Oh Poop!
Ok so I'm back after two years of not writing. I got sucked back in by reading my own blogs, how's that for self-center?
So, here we go.
I don't really have anything to say at this time. I'm just seeing if anyone will even read this thing. Let me ask a question;
I'm not sure if any of you have seen Piper's website and his upcoming conf. There is an interesting video about language. If you've seen it please comment, let me know what you guys are thinking.
The reason why I ask is because I've been thinking a lot about how I talk. Not that I curse like a sailor but I'm wondering if 'bad' words are good to use at times. Just a thought, and you know me I like to stir things up.
So, here we go.
I don't really have anything to say at this time. I'm just seeing if anyone will even read this thing. Let me ask a question;
I'm not sure if any of you have seen Piper's website and his upcoming conf. There is an interesting video about language. If you've seen it please comment, let me know what you guys are thinking.
The reason why I ask is because I've been thinking a lot about how I talk. Not that I curse like a sailor but I'm wondering if 'bad' words are good to use at times. Just a thought, and you know me I like to stir things up.
posted by RJ-77 at 1:25 PM
18 Comments:
Wow, what a pleasent surprise I found in my RSS reader. Welcome back.
I won't agree or disagree with your language question just yet. I need more info. What do you mean by "bad" words? The Seven Dirty Words? Off-color words? Obscene, profane, bawdy? Give an example. I won't judge you...too much.
And don't feel bad about inspiring yourself with your own words too much. I probably read my old posts more than others'. And besides, you and I know it was really my 2001 review that kick you back on the blogosphere, even though you said it was too long for you. Speaking of too long, how much longer do you think I can make this comment? Well, you're wrong buddy it can be a lot longer than this. Just wait until I start telling the story about what my dog did last week. Now that would make for a long comment. See, what happened was, I left my dirty underwear on the bathroom floor............................................................................................................................................................................................................., and that's how Jackson became the king of Portugal.
Good questions Ando, but I have a question about your question. What does 'bawdy' mean?
I would say that any form of blasphemy is out, no questions asked. Then I would have to exclude sexually explicit language too.
Other than that, unless I missed something, is everything else fair game?
BTW, what are the 'seven' dirty words?
From Dictionary.com:
bawdy
–adjective 1. indecent; lewd; obscene: another of his bawdy stories.
–noun 2. coarse or indecent talk or writing; bawdry; bawdiness: a collection of Elizabethan bawdy.
—Synonyms 1. lascivious, salacious, prurient, earthy, risqué, ribald, coarse, licentious, raunchy.
I agree with blasphemy and sexual content being out. I definitely think there are times for strong language. What are words really, but a bunch of noises to convey a message. Society, over a course of centuries, has determined some of these noises as indecent. When you look at it that way, it almost seems kind of silly and arbitrary. But our noises or words don't exist in a vacuum. Since everything we say is in the context of those societal understandings, not to mention the endless individual interpretations (or misinterpretation) that are inevitable, we should be mindful of the words we choose. The bible teaches to avoid unwholesome speech, but, short of blasphemy, doesn't really define what that is. And yet if you grabbed 10 random people off the street they would probably more or less agree on what is considered unwholesome. Less so now maybe than in, say, 1950, but I still think there would be a general consensus. So, for me, as a Christian, I avoid using certain words or phrases that are widely accepted as unacceptable, partly because I think it shows a lack of imagination, but mostly because it wouldn't be a testimony that would make Christ look good. That's not to say there aren't times when a "bad" word seems appropriate for the situation, but is that really to make my point more effectively or is it just the World rearing its ugly head out of my mouth?
As for the seven dirty words, google George Carlin and you'll find them.
Ando,
Those are some good thoughts. I'm not sure what I think about the consenus idea.
And it seems as though we're the only ones thinking about this issue, or nobody knows I'm writing again.
Well, you've been speechless for quite a while. Give it time.
So you don't think there would be a consensus on what makes a "bad" word?
I agree that sometimes a consensus does label a word 'bad' I'm just saying that would not influence my thoughts as to if the word was really 'bad'.
BTW ando, do you like my new picture? You need to come over and watch some movies with me sometime.
I read ya. I wasn't meaning that you (or we) would or should agree with that consensus, just that there would be one.
We definitely need to watch some movies together. I was actually going to send you an email about The Kite Runner. Maybe I will.
I'll bite...
To me curse words are simple. They are there to express a sense of force to the conversation. Someone who is unable express themselves easily find them as an easy method for adding power to their statements. To me this shows a lack of comprehension.
You have the entire English language at your ready to bring the force of your conversation and meaning. Swearing is a cop out. And demonstrates ignorance and a rather gaping hole in your vocabulary.
Kludge,
But what if the word fits? After all they are a part of our vocabulary, so an arguement could be made that by not using them it shows ignorance too.
Whadda ya think 'bout that?
RJ-
I think you just proved my point. If your grasp on language is so rudimentary that a curse is the best "fit" you can find, then I would abandon the Piper for a spell at try your hand a Lewis or even Buckley. Both of these men understood language.
Just my humble opinion.
I'm not sure you can describe 'swear' words as 'rudimentary', or at least I've never heard them described that way.
I don't want to make a big deal about this but Piper does have a grasp on the english language. I do like other writers too, but not because of their 'grasp' of the english language. I like the content of what they say.
I don't know how to make this a link, I'll do my best, but check out Paul Tripp at the Desiring God Conf (hosted by John Piper).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUtPBCELCZc
What do you think?
I'm with Kludge on this one. I think curse words are rudimentary. Any Joe Schmoe with a 5th grad education can drop an F-bomb. Why do you think so many comedians resort to profanity? Its an easy appeal to the lowest common denominator and a cheap laugh. Though I suppose some are more creative in using them others.
And I don't see how not using curse words could be seen as ignorance. Every third-grader knows what the bad words are and they aren't usually the pinnacles of knowledge.
Ando,
Common! Rudimentary? Doesn't that mean at the foundation or primary? So swear words are the foundation of our language?
I agree that just swearing does not prove anything, and can be for lack of thinking by the person, but is there a time when it fits?
BTW - did you watch the video that I 'linked' for you to watch? It is in one of my comments on this page.
Tripp makes a good point...tell me what you think.
I was using rudimentary in the sense of primitive, not foundational. Which is a correct definition.
Just watched the video. I think he's mostly right. However, I'm finding it hard to think of a situation where using the word he used as an example would help bring someone grace. There could conceivably be, but I can't think of one.
For me it still comes down to what I said in an earlier comment, and I quote myself, "But our noises or words don't exist in a vacuum. Since everything we say is in the context of those societal understandings, not to mention the endless individual interpretations (or misinterpretation) that are inevitable, we should be mindful of the words we choose." If I did encounter a situation where use of a culturally branded "bad" word could bring grace and serve God's purpose, then that would of course trump societies mores. But I still lean more toward what Peter said, if a swear is the best I can come up with, I probably either have a weak vocabulary or am just lazy.
BTW, are Paul and Ted Tripp twins. They look and sound almost identical, only Paul appears to be more fashion contious, has more hair, and fewer birthmarks on his face.
Ando,
I laughed out loud at your last comment.
Um...could we sometimes use these words to relate with those who are 'lazy'.
Maybe yes, maybe nay?
Sure we could use those words to relate to those who are lazy...we could also smoke doobies to relate to the stoners who hang out on the corner. Ok, maybe that analogy doesn't quite work, but theorhetically I suppose we could do as you say, but to be honest I don't think that's necessary in 99% of situations.
Dude, if you want to start swearing you don't need my blessing, just go for it! :)
'Bout frikin' time!
Post a Comment
<< Home