A few years back I was addressing in Africa in a domain intensely impacted by the British culture. I alluded to a specific military experience as a “bleeding fight.” Later, I was educated that the articulation “ridiculous” – which to me was a flawlessly real graphic – was “profane” to my English-situated crowd. The social undertone joined to the descriptive word had the effect.
Words pass on thoughts; they are vehicles of biblical disc assessment. It is, in this way, the thought related with an articulation that can make a shrewd word design. Here are entries that address the issue on a fundamental level.
The Scriptures discuss “messy” talking (Eph. 5:4). As per Greek experts (see Baur, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 29), the expression “grimy” (aischrotes) involves “conduct that mocks social and good measures, dishonor, indecency” while “disgraceful discourse” (aischrologia – Col. 3:8) means “discourse of a sort that is commonly considered in poor taste, vulgar discourse, grimy talk.”
“Salacious” discourse (cf. 2 Pet. 2:18) is that intended to evoke unlawful sexual pictures and thoughts. “Degenerate” (ethically unwholesome, destructive) correspondence (Eph. 4:29) is moreover censured. “Silly (truly blockhead) talking” is discourse that uncovers a dumb personality, while “quipping” recommends rotten diversion (cf. Eph. 5:4).
What is fairly unsettling is the way that some purported “Christians” enthusiastically shield the utilization of tarnished language in books and motion pictures under the appearance of imaginative permit; they fight that resistance to such is “against scholarly” (see Franky Schaeffer, Sham Pearls for Real Swine, Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1990, Chaper 9, “Opportunity Versus Censorship”). Such legitimization conveys no weight with the really profound individual.