|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 17, 2017 13:21:29 GMT -5
I get the point he was trying to make but I think it was totally unnecessary. I really would rather not put vulgar words in my head even if it's reading someone else's post. And, I do care abot starving children. I actually think it was a pretty apt point about picking our moral priorities wisely and pointing our righteous indignation of things less petty than simply things that society has deemed uncouth. Not, of course, that I don't believe a discussion on language and the words we use (more than simply swearing) can be helpful. He could have made the same valid point without being uncouth. What some people will do just to get attention.
|
|
Jim Bentley
New Member
Posts: 37
CotN Connection: Elder / Senior Pastor
|
Post by Jim Bentley on Aug 17, 2017 13:24:43 GMT -5
They do seem to swear just for the sake of it. But I grew up athiest so I'm used to that sorta thing. I think they are like children who are suddenly "allowed" to swear so they go overboard. But in general the CONTENT of the discussions are very good. Ephesians 4:29 - "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."I had a friend tell me many years ago - "just because it ain't wrong doesn't make it right!" I think the fact that you can say "I grew up ATHIEST so I'm used to that sorta thing" is pretty much proof of flying in the face of Romans 12:2 "Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think."
By the way, who says that they are suddenly "allowed" to swear?
|
|
Cam Pence
New Member
Posts: 35
CotN Connection: Ordained Elder
|
Post by Cam Pence on Aug 17, 2017 13:36:57 GMT -5
I actually think it was a pretty apt point about picking our moral priorities wisely and pointing our righteous indignation of things less petty than simply things that society has deemed uncouth. Not, of course, that I don't believe a discussion on language and the words we use (more than simply swearing) can be helpful. He could have made the same valid point without being uncouth. What some people will do just to get attention. I think the point he was trying to make did require him to use the S-word. He used a word that he probably knew would not jive with many Christians cultural standings but given the context, the use the S-word served a bigger purpose than a simple choice of words. It kinda seems like your reaction to it is sorta proving his point (I'm NOT saying that you care more about a word than human life, BTW) A point which I believe needs attention....and that's not a bad thing. Once again, I'm not saying that you don't have a point about being careful what comes out of our mouths (hopefully not just when it comes to what society deems swear words or even uncouth). I just agree that IF we are more bothered by a word from a cultural context that we may believe qualifies as "unwholesome" than we are by unnecessary lose of human life, which is important in any cultural context from the beginning to end of time, we just may have missed the point
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 17, 2017 13:44:54 GMT -5
He could have made the same valid point without being uncouth. What some people will do just to get attention. I think the point he was trying to make did require him to use the S-word. He used a word that he probably knew would not jive with many Christians cultural standings but given the context, the use the S-word served a bigger purpose than a simple choice of words. It kinda seems like your reaction to it is sorta proving his point (I'm NOT saying that you care more about a word than human life, BTW) A point which I believe needs attention....and that's not a bad thing. Once again, I'm not saying that you don't have a point about being careful what comes out of our mouths (hopefully not just when it comes to what society deems swear words or even uncouth). I just agree that IF we are more bothered by a word from a cultural context that we may believe qualifies as "unwholesome" than we are by unnecessary lose of human life, which is important in any cultural context from the beginning to end of time, we just may have missed the point Yeah, I think this discussion has proven his point...Let's move our discussion to the starving children.
|
|
Cam Pence
New Member
Posts: 35
CotN Connection: Ordained Elder
|
Post by Cam Pence on Aug 17, 2017 13:48:54 GMT -5
I think the point he was trying to make did require him to use the S-word. He used a word that he probably knew would not jive with many Christians cultural standings but given the context, the use the S-word served a bigger purpose than a simple choice of words. It kinda seems like your reaction to it is sorta proving his point (I'm NOT saying that you care more about a word than human life, BTW) A point which I believe needs attention....and that's not a bad thing. Once again, I'm not saying that you don't have a point about being careful what comes out of our mouths (hopefully not just when it comes to what society deems swear words or even uncouth). I just agree that IF we are more bothered by a word from a cultural context that we may believe qualifies as "unwholesome" than we are by unnecessary lose of human life, which is important in any cultural context from the beginning to end of time, we just may have missed the point Yeah, I think this discussion has proven his point...Let's move our discussion to the starving children. Also, not to beat the same dead horse from my other thread with Jim, but do you realize that in a thread about whether or not this will be a good replacement for the .COM, we have somehow transitioned to starving children and swearing? If that ain't, Naznet, I don't know what is
|
|
Jim Bentley
New Member
Posts: 37
CotN Connection: Elder / Senior Pastor
|
Post by Jim Bentley on Aug 17, 2017 13:51:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I think this discussion has proven his point...Let's move our discussion to the starving children. Also, not to beat the same dead horse from my other thread with Jim, but do you realize that in a thread about whether or not this will be a good replacement for the .COM, we have somehow transitioned to starving children and swearing? If that ain't, Naznet, I don't know what is Hey...are you commenting on how ADD my wife accuses me of being?
