Blasphemy - what qualifies?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve W

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
6
Location
England
Hi,

I need some advice on what's acceptable and unacceptable, please.

Unless you are praising God -- e.g. someone saying 'thank God' for some good fortune, etc -- is there any way you can use the words God, Jesus, Christ, etc, that isn't blasphemy?

As soon as you start using terms like 'Goddamn!', or 'Oh God.' when something bad happens, is that an instant no-no for Christians?

Thanks for any help.
Cheers,
Steve
 

karenmary

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
127
Reaction score
10
Website
www.lynch.st
Steve W said:
Hi,

I need some advice on what's acceptable and unacceptable, please.

Unless you are praising God -- e.g. someone saying 'thank God' for some good fortune, etc -- is there any way you can use the words God, Jesus, Christ, etc, that isn't blasphemy?

As soon as you start using terms like 'Goddamn!', or 'Oh God.' when something bad happens, is that an instant no-no for Christians?

Thanks for any help.
Cheers,
Steve

Well, I can't answer for all Christians ... but for myself, a cradle Catholic, I can tell you ... "we" should only say God, Jesus, Christ, etc. when referring to Him or praying to Him. Using the name of God 'in vain' is breaking one of His commandments. The name of God should be spoken reverently and respectfully each and every time is is uttered.

So yeah, instant 'no-no' in my house indeed. Not that we aren't guilty of the misuse ...
 

BruceJ

Me and my Muse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
610
Reaction score
93
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Website
www.brucejudisch.com
Steve W said:
Hi,

I need some advice on what's acceptable and unacceptable, please.

Unless you are praising God -- e.g. someone saying 'thank God' for some good fortune, etc -- is there any way you can use the words God, Jesus, Christ, etc, that isn't blasphemy?

As soon as you start using terms like 'Goddamn!', or 'Oh God.' when something bad happens, is that an instant no-no for Christians?

Thanks for any help.
Cheers,
Steve

Hey, Steve!

My take on the subject is not so much from the negative aspect of what we can't do, but what we should want to do. Our relationship with Him dictates how we refer to Him. When I hit my thumb with a hammer I don't shout my wife's name because I love her and to do so would be to associate her with something unpleasant. I have no desire to do that. I have no desire to do that with God, either, because of my relationship with Him.

We certainly can appeal to His name in praise, but also in casual (i.e., non-worship) contexts in which we're discussing Him; that is, in which He is the topic of discussion. I've heard true Christian fellowship is when we gather and discuss "God and the things of God." That can involve praise, but it can also be exchanges in which we discuss Him, His attributes, His Word, etc.

I think the key is respect. God is deserving of absolute respect because of who He is. If we use His name in a context that doesn't reflect that respect, we're traveling the wrong road. Expletives that use His name trivialize His name--and by extension His personage--and that fails the litmus test.

Finally, probably most important, is that God Himself set the standard on using His name in vain (e.g., expletives) in Exodus 20:7. It's the third element of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). He sets the context for it with the first two Commandments: (1) You shall have no other gods before Me, and (2) You shall not make any graven images (idols) and worship them. He's claiming preeminence in the lives of His people and because of who He is He can do that. He follows those absolutes with the caution (better, prohibition) of addressing Him in a manner that trivializes Him, just like violating the first two would.

As for the "instant no-no" :)) ), again that focuses on the rule rather than the relationship. It's not like it's a no-no forced upon us as much as it's a no-no that we wouldn't want to involve ouselves with anyway--whether He told us to or not. It just doesn't fit the relationship.

That help?

(You ask some great questions, by the way!)
 

Scarlett_156

asdf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
599
Reaction score
72
Location
Colorado (Eastern plains)
Any use of God's name outside of prayer is not necessarily blasphemous, but certainly disrespectful-- like the above "hammer/thumb" example. It could also be said by some to be invoking bad luck, but let's not go there tonight. I'm still working and starting to develop a headache.

When I discourage my friends from saying "god damn it" they will often look at me funny because all other forms of cursing and foul language are not only permissable in my house, but encouraged. The answer: "If you believe in God then using its name for cursing seems most ill advised. If you don't believe in God, then why give that particular entity any more free publicity?"

