are you sure she wasn't just giving you grief about your grammar????

I ain't got no problems with my grammar.

"I will put her needs and wishes ahead of mine in any matters that don't require me to compromise my position on essential truth."

Are you sure you want to fully support that philosophy, Eric?

What if someone's wishes involved, say, you giving them a quick $40 grand? It certainly wouldn't compromise your position on an essential truth. Besides, it's just money. You can always earn some more. :p

I generously accept cash, checks, and most major credit cards. :D

Besides, the logic of Romans 15:1-2 can and does work both ways. Why shouldn't your friend "bear the weaknesses of those without strength" who need to use such language (in this case you)?

Isn't complaining about your language and wanting you to change it really just a form of "pleasing ourselves"? That's essentially the same as saying, "Please me! I don't like this so I don't want YOU to do it".

It's surprising someone would take you to task for something that minor. Unless I'm mistaken, that falls under the "first stone" argument advanced in John 8: 7. Aren't off-color remarks the proverbial "mote" referred to in Luke 6: 41-42? Besides Even Jesus wasn't above such language, Himself.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33) Considering the foulness and danger a poisonous snake represented to a race of essentially barefoot people, that was pretty harsh language for the time.

Do you really think I posted this without considering each of those arguments?

The answer to each -- which are legitimate questions, but which must be considered in the proper context -- is derived from the nature of our relationship, and the history of the issue, which go beyond what needs to be explained here.

Mr. Freen, I think I gave your comments short shrift, that being the best I could do at 6:00 a.m. following a 5-hour rehearsal last night. But I've had a couple of cups of coffee now so I'm almost awake; let me try again...

What if someone's wishes involved, say, you giving them a quick $40 grand? It certainly wouldn't compromise your position on an essential truth. Besides, it's just money.

Yes, and if I could spare $40K without impacting my own family, and if the need was sufficient, I'd gladly give it. God gives us wisdom and discernment to figure out stewardship responsibilities.

Giving to help others in need is called "generosity," and it's a Good Thing.

Besides, the logic of Romans 15:1-2 can and does work both ways. Why shouldn't your friend "bear the weaknesses of those without strength" who need to use such language (in this case you)?

I realize this is tongue-in-cheek, but it is still a legitimate issue: who goes first? Whose needs are primary in such an instance? In this case, it's easier for me to stop using language for which there are many alternatives, than to expect her to adjust her sensibilities which are grounded in sincerity.

Putting others first is "selflessness," and it's a Good Thing.

Isn't complaining about your language and wanting you to change it really just a form of "pleasing ourselves"? That's essentially the same as saying, "Please me! I don't like this so I don't want YOU to do it".

She never asked me to change it...she just reminded me that she found it offensive. I probably wasn't clear about that.

This is called "openness in communication" and it's a Good Thing.

It's surprising someone would take you to task for something that minor.

I know people who pepper their language -- written and spoken -- with the f-word. They would be amazed to find that anyone would be offended by that. I am one of those who is offended by that. In some things, different people have different levels of tolerance, based on their upbringing, Scriptural interpretation, etc.

Acknowledging those differences and finding ways to defer to them is called "courtesy," and it's a Good Thing.

Besides Even Jesus wasn't above such language, Himself.

Bad example, amigo. Jesus' words were always intended to edify, even when (especially when?) they were also rebukes. He was not speaking them for His own benefit (which is the diametric opposite reason most of us blog, btw!). And, of course, even while rebuking them, He was willing to die for them.

That's called...well, we don't really have a term that can capture everything that attitude entails, but I guess "Christ-likeness" comes close, and, well, you know...that's the Best Possible Thing.

Don't worry, Eric. I was just teasing you about the forty grand. I hope I'm not annoying you too much. You've raised several particularly interesting topics, though. Didn't Jesus advocate giving charity to a degree that would, in fact, negatively impact the giver?

Consider Mark 12:41-44 (NIV) 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."

By that account, it seems the whole idea is to give until it hurts. If charity doesn't negatively impact the giver (as in the case of the wealthy giving large sums they could easily spare), it doesn't seem to count.

It's tough to assign a "need" based on sensibilities. You could adjust your sensibilities to account for her or she could adjust hers for you. Ultimately it's a personal decision both you and she already made.

I'll still defend that what you said was, comparatively speaking, very minor. You didn't use the f-word. If your friend's tolerance is that low, she must have a tough time dealing with most of the content on TV, the newspaper, and on-line. I'd rather not think about what she must endure near a radio. This past January, one local DJ celebrated the start of the New Year by playing the unedited version of Marilyn Manson's "This Is The New S***".

