Cussing, cursing, oaths, etc sin or not?

I'm not really in a mood to be blogging today on Sunday, but this topic came up in Sunday school and once again I'm dismayed how little people understand both the Bible (the scriptures itself) and the human context/human history and actual usage that God is talking about (directly, through his prophets, or though Jesus Christ).

The discussion starts with the problem of taking the Lord's name in vain, and how that is prohibited. Yes, it is a sin to do so, and a breaking of one of the Commandments.

Here is the problem: thousands of years later, people have come to think that either cussing or potty mouth is what God meant. Now, this is a very recent misunderstanding because as recently as our great grandparents they certainly understood the original meaning of God's word on this matter.

When I was in school, and believe you me, I did not attend some fancy expensive highly accredited school system, they taught a great deal about what life was like through human history, including patterns of speech. Further, Christians used to understand quite a bit about Jewish thought and times (when the Bible took place, duh), but lately even the basics are lacking. So I'm going to share with you a high level gloss of the line of faith and reasoning that is missing today. It all hinges on trusting the Bible as it is and as it was intended by God, including understanding what people actually were doing "back then" when God was addressing them and admonishing them.

Let's start with what they did not do. Neither Jews nor most of the ancient world used "potty mouth." It would not even occur to them to do so. Thus God is not talking about things like scatological or sexual "cussing." (Let's use the word "cussing" to cover the whole gamut of coarse language, including both potty mouth and those that use God's name casually in exclamations). People did not "cuss" the way they do in the last century for a number of reasons, and they most certainly did not do so during the time of Moses (Commandments) up through the time of Jesus Christ, and also into medieval times. We know that because there is extensive documentation, both religious and secular to study.

The basic two reasons that people did not cuss is 1) it would not even occur to them, since poo, pee, and sex acts did not even have that taint by which someone would utter an exclamation and 2) people of all level of society were much less coarse in their speech than they have been in the past fifty years or so of human history. So God did not have to "worry about" telling people not to drop the "f-bomb" or to exclaim "sh**" since it would not even cross someone's mind to do so!
It's like today, would it occur to anyone to potty mouth someone by yelling "flour, flour, flour" at them? I mean, think about it. Back then people had no hang ups about either pooping or peeing and certainly not about sex. They wanted modesty, yes, but it never occurred to them that they could insult or vent by shouting potty mouth cuss words on that subject to each other.

So you cannot claim that scripture refers to either the "f-bomb" or sexual acts, or scatological acts, when the Lord's name being used in vain is prohibited.

OK, got that? Now, the second thing most people retreat to is then thinking, well, if it is not the f-bomb or poo/pee/sex cussing that God is referring to in his Law, well, then using his name in vain must mean any mention of God's name in a casual way, or exclamation, or in any way except to praise him or to discuss his teachings. You are getting closer, but that is still an error. How do we know that? Again, you must look at linguistics and what people were actually saying then. People did not do, for the same reasons I mentioned (both it would not occur to them plus societal decorum) to exclaim in surprise or anger using God's name. What people do today, such as exclaiming using the name of God or Jesus Christ, and which is such concern to many of the devout was simply not what folks were doing in Biblical times at all.

Thus, when someone dropped something, or balled out someone else, they neither shouted "sh**" nor did they exclaim "G-d, you are clumsy!" People's minds and speech simply did not work that way. So yes, while casual usage of God's name is in poor taste, it is also not the sin that God is referring to.

Doubters and haters, ha, I know you are out there so let me demonstrate what I mean so you understand I am not saying this, but simply helping you to recall what your ancestors knew.

Look at the case study of someone who shouts at a co-worker who drops something valuable on the floor, and it breaks, and yells, "God, you are clumsy!" The devout might think that is an example of taking the Lord's name in vain. It is not. Why? Because it is shorthand for what people used to say, which is "As God is my witness, you are clumsy!" Read any literature of previous devout times and you will understand that. When people exclaim using the name God, they are calling upon God as a witness. That is not using God's name in vain. What is it? A lack of charity, ha. The presumably clumsy co-worker does not need you implying that God is also noticing how clumsy he or she was in that instance! It is not "cussing," "cursing," or "using God's name in vain" to mention God, as people most commonly do, in such types of exclamations. It is a shorthand for thousands of years of speech where people frequently exclaimed "As God is my witness....[fill in the blank]...." and now they just yell (or sigh) "God.....[fill in the blank]." It may be tacky and it may be offensive and it may demonstrate a real lack in charity, but it is not using God's name in vain, as it is acknowledging, even casually, God's reality as being constantly in witness of all that is done and said, or thought in one's mind or one's heart.