NOTE: My (so-called) Christian and other monotheistic friends use God's name in swearing most often and are more likely to disregard my requests that they not do so, like they have a license or somethin; atheists not quite as often (they seem more willing to abide by house rules); my Satanist friends will utter the name in some extreme situation like their parking brake malfunctioning and causing the car to go into the lake, but almost never say it as a curse. I said "almost". :)
 

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
Even though I had decided not to post on the Christian forum any more, I realize that my decision was a bit rash, especially when I saw this thread and thought that maybe I should also weigh in on this somewhat universal subject.


What qualifies as blasphemy?

Good question, I think; one that really should be discussed.


In my own life, blasphemy is 'Misusing the Name of G-d' or 'Taking the Name of G-d lightly'. I take these two different statements from two different translations of the Bible, in the Old Testament book of Exodus.

I won't go into some long, drawn-out thing about theology or anything like that, but to put it in simple, easy-to-understand terms, I believe any time I use G-d's Name in either a curse word or as part of an oath to do something ("I swear in the Name of G-d", for example) this is IMO a form of blasphemy.

I also believe that taking His Name in vain, as the King James Version says, means any kind of taking G-d's Name in a way that is not reverent or using It to say something that G-d does not agree with in His Word.

So basically, I believe that any time I say "G-d said this" when in fact He did not, or taking His Name lightly, or cursing His Name, that would qualify as blasphemy.
 

Steve W

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
6
Location
England
Hi,

Thanks for the replies. Very useful.

So two things to follow up, please.

Generally, would the use of God's name in curses be an instant turn off to Christian readers? Would it mean the difference between reading a book or not doing so? (I'm not taking about blasphemy every few words, but not only once or twice in the entire work either.)

Secondly,
When I discourage my friends from saying "god damn it" they will often look at me funny because all other forms of cursing and foul language are not only permissable in my house, but encouraged.
Is this a general view, too? Is foul language more acceptable for Christians to read than taking the Lord's name in vain? (Same caveat - not page upon page of the F-word, but very occasional.)

Obviously, I'm wanting to include some 'street speak' in my novel. I know people will tell me to use my imagination and think of better phrases, but many people swear and blaspheme, and the characters I have would seem unnatural if they didn't.

Thanks for all the great insight so far.
Cheers,
Steve
 

farfromfearless

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
412
Reaction score
37
Location
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Website
www.farfromfearless.com
Blasphemy is essentially irreverence or irreverent actions toward the sacred. In the case of god you you could consider that taking her name in vain is blasphemy, so too would utterances and obscenities invoking her name.

As for instant turn-off"s for Christians, I would hope that most Christians aren't ignorant enough to be deluded into thinking that reading obscenities in the context of a moral (I'm assuming here) story constitutes engaging in blasphemy. And I may I say, without prejudice, that including 'street speak' for flavor in your work sounds a little contrived? If your intention is to write, then do so; tell your story as it should be, obscenities and all and let your readers decide whether it is appropriate for them. I've read a handful of novels with a decidedly Christian flavor and found that some of the characters, while strongly developed, seemed utterly white-washed. It lends the sense that they are infallible, which was actually contrary their character and is unlike real people who are. Be tasteful while staying true to your story.
 
Last edited:

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
Steve W said:
Hi,

Thanks for the replies. Very useful.

So two things to follow up, please.

Generally, would the use of God's name in curses be an instant turn off to Christian readers? Would it mean the difference between reading a book or not doing so? (I'm not taking about blasphemy every few words, but not only once or twice in the entire work either.)

Some Christian readers might look at it that way. Others might not. It really depends upon the individual. Even though I would hold certain views for myself, I do not believe that reading a book by someone else where a character speaks blasphemous words, would be a turn-off or a sin on my part.

Secondly,
Is this a general view, too? Is foul language more acceptable for Christians to read than taking the Lord's name in vain? (Same caveat - not page upon page of the F-word, but very occasional.)

Obviously, I'm wanting to include some 'street speak' in my novel. I know people will tell me to use my imagination and think of better phrases, but many people swear and blaspheme, and the characters I have would seem unnatural if they didn't.

