And while you’re at it, you can explain how this statement furthered your overall point as well:
So you haven’t read Chronicles or Kings recently? I thought you were a committed Christian. We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months. I’ve done this for 30 years.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
That’s quite a stretch. Here:
[/quote]
I did say it was my barometer. However consider this:
“The suggestion that it originated as a reference to Jesus “bleeding” on the cross is compelling for its shock value, callousness and sacrilegious intent, just as the Irish, and those of the diaspora, will exclaim “suffering Jesus” in response to something shocking.” (from http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bloody)
Also note this: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
If you read the origin description, you’ll see “After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ,”
Although the Oxford dictionary thinks this origin incorrect, it suggests that the understanding of the word by so many people was such that it couldn’t be used in print.
Perhaps Cortez you would also like to comment on the long list of Pat’s quotes I just provided. [/quote]
Yes, I read it all. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige someone from the 18th Century who was wrong.
Through Christendom, we have come up with words so as not to take the Lord’s name in vain. At most this is one of these words, at least it has no connection. 18th Century England was very much a heavy Protestant reign, Protestants have for sometime made seemingly random words “off-limits” even when those words are used in order that when people say something reactionary they don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
They have also now made random words “off-limit” that have nothing to do with taking the Lord’s name in vain because of a misguided understanding of St. Paul’s admonishment not to make dirty jokes, take the Lord’s name in vain, or falsely swear. St. Paul himself used “vulgarity” when told the disciples that he wished the Judaizers would cut off their balls.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Matters what you mean by foul. Unlike protestants we don’t believe matter is evil. >>>[/quote]Really Christopher. We’ve been through this. I repudiated this scandalous accusation of Manicheanism in the strongest and most unmistakable terms possible. Are going to make me re post it? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, certain words aren’t “naughty” to us.[/quote]This is where you worry me. It MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what YOU(or I) think. You are claiming to be an ambassador of Christ in the earth. A family representative of the holy spotless Lamb of the holy spotless Father God indwelt by the holy spotless Spirit. Around whose holy spotless throne the angels cry day and night a barrage of innocent profanity because they don’t believe matter is evil. Ooops, that would actually be “HOLY HOLY HOLY is the Lord of hosts. The whole earth is full of His glory”
Even if it were not in itself the outflow of a filthy heart like Jesus said, Paul told the Corinthians that he would forgo even lawful practice if it meant avoiding the appearance of evil to someone else. I GUARANTEE you I can find even Catholic saints who agree with everything I just said. Why don’t you pray to Teresa of Avila and ask her if she thinks your semantic trickery in the defense of profanity is a Christlike witness. Ask her if she thinks the godly path leads one to try to split hairs and figure out which words or phrases are offensive TO THE LORD AND OTHERS or whether just making the practically non existent “sacrifice” of simply avoiding them all would be most pleasing to a God one claims to love.(Don’t really do that, but you get my point)
As for this outrageous charge of Gnostic dualism? Bring some proof or knock it off. You’re better than that. BTW, this has nothing to do with Mr. Chen at all.
[/quote]
You’re making an assumption that is based on sentimentalism at best. First, you’re starting with the conclusion that these words are bad, therefore an outflow of a filthy heart and that I have no control over my vocabulary in front of people. But I’m sure now that I have admitted that I refrain from talking certain ways in front of certain people you’ll call me a Pharisee, neo-ecumenicalist, hypocrite, two-faced, and part of the Great Whore or something equally dumb and bigoted. I, at least attempt, to be all things to all men.
Further, you haven’t shown that these words are “bad.” Sorry, words are not inherently bad, ever. They are words. You know I have proven to you before that St. Paul himself used “bad words” (or at least what would be considered a bad word in Protestant America and that his admonishment of the Corinthians was in making dirty jokes, not because the words are bad but because they objectify people, usually women.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.
Sorry, what?
What on earth is the above supposed to mean, then? I even left the final sentence in there for you to work with. What else could you possibly be suggesting? [/quote]
Me from same post: “it’s a simple statement of my own experience”
So, if one more RC has a foul mouth, I’m not surprised. I made it clear I don’t assume all Catholics have foul mouths.[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question. Why? Why did you feel the need to bring it into the argument?
