Answering the Atheist

Doug TenNapel answers Penn Jillette's claims about the superiority of atheism to theism.  Doug skillfully demonstrates the tactic Francis Schaeffer called "Taking the Roof Off," showing where a view actually leads that causes us to question the view in the first place.  I think Doug's response demonstrates the capital Penn must borrow from a theism to make atheism plausible for him.  He takes for granted ideas that he has no right to as an atheist in order to make atheism sensible. 

Comments

[Red Loser]

I'll comment more later regarding the actual arguments, but I'm concerned that Doug's response doesn't fit under the umbrella of "an attractive manner" which STR rightly emphasizes. I can understand his reaction, considering how condescending and self-righteous Jillette's remarks were...but I would be more careful with my reply.

[Paul]

I agree with Red. The Christian should not stoop to such a level. Is Doug's response directed toward Penn himself, or to a more broad audience? If the former, he is casting pearls before swine (even Tony would agree that such a categorization is deserved here). If the latter, few points will be gained in the mind of the observer when the Christian fights as dirty as the non-believer.

It's not a total loss -- there are good examples of tactics being used, I just wish the sarcasm and use of profanity was removed. We have better ideas -- weapons that require no further sharpening from cheap insults.

[Agilius]

Well, at least STR doesn't shelter it's listeners. :D

I wish people wouldn't use expletives they don't know the meanings of. Just a thought. [Aside: I tried *really* hard to keep from ending that sentence with a preposition; Oh, well.]

I think the mushroom comment missed the point.

But overall, I agree with Doug: Penn *is* quite pompous; Have you heard this guy?!

Good post, Doug. :)

[Tony Montano]

I thought it was hilarious when he used the F word.

Her arguments were crap anyway.

[Tony Montano]

Oops. Penn is a guy. I meant HIS arguments were crap then.

Even his name is dumb that settles it!

[Kevin Schroeder]

I can understand the use of sarcasm and profanity (not to condone it, though). Sometimes talking to atheists is quite frustrating. Of those I know they match how Doug describes Penn perfectly. They are of the opinion that Christians are stupid and that their beliefs in scientism (it's not true science, that would allow for the possibility of God) are the only way to knowing truth. Atheism breaks down at the point of the Big Bang and Christians are the ones called stupid?

See? Frustration. &#$%!

[Bill]

When the atheist is more gracious than the Christian, Tony enjoys your profanity, and there are at least a dozen misspelled words in your post, you know something is wrong.

[TK]

Personally, I have never had a problem with profanity. I avoid its use because my wife has a problem with it.

Doug's use of profanity was in response was directly in respons to Penn's obvious reference to the same profane phrase. In such a situation, I would have said the words just to make sure everyone was clear on what he was implying... even though my wife would be upset.

When push comes to shove, Penn's argument was based on him being funny and turning a few phrases. It's like being on Politically Incorrect. Given that, I think Doug's response was mostly appropriate.

The one thing that he does that I really didn't care for (besides replying to Penn's childish argument) is that he pasted his comments into Penn's article instead of applying to his article as a whole. That's just one of my pet peeves.

[Rusty]

I also found Doug's use of profanity unwarranted and vulgar. BTW, even though I was raised in the church, my career has taken me to many a construction jobsite in which the vilest profanity is commonplace. I have not, therefore, existed in a sheltered environment with regards to the reality of this practice. Wasn't Doug's blog a site that Greg recommended as a daily stop on his radio show? If so, then perhaps such a recommendation should be rethought or, at the very least, tempered with a caution.

Joe Carter, at Evangelical Outpost, has recently posted on the topic of the Christian using profanity. A link on his post takes you to another site where there is a discussion of an incident in which a Christian read a poem laced with the F-word, at a Christmas Eve service (at an Em-Church no less... are you surprised?). The comments attempting to justify such vulgar, irreverent nonsense are telling.

However, I venture off on a tangent... with regards to the content of Doug's rebuttal of Jillette's claims, I think he does an admirable job.

[Jim]

Boy, have times changed! When I worked in Christian radio back in the 80's, we were instructed never to use phrases like "Gosh", "Dang", "Good Luck", "Geeze", etc - because these were slang for profane words (good luck endorsed chance).

Twenty years later, a Christian apologetics ministry recommends a site that responds to a person who says there is no God by using the F-word in an ad hominem attack.

I just can't picture Christ doing that can you?

[Paul]

FYI, it's not just at construction job-sites where vile language is used. I work at a very "white-collar" workplace, and that language is frequently heard in every office, including many supervisors.

My good friend (also a Christian) is writing a novel, and has raised the question about the appropriateness of using profanity in the text, when the language is not being used frivilously, but to accurately portray the characters involved. His question is: is it okay for Christians to use foul language in this manner, though the Bible speaks against "idle words" and profanity?

My position (not that you asked for it): if it is NOT used, when characters are included in the novel that are known to use such language, damage can be done to the character development or believeability of the story. If Christians cannot ever use such language (in writing novels), they are limited on the topics/characters on which they can write, and who better to address the issues of those in a "lost" condition (those that would typically use such language), than the one who knows the truth about it?

[Paul]

I think we have found a replacement for Dr. Gene Scott. Does Doug TenNapel smoke a cigar?

[Tony Montano]

Welp, sometime the F word works great. Take, for example, this scene in the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn." - which, by the way, also contains the answer to the abortion issue too.

======================================
{Seth’s brother has just been bitten by a vampire and now poses a threat to Seth and Sex Machine – his biker accomplice}
Seth: Touch my brother with that stake, biker, and vampires won't need to suck your blood, they'll be able to lick it up off the floor.
Sex Machine: He ain't your brother no more!
Seth: That's a matter of opinion, and I don't give a fuck about yours.
–From Dusk till Dawn by Quentin Tarantino

[Patrick]

I am reminded of that awsome scene in the Christmas movie "A Christmas Story", where the little boy imagines he goes blind from soap poisoning, to the guilt of his parents who made him suck a bar of Lifeboy soap when he dropped the F bomb. I bet he looked a little like Tony M!!!

[TK]

Paul said that the Bible speaks against profanity. Can anyone point me to a verse?

