The Purpose of Blogging and the Reason for Talking on Words

I have posted on the different usages of crap, suck, and piss, and you may be wondering why. Well, I like language. Therefore, when I come to points in my life where I experience abuse or mild forms of it in the form of language, I am ready to take a stand. Although my blog is a passive way of confronting the issues, no matter how minute and silly, it does allow me the opportunity to work them out in my own timing and way. I realize that their understanding of words and biblical understanding may be faulty, and so I cannot simply stand still and be quiet and allow those around them to be harmed by their limitations. I try to use this blog to take that stand and to voice my opinion to the internet world, which is much more lasting than if I were to speak to the people in a brief moment that will not last. Although very few, if any, people read this blog, it is my hope that at some point in the existence of my life and this blog my voice will eventually be heard and will spread and in some way or another effect change. In a sense, this is a spiritual exercise for me, as I am praying and hoping that God will use this blog and what I write to his glory. This reason is why I write on my blog, and I talk on words because I hope that some good will come out of it in the long run--that in terms of our words we will learn to live a life of biblical freedom and not of rules.

The Use of the Phrase, Pissed Off

If someone is "pissed off" or if I "piss someone off," that means someone is angry or I made someone angry. However, that word, piss, is offensive to a lot of people. Yeah, this word is vulgar, but what precisely does that mean? Let's hark back to what I mentioned before in my previous post. In talking on the use of the word suck, I wrote the following:

In order to answer that question, we must define what we mean by vulgar. Turning to the Oxford English Dictionary, vulgar can be defined as something that lacks "sophistication or good taste." Is this what we mean in relation to that sexually loaded use of suck? It could be, but in light of the other possibilities, it is not likely. It was originally defined to mean "of or pertaining to the masses," meaning that it meant "common." This possibility does not really fit the situation the best, but it does work. In terms of lacking good taste, the Oxford English Dictionary defines vulgar in this way: "making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions." Now we are talkin'! This use is what we mean by vulgar when we talk of suck in reference to sexual experiences. Now the question is, do all uses of suck refer to sexual experiences? ("Another Use of the Word, Suck," James Gregory's Blog)

Note the different meanings of vulgar. It can mean "common," "lacking good taste," "lacking sophistication," or "making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions." The question is, which use is used in reference to the word piss? Well, it is obviously not being used in the sense of taking sex lightly. We could be meaning lacking good taste or sophistication. Or we could be meaning something that is common. In terms of lacking good taste or sophistication, what we really mean is that it is "unrefined." I would wager that "unrefined" is what we mean when we say piss is vulgar. It certainly isn't cultured or complex english that shows one's high status as a prosperous and educated citizen who is well-versed in the language; rather, it is the vocabulary of a simple person who has not developed their english or is too mad to think with complicated words. The point here is that the word vulgar does not necessarily mean "bad." Therefore, we ought not to attribute the idea of badness to the word piss too quickly. Instead, we ought to weigh and measure the information available to us. In looking at vulgar, we see that piss is probably used in an unrefined way most often in American culture to indicate anger. It is not sexually derogatory, generally speaking, and although it is common, it does demonstrate a lack of sophistication, which is only to be expected, because people rarely put on a "sophisticated" display of anger.

Another Use of the Word, Suck

Yesterday, I explored the use of the word suck. I noted that it has several meanings but the typical practice is for people to attribute one meaning of the word to its every contextual use, which is erroneous. Today, I am going to look at how the word might be used in a vulgar way.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, suck is vulgar when used in a phrase relating to sexual experiences (obviously I toned it down here; look it up if you want to see what the dictionary actually provides). The question is, what makes this use vulgar?

In order to answer that question, we must define what we mean by vulgar. Turning to the Oxford English Dictionary, vulgar can be defined as something that lacks "sophistication or good taste." Is this what we mean in relation to that sexually loaded use of suck? It could be, but in light of the other possibilities, it is not likely. It was originally defined to mean "of or pertaining to the masses," meaning that it meant "common." This possibility does not really fit the situation the best, but it does work. In terms of lacking good taste, the Oxford English Dictionary defines vulgar in this way: "making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions." Now we are talkin'! This use is what we mean by vulgar when we talk of suck in reference to sexual experiences. Now the question is, do all uses of suck refer to sexual experiences?

The Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that the answer to this question is, "No." The first and foremost definition of suck must defy a positive answer to our question. It defines suck in this way: "draw into the mouth by contracting the muscles of the lip and mouth to make a partial vacuum." For example, "They suck their milkshake through a straw." In this instance, there is no vulgar, sexual reference. Therefore, in every case we will not interpret the word suck to be a vulgar reference to sexual experience; rather, we must allow the context to determine how we will understand how this word is being used.

Well, what are the other options for understanding the word suck? The Oxford English Dictionary gives several definitions: to draw out by use of a vacuum; the use of suction; (figuratively) to get involved or drawn into something against one's choosing; or (informally) to be very bad, disagreeable or disgusting. These are only some of the understandings of the word, but the point is clear--there are many definitions and usages of this word, so we must allow the context to determine how we will interpret this word.We must not focus on one definition of this word and apply it to every contextual usage. People can use this word to mean something very different from what you think, so it is up to you to allow the context--and nothing else--to determine what they said and meant.

The Use of the Word, Suck

I am frustrated. People seem to focus on the use of a word in terms of only one of its uses. Suck is no exception. Not a few people think that this word ought not to be used to describe a negative situation. They reason to themselves and with others, "Well, if the person [who uses it] only knew what the word actually means, they would not say it." However, words can have several different meanings and each meaning has a particular context, so we must not be dishonest and apply one use and definition of a word to all contexts. In the case of our word, it can and does mean something sexual (look it up for yourselves), but by no means is it always used in that sense. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary defines suck in such a way that when it is used intransitively it can informally mean, "be very bad, disagreeable, or disgusting." In this use, suck is not a sexual, derogatory comment. The problem is, as I have already noted, people forget that words can have several meanings and not every meaning attached to that word will be applied in every context.

Language, Christians and Culture

Piggy-backing on my previous post regarding Christian speech, I want to note something that will be very challenging to many American Christians that approaches language and speech from a cultural perspective. Words and their meanings have to be understood in the culture that it is used. In one culture, words mean one thing, but in a different culture, they can mean something else entirely.

As such, if Christians are to refrain from cussing, then should that mean that they should keep from the swear words of that culture and the swear words of others? My question, then, is how will they know they have kept from every single different swear word from all cultures combined? It would be impossible to do this, because the meanings for words are very much cultural, and depending on the culture that you live in will determine how you understand words and their meanings.

Therefore, what right do we have to say that the swear words that we are accustomed to are the only words that are off limits? What right do we have to say that all swear words in all cultures are off limits? What right do we have to say that one particular word is off limits here, but in another cultural context it is perfectly acceptable? This is inconsistant, and it is nonsense.

I believe that the Bible is not concerned with the semantics of words, but only with the use of words. In this way, it is not limited to any one particular culture, but rather it is able to speak to all cultures throughout all time. If it were concerned with semantics, then it would be limited to the cultural context of the First Century. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, it is not concerned with semantics, and since all cultures have ways of using words to tear people down, the Bible is able to speak to all people in that no matter how we view words of any kind they ought not to be used to destroy each other.

Christians and Language: the biblical perspective on Christian speech

When I was a freshman in high school, I had a history teacher who asked this question: is cussing wrong? This query turned out to be a loaded question. The class, which I was in, responded, "Yes."

He responded with another question. He asked, "Can you show me in the Bible where it says that?"

We showed him a couple of passages of Scripture, like Colossians 3:8, where Paul addresses filthy language, Ephesians 4:29, where Paul talks about unwholesome talk, and Ephesians 5:4, where Paul prohibits against obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking.

Again, he responded with yet another question. He probed, "What constitutes filthy language, unwholesome talk, obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking?"