|
|
A. Lucas Finch
New Member
Posts: 55
CotN Connection: Licensed Minister, Rocky Mountain District NYI President, NNU Student
|
Post by A. Lucas Finch on Aug 17, 2017 13:52:37 GMT -5
I actually think it was a pretty apt point about picking our moral priorities wisely and pointing our righteous indignation of things less petty than simply things that society has deemed uncouth. Not, of course, that I don't believe a discussion on language and the words we use (more than simply swearing) can be helpful. He could have made the same valid point without being uncouth. What some people will do just to get attention. You should see the sort of things that I'll do just to get attention.
|
|
Jim Bentley
New Member
Posts: 37
CotN Connection: Elder / Senior Pastor
|
Post by Jim Bentley on Aug 17, 2017 14:07:21 GMT -5
He could have made the same valid point without being uncouth. What some people will do just to get attention. You should see the sort of things that I'll do just to get attention. Speaking of attention....how is the job situation?
|
|
A. Lucas Finch
New Member
Posts: 55
CotN Connection: Licensed Minister, Rocky Mountain District NYI President, NNU Student
|
Post by A. Lucas Finch on Aug 17, 2017 14:19:19 GMT -5
You should see the sort of things that I'll do just to get attention. Speaking of attention....how is the job situation? Job? Do I need a job? I've been enjoying the last couple of weeks of freedom. Honestly, I haven't been doing too much yet. I am currently on "sabbatical", and that will go directly into two months of severance, which includes my home (if needed). So I'm covered through the end of October. I've been pushing hard all year, straight from one thing to another, so I've been intentional since the end of my district's teen camp to take some time to relax and regroup. That said, I am watching the Montana and Wyoming job service websites pretty closely. The primary places that I'm targeting for relocation are Missoula, the Flathead Valley (northwest Montana, primarily the cities / towns of Kalispell and Whitefish, right outside of Glacier National Park), and Cheyenne. Missoula I close and would allow an easier transition. I have quite a few connections in the Flathead, so that transition would be pretty smooth, too. Of the three, as a location Cheyenne is my least favorite. But it also seems to be the best place in the two states to find jobs. I have a 15-month-old nephew there, soon to be joined by his younger brother, and I have nieces and another nephew in Denver, which is a quick 1 1/2 drive south. So even though Cheyenne is a little far from the mountains for my tastes, it definitely has some appeal. Last week, I actually applied for and received a quick response regarding a chaplain associate position at the Cheyenne Regional Medical Center. The posting indicated that it was mostly an "on call" position, but it didn't say anything about actual hours. The head chaplain there called to follow up with me. He is actually a Point Loma alum. He's interested in using me, but the actual position is only for one night a week. So it's not really anything to support a living or justify a relocation. He gave me his direct phone number, though, to follow up with him if I do indeed end up down there. Probably in the next day or two I'll send out some more applications. I'm trying to get the timing right. I really don't want to have to commit to anything (unless it is in nearby Missoula) until about the third week of September. It would be nice to double-up income with my severance for a few weeks, but I also want to make sure I take ample time to regroup.
|
|
|
Post by Emiko Cothran on Aug 17, 2017 14:20:42 GMT -5
I would much rather have someone say to me:
"D**n, you are a F******g good artist!"
Then to say:
"How dare you call yourself a Christian and prioritize food, shelter, and medical care for poor children over preventing homosexuals from getting married! The way you vote proves your heart and alligence belong to Satan! Get the behind me!"
Just me, personally.
|
|
A. Lucas Finch
New Member
Posts: 55
CotN Connection: Licensed Minister, Rocky Mountain District NYI President, NNU Student
|
Post by A. Lucas Finch on Aug 17, 2017 14:25:09 GMT -5
I would much rather have someone say to me: "D**n, you are a F******g good artist!" Then to say: "How dare you call yourself a Christian and prioritize food, shelter, and medical care for poor children over preventing homosexuals from getting married! The way you vote proves your heart and alligence belong to Satan! Get the behind me!" Just me, personally. Yeah, specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing, I think it is a significant mistake to read too much into Scripture about specific words. How we use our words in treating others, though, there is no doubt that Scripture gives some direct instructions.
