|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How appropriate are expletives in explaining Christianity?
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
The question really is about how far it is helpful to adopt colloquial language, including expletives, and has been raised in my mind by reading Francis Spufford's book "Unapologetic".
I like the book but it's plain where he stands on this as he defines sin as the human propensity to fuck things up, and indeed one of the set (shit, fuck,bugger) graces most pages.
Whilst not averse to the use of expletives, I rather view this as a fault, especially when you have no check on whether they offend people. If someone is offended by the language of Billy Connelly, then they really should not tune in. But you don't expect this fucking language from a book advocating, Christianity. And it is a good book but flawed by the Fwords.
Any thoughts?
[ 21. December 2012, 16:11: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I think the use of expletives by stereotypically "square" people(teachers, clergymen etc) always has a rather forced, overly self-concious quality about it. "Look at me! I'm exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be swearing, but here I am swearing!! #%*@ yeah!!"
But I'm biased. One of my teachers in high-school, old hippie type, always made a big point about hurling out the f-word etc in class(including Religion), and my friends and I always firgured he was trying too hard to be cool. It did make him kind of hard to take seriously, as did his habit of saying insulting things about other teachers in front of his students.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Sometimes, "I fucked up" is the only way to say it.
That said, putting it in a book (and apparently repeatedly) strikes me as a shallow attempt to appear daring or on the cutting edge. I'm not offended as a Christian- I am offended as a "younger" (by church standards early 30s is young, right?) person who the author might be trying to impress with his use of profanity. If you don't have challenging new ideas, don't try to cover it up by using colloquial language. Your effort to look like you are challenging the old guard isn't fooling anyone.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find it OK, as I talk that way myself, as do most of my friends. However, I can see the point about offending. I restrain myself on this forum, I suppose, so as not to offend. Maybe I am a fucking saint, who knows?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think in a face to face situation it would be easier to judge whether the person concerned was using such language to strike a pose, or as a natural form of expression. It's probably less appropriate in a book, especially of that nature.
Having said that, Philip Larkin's famous line 'They fuck you up, your mum and dad' couldn't really be expressed any other way. Ysenda Maxtone-Graham, who wrote a book about the C of E called The Church Hesitant, mentions a cleric who quoted that line in a sermon, but in a bowdlerised form. She felt, as I do, that was a cop-out.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
If nothing else, it's highly colloquial, which I find off-putting in books, especially books trying to sell people on Christianity, but maybe there's some demographic that likes it.
I think expletives can be very useful sometimes, but they lose their force if they're overused. Using language carelessly doesn't seem like a good way to share the faith of the Word made flesh.
But expletives don't offend me.
And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Piling on with the general theme here, I agree that in most cases it seems to me a lame attempt at "relevance" that instead comes across as simply adolescent meaningless dribble ("boobs!" "poop!" weiner!"). There are notable exceptions when it feels authentic-- the glorious Anne Lamott with her practically incessant f-bombs comes to mind. But that's the rub: it's gotta be authentic, attempts to imitate it expose you as a poser.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I've often recommended The Real Live Preacher to people, with the first read to be "The Preacher's Story" which unfolds his loss of faith and return in a very readable form.
But there are some who will simply give up reading (despite the quality of his writing) because, at one point, he writes "They said the equivalent of "fuck it" and went to do it anyway".
This giving-up seems to me to be rather childish or petulant, and it definitely implies that Christians are too good to be dealing with the Real World of those outside the Church.
It wasn't as if the seven pages of decent, clear writing was laced with profanity. Apart from the word "bullshit" appearing, he does say "I must have had the classic, “Young chaplain just got the shit kicked out of him” look because people left me alone." at the time his faith-base fell apart (read the story) Hardly enough to raise an eyebrow, I would have thought.
(And he does have a comment in there about the Christians who live sequestered away from the Real World, so that no-one understands them, BTW)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If nothing else, it's highly colloquial, which I find off-putting in books, especially books trying to sell people on Christianity, but maybe there's some demographic that likes it.
I think expletives can be very useful sometimes, but they lose their force if they're overused. Using language carelessly doesn't seem like a good way to share the faith of the Word made flesh.
But expletives don't offend me.
And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference.
