We conservative atheists do hereby in the affirmative submit that the language of the bible cannot be considered foul or perverse, nor capable of invoking supernatural curses... and the filtering of the word (d amn) is offensive to all beliefs. This is held of the terms, not concepts in so far as those concepts do not provide context for the terms (d amn) or curse. Our use of the word curse in Latin is maledico (maledictus). Its literal translation is: To speak ill of, abuse, revile, slander, asperse In Latin, curse is the vocative masculine singular of cursus, meaning: Running, track or course. It's use in the bible is the Lord's revile of a person, or a persons revile of another person or persons. The Lords curse carries with it in many instances depression across generations (though with Christ came the end of sins of individuals being visited on family members). Man's curse on other men only brought with it negative consequence of the one uttering the curse. There are discrepancies between the translations... but we suggest that that this is beyond the purview of this argument to descend into non-expert debate referencing Strom's and Latin lexicons. Therefore we submit the Septuagint, King James, and New International Versions for cross comparison of the usage of the usage of "curse". KJV http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...ersion1=9&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...rsion1=31&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 Vulgate http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...ersion1=4&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 The implication of a curse, to the agnostic or the believer, is the ill word of God, which interferes with ones free will. A curse is evocative of a subversion of free will. It is, in effect, a divine interference, without recourse by the Lord based on His judgement of ones actions. (D amnation) is biblical in etymology. Calling a word in the bible obscene is not in the nature of the site in our esteem. Adopting 18th century fears of accidental curses... which is what a curse word is, as afore mentioned, a word that might bring on a curse... is absurd presuming that we are no longer living with 18th century superstitions attributed to, but not supported by, the bible. Those in the negative might suggest, without creating a strawman, that people's souls are in no danger of escaping their bodies when they sneeze, and yet people still attempt to wield supernatural forces through blessings. This is a habit and custom of the people, for whom the majority do not understand the origin, yet it "feels pleasant" socially and is contrary to the argument submitted as no person with sound mind would suggest imposing a ban on blessings, as such there is no relative argument against the word of the Lord. Consummatio is the Latin equivalent of (*)(*)(*)(*)ation. Consumed, as in by fire. Classical Latin (*)(*)(*)(*)um means "damage, cost, expense; penalty, fine", ultimately from a PIE root *dap-. The verb (*)(*)(*)(*)are in Roman law acquired a legal meaning of "to pronounce judgement upon". http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...ersion1=4&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...ersion1=9&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(*)(*)(*)(*)ation#Etymology We hereby state unequivocally that the only beings capable of cursing or (*)(*)(*)(*)ing anyone is the Lord and the self, only of the self, in context of the scriptures. Furthermore and more importantly, to consider the words of the bible to be profane could imply an affiliation with the atheist community, in some far reaching plot to prevent the appropriate word of the bible as it has been deemed unreadable. We therefore ask for revocation of the word (d amn) from the worty durd filter.