[/quote]
I did answer what I thought you were asking, which seemed to be the need for a clarification. Now you ask me why I feel the need to bring it in. You don’t see that after Pat has been going on about my language, that I would not point out to him an example of his foul speech? I think it’s perfectly appropriate. Besides, if he doesn’t consider “bloody” foul speech, he could easily say so.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read it all. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige someone from the 18th Century who was wrong.[/quote]
It’s less about people may have been wrong about their understanding of the origin, then it is about how people understood it when they used it. The Oxford dictionary makes it clear many people thought they were referring to Christ’s blood when they used the term. This usage was so common that you therefore didn’t see the word in print.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And while you’re at it, you can explain how this statement furthered your overall point as well:
So you haven’t read Chronicles or Kings recently? I thought you were a committed Christian. We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months. I’ve done this for 30 years.[/quote]
I would be willing to explain this, if you’ll first at least summarize how you understand what preceded it.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.
I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
LOL! No it does not. Nobody really knows where it comes from, it’s just an expression often used in lieu of cussing. It’s British in origin of course.
How can I not be a fan of the Brit’s? They gave us The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Harry Potter…Yeah, yeah, the devil’s music… A book about witch craft.
For crying out loud, you’re damn amusing. Yep, I cuss and I sure don’t give a shit about it, not one. I can cuss more if you like.
Seriously, your so caught up in minutia that you can pay any attention to things that matter. I’ll take a foul mouthed ditch digger, over a strait laced hypocrite any day of the week.
Wake me when you have something real to talk about. I be am done with this tripe. Your little jihad against the Catholic church failed. Just admit you hate it, but you don’t know why. At least that would honest, which would be a refreshing change.
Let’s just be clear that you’ve tied your own rope, cinched it tight and swung from it all on your own.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
That’s quite a stretch. Here:
[/quote]
I did say it was my barometer. However consider this:
“The suggestion that it originated as a reference to Jesus “bleeding” on the cross is compelling for its shock value, callousness and sacrilegious intent, just as the Irish, and those of the diaspora, will exclaim “suffering Jesus” in response to something shocking.” (from http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bloody)
Also note this: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
If you read the origin description, you’ll see “After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ,”
Although the Oxford dictionary thinks this origin incorrect, it suggests that the understanding of the word by so many people was such that it couldn’t be used in print.
Perhaps Cortez you would also like to comment on the long list of Pat’s quotes I just provided. [/quote]
From the same link:
" After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, or that the word was an alteration of â??by Our Ladyâ??; hence a widespread caution in using the term even in phrases, such as bloody battle, merely referring to bloodshed"
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.
I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
LOL! No it does not. Nobody really knows where it comes from, it’s just an expression often used in lieu of cussing. It’s British in origin of course.
How can I not be a fan of the Brit’s? They gave us The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Harry Potter…Yeah, yeah, the devil’s music… A book about witch craft.
For crying out loud, you’re damn amusing. Yep, I cuss and I sure don’t give a shit about it, not one. I can cuss more if you like.
Seriously, your so caught up in minutia that you can pay any attention to things that matter. I’ll take a foul mouthed ditch digger, over a strait laced hypocrite any day of the week.
Wake me when you have something real to talk about. I be am done with this tripe. Your little jihad against the Catholic church failed. Just admit you hate it, but you don’t know why. At least that would honest, which would be a refreshing change.
Let’s just be clear that you’ve tied your own rope, cinched it tight and swung from it all on your own.
[/quote]
I used to dig ditches, and run a jack hammer, and trim trees, and work 3 ft diameter pipes, and frame houses and roof houses. God cleaned up my foul mouth after I became a christian though.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.
I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
LOL! No it does not. Nobody really knows where it comes from, it’s just an expression often used in lieu of cussing. It’s British in origin of course.
How can I not be a fan of the Brit’s? They gave us The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Harry Potter…Yeah, yeah, the devil’s music… A book about witch craft.
For crying out loud, you’re damn amusing. Yep, I cuss and I sure don’t give a shit about it, not one. I can cuss more if you like.
Seriously, your so caught up in minutia that you can pay any attention to things that matter. I’ll take a foul mouthed ditch digger, over a strait laced hypocrite any day of the week.
Wake me when you have something real to talk about. I be am done with this tripe. Your little jihad against the Catholic church failed. Just admit you hate it, but you don’t know why. At least that would honest, which would be a refreshing change.
Let’s just be clear that you’ve tied your own rope, cinched it tight and swung from it all on your own.
[/quote]
So, you will use crass language freely with me, but then complain if I call you Nancey P, or tell you to go squat in the corner with Sloth? Who’s the hypocrite?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.
Sorry, what?
What on earth is the above supposed to mean, then? I even left the final sentence in there for you to work with. What else could you possibly be suggesting? [/quote]
I would like to know, what is the implication. Whatever this proclamation, it certainly does not exist in a vacuum.