I've read the Bible and have been challenged by others on this point, but I've never found a Biblical argument for not saying cuss words when the company that you are in doesn't mind.

[Jim]

James 3: 9-12, Luke 6: 27-28, Romans 12: 14, 17-21, Exodus 20: 7, Psalm 111: 9, Matthew 6: 9, I Timothy 1: 9-11, Mark 7: 20-23, Ephesians 4: 29 & 5: 4

That ought to get you started. There are many others.

By the way, I couldn't find one verse that endorsed profanity.

[Paul]

Jim, so what do you think of my friend's question (re: using profanity in a novel as a necessary (in his judgement) vehicle for accurate character portrayal)? Do you think this is an acceptable use, or is he (in your opinion) under obligation to find another way to develop those characters and themes?

[TK]

First, I really like bible gateway. A little change in formatting and I looked up all of those passages in less than five minutes and in just one search.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but none of those versus say that profanity (ie cussing) is wrong. Actually, a lot of those aren't even on the topic of language or word choice.

[Tony Montano]

wow. biblegateway.com is pretty cool!

[Jim]

First, let's define our terminology. Can we agree to use the dictionary as an authority? Dictionary.com defines profanity as "Abusive, vulgar, or irreverent language." That would certainly include taking the Lord's name in vain. If that isn't irreverent, what would be? Thus the scriptural reference to Exodus 20:7.

James 3: 9-12 says:
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grape vine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."

How is this verse not a reference to cursing? Refer to the abusive definition of profanity.

Luke 6: 27 also comes under the abusive language definition.

Romans 12: 14 17-21 - same.

Psalm 111: 9 speaks of the name of the Lord (Holy & Awesome) that is not to be taken in vain.

Same for Matthew 6: 9.

I Timothy 1: 9-11 refers to speech and practice that is contrary to sound doctrine.

Mark 7: 20-23 Jesus defines the kinds of things that come out of man that make him unclean. Lewdness is mentioned by name.
See the vulgar definition.

The last verse listed Ephesians 4: 29-32 makes the case crystal clear.

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Could that be any more straightforward?

Unless you want to argue that the F-word is wholesome talk that is helpful for building up others according to their needs and that it benefits all that listen.

Need more evidence?
Lev. 21: 6, Lev. 22: 32, I Tim 6: 20 (Avoid profane and vain babblings), II Tim 2: 16 (shun profane and vain babblings), Hebrews 12: 16 (fornicator or profane person), Eze 36: 20,

The Old Testament prophet Isaiah laments in Isaiah 6: 5:
"Woe is me! I cried. I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips."

The panoply of scripture argues against all unwholesome talk. I'm still searching for the one verse that endorses profanity.

There is another evidence. In Romans Chapter 2, Paul speaks of the light of conscience. He refers to the Gentiles who do not have the law, but the requirements of the law are written on their hearts - their consciences also bearing witness.

Whether you are willing to admit it to yourself or not, you feel a pang of guilt when you use profanity. I am reminded of a friend that tried to argue that adulty was wrong but not fornication. I asked if he felt guilty after having physical relations with his unmarried partner. He said absolutely not.

A few months later, he slipped up and told me that after he and his girlfriend had slept together one evening they prayed for forgiveness.

He wasn't willing to admit the guilt because he wanted to continue this sin.

When I was in gradeschool, I remember attending church one Sunday. The pastor was speaking on the subject of profanity. I will never forget what he said (even though it was over 30 years ago).

He described profanity as taking a large handful of mud from a pig sty and hurling it into the face of God. That left an impression on me and although I am by no means perfect, I have made an earnest effot to avoid the use of profanity.

I don't believe that I have been damaged by its absence in my life.

[TK]

Jim, if you use the that particular definition of profanity, then you are not on the same topic as I was on in my original post. When I was talking about using profanity, I was specifically talking about cussing.

It is certainly wrong to use the God's name in vain (which is a wider subject than just cussing), but I am think more along the lines of things that express excitement (ie. Kick A##) or approval (ie. That's the S#!^), dissapointment (ie. F$#@ me!), or simply quoting what someone else said (ie. "to all y'll N!@@#$ that been to jail before... suck my d!@%" - DMX).

Of course, a blanket condemnation of cussing also doesn't fit your definition of profanity because what's vulgar, irreverant, and abusive in one instance (ie. if a kkk member calls someone a N!@@$#) can be an expression of solidarity and affection in another (ie. When DMX calls someone his N!@@$#).

After all that, there is still the example of Jesus who said some things that could be considered abusive when speaking to the religous leaders of his day. What he profain when calling people vipers?

If cussing was the same thing as throwing mud in the face of God, then I certainly wouldn't do it, but it isn't throwing mud in the face of God. That comparison is simply an emotional appeal along the lines of, 'when you are mean to people it makes Jesus cry. You don't want Jesus to cry do you?" It works great on most grade schoolers.

Could you please tell me how you manage to look into my heart to see those pangs of guilt? It would be a really great trick to immitate God that way. BTW. The Bible says fornicators go te hell. It doesn't say that about people who cuss.

[Scott Swanigan]

I've posted a rejoinder to Penn's column on my blog.
No profanity, I promise. ;-)

[Paul]

nobody is going to answer my question... :(

TK - I think the verses Jim cited make a rather good case against "cussing". I agree that some words "straddle the line" (some people think "suck" is profanity (when not specifically describing the action of creating a vacuum with one's mouth), others don't), but others (such as the ones you cited) seem to be rather clear.

That the words can be used in a manner that is not related to "cursing" (as in "placing a curse on someone"), e.g., showing approval, excitement, solidarity, etc., doesn't change the lewd nature of the words themselves.

I see your point, however, regarding the "heart issue" -- that is, the motives of the heart that prompted the use of the language. I remember in the movie "Signs" when the young girl asked if "douchebag" was a curse word. The priest asked, "how did you use it?", and she replied, "as in, 'Jenny, you're such a douchebag'", to which he responded, "it's a curse word." My nephews use made-up words to insult eachother. Their mother chastises them for using the words, even though you wouldn't find them in Webster's Dictionary, because she knows what was meant by those words.