So how do we know what God really meant by the prohibition of using his name in vain? Whenever one is in doubt, do two things. One is observe what people were actually saying and doing throughout history and then secondly, trust Jesus (the red letters in the Bible) to explain it to you.

What were people doing in the Biblical times when God spoke? How were they either doing so or tempted to take the Lord's name in vain?

1. They were tempted to be false prophets, claiming to speak the word of God when they were not his authorized agents, so to speak, to use a modern term. For thousands of years people who claimed that God spoke or managed actions and deeds through them, but were not genuine prophets or Holy Spirit "guided" were, indeed, "taking the name of the Lord in vain." They were claiming authority in his name that they did not have. This, by the way, is the using the name of the Lord in vain format that the disciples thought the man who was not "one of us" but who was casting out demons' in Jesus' name was guilty of. Jesus then told them that this person was not doing a wrong thing because all he is doing is bearing witness to the authority of the name of Jesus, and thus cannot be against him.

2. They were tempted to combine God's name with other pagan and occult beliefs. That was a tremendous problem then and now. That is taking God's name in vain. (Humorous but serious example for today's times so you understand: "God would not have invented astrology if it wasn't meant to be used.") That, my friends, which I have heard people say, is taking the name of the Lord in vain big time.

3. They were tempted to make solemn promises (also called oaths), for either "good" reasons or bad reasons, using God's name. This is the form of using God's name in vain that Jesus Christ put the serious smack down on, exhorting people to never make such oaths or promises, ever, ever, EVER.

OK, now that you understand the three forms of speech that one might query regarding if they are or are not what God meant by using the name of God in vain, let's look at an actual example of Christian use of God's name in vain through history and how they wiggled around it.

After the death of Jesus Christ there was no more solemn vow that a Christian could make than on the wounds of Jesus (the wounds he suffered in the Passion and Crucifixion). Very unwise to do so, but I am now just teaching history. Prior to Jesus the most solemn vow or oath a person could make was with the most Holy Name of God (exactly what God prohibits). After Jesus died and resurrected, Christians realized that the wounds of Jesus were the most visible manifestation of God's power on earth. Those who are tempted to either vow or "cuss" therefore transferred the object of their temptation from the Holy Name of God to the Wounds of Jesus.

Example (easily found in early English literature): "By the wounds of Jesus I will....[fill in the blank]" and/or "By God's wounds I will.... [fill in the blank]."

You see the difference? These are hair raisingly presumptuous and directly against what both God and Jesus said to do. "God, you are clumsy" is mild (God as witness) compared to "By God's wounds you are clumsy" or "By God's wounds I am going to slay you for being insolent to my sister."

So Christians are demonstrated in English literature and actual documentation as taking the name of God in vain by using reference to the wounds of Jesus Christ.

Realizing that, people started shortening the offensive and sinful reference to "God's wounds" to the expression "'swounds.'" They figured by not actually saying the name of God they are cool. They aren't, but that's what they figured. Again, if you look in someone's heart (which God most certainly can do), saying "God, you are clumsy" today is much less offensive and not a sin of using the name of the Lord in vain than someone in the medieval times saying "'swounds," even though God's name is not actually used in that version! This is because in one's heart and mind one is still profaning the sacred nature of the wounds of Jesus by linking them to one's everyday deeds or speech, even without saying either the words "Jesus" or "God."

Further trying to keep the right to use God's name in vain, but not actually use the word God, "'swounds" became "zounds." You see that a lot, too, in even recent English literature, up to modern times. Do a google search on 'swounds and zounds and you will observe these facts and can read more. You can also find similar origins in archaic expressions such as "egads."

Shakespeare, in Hamlet, I guess, uses the "'swounds" expression.

That, my friends, is taking the Lord's name in vain.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Qu'ran Reading 9:69

Like those before you; they were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children, so they enjoyed their portion; thus have you enjoyed your portion as those before you enjoyed their portion; and you entered into vain discourses like the vain discourses in which entered those before you. These are they whose works are null in this world and the hereafter; and these are they who are the losers.

Quick handy tip about reading the Bible

This is directed especially at young people, who need a little help figuring out how to process the extraordinary numbers that are mentioned in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. I'm not going to do a big long scholarly thing with passage citations, but just give you some tips to consider.

First of all, the Bible is the Word of God, given to various humans, usually of the prophetic, priesthood or judges office. The Holy Spirit ensures that the concepts of God, which cannot be properly understood by humans, are translated into an acceptable form when they are put into human speech and writing, thus becoming part of the Holy Scriptures.