Same thing with getting the panties in a wad over the term ‘holy father’ in reference to the pope. He won’t admit it, he is implying that it is a messianic term applied to a human being. I know this because I have read about it before independently from his concern over the matter. Otherwise, why would it matter. He therefore told me to soak my head. The term I like to use for that is ‘Busted’.
The fact is, he lost his arguments on substance so he started personal attacks. Because when you have no substance and you still badly want to win, that’s the direction you go… Maybe I should have let it go, but then again…
I still would prefer reconciliation over this mess.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read it all. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige someone from the 18th Century who was wrong.[/quote]
It’s less about people may have been wrong about their understanding of the origin, then it is about how people understood it when they used it. The Oxford dictionary makes it clear many people thought they were referring to Christ’s blood when they used the term. This usage was so common that you therefore didn’t see the word in print.[/quote]
This is like not using the word purgatory because Protestants don’t understand the doctrine of purgatory. Completely ridiculous. It is your responsibility to know what things mean, not mine to walk on egg shells because you have a false notion of what something means.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.
I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
LOL! No it does not. Nobody really knows where it comes from, it’s just an expression often used in lieu of cussing. It’s British in origin of course.
How can I not be a fan of the Brit’s? They gave us The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Harry Potter…Yeah, yeah, the devil’s music… A book about witch craft.
For crying out loud, you’re damn amusing. Yep, I cuss and I sure don’t give a shit about it, not one. I can cuss more if you like.
Seriously, your so caught up in minutia that you can pay any attention to things that matter. I’ll take a foul mouthed ditch digger, over a strait laced hypocrite any day of the week.
Wake me when you have something real to talk about. I be am done with this tripe. Your little jihad against the Catholic church failed. Just admit you hate it, but you don’t know why. At least that would honest, which would be a refreshing change.
Let’s just be clear that you’ve tied your own rope, cinched it tight and swung from it all on your own.
[/quote]
So, you will use crass language freely with me, but then complain if I call you Nancey P, or tell you to go squat in the corner with Sloth? Who’s the hypocrite?[/quote]
Shit yeah buddy! And YOU are.
I wasn’t complaining, I expect that from you by now. I was merely pointing out, you’d rather go tit-for-tat to protect you frail ego, than talk about stuff that matters in a friendly and engaging matter. That was my point in pointing these things out.
Maybe you read the whole bible every 3 months, but you are not capable of thoughtful engaging conversation that can build mutual understanding and trust between Christians. Rather you prefer to fan the flames or old, tired, baseless rhetoric and drivel, that has nothing to do with faith, Christ, love, salvation, and scripture. I pretty much guess you don’t consider Catholics Christian at all, wouldn’t be the first time I heard that garbage.
You keep beating the ‘Catholicism is bad’ mantra, but don’t have anything what so ever to back it up. I am curious, what is the real issue?
You talk all holier than thou, but when the rubber hits the road, you fail. Little things like Love your neighbor, forgiving 70 times 7 times, love your enemies, speaking the TRUTH, all those are elusive to you. At least you have demonstrated such actions here. Perhaps you aren’t like that in real life, but how do I know? All I have is your extreme arrogance, condemnations and avoidance tactics on substantive matters. I really don’t understand it. But you really need to get over yourself.
I’d rather have a filthy mouth than a purty mouth…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You’re making an assumption that is based on sentimentalism at best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [/quote]I will help you with this post later Chris =] For now? I really wish you would not get all squirreley on me like this. You put a whole bunch of words in my mouth that I did not say. I am discussing the necessity of biblically sanctified speech from the people of God. I did not call you a “Pharisee, neo-ecumenicalist, hypocrite, two-faced, and part of the Great Whore or something equally dumb and bigoted”.
I AM NOT your enemy and I hold you in higher regard it appears than maybe you hold yourself. Tell me whatever you want. I KNOW down inside you also KNOW that God doesn’t want His saints talking like truck drivers(no offense to any born again truck drivers who may read this. =] )
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read it all. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige someone from the 18th Century who was wrong.[/quote]
It’s less about people may have been wrong about their understanding of the origin, then it is about how people understood it when they used it. The Oxford dictionary makes it clear many people thought they were referring to Christ’s blood when they used the term. This usage was so common that you therefore didn’t see the word in print.[/quote]
This is like not using the word purgatory because Protestants don’t understand the doctrine of purgatory. Completely ridiculous. It is your responsibility to know what things mean, not mine to walk on egg shells because you have a false notion of what something means. [/quote]
No, no. If there was no offense, invent one that doesn’t really exist.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You’re making an assumption that is based on sentimentalism at best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [/quote]I will help you with this post later Chris =] For now? I really wish you would not get all squirreley on me like this. You put a whole bunch of words in my mouth that I did not say. I am discussing the necessity of biblically sanctified speech from the people of God. I did not call you a “Pharisee, neo-ecumenicalist, hypocrite, two-faced, and part of the Great Whore or something equally dumb and bigoted”.