I've written a few books myself, and I'm pretty sure that there has been a big shift towards the colloquial in different kinds of books. Some people ascribe it to feminism, and 'the personal is political', but I am skeptical about that. I just think there has been a shift away from the formal. In some ways, there has been a 'confessional' slant in many books.
His book seems to garnering plenty of attention, but I doubt because of the f-words. I would think he is deliberately writing in a personal and informal way.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst not averse to the use of expletives, I rather view this as a fault, especially when you have no check on whether they offend people.
There are people who know you're not talking to them if you don't use expletives. If expletives are a usual part of how you communicate and a usual part of the usage of your intended audience, then you damn well better use them. If others don't like it, too bad. There are plenty of books about Christianity for them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Churchgeek wrote:
quote:
And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference. [/QB]
Yeah, it doesn't have the same grating quality of fabricated edginess when used in more informal settings, if that's how the person would normally talk.
In related news, a Canadian MP has just had to swear off twitter after unleashing a series of tweets that included the f-word. Though it seems to be his use of the phrase "rat-faced whores" that is garnering the most attention.
[ 21. December 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Well, it would be an improvement if he swears off Twitter rather than on.
I assume he is a Conservative not used to having anyone question him.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Having said that, Philip Larkin's famous line 'They fuck you up, your mum and dad' couldn't really be expressed any other way. Ysenda Maxtone-Graham, who wrote a book about the C of E called The Church Hesitant, mentions a cleric who quoted that line in a sermon, but in a bowdlerised form. She felt, as I do, that was a cop-out.
That reminds me of an article in the American magzzine Spin, about Monty Python, that referred to one of their characters as Mrs. Knickerbocker.
Suffice to say the bowdelrization pretty much takes the punch out of the skit's characterization of the woman, as well as the reference to Rhodesia.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I'm biased. One of my teachers in high-school, old hippie type, always made a big point about hurling out the f-word etc in class(including Religion), and my friends and I always firgured he was trying too hard to be cool. It did make him kind of hard to take seriously, as did his habit of saying insulting things about other teachers in front of his students.
I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I once used the word "shit" metaphorically in conversation with my Dad, he went into such shock at hearing that word from me he didn't hear the content of what I was saying.
And that's the risk. Words we expect in some environments can be uncomfortable to hear in another, and detract from the message.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think the use of expletives by stereotypically "square" people(teachers, clergymen etc) always has a rather forced, overly self-concious quality about it. "Look at me! I'm exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be swearing, but here I am swearing!! #%*@ yeah!!"
You weren't at our staff party last night - the swearing was very natural! Just because children never hear teachers swear doesn't mean teachers never swear.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824
|
Posted
I've no personal objection to the swearing in Francis Spufford's book, though I'm interested to see what my father in law thinks of it (he asked for the book for Christmas).
In this case I'd assume the author had a strong personal need to employ a writing style as far removed from that of his parents as he could possibly manage. His mother, a Cambridge academic, wrote an outstanding semi-autobiographical work on Christianity and suffering in 1989. Francis' upbringing was very privileged in some ways and very traumatic in others.
Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
- Tony Campolo
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I would also say that using 'I fucked up' is different from saying 'fucking idiots' or the like. I would be more comfortable with the former than the latter on the whole, especially in writing. I do swear more than I used to (for example at idiot drivers and when I drop a lightbulb from the top of a ladder while trying to change a bulb in a chandalier) and that's some kind of release for the stupid thing. 'I fucked up' is strong earthy language which gets the gravity of the situation over more than 'I messed up'. Sometimes these words can get the point across, the problem is when the argument about whether you should have used them obscures the point (cf Tony Campolo). But there is a culture issue here, in Christian circles (well most of them) 'I fucked up' will raise eyebrows, whereas in many secular contexts it won't be. I do wonder if the 'Chrstians don't swear' thing is in danger of being a painted sepulchre issue, caught up on the appearance of things not the substance?
Carys (now, will I get a PM from Barrea berating me for using these terms)
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.
Kids are smart enough to know that adults swear. They are also smart enough to know that you address your friends differently than you address people you have a formal relationship with, like a teacher. When the teacher addresses you like a friend, it just seems a little off.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Amused that Justinian posted the Tony Campolo anecdote as I made passing reference to it, so that the anecdote in fact appears before my post!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.
If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.
