4 ms·

I was under the impression that this was considered the proper interpretation by theologians. The common interpretation was the same type of common wisdom as th

I was under the impression that this was considered the proper interpretation by theologians. The common interpretation was the same type of common wisdom as the belief that "god helps those who help themselves" is in the bible. This seemed obvious when I was a child and cared about these things anyway. But goddamn, I had never put together the fact that 'it is the people who say, "you shouldn't say Goddammit, it's offensive to God" are the ones who are committing said sin in the first place'. That's an excellent observation, thank you. The rest of it's well explained as well.

deckiedan 13y ago
Yep. And it's the interpretation preferred by a lot of us non-theologian-but-believing-and-thinking Christians too. Alas, not the vocal ones who get on TV. I find it more 'offensive' that politicians invoke God's name to promote nationalism and wars that if someone says 'goddamn' or 'oh my God' or whatever. (Don't even get me started on that evil bullshit from the "Westborro Baptist" cult - that is extremely offensive to me as a Christian. That is /seriously/ using God's name in vain.) I was somewhat under the impression that a lot of the insane over-zealous legalism of 'modern' protestant Christianity was at least somewhat since the Victorian era. A lot of European countries (not the UK) have a much more realistic approach to 'cusswords' and 'swearwords' and so on. Looking at many past theologians (Martin Luther, for obvious instance), you find that there was much less of an insistence of 'clean' language. We live in a dirty, messed up, stinking world. Sometimes it's appropriate to use words that reflect that. What we're called to do is help to make that world less filthy, and help heal the broken people. The words we use, although not irrelevant, are certainly of much less importance that contemporary religion seems to think. The bible itself has a couple of instances of 'foul' language, actually. English translations normally tone it down for their audiences... Which is kind of ironic, since most of it was written originally for non-priggish earthy real people, who spoke in street language, not in high class ecclestiatical nonsense (the New Testement is in Koine (common) greek, not in formal classical Greek.).

deckiedan 13y ago

Yep. And it's the interpretation preferred by a lot of us non-theologian-but-believing-and-thinking Christians too. Alas, not the vocal ones who get on TV. I find it more 'offensive' that politicians invoke God's name to promote nationalism and wars that if someone says 'goddamn' or 'oh my God' or whatever. (Don't even get me started on that evil bullshit from the "Westborro Baptist" cult - that is extremely offensive to me as a Christian. That is /seriously/ using God's name in vain.) I was somewhat under the impression that a lot of the insane over-zealous legalism of 'modern' protestant Christianity was at least somewhat since the Victorian era. A lot of European countries (not the UK) have a much more realistic approach to 'cusswords' and 'swearwords' and so on. Looking at many past theologians (Martin Luther, for obvious instance), you find that there was much less of an insistence of 'clean' language. We live in a dirty, messed up, stinking world. Sometimes it's appropriate to use words that reflect that. What we're called to do is help to make that world less filthy, and help heal the broken people. The words we use, although not irrelevant, are certainly of much less importance that contemporary religion seems to think. The bible itself has a couple of instances of 'foul' language, actually. English translations normally tone it down for their audiences... Which is kind of ironic, since most of it was written originally for non-priggish earthy real people, who spoke in street language, not in high class ecclestiatical nonsense (the New Testement is in Koine (common) greek, not in formal classical Greek.).