What is in a name . . . what is in a word?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose,
by any other name would still smell as sweet.”

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act II Scene II


In this seemingly simple quote above, Juliet sums up the beauty, the angst, and the eventual tragic denouement resulting from her love for Romeo. Who would have thought that love could hold so much pain in its bosom – a pungency of sadness that simmers down to a mellow sweetness. Love, with all its exultation, with all its cherry-fresh succulence and brio, is a precursor of sweet sadness. Would the ambivalence of love be absent if it was called by another name?

What is in a name afterall? Is a name not a sophisticated verbal articulation, a mere product of the movement of the vocal cords modulated by the tongue and lips? If the english choose to call the action of putting food into your mouth “eat” and the French choose to call it “manger”, does it change the fact that “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach – via his mouth of course” (can I get an Amen! from the male corner?)

But seriously, is it my calling a cup a “cup” that makes it a cup? Was it not a “cup” before I called it so? I have heard christian say that Adam named all the animals in the garden as if there was something particularly mystical about the sound he made when he called out the names. I agree that Adam named the animals. I don’t doubt that. But, do you seriously think that Adam called a wild cat with spots a “leopard?” I mean, do you think he actually mouthed the words: l-e-o-p-a-r-d / lěp'ərd /? Did Adam name the animals in English then?

Which language in particular did Adam speak?

How about christians who insist that when David faced Goliath in a duel and went down to a stream to pick five smooth stones, that each of those stones represented a letter in the name, "Jesus". That sounds interesting and would make for a good line during a sermon, but is it not taking it too far when people insist on making a doctrine out of five stones representing the five letters in the name of Jesus.

Do you think Jesus was addressed as “Jesus” when he was on earth? He was called Yeshua in Hebrew and Iesous in Greek and when these names were written down, they were definitely not done with the characters of the alphabet that we use today. Does that make Jesus any less than who he was when he was on earth? – Divinity in human form.

I am not trying to split hairs here. I mention these things because history has taught us and is still teaching us that mankind generally tends to be religious, so religious at times, even to the detriment of the truth. People can make a doctrine out of anything and from seemingly simple issues, as evident in the myriad of denominations in christianity today.

These doctrines usually start from something simple and seemingly uncontroversial but with continuous reiteration they take on a mind and a life of their own, become binding on their followers and eventually everybody forgets why the instruction was given in the first place and obey it without so much as a question. When you ask these followers why they subscribe to such a doctrine, they give you an answer that basically says:

“that is what we do in our church”

Man is a religious being: The children of Israel do not eat the muscle that shrank which is on the hip socket because He touched the socket of Jacob’s hip. . .

Jesus on the mount of transfiguration had Moses and Elijah by His side and Peter calls out “It is good Lord that we are here. We will build three tabernacles – one for You, Moses and Elijah.

I tell you, if Christ were to appear to you in your living room, sitting on a particular chair, it is extremely likely that after the event, you would venerate that chair, infact no one will seat on it again. You would even have people coming on pilgrimage to your house from all over the world to see what will now be fanciful called

“The Chair”

Do you think that example is far-fetched?

Have you not heard of christians trooping to various parts of the world to sites, were supposedly a Saint was reported to have been sighted? Huge crowds gather around those sites for days.

People still troop to Jerusalem constantly to see the tomb of Jesus. Have these christians not heard the words of the angel? It was announced two thousand years ago and still reverberates to this day:

“He is not here. He is risen!”

Now patience, patience, don’t jump on me yet. I am not against visiting historical sites but I only bring these up to show you how susceptible man is to concede to religious activities while ignoring the substance and the essence of the gospel. Man has a tendency to chase shadows. Christ Himself said it best –

“You strain at a gnat but you swallow a carmel.”

I read an article in a blog recently where a christian asked a rather pertinent question. She wanted to know if it was okay to substitute some other words in place of “swear words” e.g.

“shoot” for “shit”,

“heck” for “hell”

“darn” for “damn”

"effing" for "fuck"

Personally, I wonder, whether words become less of a profanity just because you take a letter or two of the alphabet out of it? Does it make any difference if you voiced “heck” and “effing” but your heart is actually saying “hell” and “fucking”?

You are merely playing with words, my friend. It is still profanity no matter how you spin it.

It is mere window dressing and political correctness run amok when people write f**k when everyone knows that the asterisk in the midst of the words is “uc”. It is ludicrous to say the least when we tacitly agree that it is okay to swear on television and on radio as long as we “bleep it”

Hello!!! "THE BLEEP" is now the universal Morse Code for a swear word or a foul language. So, who is kidding who or in the words of “my generation”:

"So, who the heck is f**cking with who?"

Oops! see what I mean? The asterisks could very well have been the actual alphabets, “uc”

Is it not better if you do not use profanity at all? I know that one can make occasional slip ups (I certainly have) but it is a different ball game when society is almost elevating swear-words to the level of Art with all the fanciful embellishments that it gets. Let us instead call it what it actually is:

A verbal diarrhoea resulting from mental constipation.

There is a whole variety of words in the english language and in any other language of your choosing to express yourself in. It is a poverty in the depth of vocabulary that makes one resort to four-letter expletives.

Oh, I see, you want to sound “folksy” and “current” – well, too bad that you have to go into the gutter to do that.

To echo the mood of a modern day Juliet:

What’s in a name? “A hell of a piece of shit”,
irrespective of how you spin it, to “A heck of a piece of sh*t”
would still smell, just as bad.