A question to all ministers who swear in private conversations: would you be happy for all your congregation to be aware of your worst language? How about doing it in a supermarket check out queue in front of soem 7 year olds?
No? Then why do it at all? [It wouldn't be the first time I've asked people not to swear when I've been out with my children - frankly as someone who once worked as a labourer and in city dealing rooms I've heard enoughbad language to last a lifetime. It all sounds sort of pathetic from educated people as if they are trying to prove something].
In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church. If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.
He doesn't come across that way to me at all. First off, he's not trying to be rude. He's trying to be shocking. And he is being shocking for a very specific reason: to show his audience that they are shocked about the wrong things. He wasn't trying to draw their attention to the problem of injustice. He was trying to draw their attention to their own misguided priorities and programmed feelings.
In short your reading misses the point he was trying to make, the means by which he did it, why that means was necessary, and why it worked.
[ 21. December 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.
If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.
A question to all ministers who swear in private conversations: would you be happy for all your congregation to be aware of your worst language? How about doing it in a supermarket check out queue in front of soem 7 year olds?
No? Then why do it at all? [It wouldn't be the first time I've asked people not to swear when I've been out with my children - frankly as someone who once worked as a labourer and in city dealing rooms I've heard enoughbad language to last a lifetime. It all sounds sort of pathetic from educated people as if they are trying to prove something].
In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church. If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????
St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job - and don't forget that what constitutes profanity has changed a huge amount over the centuries. Time was when 'by His nails' was far more offensive than 'fuck'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.
He doesn't come across that way to me at all. First off, he's not trying to be rude. He's trying to be shocking. And he is being shocking for a very specific reason: to show his audience that they are shocked about the wrong things. He wasn't trying to draw their attention to the problem of injustice. He was trying to draw their attention to their own misguided priorities and programmed feelings.
In short your reading misses the point he was trying to make, the means by which he did it, why that means was necessary, and why it worked.
And part of why the Campolo quote worked is that he doesn't cuss all the time. He doesn't cuss just to draw attention or look cool. So that when he used it in this particular instance it drew attention (well, at least some people's attn) to precisely the point-- that we* care about all the wrong things.
*(the context of the quote is a speech at a conservative evangelical Bible school)
[ 21. December 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????
Um, no. No he don't. It's just one usage of the gloriously-versatile word (noun, verb, adjective) *fuck* - in this instance meaning *fucked in the head* i.e. psychologically damaged.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't swear all the time - we'd have nothing left for special occasions if we did.
quote:
If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?
Because swearing is a linguistic tool - it can be used to signal that you are part of a group, and it can be used for extreme emphasis. I've once stopped a room cold with a simple use of the word "fuck" - not because of the word (two of the people there used it roughly every other sentence) but because it was me who used it. And I used it intending to do so. Just as overuse devalues the word, refusing to use a word at all makes it worthless and probably impoverishes your communication even more.
quote:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude.
No he doesn't - you've entirely missed the point. But Mousethief has already explained that better than I would at 2am.
quote:
In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church.
In the final analysis swearing is a linguistic tool and like any others there is a time and a place for it. That you look down on people you used to work with and describe their everyday use of language as not acceptable anywhere reflects rather more on you than it does on anyone else involved.
quote:
If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????
It's a good job that English is versatile.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's a good job that English is versatile.
I wasn't sure if the misspelled words were part of the joke, or an indication that the people who made the piece were fucking idiots.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.
Kids are smart enough to know that adults swear. They are also smart enough to know that you address your friends differently than you address people you have a formal relationship with, like a teacher. When the teacher addresses you like a friend, it just seems a little off.
Yeah, I had been hearing my father swear for years before I ever encountered that teacher, so it wasn't the novetly of adults swearing that seemed so contrived to me. It was the context in which he was doing it(ie. while lecturing in a classroom).
You really had to see this guy. His whole routine was being the "cool teacher" who cancels classes for the day(and instructs you not to tell the other teachers) and walks into other teacher's classes to deleiver zany monologues.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him
2. Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job -
1. Which words would that be? And why would you have to follow him (or anyo0ne) in using such words (if he did)?
2. Truth trumps profanity any day of the week.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QUOTE]
1. (Swearing) like any others there is a time and a place for it.
2. That you look down on people you used to work with and describe their everyday use of language as not acceptable anywhere reflects rather more on you than it does on anyone else involved.
