It depends on whether you believe statements have a power to transform your consciousness.
For instance, assume two statements -- X and Y. Now assume that you utter X and later utter Y, with identical intentions. If X impacts you differently than Y, then you are making a claim that the statements themselves have causal power over you -- apart from your own reactions to them.
Now whether this is a problem or not depends on a few things:
- Do you believe that your personal development is driven by
- Do you subscribe to a modern, scientific worldview?
If the answer to either of the above is true, then the idea that a statement in and of itself would affect you in such a way is clearly absurd.
I believe one of the key criticisms the Buddha had with Brahmanism was in Brahmanism's focus on rituals as acts, whereas the Buddha stressed the intention behind the act as the causal principle. I don't recall where this critique occurred sadly, so I can't give a reference. Still, it seems to support this reading, and leads to the implicit critique of anyone who clings to actions in and of themselves as missing a key point of Buddhism.
In fact, Buddhism's atheistic or non-theistic stance can be read as an implicit critique of this clinging to acts as having causality. For if your own intentions play no role in an action, then clearly you are calling upon a higher power to reward or punish you for this act, even if you don't explicitly hold belief in such. In this sense, Buddhism's stance is not one of rejecting a particular cosmology, but in attempting to bring people back to bearing responsibility for their actions and putting their focus where it belongs: on intentions.