My friend is seriously considering suicide. Is it ALWAYS wrong?

may 31, 2003 | tame

[CARepubGal]

We have misting and gray. So Cal June Gloom is so much fun! :)

[DouglasKC]

On the other hand, if I were to say of a certain philosophical system, "Communism is Bullsh*t" (again, pardon the lingo if it offends), I do NOT think that I have committed any Moral Sin (unless I say so in front of your kids when you have asked me not too, thus defying your Parental Rights, or something like that, etc).

So it would be perfectly acceptable if say a five year old child described school as "bull***"? Or if a 9 year old child said "That f****** playground is dangerous?"

Do you think that using such language could be construed as bearing "bad" fruit while refraining from such language is evidence of good fruits?

[Alex Murphy]

The "F word" mentioned herein this thread could very well be "flax", for all we know. Once upon a time here on FR, a famous poster kept using four asterisks (****), in context they were used as a placeholder for an epithet. Another poster of the same religious heritage defended the behavior, saying the hidden word might have really been "corn".

As far as I'm concerned, this whole discussion is flaxed. I'm outta here!

[CARepubGal]

Doug: You are comparing apples and oranges. A child is not posting here (as far as we are aware) and frankly, grownups are aware these words exist and will use them appropriately as OP has done here. Are you grown up enough to recognize this or do you need your discipler to approve your reading of posts?

[DouglasKC]

Doug: You are comparing apples and oranges. A child is not posting here (as far as we are aware) and frankly, grownups are aware these words exist and will use them appropriately as OP has done here. Are you grown up enough to recognize this or do you need your discipler to approve your reading of posts?

I'm saying if it's not acceptable for children to use that language then why is it acceptable for adults? At what point does it become "okay" for a child to start using these words in your opinion?

[CARepubGal]

An adult knows the meaning of the particular word and context while a child knows use of the word mortifies adults. And you brought children into this discussion for some arcane reason. Why was that?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So it would be perfectly acceptable if say a five year old child described school as "bull***"?

If it were a Publik Skool, I think I would advise the child not to give the Indoctrination Warehouses an Undue Compliment.

Bullsh*t doesn't begin to describe the Publik Skools. As I said before, at least "Bullsh*t" is good for Rich, food-producing fertilizer. Publik Skools are good for little more than indoctrinating Homosexualism and Collectivism.

Given that, the child's error is one of erroneous analogy -- not "harsh language", as he is giving the Publik Skools too much credit. Probably because he is Publik Skooled.

Or if a 9 year old child said "That f****** playground is dangerous?" Do you think that using such language could be construed as bearing "bad" fruit while refraining from such language is evidence of good fruits?

Depends. If the Playground in question was perfectly safe, the child is just being flippant (not "immoral", just petulant). And I don't deny PARENTAL RIGHTS -- fer cryin' out loud, in comparison to State Authority, I am a Parental Rights Absolutist: if a Father doesn't want his kid to say the word "Eggplant", then the kid shouldn't say the word "Eggplant" until he puts his own roof over his head.

On the other hand, if the Playground really is Physically Unsafe -- if Children are sustaining injuries -- then I should think that a Parent would be far more concerned about the physical safety of the Children then any "harsh language". If kids are breaking their kneecaps on a regular basis, harsh language is probably appropriate!!

The bottom line for me is this:

• So-called "harsh language" is nowhere condemned in the Bible, and I am not going to invent Immoralities which the Bible does not specify. That's one of the hall-marks of Pharisaism -- inventing your own "morality", which is nowhere stipulated in the Bible, and using your invented morality as a basis to Judgementally Condemn others. I don't buy it. Not for a second.
• AT the same time, I consider "Parental Rights" to be well-nigh absolute in nearly all cases, short of actual Abuse or Criminal Neglect. This certainly applies to the conduct and demeanor or your children, which you may direct as you see fit -- and which your Fellow Christians should respect (as should the State, though it doesn't).

I am frankly prepared to uphold the proposition that both my contentions are 100% Biblical, because I am fairly certain they are.

Best, OP

[DouglasKC]

An adult knows the meaning of the particular word and context while a child knows use of the word mortifies adults. And you brought children into this discussion for some arcane reason. Why was that?