1. I respect your views but they aren't mine.
2. You seem to imply that because I came to find the swearing irritating (coming as it did every 2nd word), I saw the people the same.
I don't look down on them at all: they were all better people than me for all sorts of reasons. There was far more integrity on a building site (for example) than there is in many a boardroom - sadly also than in many a church.
3. I accept that campolo's intention was to shock - there's much better ways of doing it than swearing IMHO - civil disobedience for example. Swearing is all too safe.
[ 22. December 2012, 05:32: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
My contemporaries and most of the people I meet in my everyday life do not use expletives in general conversation. I long ago ceased to be shocked by them and if I read a book where they were frequently used, then I'd take them as part of the story providing the story was good. However, since being an audio book reader, I have found that they can definitely get in the way of the context, especially if the reader heavily emphasises them. There was one book called 'The Way Home' I think, that I had to give up on, although I understand the story was a good one.
Having never heard of Francis Spufford before, I googled and have been reading acomment in New Humanist and, following that, a comment
linked to at the end of the article.
So thank you, anteater, for a very interesting start to a wet Saturday!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
I was brought up to believe swearing was very bad, and try not to....(hey, but when a lorry almost knocked me off my motorbike recently I amazed myself at my vocabulary, all thankfully within the confines of a full-face helmet)
but I think it is worth analysing this one a a bit, I reckon there are three classes of 'swear words'
(1) Blasphemy. Really, for Christians that should be out.
(2) Words to do with sex, which belittle a good God-given gift. So not a good idea really.
(3) Earthy words related to human digestive functions. May upset mothers-in-law, so can be an offence against charity. Use with discretion...
At Greenbelt a few years ago I went to three seminars, at all of which the speaker used the f-word, I guess to gain credibility or something,. it had the opposite effect on me - the third one I went up to at the end and really told him off for infantile behaviour... I was quite shocked at myself, and i think he was as well..
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't swear all the time - we'd have nothing left for special occasions if we did.
This is it. If I swear people know how strongly I feel, because ordinarily I don't swear at all. It's also a much better release when you suddenly hurt yourself when rarely used.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I remember one year at Spring Harvest (massive UK Christian get together on giant camp site. Think Greenbelt but without the fun) a speaker stood up in front of an audience of hundreds to talk about a national Christian charity. He started by saying that thousands of children would die of hunger while he gave his talk.....(pause, no reaction)....and that it was a fucking scandal...(gasps and tuts). He went on to say it was also a scandal that people were more shocked by his use of the word fuck than by the news of the dying children.
I don't think he was ever invited back.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
Thanks for this. It certainly brings back memories.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
So he was a repeat offender? (see above)
Wouldn't it have been better not to swear but to do something????
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] If I swear people know how strongly I feel, because ordinarily I don't swear at all.
It takes swearing for others to realise how strongly you feel? Doesn't that draw more attention to your language than to the cause or issue you feel strongly about?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
So he was a repeat offender? (see above)
Wouldn't it have been better not to swear but to do something????
If the context given above is right, he was trying to raise awareness of a charity, to get the people thinking about it and then doing something.
In this instance I would say his use of expletives was perfectly fine... he makes a valid point that we are so insular-looking, really only think about what is happening to us most of the time, that it is the unimportant things the offend us rather than what is happening to our fellow humanity elsewhere.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
- Tony Campolo
In this case, Campolo was using a specific example of vulgar language to make a point about what Christians find offensive. I think that's a different issue from an author using it as an integral part of their ordinary style of writing.
My CME group had no problem when a Bishop of Ludlow related a story where he was visiting someone and was told on the doorstep to 'fuck off'. The use of the language was part of the point. But if it had been part of his ordinary teaching style during the seminar, it wouldn't've been appropriate. As highlighters or underscorers of important points eg, humour, anger, ignorance, grief etc, vulgar language can be invaluable; but overuse or inappropriate use deprives it of its potential power, imo.
I'm not convinced that a general style of 'expletive' language for a theological work is helpful - unless one has provided the apologia for why that choice of language is necessary, when ordinary descriptive language isn't.
I have no problem (generally) when people swear in their conversation with me. I tend to keep my own bad language to myself and close friends (or occasionally on the Ship). But when I pick up a theological book, I don't expect or want some stranger swearing at me in order to make a point I'm quite capable of understanding without the expletives.
