that was considered foul in Biblical times ar it's English equivalent. That is legalism. What we are saying is that we should not use words that we KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt will offend some people, especially other Christians. Look at this example, you have two men. One is a bit quiet, never raises his voice in anger and does all his work on time no matter what is assigned to him and is polite to those around him but refuses to work overtime on Sundays to go to church. The other guy has a mouth like a sailor, is frequently frustrated and verbally so, will only do what he can during his scheduled day and talks about the cute women in church that his wife gets upset at him for look at. If you were to ask the public who is a better Christian you would get the first guy every time, but the catch is that the first guy beats his wife every night to take out his frustrations at work and no-one knows about it and the second guy is extremely faithful. The problem is neither of them is a good Christian but one of them appears to be. We should give the appearance of being a good Christian to the world around us, we represent Christ to the world, and using your examples Christ never uttered a vulgar word so we should not.

 

[versastyle]

Translators desensitized the word of God. The original KJV and in Hebrew and Greek, coarse language, foul language, filth all pertain to slander, blasphemy, and talking about doing immoral acts. It is not so descriptive it was telling us specific words should be omitted from our language nor that we should be offended by any of them.

Christ said RACA loud, clear, and in public. That was considered one of the most offensive words in Jewish language then, and still is today.

 

[versastyle]

Think of it this way: Wouldn't we all just be better off if we didn't even have words to condemn? There is nothing healthy in this recognition.

There would be less judgementalism, less oppression, less offense taken, less reason to idolize.

In fact it is OUR recognition of these "foul" words that keeps these traits more prominent in our Christian culture.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Ephesians 5:4

kai aischrotes kai morologia e eutrapelia ho aneko ou aneko alla mallon eucharistia

kai - and, also, even, indeed, but, neither, nor

aischrotes - obscenity, filthiness

kai - and, also, even, indeed, but, neither, nor


morologia - foolish talking

e - nor

eutrapelia - 1) pleasantry, humour, facetiousness; 2) in a bad sense: a) scurrility, ribaldry, low jesting

ho - this, that, these, which

aneko - 1) to have come up to, arrived at, to reach to; 2) to pertain to what is due, duty, as was fitting

ou - no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

aneko - 1) to have come up to, arrived at, to reach to; 2) to pertain to what is due, duty, as was fitting

alla - 1) but: a) nevertheless, notwithstanding; b) an objection; c) an exception; d) a restriction; e) nay, rather, yea, moreover; f) forms a transition to the cardinal matter

mallon - 1) more, to a greater degree, rather: a) much, by far; b) rather, sooner; c) more willingly, more readily, sooner

eucharistia - 1) thankfulness; 2) the giving of thanks

Oddly enough the Greek does agree with your assertion. It in fact says straight out what we have been saying, but you are right we should go back to the Greek on this as it provides a much clearer definition than does any English translation. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[versastyle]

You are making a broad jump from "filthiness" in biblical terms to "filthiness" in societal terms. Are you saying that in the case of filthiness it means the same biblically as it does societally? What the bible calls filthy, so does society, what society calls filthy, so does the bible?

I don't see any of that saying specific words are filthly. Its still an assumption. There can be filthy reasoning and content as well. Might it only mean that?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

What about obscenity? This was not a concept foriegn to the Greeks of the time, and it meant the same then as it does now. Why do you want to fight this at all? It is not right for a Christian to talk like a sailor. We represent Christ and Christianity to the world and it does matter what the unsaved see in our lives due to what we represent. We should not use language that soceity deems to be obscenity for the very reason of wanting to appear to lead a clean life. This is what we should strive to do and the image we should project to the world around us. If there is nothing that changes in us when we are saved then there is no reason for anyone else to come to Christ to begin with. We should strive to live lives in such a way that if we were tried for being a Christian that we would be convicted beyond any doubt. Using foul language is not projecting a Christlike image in the least.

 

[versastyle]

What about oscenity? This was not a concept foriegn to the Greeks of the time, and it meant the same then as it does now. Why do you want to fight this at all? It is not right for a Christian to talk like a sailor. We represent Christ and Christianity to the world and it does matter what the unsaved see in our lives due to what we represent. We should not use language that soceity deems to be obscenity for the very reason of wanting to appear to lead a clean life. This is what we should strive to do and the image we should project to the world around us. If there is nothing that changes in us when we are saved then there is no reason for anyone else to come to Christ to begin with. We should strive to live lives in such a way that if we were tried for being a Christian that we would be convicted beyond any doubt. Using foul language is not projecting a Christlike image in the least.

I never said I wanted to talk like a sailor. So Christ can use RACA, a offensive word, but done with good taste, but we can't?

Appearance of evil? Another translation gone awry. Trying to look good is like a green tree trying to look blue.

Again. Christ did not display a distaste for specific words, and neither should we. If you want to make yourself look like a better person and get all puckered up because you hear a word, although the intentions of the speaker may be good, so be it. I guess you cannot explain to me your motivations for this offense.

RACA is just as offensive to Jews as **CKER is to Americans. So would you have been offended when Jesus said it?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.

 

[versastyle]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.

You are answering around the question. RACA is offensive. Jesus said it. It is the American equivalent to a very emotional and hateful word (when use derogatorily), **cker. Are you offended that Jesus said that?