Thanks for all the great insight so far.
Cheers,
Steve


Again, Steve, it depends upon the individual. Some people actually think that using the F-word is worse than blaspheming the Name of G-d Himself. Others believe that using the phrase I just used ("blaspheming the Name of G-d") is blasphemy in and of itself.

So really, blasphemy is a fine line to walk. You will never write anything that does not offend someone, somewhere. I would recommend, personally, that if your characters are speaking blasphemy, you yourself are not.

But this is only one former Christian's opinion. Like I have pointed out earlier, each person is different.


I hope you find the answers you are looking for, and I wish you the best with your endeavors. :)
 

farfromfearless

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
412
Reaction score
37
Location
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Website
www.farfromfearless.com
Steve W said:
...Is foul language more acceptable for Christians to read than taking the Lord's name in vain?

I would hope that the use of obscenities does not make a Christian less Christian, or that the reading of such does not make one less Christian for it.

Just curious, and I guess this is a general question for any who might have some insight: what is the reasoning behind white-washing so much christian literature? Is the secular world so profane that being exposed to non-secular material instigates such distaste?
 

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
farfromfearless said:
Snipped...

Just curious, and I guess this is a general question for any who might have some insight: what is the reasoning behind white-washing so much christian literature? Is the secular world so profane that being exposed to non-secular material instigates such distaste?


Bolding Mine.


Farfromfearless, I believe part of the reason so much Christian literature is white-washed, comes from the demands of a great many people within the Christian Faith. I, for instance, was raised Fundamental Baptist, with a pastor who was from what is commonly known as the 'Bible Belt'. Many times, I remember him preaching sermons in which he mentioned so-called sins that frankly are not even mentioned in the Bible. One of those sins was called a 'Minced Oath'.

A Minced Oath is where you use one more benign word to replace a curse word. ('Darn' instead of 'Damn', 'Gee' instead of 'Jesus', to give two examples I can remember personally.)

This was a belief that he held personally, but also preached as a sin to the church.

This is only one example, I realize, of why I personally believe that so much of Christian Literature, is 'white-washed'. I believe it is because many people constantly protest things they personally do not believe others should be doing.
 

BruceJ

Me and my Muse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
610
Reaction score
93
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Website
www.brucejudisch.com
farfromfearless said:
I would hope that the use of obscenities does not make a Christian less Christian, or that the reading of such does not make one less Christian for it.

Just curious, and I guess this is a general question for any who might have some insight: what is the reasoning behind white-washing so much christian literature? Is the secular world so profane that being exposed to non-secular material instigates such distaste?

I think the act of a Christian using obscenities falls into the category of salt water flowing from a fresh spring in the context of taming the tongue (James 3:11-12). A person's words reveal what's in a person's heart. The use of obscenities is inconsistent with a Christian walk that strives to be Christlike--which is what "Christian" at its core is supposed to mean. Does that mean if a Christian utters an expletive, God suddenly doesn't love him/her anymore? No. But the consistent and unrepentant use of foul language honors neither God nor God's Church. And I believe that's what a Christian's motivation is supposed to be about.

The notion that avoiding foul language is "white-washing" is a false analogy. A good writer can paint the picture of a very crass person without resorting the the person's vernacular. I think T. Davis Bunn did a good job with that in Winner Take All. If you can't deliver an ugly image tastefully, there's work to do on the writing.

The overt proscription in Scripture is against taking God's name in vain. The use of profanity is discouraged, too. Deciding which is worse is really not important. The consciencious Christian will avoid both.

My opinion, but, it's supportable Biblically.
 

farfromfearless

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
412
Reaction score
37
Location
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Website
www.farfromfearless.com
Having the dubious distinction of being a PK, I've heard and read much in the same vien as your response Bruce. I find a part of myself agreeing with you on a superficial level; however -- and this is my opinion -- I still find that regardless of how well one writes around the explicit nature of obscenities or blasphemy, tastefully, cleverly, it is still avoidance. It's an avoidance that borders dangerously close to censorship. You can hail a writer as clever, even inventive on their particular technique of avoidance, but it is still avoidance, and the repercussions of that can do more harm than good for the Christian community as a whole or in part.