If you go back and read my original post you can see my reason wasn't arcane at all. OP said:

(unless I say so in front of your kids when you have asked me not too, thus defying your Parental Rights, or something like that, etc).

As far as an adult knowing the context and children not, then teaching a child the context of these words and then praising him for using them correctly would seem to be the most logical course of action if usage of these words is "okay"...isn't it? If not then why not?

[restornu]

Hi KC,

Hang tight!

[CARepubGal]

Well, the cussing of kids doesn't fall under the context of fraud or the imposition of force so it is not within the realm of government (in a non totalitarian state). The family can choose to alow their kids to cuss up a storm. Does that mean I would choose to do so? Not bloody likely. And how does OP using well placed (and ** out) swear words to illustrate a vitally important point compare to a 5 year old or 9 year old using cuss words?

[CARepubGal]

Does your Bishop lnow you posted a bad word? You better call him and confess.

[restornu]

It is amazing you left and instead of being a happy camper you continue lashing out at who ever is LDS!

You been doing this for months!

I respect the fact you left and have no desire to make it personal as you seem to want too!

[DouglasKC]

So-called "harsh language" is nowhere condemned in the Bible, and I am not going to invent Immoralities which the Bible does not specify. That's one of the hall-marks of Pharisaism -- inventing your own "morality", which is nowhere stipulated in the Bible, and using your invented morality as a basis to Judgementally Condemn others. I don't buy it. Not for a second.

My point is that we inherently sense something wrong with the usage of these words. If not it would perfectly acceptable to teach them to our children, just like any other word. Surely you would believe that there isn't something quite right about someone deliberatly teaching their children words like "f***" and "bull****" (in the proper context of course).

Why do you suppose these taboos on these words exist?

I think they exist because people know that such language is ultimately "bad"...we even call it "bad language".

How about these:

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD [are] in every place, beholding the evil and the good. Pro 15:4 A wholesome tongue [is] a tree of life: but perverseness therein [is] a breach in the spirit.

Psa 10:7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity.

Pro 10:20 The tongue of the just [is as] choice silver: the heart of the wicked [is] little worth.

Pro 12:18 There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise [is] health.

How about this:

Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto [him] they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art [one] of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, [saying], I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

Something about Peters speech gave him away as a disciple of Christ. When he wished to not be identified as a disciple, he cursed and swore. Why?

[DouglasKC]

Hi KC,

Hi Restornu... :-)

[CARepubGal]

Why are you cursing God? Or is Damm a non curse to you? Mormons I know would never ever use that particular word in vain. Are you really Mormon? Have you gone through the temple endowment?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It is amazing you left and instead of being a happy camper you continue lashing out at who ever is LDS! You been doing this for months! I respect the fact you left and have no desire to make it personal as you seem to want too!

If she is lashing out against Mormonism, then by definition -- it ain't personal.

You can repent of Mormonism at any time, and I am confident of this... she certainly won't revile you personally if you choose to repent your heresy. Why? Because it ain't personal.

Take me, for example. I'm Calvinist. I don't know "CARepubGal"s opinion of Calvinism. Maybe she's Arminian. Maybe she's "free will Baptist" (allegedly "2-Point Calvinist"). Maybe she's "Amyrauldian Baptist" (i.e, "4-Point Calvinist" -- most modern Amyrauldians are Baptists). Whatever.

If CARepubGal criticizes Calvinism, I'm not gonna take it personally -- why would I? I'm gonna take it as a Theological Criticism, and we're gonna take it to the Bible -- together.

Calvinists do not adopt the Great Defense of Modern Heresy -- whine, whine... you're attacking me personally!!

No, she's not. It's Theological Discussion. It ain't Personal. Either take it to the Bible, or step off.

[DouglasKC]

Well, the cussing of kids doesn't fall under the context of fraud or the imposition of force so it is not within the realm of government (in a non totalitarian state).

Exactly. So why has there been traditionally a social taboo against it?

The family can choose to alow their kids to cuss up a storm. Does that mean I would choose to do so? Not bloody likely.

Why not? It's not illegal. It's (supposedly) not morally wrong. And apparently it certainly seems to have gained widespread social acceptance. What's stopping you?

