Never mind, it wasn’t really profanity 5

It turns out that BAMF, or anything you like, is OK to say.

A reader alerted me to Cooper’s new teaching on what defines profanity.

Profanity is no longer a list of words to not say… RATHER, there is a way to use your words that makes much of God in all you are saying or doing. Any other talk, BY DEFINITION, is PROFANITY.

on a secondary note- there is another definition of ‘profane’… that is, ‘common or base’…. so one uses profanity when you use a word so much it loses it’s meaning… you have literally profaned the word. So again, by definition, profanity has much more to do with the speaker of the words rather than the words themselves…

It’s not about what you say; it’s about your intentions. So long as you’re talking about God, go ahead and peel the paint.


5 thoughts on “Never mind, it wasn’t really profanity

  1. Tommy F. Apr 17, 2009 12:14 am

    This is a BAMF post. I’m now free to use BAMF all the F-ing time. I don’t mean to be F-ing offensive, so please don’t take my F-ing language F-ing incorrectly. And FU if you do. What does F-ing BCoop know any F-ing way?

    He’s right! It’s fun to use vulgarity and then claim inoffensive motives. How F-ing convenient.

    I’m glad to know that my words don’t matter as much as their intent. I wonder if negroes concur with BCoop, when they are offended by the “N” word, which is a corruption of the word negro. After all, if intent is the most important point, then the word shouldn’t be offensive … even when uttered by a white guy — right?.

    Oddly, BCoop has proposed precisely the opposite point made in society, which typically argues that the recipient decides if speech is offensive (for example harassment is claimed by a hearer, regardless of the speaker’s intent).

    I truly hope NGottlieb has a ghetto take on this post. I’d bet he can offer some insight. @NGottlieb: Wanna play?

  2. Twit Conway Apr 17, 2009 12:53 am


  3. Twit Conway Apr 17, 2009 12:56 am

    Sorry TommyF, what I meant to say was: raotflmfao

  4. Coffeechicka Apr 21, 2009 12:02 pm

    Ummm, wow. Obviously Jesus and the Bible are nowhere in the discussion here.I will argue that “freakin” has been dubbed a stand-in for the f-word. If that’s si, then dang, shoot and other slang should be eliminated.If you have made it a point to fire assumptions without approaching the source directly, concerning Bcoop, then perhaps some homework could be done.if anyone has experienced God’s precense and seen the life change that takes place then the focus could be more placed on God and salvations than peeling apart NewSpring.God’s blessing them, there is no doubt.

  5. Tommy F. Apr 21, 2009 1:22 pm

    @Coffeechicka: 1) Get a spellchecker.

    2) This is entirely about Jesus and the Bible, because it’s about how Christians ought to speak, act, behave, tweet, blog, etc. Just because the name Jesus is not typed very often does not mean it’s all about God and his word.

    3) “I will argue that “freakin” has been dubbed a stand-in for the f-word.” That’s fine, but bamf does not mean b- a- m- freakin’. In fact, it’s because f- is vulgar that BCoop presumably didn’t just type the words out explicitly. If it stood for freakin’, why encode it?

    4) Your logic makes me smile, and then cry (while laughing). Again with typical NS reply of “the ends justify the means.” Let me get this straight Coffeechicka: if people are making decisions, then it doesn’t matter what NS does, since any “success” must be from God… ? Really? I’ve heard Mormons say the same thing. What would your reply be to them? They are having great success, so it must be from God.

    It’s a bit difficult to refute your statement if you go on attendance and numbers. But, let’s avoid the headcounting and ask the central question: is God pleased by language like bamf to describe a place of worship? I suppose if lots of people go to the bamf location, then he must be blessing the location and the people who show up…. Would you be as supportive if he’d actually used the precise terms rather than bamf?

    And conversely: since you equate blessing with numbers (or attendance) … if a church is not growing numerically, is God punishing them? What if the church’s growth is depth, rather than breadth? I wonder if Ace would prefer to have more people in his church, or fewer (but stronger) Christians. What do you think Coffeechicka? That’s a bamf question, if I don’t say so myself. Oh! Don’t be offended. I certainly don’t want to do that.

Comments are closed.