Let's take for instance sexual education between parents and children. It's no big secret that parents are often uncomfortable with explaining the workings of a human body and the reproductive functions of its parts. So, in order to skirt the issue and avoid having to explain the facts, they resort to flowery metaphor and simile. They avoid naming the parts necessary for reproductive purposes and attribute silly equivalents in their place (bear with me I do have a point). For the most part this appears harmless, yes? Now, what happens when that child in turn attempts to explain that metaphor to someone else, their own children perhaps? The metaphor tends to change and become something slightly different and again avoids the facts. A vagina is still a vagina; a penis is still a penis - but now you have generations that know it as a hoo-hoo or a ding-dong (there's dozens so take your pick). What you end up with is a culture of ignorance that's based on avoiding the uncomfortable in favor of well... the comfortable.

You can extend that same example in Christian literature. When people read about a blasphemous character, an obscene character, do they read about him as "the obscene one" because they author has told them as much? Or do they see and understand he is obscene because of his manner of speech or actions? That is to say, did the writer show the character as being obscene or did they skirt the issue with flowery metaphor?

Again, I put forward this: Why white-wash the obscene and not show it for what it really is? Why candy-coat something that is real and has value in the context of a moral work?

And yes I very much believe that a good writer can paint a picture of a very crass person, but there-in lies my point. A brave writer on the other hand, will paint what is there and let the reader make the choice for themselves. For the conscientious Christian, I believe it is truly important to challenge personal beliefs, and as writers, it is imperative that we offer such a challenge.

White-washing is what it implies - why else would one wish to cover the ugly with a fresh, brilliant coat of paint?
 

BruceJ

Me and my Muse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
610
Reaction score
93
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Website
www.brucejudisch.com
farfromfearless said:
Having the dubious distinction of being a PK, I've heard and read much in the same vien as your response Bruce. I find a part of myself agreeing with you on a superficial level; however -- and this is my opinion -- I still find that regardless of how well one writes around the explicit nature of obscenities or blasphemy, tastefully, cleverly, it is still avoidance. It's an avoidance that borders dangerously close to censorship. You can hail a writer as clever, even inventive on their particular technique of avoidance, but it is still avoidance, and the repercussions of that can do more harm than good for the Christian community as a whole or in part.

Let's take for instance sexual education between parents and children. It's no big secret that parents are often uncomfortable with explaining the workings of a human body and the reproductive functions of its parts. So, in order to skirt the issue and avoid having to explain the facts, they resort to flowery metaphor and simile. They avoid naming the parts necessary for reproductive purposes and attribute silly equivalents in their place (bear with me I do have a point). For the most part this appears harmless, yes? Now, what happens when that child in turn attempts to explain that metaphor to someone else, their own children perhaps? The metaphor tends to change and become something slightly different and again avoids the facts. A vagina is still a vagina; a penis is still a penis - but now you have generations that know it as a hoo-hoo or a ding-dong (there's dozens so take your pick). What you end up with is a culture of ignorance that's based on avoiding the uncomfortable in favor of well... the comfortable.

You can extend that same example in Christian literature. When people read about a blasphemous character, an obscene character, do they read about him as "the obscene one" because they author has told them as much? Or do they see and understand he is obscene because of his manner of speech or actions? That is to say, did the writer show the character as being obscene or did they skirt the issue with flowery metaphor?

Again, I put forward this: Why white-wash the obscene and not show it for what it really is? Why candy-coat something that is real and has value in the context of a moral work?

And yes I very much believe that a good writer can paint a picture of a very crass person, but there-in lies my point. A brave writer on the other hand, will paint what is there and let the reader make the choice for themselves. For the conscientious Christian, I believe it is truly important to challenge personal beliefs, and as writers, it is imperative that we offer such a challenge.

White-washing is what it implies - why else would one wish to cover the ugly with a fresh, brilliant coat of paint?