And how does OP using well placed (and ** out) swear words to illustrate a vitally important point compare to a 5 year old or 9 year old using cuss words?

OP can do whatever he wants. I'm just trying to figure out why it's okay for you and him but not okay for kids. It didn't use to be that way did it? Wasn't it once a nearly a universally held belief among the religious that swearing was not moral? What's changed I wonder.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto [him] they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art [one] of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, [saying], I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. Something about Peters speech gave him away as a disciple of Christ. When he wished to not be identified as a disciple, he cursed and swore. Why?

• Cursing is a Personal Deprecatory Imprecation (such as Peter's Personal Rejection of Christ). I have never defended personal attacks (and I won't -- they are UnBiblical)
• Swearing is (especially when it is condemned in the Bible) the flippant promulgation of oaths, particularly False Oaths (such as Peter's Denial of Christ). I have never defended false oaths (and I won't -- they are UnBiblical)

I deplore Personal Curses against a Neighbor. I deplore False Oaths. But when are you gonna get around to demonstrating your BIBLICAL PROOF that particular *constructions of Sounds* are intrinsically immoral? I'm still waiting. You haven't yet.

• You can't very well do it by perverting the meaning of "Curse" (which is a Personal Attack) into a Paganistic, Druidic Taboo against Evil "Words of Power".
• You can't very well do it by perverting the meaning of "Swearing" (which is a False Oath) into a Paganistic, Druidic Taboo against Evil "Words of Power".

I am not going to accept an invented perversion of the words "Curse" and "Swear" to justify your argument, when we KNOW what these words mean -- and we KNOW that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Pagan Druidic concepts of "Evil Taboo Words".

Respectfully, Doug, when are you gonna get around to demonstrating your BIBLICAL PROOF that particular *constructions of Sounds* are intrinsically immoral? I'm still waiting. You haven't yet.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Wasn't it once a nearly a universally held belief among the religious that swearing was not moral? What's changed I wonder.

Define your terminology.

"Swearing". Good grief. The English Social Convention against "intrinsically-evil words" (a Pagan, Druidic concept) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical Commandment against False Oaths (i.e., swearing).

I 100% approve of your choice to raise your kids to respect English Social Convention. We live in an Anglo-Saxon Culture, and it is proper and fitting for you to train your children in the Conversational Norms of our Culture as you see fit. And, as I said before, I am a Parental Rights absolutist.

But don't be a Pharisee. Don't invent a Morality which is not stipulated anywhere in the Bible.

Why don't you Prove to me -- Chapter and Verse -- that the Pagan, Druidic concept of "evil words" has anything at all to do with the Biblical Prohibition against Flippant and False Oaths?

From the Bible. Chapter and Verse.

Raising your kids within the Conversational Norms of English Social Convention is one thing (and 100% fitting, we live in an Anglo-Saxon Culture). Pretending that Social Convention has anything to do with Biblical Morality is quite another.

It's Pharisaical -- the introduction of Social Convention into Biblical Morality.

[DouglasKC]

I am not going to accept an invented perversion of the words "Curse" and "Swear" to justify your argument, when we KNOW what these words mean -- and we KNOW that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Pagan Druidic concepts of "Evil Taboo Words".

Sorry, I thought it was an interesting verse. There was something about Peter's speech that marked him as a disciple. Correct? When he wished to really dispel this notion (despite already attempting it twice), his language changed. How?

Cursing is a Personal Deprecatory Imprecation (such as Peter's Personal Rejection of Christ). I have never defended personal attacks (and I won't -- they are UnBiblical)

"Cursing" as used in the verse in question could't have been an attack on Christ. That would have been blasphemy. He denied that he knew Christ, but didn't reject or malign him in any way. I'm wondering how his cursing (in his mind and whatever form it took) would have marked him NOT as a disciple.

Respectfully, Doug, when are you gonna get around to demonstrating your BIBLICAL PROOF that particular *constructions of Sounds* are intrinsically immoral? I'm still waiting. You haven't yet.

Bad language is a particular construction of sounds. Gossip is a particular construction of sounds. Blasphemy is a particular construction of sounds. Lying is a particular construction of sounds. I think the point is that speech is reflection of what's in our hearts and minds and that's certainly a biblical principle.