Having said that if I thought the book was making some good points, I wouldn't let it put me off, but it would be in spite of the language not enhanced by it.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I was told as an adolescent that if you can't express yourself without using expletives, you can't express yourself.
Nothing in my experience since has persuaded me that advice was wrong.
Larkin's poem only works because:-
a. He had demonstrated already that he was a very capable wordsmith, and
b. The word he used really is beyond the pale. Once that ceases to be the case, the poem doesn't work any more.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
A few more thoughts.
First, where I come from, fucked up isn't a really good definition of sin, since it usually carries the idea that it was not intentional. Like you accidentally destroy an essential data-set at work. So folk are quite willing to admit they've fucked up since it's sort of understood that they didn't mean to.
You would not normally think of using it to describe somebody exploiting economically deprived young migrants for example. An essential part of sin in the christian sense is that it is not just an accident, at least for mortal sin. But maybe that just my shade of meaning. I didn't consult the FOED on the subject.
Secondly, as to the book. It is interesting, and the expletives don't last into chapter 2, but are replaced by something almost worse: pretentious prose. At least in my view. He is attempting to described a quasi mystical experience, which is notoriously hard to do without just spouting. I can think of few writers who could bring this off. But I'll read it to the end. I think he has something good to say.
Generally I agree with those who think it makes the books seem trendy and seeking of youf-cred. A bit like Holloway (who is one of my all time favourite christian writers) in his repeated use of "shagging" in his excellent book on Godless Morality.
I'm really surprised that there are those who think there is no other way of really expressing their sense of sin.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him
2. Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job -
1. Which words would that be? And why would you have to follow him (or anyo0ne) in using such words (if he did)?
2. Truth trumps profanity any day of the week.
St Paul uses 'shit' and a Greek profanity regarding castration (there's not an English equivalent). My point wasn't that I swear because he does, rather that regarding all people who swear as unintelligent and unchristian when an Apostle swears (and I believe the term used for 'filthy rags' in Zephaniah is also profanity) is foolish.
And sometimes profanity IS the truth. Exclaiming 'shit!' when you stub your toe certainly is nothing more than telling the truth.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Enoch wrote:
quote:
Larkin's poem only works because:-
a. He had demonstrated already that he was a very capable wordsmith, and
b. The word he used really is beyond the pale. Once that ceases to be the case, the poem doesn't work any more.
So, if someone who had never read a Larkin poem were to read that one, he wouldn't be able to fully appreciate it without knowing what Larkin had written previously?
[ 22. December 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. St Paul uses 'shit' and a Greek profanity regarding castration (there's not an English equivalent).
2. .... profanity IS the truth. Exclaiming 'shit!' when you stub your toe certainly is nothing more than telling the truth.
1. Can you please give me the Greek words concerned and the context? Thanks. Who is to say that these were considered swear words in Paul's day?
2. Exclaiming "s***" is only apposite if you stub your toe in the relevant material. Since that material is normally soft and yielding, a stubbed toe is unlikely to result.
It might possibly be appropriate if you step in something and it makes you "s***" - in which case the noun and verb might both apply. Again, highly unlikely.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Philippians 3:8 Skubala quote:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung (shit) , that I may win Christ.
Well, I don't know about the Greek, but as far as I am aware, the English word "dung" isn't really equivalent to "shit", for being a taboo word. I think it's just a standard, albeit maybe slightly informal, descriptive for feces, usually of the animal variety. As in this wikipedia article.
And yes, Paul was using the word there in the same way that we use "shit", ie. to describe something worthless, but I don't think that in and of itself makes it a swear. We use "garbage" and "trash" the same way, and those aren't considered taboo.
[ 22. December 2012, 17:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Not a theological piece of writing per se, ut maybe tangentially theodical... The Onion's treatment of the Newtown shooting (warning: not safe for profanity-averse eyes) could give the Psalmist and Job a run for their respective monies.
Point being, profanity can sometimes more effectively capture and express the rawness of our emotions in a way polished prose or verse cannot.
ETA: fixed code
[ 22. December 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: Bostonman ]
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Philippians 3:8 Skubala quote:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung (shit) , that I may win Christ.
Well, I don't know about the Greek
So why are you trying to dumb it down?
I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