I AM NOT your enemy and I hold you in higher regard it appears than maybe you hold yourself. Tell me whatever you want. I KNOW down inside you also KNOW that God doesn’t want His saints talking like truck drivers(no offense to any born again truck drivers who may read this. =] )
[/quote]
Again, you’re making the assumption that I don’t use biblically sanctified speech, because I use random words that Protestants have decided are “off limits” for reasons that are unbeknownst to me. I don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, I don’t make dirty jokes, I don’t use words to scandalize, &c. I fulfill the 2nd Commandment, by Grace of course.
Okay, you have related catholic Church to Pharisees, neo-ecumenicalists, hypocrites, and the Great Whore of Babylon. I am a Catholic, that means I am a member or part of the catholic Church. Thus, by your claims (with no supporting evidence) I am a Pharisee, neo-ecumenicalist, hypocrite, and part of the Great Whore of Babylon.
[quote]pat wrote:
I’d rather have a filthy mouth than a purty mouth…[/quote]
Well, then I guess nicknaming you Nancy P is spot on.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Again, you’re making the assumption that I don’t use biblically sanctified speech, because I use random words that Protestants have decided are “off limits” for reasons that are unbeknownst to me. I don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, I don’t make dirty jokes, I don’t use words to scandalize, &c. I fulfill the 2nd Commandment, by Grace of course. >>>[/quote]I have cited a position you have espoused. I have said nothing directly about how YOU speak. I have used the pronoun “you” as a general term to mean a person. You have been one million times better in the last 8 or 9 months. I’ve been proud of you.
What does this mean about “Careless (idle) words” Chris? Matthew 12:33-37[quote]33-“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34-You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35-The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36-I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37-for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”[/quote][quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Okay, you have related catholic Church to Pharisees, neo-ecumenicalists, hypocrites, and the Great Whore of Babylon. I am a Catholic, that means I am a member or part of the catholic Church. Thus, by your claims (with no supporting evidence) I am a Pharisee, neo-ecumenicalist, hypocrite, and part of the Great Whore of Babylon. [/quote]I have never said I am settled on your church being the “whore of babylon” or the pontiff being the anti-christ. I don’t know.
Read my lips. I do not define you as a Catholic first Christopher. (you forgot that big C on Catholic btw) I am allowed, whether you, your pope or college of bishops likes it or not. The day you understand that? Well… you’ll understand. =] You can harden your heart toward me all you want. I WILL NOT reciprocate.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes, according to you, I would have the foulest mouth this side of the Mississippi. However, I do not believe words are inherently evil, how they are used is what matters. Talking about sex in a manner that is truthful and respectful is fine, it’s good to talk about it. Talking about sex in a manner that destroys the nature of sex and objectives persons, not okay…it is bad. Using the Lord’s name in prayer, is awesome. Using the Lord’s name in vain, is blaspheme. I do not understand how words can be evil, I am sorry.
[quote]I have said nothing directly about how YOU speak. I have used the pronoun “you” as a general term to mean a person. You have been one million times better in the last 8 or 9 months. I’ve been proud of you.
What does this mean about “Careless (idle) words” Chris? [/quote]
Well, according to St. Jerome is refers to words that are not profitable to either the speaker or the hearer. St. Chrysostom, in conflict, says abusive and false language. Such as when they said that Jesus casts out devils by Beelzebub. Though it’s interesting, because a lot of the ECF use this as a reference for the final purification, “render an account for it.”
[quote]I have never said I am settled on your church being the “whore of babylon” or the pontiff being the anti-christ. I don’t know.
Read my lips. I do not define you as a Catholic first Christopher. (you forgot that big C on Catholic btw) I am allowed, whether you, your pope or college of bishops likes it or not. The day you understand that? Well… you’ll understand. =] You can harden your heart toward me all you want. I WILL NOT reciprocate.
[/quote]
Some pontiffs were pretty anti-Christy, I wanna say a few with the last name that started with the letter B. But unless B16 is somehow killing baby dolphins in his secret pool I’m not even sure how such a saint on earth could be considered the anti-Christ.
