I was in a recent conversation about whether profanity is inherently immoral. Here are some of the statements and questions that arose:

If you can’t read this in violation of Matthew 15:10-20, Ephesians 4:29, Ephesians 5, and James 1:26, there is no rational grounds to reject ANY curseword given the “neutral” context.

I hope you realize that when you reject bad words, then all words are now good?

This means that he commits himself to the notion that words are inherently immoral. That certain words are immoral in any given circumstances to use. I think an example would show the absurdity of this notion. The word ‘plowing’ can take agricultural meaning but also a sexual connotation. If his position was correct, then it would mean that the word is inherently immoral. The word ‘faggot’ can refer to a homosexual in one culture but cigarette in another. But this seems already to be a stretch. The issue is here has to do with one’s philosophy of language:

1. words don’t have intrinsic meaning
Rather, they take on the denotations and connotations we assign them; and those differ across groups of people. An older demographic may take “dammit” to be a swear word. But it would be odd to assume that because they take it that way, therefore that is how I intended to use it. I don’t consider “dammit” to be a swear word; it is simply an expression of annoyance or exasperation. There’s nothing inherently unchristian about those emotions.

https://bnonn.com/why-cant-christians-swear-dammit/

The Matthew 15 verses assume that such words are immoral but why think they all fill in the category of verse 19? So, it simply begs the question of whether they are immoral. Jesus is just furthering his teaching about the heart of a man being revealed by what comes out of the mouth of a man(Matthew 12:32-37). Ephesians 4:29 quotation assumes that these words can never be used in a proper way. So, once again, it begs the question of it being immoral or if it can be used to edify.

James 1:26 just commits him to the same fallacy. He needs to show that these texts have a principle demonstrating that certain words are immoral rather than certain usages of words. This ties into a theme throughout James 3:1-12, 4:11-12. It seems to be more about controlling our anger, passions, attacking others character(slander), gossips, and deceits.

Bridle his tongue: This metaphor for controlling speech can have the sense of “putting a bit in the mouth of a horse” (see 3:3) and can be used in the context of controlling anger (e.g., Ps.-Phocylides, Sent. 57), and in a moral sense of controlling passions (Lucian of Samosata, The Dance 70, and Tyrannicide 4), or speech (Philo, Dreams 2.165; this sentiment is well attested in the Old Testament, Ps. 34:13; 39:1; 141:3; Prov. 10:31; 12:18–19; 15:2, 4; 17:20; 18:21; 21:6, 23; 26:28; Wis. Sol. 1:11; Sir. 5:11, 13–14; 19:16; 20:18; 22:27; 25:8; 28:17–18, 26; 32:8). Religion (thrēskeia) is a term stressing the cultic aspects of worship/service (Wis. Sol. 14:18, 27; 4 Macc. 5:7, 13; Philo, Special Laws 1.315; Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 §222; 12.6.3 §271).

Lockett, D. R., & Evans, C. A. (2005). James. In C. A. Evans & C. A. Bubeck (Eds.), John’s Gospel, Hebrews–Revelation (First Edition, p. 271). Colorado Springs, CO; Paris, ON; Eastbourne: David C Cook.

The last passage I will mention is Ephesians 5. He’s probably is referring to Eph. 5:1-5. But I’ve already explained that previously:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/06/30/all-joking-aside/

So, from my understanding Eph. 5:1-5 is mainly referring to sexually immoral conversation.

BTW this conflict also brings confusion in the light of the 3rd commandment. I can argue using God’s name in vain is dependent upon the context, and saying “OMG” is not in violation, “that’s just what we’ve been taught as a society.” Therefore making the 3rd commandment of God to no effect and having no value, if using God’s name in vain is “really” not using God’s name in vain. I hope you see the inconsistency in your argumentation.

I don’t think any of these are an implication from what I said and I never said cultural relativism is true. I stated that we should take a passage that would’ve made the same point in their culture so we can apply it. The other reason I brought up culture is that biblical passages can’t be taken for granted. We often carry cultural influences that inform of understanding instead of reason and exegesis. So, that mispresents what I’ve stated.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/12/using-lords-name-in-vain.html