So you can, and indeed if you have faith you *must* believe all that is in the Bible, for it is true, and it is the inspired Word of God.

However, in the Catholic Church it is well understood that there are times that numbers are used very precisely, while other times they are used symbolically, and that still other times numbers are used as a kind of "secular slang," while still representing sacred concepts. It is the latter I wish to point out and explain to you, after first a few words are the first two uses of numbers.

Early in Genesis, when Adam and Eve have had their fall, and humans must toil to make their own living, God states that the maximum life span of humans will be one hundred and twenty years. So in the earliest scripture humans obviously have an understanding that God has set a biological limit on human lifespan, and it is obvious that God shared this information with them since humans had no way of having biological population observations and studies of how long humans could live, reaching the precisely accurate number of one hundred and twenty, all on their own! Look through Wikipedia and read about those of great longevity and sure enough, even under modern ideal circumstances, one or two humans have reached 122 and 121, and the rest all fall right around or before 120.

So, when you read that some of the elders lived to an extra ordinary length of years, a few many centuries, you have to believe that and cannot say, "Oh, well, they weren't precise about measuring age back then." They were precise because in the earliest scriptures they were told by God (through Moses) that this is the span of humans. Thus, people would have not just "made up" great ages for some of the ancients just to be artistic, out of ignorance, or some inflated desire to exaggerate. This is one of the great mysteries of God, but is a foundation of faith in God, that those few within whom the pure spirit of God resides, they can defy death for centuries, if that is God's will. So when it comes to matters of individual genealogies, you can have confidence in the precision of the Bible authors.

When it comes to the amount of time that God utilizes to either perform a deed or to prophesy about future events, you must trust in God and recognize that God is being symbolic, since humans are unable to understand God's sense of "time" since he is of himself totally self contained and timeless. The classic example is the seven days of creation with the day of rest. God chose to explain creation to Moses using the concept of "days," meaning equal spans of time. However, you must understand, and it is Catholic doctrine, that humans have no way of knowing what a "day" means to God, and that one day to God may be two billion years each in human's time, for all humans know. When God selects to use a human concept such as the seven days of creation and day of rest, he is obviously doing so for a reason. God will, for example, put the "timing" of his deeds in order to match human cycles of activity, in order to reinforce and guide them in their modeling of their actions after God's example. Thus God "wanted" humans to have a day per week in order to rest, not be forced to work, and also to worship and have time for prayerful contemplation and activities. See what I mean? God wouldn't want to tell Moses that it took 14 billion years to create the universe as it stands today simply because the whole point of science is science, and of scripture is of scripture, and so the book of scripture is not a science textbook. It is a book of sacred history, the secular events that take place within humanity's sacred history, and also of God's commandments and expectations, plus his loving guidance. Thus like a father teaches a young son, God will say "soon" to mean "human soon," or "later" to mean "human later," or a week to mean a human week, so that the little one can understand the general outline of what God is demonstrating and exhorting humans to do. This is what a "symbolic" use of numbers means. This does not mean that they are "sacred numbers" in the sense of "magic numbers." This is a modern exaggeration and error that is dangerous and misleading. The Bible does have what they call "sacred numbers" but it is for the reason I just explained, that God wants humans to model themselves after certain quantities for certain actions, but not because there is a "wave the magic wand" quantity about the number.

As another example of this, look at the number forty. It is a sacred number in the sense that it models a concept for humans that is godly in intention. For example, Jesus fasted for forty days in the desert. It's not that the number forty is "magical," as if for example, there is some "magic spell" in whether Jesus fasted for 4o days instead of 39 days or 41 days. The significance of the number of days that Jesus fasted is that it is well over a month, nearly a month and half. This means that is it an extreme fast that could only have been sustained by total faith and the power of the Holy Spirit. We know that humans can, in theory, survive without food for two to three weeks. When one takes it to well over the average survivable time, one is putting oneself in God's hands through the power of one's faith. Thus Jesus fasted for forty days, not as acknowledgement of some sort of numerology, but to use a span that is a fundamental test of and lesson for all of his faith and sustenance by the Holy Spirit.