I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic Church (Nicene Creed). Catholic is a descriptive part of the name. It also became part of its title to distinguish itself ,sometime in the latter half of the second century, from heretical congregations like Muratorians. Whether it is capitalized or not it still refers to what St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to in ~100 A.D. as the universal Church, translated (Gk. katholikos).
Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly wrote about the issue, “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . In the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Fragment). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190â??91).
I was baptized in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I am a Catholic. You were baptized in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. You’re catholic. 
Come back to your Mother. She misses you.
My hearts not hard. Sometimes I just can’t handle not speak the truth when it’s being misrepresented.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read it all. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige someone from the 18th Century who was wrong.[/quote]
It’s less about people may have been wrong about their understanding of the origin, then it is about how people understood it when they used it. The Oxford dictionary makes it clear many people thought they were referring to Christ’s blood when they used the term. This usage was so common that you therefore didn’t see the word in print.[/quote]
This is like not using the word purgatory because Protestants don’t understand the doctrine of purgatory. Completely ridiculous. It is your responsibility to know what things mean, not mine to walk on egg shells because you have a false notion of what something means. [/quote]
Ok, so over the last three pages we’ve learned that Protestants arbitrarily make words illegal because they are Gnostics, and that Pat’s “foul mouth” makes sense because he is Catholic… and in some mysterious way, that last statement ISN’T stereotyping. I think that pretty much sums up the conversation thus far… haha
In all seriousness, I don’t feel like Mr. Chen or Brother Chris are going about this the right way. MC, what bearing does the use of a word centuries ago have on its CURRENT meaning? Was Pat born in the 1700s? When Pat used that word, did he really have any idea of its hypothetical origin)? I believe Pat responded to you by saying, “Nobody really knows where it comes from, its just an expression often used in lieu of cussing. Its british in origin of course.” In other words, Pat clearly didn’t know about its origins anyway. The word “nice” originally meant “ignorant” or “stupid.” Am I too assume that that earlier meaning carries through forever, even for those who don’t know its history? Am I bound from using a word forever simply because it once had a negative connotation? Ridiculous. Meaning is determined by (1) current usage and (2) context, not etymology, and it IS arbitrary of you to say, “well, even if the evidence suggests that the word bl**** didn’t actually refer to the blood of Christ, and even if Pat was unaware of that meaning, or at least certainly wasn’t using the word intending to convey that meaning, I CHOOSE to believe that that word is a sacrilegious reference to Christ’s blood, and on those grounds, I choose to be offended.” Shame on the foul-minded individuals who interpreted the word as a reference to Christ’s blood and used it anyway; you should be condemning THOSE people, not whining because you arbitrarily fill a word Pat used with negative content.
BC, your response here completely flies in the face of Paul’s admonitions in 1 Corinthians 8-10. I don’t remember Paul saying, “hey, if you’re weaker brethren think eating food sacrificed to idols is actually an act of idolatry (because they believe that idols are, in some sense, “real”), tell them to grow up! Better yet, eat it right in front of them! Rub their faces in it!” In fact, Paul says exactly the opposite (1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:23-24). If other Christians (even separated brethren) consider it a sin, why provoke them? If the use of “cuss words” falls under the issue of Christian liberty, you are still liable for watching out for your brother’s conscience. Moreover, my point about meaning deriving from usage and context swings both ways - in some contexts in the US, including secular contexts, cussing is still considered wrong, or at least evidence of a potential deviant. And the apostle Paul does not say we should limit our freedom only for other brothers, for the sake of the spread of the gospel as well, we should restrain our freedoms with outsiders when necessary (1 Cor. 10:32-33). Why set up a stumbling block? Why do something that purposefully hurts your brother, or anyone else for that matter? If you are indeed the one who has knowledge (1 Cor. 8:11), it IS your responsibility to walk on eggshells.
Moreover, Paul also urges us to avoid allowing anything to enslave us (1 Cor. 6:12), and cussing is a habit that enslaves. Once you start, it is VERY hard to stop (I know from past experience). That ALONE should be enough to dissuade us from it. All things may be permissible for me, but I will NOT let myself be enslaved by anything. Furthermore, since (even if only through social indoctrination, i.e., learned behavior) people cuss most when they are expressing anger, it seems to me that cussing is one way we give into our evil desires. Should we not resist that behavior, even if the words themselves are not INHERENTLY wrong? I agree with Tirib - God does not want his people swearing like truck drivers (Christian or otherwise :), especially since this behavior enslaves, hurts other brethren, and can damage our witness.