However, I still think that certain words are "lewd, unwholesome, and idle," and aren't to be part of our vocabularies. Pragmatically speaking, when I am in the company of those who use such language, it causes me to have a lowered opinion of their character and their ability to communicate effectively.

[TK]

I don't think that the versus Jim cited make a case against cussing enless you read them with your conclusion already set. All words, even cuss words, have particular meanings and proper usages. I discovered this in JR high when I had my slang corrected by several peers.

From my perspective, all the people who object to cussing seem to be doing it because they personally don't like cussing. I wouldn't cuss around those people who shared that view if I was given to much cussing. However, personal aversion to particular wording or phrasing is a far cry from a biblical mandate for each christian to avoid that particular set of wording or phasing.

The real question is what the Bible means when it says to only say wholesome things and to not speak idle words. You see, what's considered unwholesome or idle at my church, at my office, and in prison (I've never been to prison, but one of my friends have) are very different sets of things.

In one sense, I think that Bible tells us to behave in such a way as to influence those around us. Sometimes, that means using strong language. In another sense, I think there are certain things that are always idle or unwholesome, but I can't concieve of one word, as opposed to a concept, that would be an example.

[Jim]

Paul, thanks for your reasoned response and yes I will answer your question.

I would agree with your comment that when you are in the presence of people who use profanity your opinion of their character and communication is lowered.

Somehow writers, filmmakers, and artists of all kinds have been able to produce the greatest works known to man without using it.

I was a film major in college and found it interesting that what is referred to as the "Golden Age of Hollywood" (30's & 40's) when the greatest films were produced was during a time of censorship.

Screenwriters were not allowed to cheat back then and cover up a bad story with profanity, gratuitous sex, and special effects.

Its the same reason that Jerry Seinfeld gave for not using profanity in his comedy routines. He didn't want to cheat.

Think of the greatest works of literature - most do not use profanity. The Lord of the Rings books are generally regarded as the best literature of the 20th century. All kinds of evil beings were portrayed. How many used profanity? None - because it wasn't needed.

The film trilogy made a billion dollars without its use and I believe that the message of good and evil was clearly portrayed.

Think of C.S. Lewis and the screwtape letters. He was able to convey conversations between the devil himself and one of his minions without resorting to gutter language.

I believe your friend is bright and talented enough to create three dimensional characters and still not violate God's rule of wholesome communication, and I think if he does that he will feel better about himself and his work.

[Jim]

TK - the reason that I started my post by going to the dictionary and defining the word "profanity" is because you claimed that none of the verses that I gave as examples were applicable.

That's why I specifically went through each verse and explained how they fit the definition. There were examples of each part of the description.

I was attempting to paint a larger picture. Of course, cursing is lumped in with unwholesome communication as listed above in Ephesians 4: 29. If you are trying to convince me that the F-word is wholesome communication, I'm not sure that we can carry on an intelligent conversation.

Yes, you are correct that Jesus did indeed call some of the religious leaders of his day "vipers" also "white-washed tombs." But wasn't Jesus God? Didn't he know these men's hearts and motives and wasn't he justified in condeming them?
I think so - sorry not profanity.

In your previous post, you make this statement:
"If cussing was the same thing as throwing mud in the face of God, then I certainly wouldn't do it, but it isn't throwing mud in the face of God."

Where are the verses confirming your view? Where is your evidence? How did you come to this conclusion?

So are you saying emotional appeals are not allowed in making your point? If so, I guess Christ was wrong to use the parable of the prodigal son, woman who lost the coin, shepherd who lost his sheep, etc. Are you saying that Christ's parables were only effective for grade schoolers?
Surely not.

"Could you please tell me how you manage to look into my heart to see those pangs of guilt?"

TK - you will be glad to hear that I was not able to look into your heart. What I was able to do (and what all Christians are commanded to do) is take scripture, apply it, and come to a logical conclusion.

Unwholesome communication is not permitted for Christians to speak. When we violate God's law our conscience is pricked and we feel guilt (see reference to Romans 2 above). I have found in my experience this Biblical rule proves itself true over time. Thus, the example of my friend listed above who confirmed this teaching.

Another clue was when you typed your list of profane words I noticed that you decided to use character symbols instead of typing the actual letters. I'm not sure why you would do that unless you thought these words were offensive.

"The Bible says fornicators go te hell. It doesn't say that about people who cuss."

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that only sins that have the suffix "these are the kinds of sins that send you to hell" keep you out of heaven? Surely not.

There are sins of commission and sins of ommission. Sins of thought, word, and deed. ALL of them God are an affront to God. The Bible says that God can not even look upon sin. Any sin - including unwholesome communication.

You didn't address my second set of verses:
I Tim 6: 20 (Avoid profane and vain babblings), II Tim 2: 16 (shun profane and vain babblings), Hebrews 12: 16 (fornicator or profane person)

Maybe this will be helpful. The following is from Billy Graham's recent newspaper column. Notice that he addresses both using the Lord's name in vain and cursing:

Q: I was always pretty free with my speech before I became a Christian, but now it really bothers me when people curse or use God's name in vain. Should this bother me? My wife says I shouldn't let it worry me so much, because people usually don't mean anything by it. — J.K.

A: Dear J.K.,
Perhaps most people don't think about it when they curse or use God's name—but that's the problem! God is far too important to treat casually or as if He doesn't matter.

In other words, cursing or using God's name in vain is usually an indication of something much deeper: a person's true attitude toward God. When someone ignores God and decides He isn't important, then they won't see anything wrong with cursing or blasphemy. The psalmist wrote of the ungodly man who "loved to pronounce a curse. ... He wore cursing as his garment; it entered into his body like water" (Psalm 109:17-18). Cursing may also be a sign of anger or hatred, which isn't honoring to God.

But now that you have given your life to Christ and made Him the center of your life, you love God, and you take Him very seriously. And because you do, you dislike it when people treat Him disrespectfully. The Bible is very clear: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7).

At the same time, pray for your friends when they use language that dishonors God, and ask God to help you show them His love. Remember: You were once like they are, and their greatest need is to turn to Christ and make Him the center of their lives. The Bible says to "bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28).