Many make a linkage between the "forty" years in the desert of the Israelites during Exodus and Jesus fasting for forty days. See, this is the danger of modern thinking. It is fine, and even correct, to notice that forty has a symbolic nuance and meaning, but one must still be careful not to "empower" the number with "magic" meaning, but to understand its symbolic significance within each context of occurrence! Remember that life was harsh and short in those days. An adult was viewed as being an elder in their thirties to forties. While many Biblical figures lived good long average lives, to their seventies and eighties, the vast majority of people (just as those in the lesser developed parts of the world to this very time) lived only to their thirties, forties and fifties. There is nothing magical, therefore, about the forty years in the desert. The Bible explains that this was to shed the Israelites of the generation that had been born into slavery and knew only a slave's mindset. A "generation" is defined as thirty years, both in the Bible and in modern population studies. So the symbolic meaning of the actual amount of time (since they did indeed spend forty years in the desert) is that just like the fasting in the desert, it is a stretch beyond average survivability. Jesus fasted for forty days because it is an amount that can only be borne through faith and the Holy Spirit. The Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years so that one generation could pass away through natural causes and what was "old age" in those times, and the new generation that were not slaves takes their places. Thus forty occurs as an exact number, and is to be believed, but it is to be understood that it is exact only because it reflects a greater reality of God's intention within each individual circumstance. So we have two examples of symbolic numbers, the seven of the days of creation and rest (which are not exact in the sense of human days, but are exact in that they are models for the human work and worship week, plus reflect some insight into God's cycle of creation, foreshadowing when humans would understand the science of physics, geology and biology) and the forty days of fasting, along with the forty days of Exodus wandering, which are exact in their correctness, but are exact because they symbolize a length of time that is "needed" to achieve a purpose.

OK, the third thing that you need to watch for, then, are numbers that are secular slang that are used in God approved Scripture such as the Bible. One example would be when you read that "ten thousand were slain" or "ten thousand died" in punishment, or due to disease or so forth. Obviously, you must compare how precise that Biblical authors are in some areas (such as the ages of the patriarchs, and the hour and day that sacred events occurred) with wondering, what are the odds that exactly ten thousand people would have fallen in battle, and did they count? Obviously not. I've thought of an example that you can relate to in order to explain how to "believe" the accuracy of the Bible, yet interpret those numbers the way that you should.

When I was growing up a popular slang expression was using "a ton" to refer to an awful lot of something. For example, in school we would say we were assigned "a ton" of homework. Now, obviously we were not assigned two thousand pounds of homework. And if someone in the future read one of my school days letters from that time, they'd be making an error to believe that two thousand pounds of homework was assigned to me and my classmates and they would be making an error to think that two thousand was a "magic number" in the American school system. For decades using the expression "a ton" to describe just about everything (including, "I got a pizza with a ton of toppings") was an extremely common expression in all areas of life, from the momentous to the petty and mundane. No one meant that what they were saying had anything to do with an actual ton or that it was significant to imply two thousand pounds! For example, I make "a ton of typos" if I do not have a real time spell checker, but that does not mean I make two thousand pounds of typos in my virtual word processor pages!! Hmm.

Likewise, people who did not read or write but had a vivid and sophisticated speech used certain quantities to imply grandness or smallness of scale and, just as I pointed out above, significance within the specific context. For example, think of what ten thousand people meant to the Israelites. That would be the population of a very significant sized city, or the entire population of a heathen tribe, or all the settlements and their accompanying population within a significant and sizable geographic area. So when Bible authors recorded that "ten thousand died," they were using secular slang to imply one of the concepts as I described above, such as total devastation of a huge city, or the equivalent of wiping out an entire generation of men, or the loss of everyone in a vast territory. There is nothing magic about the number itself. People who become obsessed with, for example, the "ten" of the "ten thousand" are like those who think that when I say my pizza had a ton of toppings that I meant there were two toppings, each of one thousand pounds, since two thousand pounds starts with "two!" LOL. When people were less modern and less smarty pants, right up to the most recent two generations, they knew that without explaining. They could read the Bible (or listen to it in church if they could not read) and when they heard "ten thousand died," they'd never look for a magic or hidden meaning in the number. They would "get it," just as the actual dwellers of Biblical times, that it was "a lot" that died, with a particular meaning and level of destruction.

It's like if you read in today's papers that "an entire battalion was wiped out by terrorists in battle." You'd be horrified and have a sense of magnitude without most people having a clue as to how many soldiers are in an actual battalion.

So when you read numbers like that you miss the point of what the contemporary Biblical scribe is telling you if you either 1) assign a heavy handed "magical" meaning to it or 2) do not understand what a quantity of that size like that "meant" in "those days." Like I said, using a term such as "ten thousand died" is making a secular slang statement that implies a huge level of destruction that has implications of a city, a tribe, or a generation being impacted and gone.