Good points, Far, and I do see where you're coming from. We really are balancing on the razor's edge of rhetorical semantics at this point, though, I think. Let me 'splain. :)

"Avoidance" is really a neutral term that has taken on a negative connotation. It need not be equated with (or "come close to" to do your thought more precise justice) censorship any more than the words you've selected in your response do just because you chose them instead of others. Avoidance is a merely a subelement of discretion, choice, discrimination (another trigger word, but in this context and in its purest form morally neutral) and we employ it for a variety of good reasons, as well as occasionally not so good reasons. Respecting other person's sensibilities--especially those in our target audiences--in our writing/speech/art (ref 1 Cor. 10 and Rom. 14), is, in my view, simply being respectful.

Your example of avoidance is well taken. We do choose words based upon our own sensitivities, whether in instructing our children or writing our novels, and I think extending that consideration to our readership is not inappropriate. Euphemisms for body parts have been employed for generations, but we still have the words penis and vagina with us. They haven't disappeared and I've never run into anyone who has been emotionally handicapped from the impact of meeting these words at whatever point in their lives they finally did. That may only betray limited experience in my own life, though, I suppose.

Again, I'm not suggesting "white-washing" and I still don't equate it with discretion. I've heard so many people say they just "tell it like it is", "don't mince words" etc. when in reality they simply don't want to make the effort to be considerate. Tact is not synonymous with "beating around the bush." (I know this is a bit of a tangent on the main point, but it's a comfortably close first cousin). My perception of "white-washing" is going out of one's way to portray something the way it isn't; not being judicious in describing something the way it is. "Flowery metaphors" are not the only alternative to obscenity; the answer to one extreme does not have to be the other extreme. In my estimation, resorting to profanity can just as well be an easy way out of expressing oneself well verbally or in the written word, not being brave.

I spent over 20 years in the military and have worked in a military environment ever since my retirement. Not that it qualifies me as any kind of expert, but I'm around an abundance of profanity every day and have been for most of my professional life. I have never heard its use enhance a conversation. I've never seen its written form enhance communication. If I use "nuts!" instead of "dammit!", it's not because I'm avoiding "dammit!", it's because I'm used to saying "nuts!". If we've invented a character in a story in whose background "dammit!" is more appropriate, I have no problem reading that the person "cursed." I know what a curse is, I credit my reader with enough intelligence to know what a curse is, and it adds nothing to my story to tell him/her exactly what that curse might have been. It's unimportant and has the potential--in the Christian market, which is the background to the original question--of becoming a tripping point for the person who bought a Christian novel perhaps thinking he/she was safe from having to wade through explicit material (language, sex, or otherwise) and has now been yanked from the dream of the story by a gratuitous use of profanity. And, to answer the original question of this thread, few Christian publishers (I think, anyway, I haven't asked any; I've just seen some of their standards for 'suitable' material) are going to risk their reputations, or revenue, with the mainstream Christian community by doing the same.

I agree that we have to leave our personal beliefs open for self-scrutiny. I also agree that, if we as authors have this agenda (not all do), we should challenge those beliefs--or perhaps better put, facilitate the Christian reader in challenging his/her own beliefs. I just have no idea how inserting explicit profanity into a Christian novel promotes spiritual self-examination.

For the final question, a repeat for a final answer. "Flowery metaphors", "candy coating" and "white-washing" appear nowhere in my recipe for good writing. But then, neither does the other extreme.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Far, I do understand your argument and there is merit in it. I guess I just don't see its application in the same way you do.
 
Last edited:

Ralyks

Untold stories inside
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
100
Location
VA
Website
www.editorskylar.com
I generally think of "taking the name of God in vain" as using God's name to support something He would not support. Blowing up school buses in the "name of God," for instance, is a way of using God's name in vain.

I don't think it applies quite so literally to things like "Gosh darn it all..." But, of course, mere respect would cause someone to regret using this kind of terminology because it tends to belittle God. But I think using God's name in vain has far larger implications that letting slip an "Oh, Jesus."

As for blasphemy--blasphemy I believe is claiming to be God (or equivalent with God) and has nothing to do with the use of His name.
 
Last edited:

Steve W

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
6
Location
England
Hi guys,

This is fascinating stuff.