Billy Graham

I believe that I have presented an effective case for not using curse words. Now, I would like to hear your case for the other side of the issue.

I have asked this question 3 times and still have not received an answer. Where is the verse that supports cursing? Where is the Biblical precedent? Which of the OT, NT prophets/disciples used profanity and then was told it was appropriate? How has it been used to glorify God? How has it made the world a better place? How has it been helpful for building up others according to their needs? How does it benefit all that listen? These are God's rules for communication by a Christian.
Ephesians 4: 29.

[Paul]

Jim,
So, regarding my writer-friend, if he is writing a book that involves characters that are in a gang (for example), and he is conveying a conversation they have among themselves, wouldn't a certain amount of profanity be expected? (BTW, I don't have the answer, I'm just trying to reason it out.) It seems we have a few options:
1) Don't have them talk amongst themselves (or don't portray it in detail).
2) Make the conversation not include profanity.
3) Do some sort of quasi-sensoring (like using "s___" and "f___" in place of the cuss words).

#3 seems like it would be too distracting. #2 seems like the reader would think the author wasn't really in-touch with the sub-culture being portrayed, was white-washing it, or some other such thing. From your previous response, it seems like you would go with #1 (or maybe some other option I didn't list), where the tale is told without having a glimpse into the actual conversation that took place (much as "sex scenes" in older movies just show the kiss, the fade-away, then the "morning after", or some such thing).

What do you think?

[TK]

Jim, this is your basic syllogism:

The Bible says profanity is bad.
To cursing is profane.
Therefore, the Bible says cursing is bad.

It's your second premise that is not in the Bible. Read your last post, "Of course, cursing is lumped in with unwholesome communication..." Where is your evidence for this view?

You folled that by saying that if we couldn't agree that the f-word was unwholesome than we can't have an intelligent conversation. Do you recognize question begging when you do it?

You might as well say that you won't discuss this issue with anyone who doesn't already agree with you. If you don't want to really discuss these things with someone who doesn't read the same things into the Bible as you do then I will honor your wishes, but please don't pretend like you are being intelligent. There are other words to describe that attitude.

[Jim]

"Jim, this is your basic syllogism:

The Bible says profanity is bad.
To cursing is profane.
Therefore, the Bible says cursing is bad."

I love it when people address part of your point and then pretend that they have addressed the whole point. See: "taking a text out of context", "straw man argument."

"It's your second premise that is not in the Bible."

Sure it is. Check earlier posts for scripture references. If you choose to ignore the obvious, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

"Of course, cursing is lumped in with unwholesome communication..." Where is your evidence for this view?

I'll have to admit this statement caused me to chuckle a bit. Even though you didn't answer any of my questions about evidence from my last post, I'll go ahead and answer yours still holding out hope that you will respond in kind.

Two reasons:
It is part of the definition of profanity as stated by the dictionary, it does not fit the model of wholesome communication as stated in Ephesians 4: 29 i.e., "what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit all those who listen."

Society has determined that the F-word is offensive/unwholesome TK. Look up the word in the dictionary. It is referred to as "offensive slang." These are not Christian fundamentalists making these claims. Its a secular society. The point is already established. Sorry, not question begging.

"You might as well say that you won't discuss this issue with anyone who doesn't already agree with you."

This is a confusing statement. I have already been discussing this with someone who doesn't agree with me. Unfortunately, so far, only one of us has been providing scriptural evidence for his position. Hopefully, that will change soon.

"Please don't pretend like you are being intelligent. There are other words to describe that attitude."

When you have evidence pound the points, when you don't pound the table.

[TK]

Jim, I think that you are being less than honest with yourself.

Why should I spend my time replying to someone who thinks a childhood story about a preacher using hyperbolic language is a logical or Biblical argument.

I'll to what, I will take the time to put together an argument that the Bible does not forbid cussing AND that cussing is useful for the building of the kingdom. To do this, I will use all of the sources you have. They are the Bible, Evangelists, my own childhood experiences, and secular society.

I will do all this if you give me a good Biblical argument for profanity (ie cussing) being like taking a large handful of mud from a pig sty and hurling it into the face of God.

Yeah, I think that would be fair.

[Jim]

"Jim, I think that you are being less than honest with yourself.

Why should I spend my time replying to someone who thinks a childhood story about a preacher using hyperbolic language is a logical or Biblical argument."

My debate professor back in college told me once that when your opponent gets to the name-calling stage, you have already won in the arena of ideas.

Most of the points in your post have already been addressed previously, but I will copy and paste in case they were lost in the shuffle.

Here are two replies that I previously posted on the point above:

So are you saying emotional appeals are not allowed in making your point? If so, I guess Christ was wrong to use the parable of the prodigal son, woman who lost the coin, shepherd who lost his sheep, etc. Are you saying that Christ's parables were only effective for grade schoolers?
Surely not.

ALL sins are an affront to God. The Bible says that God can not even look upon sin. Any sin - including unwholesome communication.

Thus, the reference to throwing mud in God's face. It is obviously symbolic (God is spirit). Nonetheless, accurate.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if it was prudent for Christ to use an emotional appeal to underscore a Biblical truth, that we can safely follow that precedent.

Let's not try to make parables walk on all fours.

By the way, you still have not answered my question on this topic.

"If cussing was the same thing as throwing mud in the face of God, then I certainly wouldn't do it, but it isn't throwing mud in the face of God."

Where are the verses confirming your view? Where is your evidence? How did you come to this conclusion?

Can't wait to read your thesis on profanity being useful for building up the kingdom. This should be good!

Please make sure you also cover these questions (posted earlier):

Where is the verse that supports cursing? Where is the Biblical precedent? Which of the OT, NT prophets/disciples used profanity and then was told it was appropriate? How has it been used to glorify God? How has it made the world a better place? How has it been helpful for building up others according to their needs? How does it benefit all that listen? These are God's rules for communication by a Christian.
Ephesians 4: 29.

Your sources sound great:

The Bible - as long as you don't employ isogesis, taking a verse out of context, colapsing contexts, misquotations, trying to employ a historical narrative as a norm, interpreting a symblolic passage as literal or the inverse, or any of the other violations of hermaneutics.