You can see now why some Christians that are outside of the Catholic Church have made a real mess of trying to assign dates, quantities and times to Biblical prophesy, especially in the visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, and in the Book of Revelations. They are unable to discern that God is using language to help humans grasp the dimensions of what God is doing and saying. God does not expect nor should people presume upon themselves to assign literal dates, places, and quantities that God does not choose to spell out in such a way. Thus God inspires in the Bible authors, including St. John "the Revelator," numbers that convey a message or scale of destruction or dimension so that people get the general drift of what is to come, but not to become micromanaging false prophets that use calculators and spreadsheets to think they know "when" God will do "what." They need to cool their jet skis and calm down and read the usage numbers in the reasonable way that I explained, going back to the Old Testament, and discern that ultimately numbers are ways to convey both literal quantities and "dimension" or "scale" of impact, such as I explained regarding the "ten thousand" having died and what it would mean if we said "a battalion" or "a ton" in the news today. It's scale and gravity, in those cases, not a magical significance of the numbers itself.

I really hope that you find this helpful. I think it should, because those who grind away at trying to extract some sort of numerology dictatorship from the use of numbers in the Bible are doing themselves a real disservice in understanding, and adding a great deal of work, worry and headache that is unproductive an, in fact, sadly erroneous. The Bible should be read with freedom, liberation and joy, that comes from proper context and trust in God, and not from being dragged into a depressive pit of wresting "secrets," "magic," and "meaning" and thus missing the true meaning of the holy scripture in all that painful digging and distortion.

Who has a "beautiful soul?"

Babies. Babies have beautiful souls. That is one thing that everyone can be assured of, that each baby has a beautiful soul. It's understandable that in popular talk and viewpoint these days that some people say that other people have a "beautiful soul," "a wise soul," or "a kind soul." While a nice thing to say, it is not technically true. Only infants have a soul that is beautiful. The body is the temple of the soul, and as such, it starts to shape the soul from the moment the soul arrives into the newly created embryo that becomes a living fetus. This is when the "wrapper" of the body starts to shape the soul. The soul is never destroyed except if the person grows up to take a path that leads them to hell. But the soul is shaped by the reality of its life inside of the physical structure of the human body. It is the shape of the soul, the condition of the soul, that is judged by God upon the death of the person's human body.

For example, let's look at a child that has a genetic flaw. This genetic flaw is a reality of body and/or mind that will shape the experience of the soul in life. God understands this and takes it into account. So while there may be very damaged children, some of whom seem "evil," remember, it is not their soul that is evil. The evil comes from the physical reality of life, through genetic, physical, environmental, emotional and intellectual structures and events. This shapes the soul.

Continued sin, for example, blackens and warps the soul. If you could see, as I do, how many souls are warped and blackened today, you would not be able to bear the sight. Jesus did not preach God's Kingdom, die and resurrect in order to give you Teflon souls. You are still accountable for all your thoughts and deeds, and each thought and deed shapes your soul for better or for worse. True self understanding, humility and continual conversion are able to restore the condition of the soul from some of the ravages of the human condition.

Remember, when you die and are judged by God, you have no body; only the soul appears before God. (You will only have a body in the distant future if you are part of the Resurrection of the Body at the End of Times). When you die you have no tongue to rationalize and "spin doctor." Your tongue will have already beautified, or blackened, your soul while you were alive. St. James had some wise things to say about the tongue. You cannot "explain" what your "good intentions really were" once you have died and are judged by God. The soul is the entire transcript of that transaction. Every uncharitable zing that you gave to another person, especially toward the faithful of another community in Christ, leaves a mark and warping on your soul. You should see the souls of mean gossips and those who spread calumny. They are ugly. I don't even like to type about such people; I want to wash my hands in soap and water even as I type this. St. James spends a large amount of writing in his short epistle on this vital subject.

James 3:5-18
Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed, of mankind. But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig-tree, my brethren, bear olive-berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and evil work.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

St. James could not be clearer than he is here in this passage. "Smart mouth" "knowledge" is sourced from hell, not from heaven. True heavenly wisdom does not take sides. (This is what the phrase "without partiality" means. If you are getting "wisdom" that "takes sides," it is not heavenly sourced wisdom. Period.) Likewise "wisdom" that is based in hypocrisy is not pure or from heaven. Anyone who thinks they have wisdom based on partiality or hypocrisy, and worse, uses the tongue to speak it, is using a "deadly poison" that is "set on hell" and therefore forming "iniquity."

So this is an example of how all infants start with pure and beautiful souls, which then become individually shaped through the genetics of their body, the settings and events of their life, and their own deeds. The souls are shaped most dramatically by how the tongue is used, and this is the most dire threat of this back stabbing and arrogant "communications oriented" generations of humans. Like I said, I don't see any beautiful, wise or kind souls, for everyone I am exposed to has been extremely and repeatedly guilty of what St. James makes such dire warning.