The reason I asked is that my book has a number of moral themes running throughout, which would appeal to the Christian market - so it would be stupid to alienate such a demographic just for the sake of replacing the occasional profanity.

The various, and quite starkly contrasting, issues raised have given me a lot to think about. I am very drawn to staying to true to my story and characters, which would mean including blasphemous expressions, etc. I can see I'm going to have to give this a lot of thought. At the end of the day, I have to write a book I'll have to live with forever - I don't want to curse a hasty decision made now for the sake of everyone else.

Thanks again. Very interesting.
Merry Christmas,
Steve
P.S. A priest I asked about this said he doesn't much mind reading the f-word, but hates the g-word being abused. That's very strange to a non-practicing Christian.
 

AzBobby

Ought to be writing instead
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
262
Reaction score
36
Location
Glendale AZ
Interesting topic here, but I didn't notice the discussion ever touching on this: Doesn't the choice of language depend on your target publisher, and by extension, your readership?

This means acknowledging that all Christian readers are not homogenous.

Some prefer all their entertainment and reading to be filtered through Christian bookstores, where books follow certain reliable trends. Some Christian publishers describe these concepts in their guidelines -- they want stories that include realistic characters as far as it goes, but in the end, emphasize Christian values and lessons. And normally, they need to duck the rough language. Some Christian literature will include the occasional mild cursing like the plain "damn" but obscenity and using the Lord's name in cursing is probably hard to find anywhere on the bookshelves of Berean's. This doesn't mean their target audience is a bunch of dummies; their personal tastes merely align with the marketing strategy of the Christian publishers.

Other Christians -- I suspect the majority, but I don't know -- find the "Christian industry" approach a bit plastic and might find it difficult to find what they consider quality literature in the Christian bookstores, aside from classics such as the work of C.S. Lewis, who published in the mainstream in his day, not the little niche seen only by conservative Christians. They know real people come in all stripes and they know how most people in their culture speak, and don't mind literature to reflect those frank truths even if they themselves tend to minimize their "blasphemous" language to the extent that they interpret what that means. The irony of a Christian message arising from a realistically told tale (especially when not forced, when not sounding like the product of a Christian publisher) is all the more pleasant to their reading tastes. In the trappings of conventional writing complete with realistic language, they find it easier to relate the spiritual meanings inherent in decent literature to their real world.

About the definition of blasphemy in general -- I really liked the previous post that compared cussing to yelling the name of your wife when you hit your thumb with a hammer. I like how that example illuminates the strangeness and inappropriateness of our using the Lord's name to curse, even if it's usually just a mindless habit.

But when it comes down to it, they're all just words. You can spell God as "G-d" but you're using another name for Him when you follow up with "His Name" or even just "Him" -- these pronouns and titles are all symbols and/or utterances to stand in for the name none of us really knows, the one that has been translated more times than any of us knows. I could replace all three letters of "God" with hyphens and spell it "---", but then "---" becomes the name I use for God, doesn't it? The question is, was it blasphemous for me to make these references? If I had a point in mentioning names of God (though not addressing my Lord in the process) ten or more times in this paragraph in different ways, was it in vain?

When I did so, I assumed it was not in vain, because I had a point. Likewise, if you believe a story is a worthy telling of the truth, none of its wording -- assuming the wording really fits, case by case -- is "in vain" either. That might include quotes of characters cussing, according to your own judgment.

I think the useful way to judge it -- since you are bound to already know in your gut what makes your own story its best, without superficially re-wording it -- is not according to everyone else's definition of blasphemy, but according to whoever is expected to read and enjoy your material.
 

IrishScribbler

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
610
Reaction score
41
Location
central Illinois
Website
coffee-stainedwriter.blogspot.com
AzBobby said:
This means acknowledging that all Christian readers are not homogenous.

Amen! Christianity is a faith--a relationship with God. Each of us are individuals, which means our relationship is individual. As a writer, you can appeal to a particular group who share a certain value, but ultimately, it's between you and the Lord!

After all, man doesn't know our hearts, but the Lord does!
 