|
|
Jim Bentley
New Member
Posts: 37
CotN Connection: Elder / Senior Pastor
|
Post by Jim Bentley on Aug 17, 2017 15:10:03 GMT -5
I would much rather have someone say to me: "D**n, you are a F******g good artist!" Then to say: "How dare you call yourself a Christian and prioritize food, shelter, and medical care for poor children over preventing homosexuals from getting married! The way you vote proves your heart and alligence belong to Satan! Get the behind me!" Just me, personally. Yeah, specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing, I think it is a significant mistake to read too much into Scripture about specific words. How we use our words in treating others, though, there is no doubt that Scripture gives some direct instructions. But where then does "not looking like the world" play in to this discussion? I know that Emiko would disagree, but I would say that someone who addressed me like that doesn't show much fruit of the Spirit of Christ living in them .... "But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you."
I think your point that "specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing" is exactly the point I'm trying to make. We are supossed to look DIFFERENT then the culture that we find ourselves in the midst of.....right? (please don't throw the - helping the poor, loving the least of these - argument in here...It should be both!)
|
|
Cam Pence
New Member
Posts: 35
CotN Connection: Ordained Elder
|
Post by Cam Pence on Aug 17, 2017 15:20:03 GMT -5
Yeah, specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing, I think it is a significant mistake to read too much into Scripture about specific words. How we use our words in treating others, though, there is no doubt that Scripture gives some direct instructions. But where then does "not looking like the world" play in to this discussion? I know that Emiko would disagree, but I would say that someone who addressed me like that doesn't show much fruit of the Spirit of Christ living in them .... "But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you."
I think your point that "specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing" is exactly the point I'm trying to make. We are supossed to look DIFFERENT then the culture that we find ourselves in the midst of.....right? (please don't throw the - helping the poor, loving the least of these - argument in here...It should be both!) I think the "least of these" component here shows us where the heart of understanding should be for creating a true dichotomy between "the Church" and "the world" in that it points us to an "others centered" place. Like I said there is a conversation to be had about the words we speak, primarily how they affect others. Now we cannot discount the cultural norms here as the convictions of many people is informed by these norms (i.e. swearing). When the bit about "unwholesome talk" was jotted down in the Scriptures, the words we consider to be "cuss words" didn't even exist (nor did the English language), so obviously they didn't have those specific words in mind. They did, however, very obviously have language that was self-centered in mind. I think the words we say should (1) bring life and truth and (2) take others (see "the least of these") into account. When we do this, the issue becomes more than a petty glance at "cussing" and more of a holistic understanding that our words can be selfish or selfless. To use language (holistic, not just swearing) around people whom you know are dragged down but it, for example, is a perfect example of "unwholesome talk". Just the simple use of most words, however, I don't think necessarily constitute it (I am keeping in my that there are words whose sole purpose are to destroy and I obviously don't give them the benefit of the doubt here).
|
|
Jim Bentley
New Member
Posts: 37
CotN Connection: Elder / Senior Pastor
|
Post by Jim Bentley on Aug 17, 2017 15:31:47 GMT -5
But where then does "not looking like the world" play in to this discussion? I know that Emiko would disagree, but I would say that someone who addressed me like that doesn't show much fruit of the Spirit of Christ living in them .... "But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you."
I think your point that "specific word choices are such a culturally-driven thing" is exactly the point I'm trying to make. We are supossed to look DIFFERENT then the culture that we find ourselves in the midst of.....right? (please don't throw the - helping the poor, loving the least of these - argument in here...It should be both!) I think the "least of these" component here shows us where the heart of understanding should be for creating a true dichotomy between "the Church" and "the world" in that it points us to an "others centered" place. Like I said there is a conversation to be had about the words we speak, primarily how they affect others. Now we cannot discount the cultural norms here as the convictions of many people is informed by these norms (i.e. swearing). When the bit about "unwholesome talk" was jotted down in the Scriptures, the words we consider to be "cuss words" didn't even exist (nor did the English language), so obviously they didn't have those specific words in mind. They did, however, very obviously have language that was self-centered in mind. I think the words we say should (1) bring life and truth and (2) take others (see "the least of these") into account. When we do this, the issue becomes more than a petty glance at "cussing" and more of a holistic understanding that our words can be selfish or selfless. To use language (holistic, not just swearing) around people whom you know are dragged down but it, for example, is a perfect example of "unwholesome talk". Just the simple use of most words, however, I don't think necessarily constitute it (I am keeping in my that there are words whose sole purpose are to destroy and I obviously don't give them the benefit of the doubt here). Gotta go yell at a bunch of young men at football practice so I will check back later.....but am I reading your words correctly if I say that it sounds like you would be ok with me, as a pastor, from my pulpit this Sunday, dropping a few "F" bombs as long as they were used in positive manner? Something like - "Good morning congregation. You look (Insert bomb) amazing this morning." "You did a (insert next bomb) incredible job at yesterdays outreach" I would certainly hope that you would not see that appropriate in any circumstance or cultural situation.