Evangelists - as long as they are orthodox and of the same caliber of Billy Graham. Good Luck!

My Own Childhood Experiences - great as long as they support Christ's teachings and don't contradict them.

Secular Society - let's be careful here. I used the dictionary to show that even society considers the F-word offensive which add weight to the Bible's teachings. Of course, most of society is diametrically opposed to biblical authority.

If you stay within those boundaries, it will be as you say "fair." Otherwise, its cheating and bad argumentation.

Thanks - TK.
I'll be checking back for your post.

[TK]

First, I didn't call you any names. I referenced what you posted, and I did it accurately.

Second, lists of rhetorical questions are not a rational argument.

Third, something has to be a sin for it to be in the set of "ALL sins."

Fourth, Jesus parables were not emotional appeals.

Fifth, trying to shift the burden of proof isn't a rational argument either.

Now lets go over my criteria again. It has to be Biblical and it has to actually be an argument. That means Billy Graham is not authoritative because his words aren't in the Bible. It's the same thing with that preacher from your childhood.

It's like I said earlier, the Bible says fornicators go to hell, but it doesn't say that about people who cuss. You didn't understand my point there.

In one of your earlier posts, you said that you had a friend that said he didn't feel bad about fornicating, but later said that was a lie. His personal experience was your argument for thinking that I must feel guilty when I cuss. You see, even if your arument was valid, and it was not, then you would be question begging. That is, assuming that the Bible actually says not to cuss (the conclusion of your larger argument) when you were refering to those 'pangs of guilt' that your friend felt when he was claiming that he didn't feel guilty about fornicating (something that is clearly sin).

I'll keep checking this thread (through this friday) for an actual argument meeting my challenge. I may even start on the argument that I suggested, but you don't get to see it until you post a Biblical arument.

[Jim]

"First, I didn't call you any names. I referenced what you posted, and I did it accurately."

Really? Let's take a stroll down memory lane and see if any of these aspersions ring a bell.

"Please don't pretend like you are being intelligent. There are other words to describe that attitude."

That's not name calling? How is that referencing what I posted?

"Jim, I think that you are being less than honest with yourself."

What is the implication here TK? Was I supposed to take this as a compliment?

"Why should I spend my time replying to someone who thinks a childhood story about a preacher using hyperbolic language is a logical or Biblical argument."

Sounds like you think you are better than I am TK. Not name calling?

"I may even start on the argument that I suggested, but you don't get to see it until you post a Biblical arument."

Sounds a bit condescending TK. Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for logic.

I have not stooped to this level of discourse. I would appreciate the favor being returned.

"Second, lists of rhetorical questions are not a rational argument."

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. These are not rhetorical questions. I would actually like to see any Biblcial substantiationn for your views. Is that too much to ask? (that is a rhetorical question)

"Third, something has to be a sin for it to be in the set of "ALL sins."

Correct - hey I found something that I agree with you on.

"Fourth, Jesus parables were not emotional appeals."

It seems to me that you go out of your way to deny ideas that most people consider common knowledge.

Take a look through the comments on this subject. The only person who agrees with you is Tony the atheist.

The F-word is wholesome conversation. Jesus didn't use emotional appeals in his parables. These points have already been established. Let's look at some of the parables in the book of Luke.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep:

15:4 “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it? 15:5 Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 15:6 Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 15:7 I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.

The words "rejoicing", "rejoice with me", "more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents" - those sound like pretty emotional words to me.

The Parable of the Lost Coin:

“Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search thoroughly until she finds it? 15:9 Then when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 15:10 In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents.”

Again the words "rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that was lost" "joy in the presence of God"
How do you rejoice without emotion?

The Parable of the Lost Son:

Then Jesus said, “A man had two sons. 15:12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that will belong to me.’ So he divided his assets between them. 15:13 After a few days, the younger son gathered together all he had and left on a journey to a distant country, and there he squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle. 15:14 Then after he had spent everything, a severe famine took place in that country, and he began to be in need. 15:15 So he went and worked for one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 15:16 He was longing to eat the carob pods the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 15:17 But when he came to his senses he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough to spare, but here I am dying from hunger! 15:18 I will get up and go to my father and say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 15:19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.”’ 15:20 So he got up and went to his father. But while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him; he ran and hugged his son and kissed him. 15:21 Then his son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 15:22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Hurry! Bring the best robe, and put it on him! Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet! 15:23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it! Let us eat and celebrate, 15:24 because this son of mine was dead, and is alive again – he was lost and is found!’ So they began to celebrate.

15:25 “Now his older son was in the field. As he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 15:26 So he called one of the slaves and asked what was happening. 15:27 The slave replied, ‘Your brother has returned, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he got his son back safe and sound.’ 15:28 But the older son became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and appealed to him, 15:29 but he answered his father, ‘Look! These many years I have worked like a slave for you, and I never disobeyed your commands. Yet you never gave me even a goat so that I could celebrate with my friends! 15:30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 15:31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and everything that belongs to me is yours. 15:32 It was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost and is found.’”

I read here an emotional story about a son who wastes his inheritance, realizes his mistake, and crawls home to ask forgiveness. The father runs to meet him, hugs and kisses him, and clothes him with robe, sandals, and ring. A huge feast is prepared. Exclamations points are everywhere. From what I remember of gramar school they denote strong emotion. Then the other brother is jelous (isn't that an emotion?). The only way to get around the fact that Christ uses an emotional appeal is to deny the obvious.

Also take a look at Luke 10 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

How about the vinyard owner who sends his son and he is killed.
Not emotional?

I could go on. There are lots of others, but I think I've made my point.

"Fifth, trying to shift the burden of proof isn't a rational argument either."

So far TK I have answered each of your questions with scripture and other credible outside sources. You have not answered one of my questions with scripture - not one. And you say that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof? Wow.

"Now lets go over my criteria again. It has to be Biblical and it has to actually be an argument. That means Billy Graham is not authoritative because his words aren't in the Bible. It's the same thing with that preacher from your childhood."

Refer to earlier posts - lots of good examples. While you are there look for your own Biblical substantiation of your points. I wasn't able to find any.