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
I believe that the phrase about not taking the Lord's name in vain meant something along the lines of not asking Him to Damn someone or something, knowing darn well he won't do it. Outside of this, I have no inkling.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Bartholomew said:
I believe that the phrase about not taking the Lord's name in vain meant something along the lines of not asking Him to Damn someone or something, knowing darn well he won't do it. Outside of this, I have no inkling.
That, of course, is a Curse. Using the Lord's name to swear an oath is also using His name in vain. Something on the order of, "I swear by almighty Zeus that..." was quite common in biblical times, but the Bible clearly says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

But the idea is similar to the curse. We petition God, we don't command Him with either curses or oaths.

Of course, neither curses nor oaths are blasphemy...
 

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
Roger J Carlson said:
That, of course, is a Curse. Using the Lord's name to swear an oath is also using His name in vain. Something on the order of, "I swear by almighty Zeus that..." was quite common in biblical times, but the Bible clearly says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

But the idea is similar to the curse. We petition God, we don't command Him with either curses or oaths.

Of course, neither curses nor oaths are blasphemy...

Details. Petty details.
 

Ralyks

Untold stories inside
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
100
Location
VA
Website
www.editorskylar.com
Steve W said:
Hi guys,

This is fascinating stuff.

The reason I asked is that my book has a number of moral themes running throughout, which would appeal to the Christian market - so it would be stupid to alienate such a demographic just for the sake of replacing the occasional profanity.

The various, and quite starkly contrasting, issues raised have given me a lot to think about. I am very drawn to staying to true to my story and characters, which would mean including blasphemous expressions, etc. I can see I'm going to have to give this a lot of thought. At the end of the day, I have to write a book I'll have to live with forever - I don't want to curse a hasty decision made now for the sake of everyone else.

Thanks again. Very interesting.
Merry Christmas,
Steve
P.S. A priest I asked about this said he doesn't much mind reading the f-word, but hates the g-word being abused. That's very strange to a non-practicing Christian.

Ah, well, in that case you aren't so much asking what is blasphemous as what would offend people. And that, of course, depends on the person. But I imagine any profanity at all would offend a decent-sized portion of the Christian audience. Seeing g-d abused would offend more than other profanities. So it depends what channels you are trying to go through and who you are trying to reach. Christians who read widely anyway aren't going to be shocked by it; they may not love it, but they'll overlook it if they like the book for other reasons. Christians who don't read widely read mostly books from publishers who won't publish you if you use profanity. So I am not sure how relevant the issue is anyway.
 
Last edited:

Ralyks

Untold stories inside
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
100
Location
VA
Website
www.editorskylar.com
As for the idea that it is impossible to write authentically without using profanity...well, I suppose that depends upon who and what you are writing about. In some places and circumstances, swearing is more common than in others. For instance, adults simply don't swear very often where I am from. I don't really have a problem with reading the occasional profanity. But I do get tired of its overuse, especially in movies. To me, it's almost profanity for profanity sake. Gangsters I get. But ordinary people in everyday life? Where I'm from, people just don't let the f-bomb drop on a regular basis in conversation. They don't. Seeing or reading it done every ten words feels highly unrealistic to me and not vice versa. Profanity is used so much more in the movies and books than it seems to be use in real life.

You can hail a writer as clever, even inventive on their particular technique of avoidance, but it is still avoidance, and the repercussions of that can do more harm than good for the Christian community as a whole or in part.

It is possible to talk about things without talking about things. Great, classic writers do this all the time. You know what happened or what was said without it happening or being said. This does not diminsih the literature. While I think Christian publishers are generally too narrow, I do balk at this idea that to be authentic a writer must recount sexual details, must use profanity, etc. But, yes, there are certainly times, many times, when avoidance can appear stilted in writing. I don't think it has any major "repercussions". It's just bad writing.

As to the questions as to whether it is acceptable for Christians to use profanity (I don't mean in the mouths of characters, but themselves), I think the answer ought to be obvious that Christians should attempt to avoid profanity (and most definitely attempt to avoid the casual use of God's name).
 
Last edited:

Steve W

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
6
Location
England
Hi,

Thanks for some very useful advice, guys.

Good luck with your own writing.

All the best,
Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.