I know I'm going to open a huge can of worms with this one, but even accepting that Jesus's words and His rebukes were intended exclusively to edify His listeners, the fact remains. Jesus wasn't above using offensive language Himself.

I think we'll both agree that Jesus was aware He was speaking in public and in front of a broad cross-section of people. Even so, He doesn't seem too worried about being "offensive".

True, Jesus was speaking for their benefit rather than His own, but He didn't seem concerned whether He offended His listeners' sensibilities in the process. Calling the Pharisees and Sadducees "snakes and the generation of vipers" must have been extremely offensive to them. Both Jesus and His listeners were very much aware of what a serpent represented in religious texts, as well as what a dangerous pest vipers were in daily life. It may have been for their own good, but He didn't care if it was offensive to them.

Jesus had no problem offending the sensibilites of the money lenders and merchants in the Temple, either. John 2:13-15 "13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."

From that passage, Jesus had no problem getting a whole lot more offensive than just using "harsh language".

I'll just chime in to say that I don't know what the answer is, but it's refreshing to see that you value your friend enough to make a small adjustment for her sensibilities. Regardless of whatever Paul meant.

Mr. Freen, sorry for the delay in replying to your last comments; life has intruded upon my blogging!

I really don't want to get into the giving issue. I would simply ask how "giving until it hurts" (a secular definition) jives with being a "cheerful giver" (the Scriptural admonition)?

BTW, my friend has been following this discussion with great interest (and some frustration over her inability to reply directly to some of your observations; I've offered her access to this space, but she hasn't yet decided whether to accept my offer).

I think she would agree that the perceived offense is minor, in a "global" perspective, but that there are still legitimate and Scriptural reasons to address it.

And, finally, the type of "offensive language" used by Jesus should not be compared (other than by way of contrast) to the profanity, vulgarity and obscenity that laces much of our society's conversations today. In addition, Jesus had the not inconsiderable advantage of looking into the listener's heart and knowing precisely what she or he needed to hear, and how she or he would respond to it. His motives were pure to an extent that we cannot come close to matching.

Don't forget that Jesus even admonished believers who had in some way offended their brothers to drop their sacrifices and go make amends before continuing with their worship.

I'm not sure how the righteous anger exhibited by Jesus in clearing the Temple fits into our discussion. Nevertheless, because of our inherently sinful human natures, we will always tend to find offensive those words and deeds designed to point out and correct our shortcomings...even when they originate from God's mouth!

...but it's refreshing to see that you value your friend enough to make a small adjustment for her sensibilities.

Manasclerk gets it.

No worries about the delay, Eric. I can't imagine what you're going through in pre-production of "The Nail". More on that elsewhere.

I agree there's definitely Scriptural reasons to address the issue of profanity. As you point out, Jesus did have the ability to look into the listener's heart, know precisely what she or he needed to hear, and how that person would respond to it. That's my point, though.

With that unique ability, Jesus still chose to use language He knew would offend His listeners.

His motives were utterly pure and blameless, true. His motives were ultimately based on instructing them of their errors. But Jesus didn't hesitate to openly insult the Pharisees whether it personally offended them or not.

That's main reason I mentioned Jesus' anger in the temple. Jesus, in that one instance, went a lot further in offending His audience while instructing them. It wasn't just harsh language. The passage mentions the rather liberal use of a whip, throwing other people's money around, and knocking over their tables. When the Son of God got angry, it must have made one heck of a sight.

A person who knowingly offended another has a dispute with them. Jesus always emphasized the spirit of the act over the outward form. Worship with an angry heart is empty gesture. In this case, you clearly didn't intend to offend your friend.

She took a personal offense at something you said about an on-line service with no intended malice towards her. Your remark hardly compares to the hard-core profanity found in our society.

True, it wasn't a remark you'd say in church, or even to her in person. Then again, you weren't speaking in church or to her exclusively. You made it to a global audience (i.e. the entire Internet) undoubtedly used to much, much worse.

Has your e-mail box been overloaded with thousands of outraged readers, scandalized at your "bad language"? How about a couple dozen? Or was it just one complaint from one person?

If you don't mind me paraphrasing you, she found something offensive in those words you designed to point out and correct the shortcomings of Site Meter.

When it comes down to it, I do hope your friend values you equally to make similar adjustments in her sensibilities, as well.

Ultimately, that aspect is between you and her.

When it comes down to it, I do hope your friend values you equally to make similar adjustments in her sensibilities, as well.

She does and she would, if the situation were reversed, and my issue of conscience was butting heads with something that, to her, was inconsequential.

[This is probably a good place for us to put a merciful end to this thread. We're starting to re-hash.]