Billy Graham is the most respected living pastor in the world. He has been preaching the Gospel for over 50 years and literally millions have come to faith in Christ through his ministry. That doesn't qualify him to answer a question about cursing that is clear in scripture? Do we get rid of all pastors because their words aren't in the Bible. No we stand on the shoulders of giants from the past and present. Otherwise each generation has to start all over again. Having said that, his words are not inspired. But they are reliable. He as a proven track record.

"It's like I said earlier, the Bible says fornicators go to hell, but it doesn't say that about people who cuss. You didn't understand my point there."

I got your point - it just wasn't a very good one. That's the old Bill Clinton logic. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible so it isn't a sin. There are principals in the Bible that speak against the taking of innocent human life that apply to abortion. The same is true for cursing.

"In one of your earlier posts, you said that you had a friend that said he didn't feel bad about fornicating, but later said that was a lie. His personal experience was your argument for thinking that I must feel guilty when I cuss. You see, even if your arument was valid, and it was not, then you would be question begging. That is, assuming that the Bible actually says not to cuss (the conclusion of your larger argument) when you were refering to those 'pangs of guilt' that your friend felt when he was claiming that he didn't feel guilty about fornicating (something that is clearly sin)."

His personal experience was actually not my argument. My argument was scripture (Romans 2). The experience only verified what the Bible already teaches. We are always to test experience in light of scripture. Not the other way around.

It is only question begging if the Bible does not teach that cursing is sin. But it does (Ephesians 4: 29). This teaching is only unclear if you deny the obvious.

"I'll keep checking this thread (through this friday) for an actual argument meeting my challenge. I may even start on the argument that I suggested, but you don't get to see it until you post a Biblical arument."

As I have stated earlier, I am the only party to this point using Biblical substantiation for my points. I believe it is your turn.

Sounds like you might be trying to back out of the report you promised to write. If you don't actually write it, I wouldn't blame you. Its an impossible task given the parameters I have set established.

One way to know that you have interpretted a verse incorrectly is that it contradicts other verses on the same topic.

Let me save you some time.
You won't find any verses (interpreted correctly) that backup your point.

[TK]

Listen, I don't think that I'm better than you. I do think that you are very confused and that you are reading your view into the Bible. I've done it before and realizing that something that I thought belonged in the Bible wasn't was very difficult for me.

Apparently, you don't know what an emotional appeal is. An emotional appeal is when evoking of emotion is the basis for an argument. Jesus' parables, althought they evoke strong emotion, didn't rest their authority on that evokation.

Now we can add to the list of illogical arguments, "Take a look through the comments on this subject. The only person who agrees with you is Tony the atheist." I suppose that could be considered a form of the bandwagon approach. In any case, if Tony agrees that murder is wrong and patience is a virtue, then I'm not going to change sides to make sure that I don't agree with the atheist.

I have discussed this with several christians who are older and more educated than I am. They all agree with me. I don't expect that to change your mind, but I do want you to know that I am seriously considering the issue. I don't waste my time argueing about issues that don't matter. That is something that I do think the Bible condemns.

You have yet to even present a valid argument for your side, but you continue to demand an argument from me.

[Jim]

"Listen, I don't think that I'm better than you."

That sounds a little hostile TK. I hope that was not your intent.

"I do think that you are very confused and that you are reading your view into the Bible. I've done it before and realizing that something that I thought belonged in the Bible wasn't was very difficult for me."

And I think that you are ignoring the clear teaching of scripture.

"Apparently, you don't know what an emotional appeal is. An emotional appeal is when evoking of emotion is the basis for an argument. Jesus' parables, althought they evoke strong emotion, didn't rest their authority on that evokation."

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the assumption that you did not understand the term. Thus, your criticism of a sermon that did not rest its authority on the evocation of emotion. My point was that the parables used the exact same kind of emotion to underscore a Biblical concept.

"Now we can add to the list of illogical arguments,"

This also sounds condescending TK. Especially since it isn't accurate.

"I suppose that could be considered a form of the bandwagon approach. In any case, if Tony agrees that murder is wrong and patience is a virtue, then I'm not going to change sides to make sure that I don't agree with the atheist."

Although it is not a hard and fast rule, generally when an atheist agrees with you and the most respected preacher in the world disagrees with you. You are on the wrong side of the issue.

"You have yet to even present a valid argument for your side, but you continue to demand an argument from me."

So far you have rejected all arguments from the clear teaching of scripture, the Dictionary, Billy Graham, hyperbolic language (which Jesus used), the parables, societal norms, and a host of other conclusive sources.

I'm not sure what you are looking for TK. The Bible doesn't have a list of curse words enumerated in order of offense. It doesn't work that way. The Bible is based on principles that apply to life's questions. You have to interpret them with rules of hermaneutics and then apply them with rules of logic.

Still waiting on the first Bible verse that supports your point.

[TK]

Still waiting on a valid argument from your side.

Lets see here, I said, "Listen, I don't think that I'm better than you." Your reply, "That sounds a little hostile TK." I hope that is not an example of your hermaneutical process. I know how to sound hostile, and that ain't the way it's done.

What you have done is to use a miriad of invalid argument. You are still refering to them. You actually listed Billy Graham and hyperbolic language as valid arguments.

Nothing in the Bible validates your view. That's why you have rely on Billy Graham and societal norms to try to make your point. Billy Graham has my respect, but his view doesn't trump the Bible.

I'll help you out a little. To show that something not explicitly condemned in the Bible is wrong, you have to show that it always involves something that the Bible actually says is wrong. In this instance, we are talking about using cuss words.

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly say that cussing is wrong, that means that you have to take the nature of cussing and show its link to something that is a sin. That's what you were doing when you claimed that cussing was profane or unwholesome, but the claim isn't enough.

I gave you examples where cuss words can be used express certain concepts that you didn't object to; solidary, approval, disappointment, etc. Of course, cussing can be used in profane or unwholesome communication, but it certainly isn't necessary for those types of communication to take place. That has to do with necesity and sufficiancy.

