Search the Community

So I am a musician and one of the songs I have to play (its a cover) involves a little bit of swearing. I've never sworn in my life so I am really hesitant about this because I am really not sure if it is okay. I know it is just a song and I of course don't mean what I say, but I am really just not sure if it is okay. Its just the same word, "bi---" but I would appreciate some other views on this. Thanks in advance.

Martin Luther made the keen observation that when reading what James ACTUALLY wrote, it was clear that he didn't agree with Paul concerning the requirements for salvation. Therefore Martin Luther writes, "I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle." The "gloss" readings he's referring to are those found typically today among indoctrinated Christians desperate to grasp at any straw of an interpretation which resolves the contradiction between Paul and James. Whereas the contradiction is real and the view of James, who is not an apostle, should be discarded in favor of Paul who is an apostle. There's no valid reason why the letters of James and his brother Jude should be reckon scripture. One such gloss is the idea that James 2:24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." should read "By works you see that a man is justified rather then solely by faith." The idea is to make works the means of seeing rather than the means of justifying. It's like taking Acts 8:23 which says, "For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" in which Peter is criticizing Simon Magnus, and rewriting it as, "For by bitterness and by iniquity I see that you are poisoned", as if Peter was the one full of bitterness and iniquity! To disprove the validity of such an amusing translation one needs only read the verse that follows James 2:24 which says, "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" How would one have to rewrite this verse to be consistent with the gloss given of verse 24? One would want to fabricate the following, "Likewise, by works don't you see that Rahab the harlot was justified?" Here the word "see" which is not even in the verse is inserted, the words jumbled. "was not" becomes "don't you see that". And you'd have to play the same game with verse 21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" Wave a magic wand and turn that into, "By works don't you see that Abraham our faith was justified ..." Very few Christian seem interested in reading out of James what James actually meant based upon what he ACTUALLY said. The vast majority seem only interested in reading into James things that he didn't say, their goal being to explain away the contradiction between James and Paul. They start with the wrong premise, assume that James' letter is the Word of God, and so the disagree with James is to disagree with God. It's an assumption that not all of us hold. But if someone would like to defend their gloss reading of James, please do so.