I think I responded inwardly with ideas that we ought to participate in things that are pure and noble (Phil. 4:8), and be associated with the light and not with the darkness (Jn. 1 and 1 Thess. 5). However, I really did not have a good grasp of the biblical perspective on language at that time, nor did I have a good understanding of the contexts of the aforementioned passages given to the teacher.

I do not regard myself as an expert on the field, but I have a better grasp now than I did when I was first asked those questions. I would like to share what I have learned since then, because for me it has been a challenging though freeing journey.

Colossians 3:8 prohibits abusive language; Ephesians 4:29 prohibits destructive language; Ephesians 5:4 prohibits facetious language. Colossians speaks out against language that is used to hurt someone. The Greek word for filthy language, aischrologia, is obscene speech that is used to "flavor derogatory remarks" (BDAG). Filthy language, then, is any language that is specifically used to abuse someone. The first case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language used to destroy--destruct--rather than construct. In Greek, the word for unwholesome talk, sapros, which is literally rendered as "rotten," carries the idea that it is "bad or unwholesome to the extent of being harmful" (BDAG). Unwholesome talk, then, is any language used to harm someone as opposed to building them up. The second case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language that does not take sin seriously, particularly fornication, impurity and greed. The context of the passage clearly indicates that Christians should not make light of such sin by casually referencing it in crude jokes or vulgar speech, especially if obscene. The Greek is clearly identified here, so it wouldn't really help to point out the vocabulary. The point is that Christians should not partake in shameful jesting about sin.

So, with this in mind, let's turn back to the original question.

Biblically speaking, we cannot claim that swear words are prohibited. Filthy language and unwholesome talk really are any words, swear words or not, that are used to tear someone else down. Obscene, vulgar and coarse joking are prohibited when it takes sin lightly. This goes against what I was taught growing up, and it still bugs me a little bit. However, I can not go so far as to say that Christians should not use swear words, even though it is against my better judgment. To do so would be to go above and beyond what the Bible prohibits, and that is legalism. If it would be against my conscience to swear or cuss, then it becomes wrong for me to do so; but if a Christian can cuss without going against his conscience and without harming someone with words or making light of sin, then I cannot say that he would be in the wrong.

When all is said and done, I have to resist the desire to prohibit cussing on others. It is not my place to impose my conscience on other believers in areas where the Bible is not in opposition. Such matters are to be kept to myself (Romans 14). Furthermore, if we are to be imitators of God (Ephesians 4), then what do we do with God cursing the serpent in Genesis 3 or Jesus cursing a fig tree in Mark 11 (though this isn't to the same degree as the context of this post, Jesus' words are still a curse towards the fig tree)? If we are right when we say that filthy language means cussing, then what do we do with Philippians 3:8 where Paul uses very crude language (skubula, a very strong and crude word in Greek to the point that we have no word in English suffient enough to portray the word in our translations; at best, without stepping on anybody's toes, we can translate it as crap)? Does he contradict himself?

I think that given some of the language employed in the text of the Bible and in tandem with the contexts of the previously mentioned passages, the Bible does not prohibit cussing. It would prohibit cussing or any use of words for that matter that are used to destroy each other, and that is the bottom line.

Crap

This post is all about crap. Yup, it is one crappy post. It's not a piece of crap, but it is a piece on crap. Okay, I know, that was cheesy, but I have something I would like to posit: the meaning of crap has changed over the last several years and with its change in meaning so also did it change in use.

I would have to say that the word crap is commonly used today, not as a euphemism, but as an interjection, much in the same way that old folks interject, "Oh shoot!" when astonished: Oh crap!

What do you think? Is crap to you vulgar, crude or profane? Is crap used by you to mean nonsense or garbage and often utilized in the form of speech called interjection?

It seems to me that today's generation does in fact use it in this manner, and it is no longer used in a vulgar or crude--with their negative connotations--manner, rather, they are vulgar and crude in the denotative sense that it is a common and unsophisticated word.

So how about you? Is this word taboo?