 

[versastyle]

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apechomai apo pas eidos poneros

apechomai - to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain
apo - 1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
pas - 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
eidos - 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind
poneros - bad, of a bad nature or condition
a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind
b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

Again the Greek does not agree with you, according to the Greek we ARE to abstain from even the APPEARANCE of evil. This is so we can show Christ to the world. You are grasping at straws by claiming scripture does not mean what it says. Every instance so far supports that we should not use foul language where you say that it does not. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the Greek from but you haven't been right yet. We should present a Godly, Chistlike image to the world and nothing less. Using foul language does not present that image in the least.

Big Christian lie #1: 1 Thessalonians 5:22 -- in the KJV, it says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." That's a bad translation. Literally, the verse says, "Abstain from every form of evil." Try to avoid the "appearance of evil" for one minute out of a day...

Ok. So what I gather is Christians are to recognize and be offended by culturally foul words and abstain from using them as well, although we are to seperate ourselves from society and Christians cannot use foul words under any circumstances, although Jesus did. Gotcha!

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Do you miss eidos - the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape? That is what it literally says. Why do you argue that we should not watch our language and not care what others say around us? You should not go into a jewish temple and turn over tables and run about screaming angrily, you probably shouldn't turn water into wine, you might not want to shrivel up trees by the side of the road either. There are many things that Jesus did that we are not capable of doing or should not do, you cannot use "Jesus did it" as a blanket statement to justify what you want to do. The scripture speaks against the very thing you are talking about, we have gone back to the Greek and proven it why do you not accept God-breathed instruction on our language. Proverbs has all sorts of things to say about watching what comes out of your mouth, Jesus spoke if it when He stated that nothing that nothing that goes into a man's mouth defiles him but it is what comes out of it that does, it is talked about by Paul as well. Why do you have a need to try and convince people that using obscenity is allright?

 

[versastyle]

I never said it was ok to use anywhere and all the time. You are talking past me. I am saying WE HAVE NO REASON TO BE OFFENDED BY IT OR HEARING IT.

 

[versastyle]

But anyways. I'm out. Good debate. Points made. I now understand. There is no actual sin in words, but there is sin in the words society says are foul. Good stuff. And we should be offended by them as well.

God Bless

 

[A. believer]

You are answering around the question. RACA is offensive. Jesus said it. It is the American equivalent to a very emotional and hateful word (when use derogatorily), **cker. Are you offended that Jesus said that?

No. Not in the context in which He said it. And I doubt that even the Jews were offended at the word itself, but rather, they were offended when it was used as a descriptor. Now, when you defend your use of words that "some people" find offensive, are you talking about using them in a similar context to how Jesus used the word raca? Put it this way. I don't have any problem with someone making a statement such as, "Using the term "sucks" as a colloquialism for something unpleasant will get you in trouble at school," (which is similar to Jesus's statement about "Raca.") I do have a problem with my children actually using the term as that colloquialism.

You seem to want us to concede that there's nothing wrong with my first example, so therefore we shouldn't be bothered by the second. That's a leap I won't make, and apparently I'm not alone. The fact that so many people oppose you on this should, if nothing else, give you pause to re-evaluate your position on this. And I'm pretty sure that, if you don't change your mind about it sooner, you will when you have children of your own.

 

[versastyle]

I evaluated it from both positions. This is a generally conservative forum. Thats why I came here to discuss it.

I do have children and the reason why I advise them not to use words that they are TOLD NOT TO USE BY SOCIETY is for the avoidance of offending others and so SOCIETY DOESN'T BACKLASH AT THEM.

I won't make the leap of making: "Thats a bad thing to do", a good statement, and making "Thats a sucky thing to do" an evil one. Either way, the person is saying the same thing, its just that society likes to judge the words of people. I see no good in that.

I see good in avoiding being purposely or casually offensive. I see good in advising Christians to not talk about doing things of an offensive nature. I see good in teaching my children these same avoidances.

I do not see good or Godliness in judging specific words for more then specific words, nor teaching us to "cringe in agony" over the usage of any such specific words.

Thats is all.

The people discussing with me on this forum disagrees with me, but not everyone on this forum disagrees, nor in many other Christian churches around this country.

The word is not the issue. The usage is.

 

[A. believer]

I evaluated it from both positions. This is a generally conservative forum. Thats why I came here to discuss it.

I do have children and the reason why I advise them not to use words that they are TOLD NOT TO USE BY SOCIETY is for the avoidance of offending others and so SOCIETY DOESN'T BACKLASH AT THEM.

I won't make the leap of making: "Thats a bad thing to do", a good statement, and making "Thats a sucky thing to do" an evil one. Either way, the person is saying the same thing, its just that society likes to judge the words of people. I see no good in that.

I see good in avoiding being purposely or casually offensive. I see good in advising Christians to not talk about doing things of an offensive nature. I see good in teaching my children these same avoidances.

I do not see good or Godliness in judging specific words for more then specific words, nor teaching us to "cringe in agony" over the usage of any such specific words.

Thats is all.

The people discussing with me on this forum disagrees with me, but not everyone on this forum disagrees, nor in many other Christian churches around this country.

The word is not the issue. The usage is.

Okay, then. Use whatever words you choose and I promise not to "cringe in agony." But please don't misrepresent what I said.

 

[versastyle]

Heheh. No problemo!