Okay, I hate to interject into such a wonderful conversation. Especially since my language can be as bad as anyone's. But "cussing" is indeed relative, and to some extent it is a social construct. Of this I have no doubt. I would never want to "cuss" in front of children - although once upon a time in my youth I did so routinely and thoughtlessly. Especially in front of my own.
Last year I visited Don Spears. His daughter Kammi came over with two young boys. I talked for about five minutes. The boys wondered at Kammi, why I had said "cuss" words three times.
That was when I learned that in the South,
darned,
hell and
damned were cuss words. To me, a "damned Yankee", they are not, and they are still not.
Darned is simply a substitute word, a kinder and gentler version of
damned. I use
hell as a noun representing the state of damnation.
If I use
damned as an adjective in reference to a White brother or sister, then I am indeed cursing: for who am I to judge my brother? However, if I use
damned as an adjective modifying nouns such as
jew or
negro or some other unseemly creature, am I not simply stating a fact? I believe that I am only stating a fact, and that we have an obligation to state such facts when the need arises. So to me "damned jew" and "damned mestizo" and "damned negro" (or that other 'n' word) are all simply statements of fact.
By the way, TJ very succinctly made an excellent point (among others) about substitute words still being curses, although the substitute words themselves may not be profane.
I have been accused of using profane language for using certain words, such as
whore and
bastard. However those are words right out of the English Bible, and if I use those same words in the same contexts as they appear in the Word of God, how am I being profane?
However if I label one of our brothers and sisters with such a word without good reason, then I certainly am using profanity, and I should be corrected. Any lie or slander is profane language, no matter the eloquence of the words chosen. One can find some very eloquent ways to utter some very foul things.
Now there are certain disgusting and also (usually) sexually explicit words and phrases which we as Christians should (normally) never have in our mouths. And similar words and phrases certainly were used in ancient Greece and Rome as well. Surely Paul had many of them in mind when he warned us about foul language.
On a recent Blogtalk program, without using
explicitly foul language, I nevertheless expressed a verbal image of an explicitly sexual nature. I have been mildly criticized for it by a couple of friends. Yet I do not regret it - even though I would not want children to hear it. The Word of God uses a very similar analogy in Ezekiel, where Yahweh says to the children of Israel:
KJV, Ezekiel 16:25 wrote:Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.
The phrase "open thy feet" is archaic. Today it should be translated "spread thy legs", as a whore would, and the analogy is fitting of our people when they coddle the non-Adamic races. That was exactly the analogy I sought to make on that program, to a judaized so-called pastor.
I thought I would cite these examples, where "cussing" is not really cursing. I recently made an illustration of George Washington's "black gentry" remark in my latest Saxon Messenger editorial. How many people completely missed the meaning of the euphemism? How better would his message have been understood if he simply told the truth, and said "damned jews"?
I have long thought that "nice" language, veiled euphemisms, and the use of other
kind ways to relate what needs to be said, sacrificing the conveyance of the plain raw truth for mere politesse, is one thing that has always gotten us into trouble. Such "acceptable" language is always taken advantage of by our enemies, who see it as a reflection of weakness and an opportunity for distortion.
Imprecatory prayers by themselves are not curses. The Psalms are full of them. I cannot recount where David wishes that "the wicked" would repent, but only that they be destroyed. However, I would think that
unrighteous imprecatory prayers are indeed curses. If a damned jew did you wrong, you should pray that he be destroyed, that Yahweh avenge you. However if one of your brethren caused you harm, you should pray for his repentance. On the other hand if you pray that your brother be destroyed, are you not cursing him? In times of uncertainty, it is best - I think - to pray that God's justice and God's righteousness be fulfilled, along with God's vengeance.
I hope not to have obfuscated this issue, but I had a few things which I felt should be contributed.