If cuss words were rarely acceptable or usually lowered someones opinion of the speaker, then you could site other Bible versus that have to do with speaking in ways that honor God before men. That's why I pointed out that what is considered profane varies with ones environment. That's also why I didn't type out the entire cuss words that I used in my example. In this company, I won't cuss because people like you will be offended, but that only applies when I am around people like you.

You have used a lot of really, really bad arguments. I've tried to respond to most of what you said even if my response was simply refusing to accept the burden of proof. If you do have a Biblical argument, I am open to hearing it. If it is sound, then I am going to go back to the dozen or so people that I've discussed this issue with and improve their theology, but I'm not going to believe something just because 'Billy Graham said so.'

[Jim]

"I hope that is not an example of your hermaneutical process. I know how to sound hostile, and that ain't the way it's done."

My point is that your continual "better than you" attitude keeps showing its head. I suppose when the facts are not on your side that is the only way left to make your case.

"What you have done is to use a miriad of invalid argument. You are still refering to them. You actually listed Billy Graham and hyperbolic language as valid arguments."

Only invalid to you because you have defined all forms of argument invalid including forms that Christ himself used. We can't think that the F-word might be unwholsome communication, we can't learn from Billy Graham because his words aren't in the Bible, we can't use the dictionary, we can't go by societal norms that confirm the Bible's teachings, can't use hyperbolic language even through Christ did on a number of occasions, etc. While at the same time offering no evidence of any kind for your position. All red herrings designed to draw attention away from the fact that you offer no evidence for your belief.

"Nothing in the Bible validates your view. That's why you have rely on Billy Graham and societal norms to try to make your point. Billy Graham has my respect, but his view doesn't trump the Bible."

Please re-read my previous posts. They begin with you asking for verses that forbid cursing. I make a list. You reply that they don't refer to profanity. I show how each one does in fact refer to profanity. That is follwed by a post from another individual who writes that I have made an effective case from scripture.

The most respected preacher in the world recently answered the very question we were discussing and I post it so that we might learn something. I'm not sure how that harms my position.

By the way, Billy Graham doesn't trump the Bible, but he has been preaching from it and interpreting it for over 50 years so I would give him view the respect it deserves. Are his scripture references wrong? If so, how?

"To show that something not explicitly condemned in the Bible is wrong, you have to show that it always involves something that the Bible actually says is wrong."

All Unwholesome communication is condemned. Always. Again, you are not going to see a list of words you can't use in the Bible.

"I gave you examples where cuss words can be used express certain concepts that you didn't object to; solidary, approval, disappointment, etc. Of course, cussing can be used in profane or unwholesome communication, but it certainly isn't necessary for those types of communication to take place. That has to do with necesity and sufficiancy."

I don't object to the concepts. I do object to the method. I have never understood why anyone would use a racial slur, escpecially one with the history of the n-word, to show solidarity. Why should I respect that person more than they are willing to respect themselves? The skin color of the person who says it does not determine whether it is right or wrong.

"If cuss words were rarely acceptable or usually lowered someones opinion of the speaker, then you could site other Bible versus that have to do with speaking in ways that honor God before men."

This seems to be an appeal to societal norms which you criticized earlier.

I think someone in a previous post actually made that exact point that it did lower their view of the speaker.

"That's also why I didn't type out the entire cuss words that I used in my example. In this company, I won't cuss because people like you will be offended, but that only applies when I am around people like you."

Why would you be worried about offending someone if their belief system is wrong on that subject?

"You have used a lot of really, really bad arguments."

I can not say the same of you, but only because you have used no form of evidence for your position at all.

"I've tried to respond to most of what you said even if my response was simply refusing to accept the burden of proof."

In other words, you are saying that you answered my questions by refusing to answer them. Nice.

"If you do have a Biblical argument, I am open to hearing it."

No you are not. I have already learned that lesson.

"I'm not going to believe something just because 'Billy Graham said so."

That isn't even close to my point. Talk about bad argumentation!

[TK]

Frankly, I think our attitudes are the pretty much the same. We each have I-am-right attitudes. Accourding to you understanding of name calling, we've each done that too.

I haven't defined all forms of argument valid. You have kept going to formal fallacies. These aren't informal fallacies like atheists like to make up. They are actual formal fallacies. Jesus never used a formal fallacy. His parable were teaching tools. I don't know of a single insance of Him using a parable to prove someone wrong.

You CAN think that the F-word is unwholesome, learn from Billy Graham, use the dictionary, and go by socieatal name as long as each of these go by the Bibles teaching, but that's the real question. Do each of these go by the Bible's teaching in this instance? Billy Graham can say that refusing to lie to save someone's life (I've never heard him say that) is a sin, but I'm not going to believe him unless he gives me a good case from the Bible.

I haven't offered any red herrings. I stated plainly that I haven't found anything in the Bible that communicates a moritorium on cussing. That was my claim from my first post. In a recent post, I said that I would construct an argument for the view that cussing is allowable accourding to scripture with citations from other sources, but only after you offered a good argument for your opposing claim. That's not a red herring. It's what I wrote.

You are question-begging and bandwagoning again in this post. If I don't kneel at the alter of Billy Graham, "the most respected preacher in the world" who was answering a question about taking Gods name in vain, what makes you think that one other poster (no offence Paul) in this thread kind-of agreeing with you is going change my mind. (btw. I notices you called his response reasoned, but he was simply giving his opinion. That's not reasoning. No offence Paul) I have spoken with a dozen people about this and half of them have theological degrees and they all agree with me. My bandwagon is bigger than yours is, but that proves nothing.

I did reply to all the versus you posted. The versus you cited were against vain(ie. useless or meaningless), profane, unwholesome, vulgar and lewd speech. That is why I switched to talking about the nature of cussing. If Paul is correct in saying that some words are lewd by nature then it would be a sin to speak those particular words, but he didn't name any of those words and I can't think of any.

Now, you cut my paragraph on societal norms in half. That makes it seem like I was appealing to societal norms, but I wasn't. I was commenting on a previous argument that you made. At the end of the paragraph, I explained that the versus about honoring God before men only apply to cussing when you are around people like you who think that cussing is dishonorable. As I've said before, not all people think cussing is profane, so your argument that cussing is wrong because it offends people doesn't show cussing to be wrong when those people aren't around.

If you don't think that I am willing to be corrected by the Bible, then why are you wasting your time with this dialogue. Perhaps pangs in your heart are telling you that I'm telling the truth.

[Chad]

I really wish I could find the article, but I recently read one off of some news site that proclaimed usage of the f-word in the workplace a legitimate means of building rapport with one's co-workers.

To those of you who are saying that words are profane "in and of themselves," do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? This specific combination of letters emanates a God-given profanity. That's the most ludicrous thing that I've ever heard. It should be obvious that a word's profanity is defined entirely by its context.

If I use the phrase "F*** you" in a malicious way, then I am being profane. In the same sense that when I say to somebody "You are the stupidest person I have ever met" it is profane. You'll notice that that latter statement didn't even employ any "profanity", as Jim might call it. If you can't accept that words and obscenity are sometimes arbitrarily connected, then you have a bit more soul-searching to do.

That being said, it is not entirely bullsh*t (it's not obscene because I used an asterisk, WOO!) that one must take into account those arbitrarily assigned obscenities when speaking in a public context. If you want to use a "curse word" in a non-obscene way amongst your friends who your sure will not be irrationally offended by it, then go for it, provided it is not used in an obscene fashion.

So with regards to the F-word (it's not obscene because I used "-word" instead of "uck", WOO!), seriously guys, let's be a little bit more mature. We're not still afraid to say the word "sex" are we? Maybe I should have replaced the 'e' with an asterisk just in case… Anyway, in some contexts, "f*ck" means nothing more than "s*x" and in other c*nt*xts it does not in any w*y refer to s*x.

G**z…

[Kyle]

There is another problem with the use of extreme profanity on Doug's site. Like it or not, now that he's huge on Nickelodeon, his primary audience, in terms of sheer numbers, is now children. Any kid who is curious about who the mad genius is behind his favorite show would arrive at his site with one quick google search. It bears his name, after all. Doug has a responsibility now to a wider audience to set a Christian example.

[Cory]

Doug finds a way to justify whatever dumb opinion he has by his interpretation of a poorly written book. The only thing still relevant from 2000 years ago is math and irrigation. Use the F(uck)-word or don't, it won't change the fact that you will find out Penn is right when you die and no magic happens. It's your life though so carry on with your superstitions if you must.

[TK]

Actually, if Penn is right, I won't find out after I die, but that's not what I am posting to say... this is:

That math and irrigation comment was halarious. Really funny.

[Linds]

I agree with Jim.

[Doug TenNapel]

Hello everyone and I've enjoyed this discussion. I do feel like I owe you all an explanation, and I don't think it's entirely adequate since I find no justification for 'course jesting' in the Bible and my world view is informed by this book.

But in my defense, the language Christ used was wholely offensive to his peers and he recieved criticism from both the religious and the secular, so I don't think the cultural perception is the beef God has with this kind of language. I sat a long time with those words on my screen before I hit "send" and I wanted to make sure I could stand by them before I sent them into the ether forever. I was trying to answer Penn with the same level of sarcasm and bite that he measured out to his readers to show how retarded and offensive he sounded. He was tippy-toeing around this phrase for I don't know why, but I thought it was legalistic and wholely out of his character so I just said what he implied. It ended up with a sweet double-entendre because I both clarified what he said as well as deliver a bitter insult.

I'll admit it was a carnal satisfaction which is why I can't wholely justify its use, but I've never been accused of being "winsome and attractive" to start with. But Christ referred to his enemy's good works as "Filthy rags" literally translated as menstrual-soaked tampons...his insult was sincere and biting using crudeness to help deliver the weight of his words, as did I.

That said, I can absolutely see why some would find my language a foul ball in Christian-land, and I apologize if I let you down. To be fair to STR, Penner endorsed my argument form (taking the roof off) and not necessarily my choice of words to make the argument.

And Cory, I laughed out loud at the math and irrigation thing. God bless you on your journey to eternal torment where the worm and fire do not sleep.

[TK]

Doug, now THAT was funny. I'm crying a little. I haven't teased anyone about the worm in years.

[cory]

Sorry to inform you Doug… but there is no biblical Hell, only the hell on earth that you and the rest of the superstitious fools create. Enjoy your journey into ignorance where art and science can't progress.

[cory]

Sorry to inform you Doug… but there is no biblical Hell, only the hell on earth that you and the rest of the superstitious fools create. Enjoy your journey into ignorance where art and science can't progress.

[cory]

Sorry to inform you Doug… but there is no biblical Hell, only the hell on earth that you and the rest of the superstitious fools create. Enjoy your journey into ignorance where art and science can't progress.

[alterna180]

i was in a conversation about the southern-baptist phrase "bless his heart"

i am from the north, and i was asking my southern friends why people were always saying this, and what does it mean to 'bless' someone. it was explained to me that when you say something bad about someone, you can balance it out and make yourself seem like less of a gossip by ending the sentence with "bless his heart"

for example:
"i just saw bob and he is wearing the most dreadful purple penny-loafers...bless his heart."

when i was in college, i did a bible study w/ some girlfriends and we studied gossip. we concluded that gossip is 'saying something that is not uplifting' etc...do you all think that perhaps cursing men by saying things not uplifting about them would be just as bad as saying "fuck" or "shit" etc?

[[[ "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing." -- How is this verse not a reference to cursing? Refer to the abusive definition of profanity. ]]]

it seems that the cursing in this verse is talking about 'cursing men, who have been made in god's likeness' -- saying something that is not uplifting towards someone whom god loves dearly. this could be any number of things, right? sorry i am just spouting thoughts, not trying to create a step-by-step case for curse-words...

my last thought is that the bible regularly refers to us sinners as fools. and like greg koukl says, "what is another word for foolish?" ("STUPID!") -- what is the difference between that and saying idiot, retard (d.tennapel), etc etc etc. any thoughts???

[alterna180]

[[[ Sorry to inform you Doug… but there is no biblical Hell ]]]

cory, if you are so sure about this, then why are you sorry to inform doug of the fact?

and.

how did you come to that conclusion? ;)