|
|
A. Lucas Finch
New Member
Posts: 55
CotN Connection: Licensed Minister, Rocky Mountain District NYI President, NNU Student
|
Post by A. Lucas Finch on Aug 17, 2017 15:52:14 GMT -5
I think the "least of these" component here shows us where the heart of understanding should be for creating a true dichotomy between "the Church" and "the world" in that it points us to an "others centered" place. Like I said there is a conversation to be had about the words we speak, primarily how they affect others. Now we cannot discount the cultural norms here as the convictions of many people is informed by these norms (i.e. swearing). When the bit about "unwholesome talk" was jotted down in the Scriptures, the words we consider to be "cuss words" didn't even exist (nor did the English language), so obviously they didn't have those specific words in mind. They did, however, very obviously have language that was self-centered in mind. I think the words we say should (1) bring life and truth and (2) take others (see "the least of these") into account. When we do this, the issue becomes more than a petty glance at "cussing" and more of a holistic understanding that our words can be selfish or selfless. To use language (holistic, not just swearing) around people whom you know are dragged down but it, for example, is a perfect example of "unwholesome talk". Just the simple use of most words, however, I don't think necessarily constitute it (I am keeping in my that there are words whose sole purpose are to destroy and I obviously don't give them the benefit of the doubt here). Gotta go yell at a bunch of young men at football practice so I will check back later.....but am I reading your words correctly if I say that it sounds like you would be ok with me, as a pastor, from my pulpit this Sunday, dropping a few "F" bombs as long as they were used in positive manner? Something like - "Good morning congregation. You look (Insert bomb) amazing this morning." "You did a (insert next bomb) incredible job at yesterdays outreach" I would certainly hope that you would not see that appropriate in any circumstance or cultural situation. Given his context as a rock star from Ireland (where the f-bomb isn't as taboo as it is here in the good ol' U.S. of A.), I had nothing wrong with Bono referring to something as "F-ing brilliant" at an awards show 15 years ago, even if he is a professing Christian. However, if you or I were to use the f-bomb in the same way, or likely any way, when preaching to our churches, then there may be a problem. Yes, even use of the infamous f-bomb depends on context.
|
|
|
Post by Emiko Cothran on Aug 17, 2017 20:31:17 GMT -5
Not swearing takes a complex issue and tries to make it simple.
I will limit this conversation to how to be "different from the world" in the context of ONLY the way we talk (admitting there is much, much more to it then that- but how we use our words is part of it)
So, we need to always use our words to help, and build up, and never to shame, or tear down. We should never use our words to elevate ourselves above another We should never use our words to harm another or to cause outsiders or alienation (for example that office girl noone likes and everyone is complaining about and it is tempting to join them). We should never use our words violently, theatoningly, or dishonestly. There are times a word can heal. Times a word can lead to despair and even suicide.
We also have to mind tone of voice. We can use a tone that is humble, gracious, and kind, or a tone that is snide, snarky, and derisive. Our voice can be angry and aggressive, or tender and loving, or joyful and passionate.
And then there are the WORDS we use.
Not swearing is in the same camp as being politically correct. Swearing is offensive to some- to others it is the local dialect. Swear words can be aggressive and violent used to denote anger or deride someone. But it it could also mean, "very" or "wow!"
But, since some find it offensive we should generally avoid it in order to show respect to the listener who may be offended. In the same way as being politically correct to avoid offending the listener.
But both the no swearing and the PC can be taken too far. Like not being able to use the word "God" on Star Trek, or someone saying "OMG" is a "swear word".
I think not swearing is exactly like being politically correct.
I think being PC including not swearing is a part of being polite and showing defference to others but is the smallest part...
It is easy to avoid a list of 10 words, it is much harder to make sure every word our of your mouth is building up, encouraging, kind, graceful, humble, and without a hint of malice.
|
|
|
Post by Susan Unger on Aug 20, 2017 23:05:01 GMT -5
Good evening everyone :)Glad to see my peeps here!
|
|
|
Post by Susan Unger on Aug 20, 2017 23:12:15 GMT -5
Thanks! It has been my plan since two Mondays ago when my senior pastor told me I would not be able to stay on after all. If anything good has come from this at this point, it has been that I have finally felt like I can be candid with him and others about the whole thing. Previously, I was only sharing with a select few. My words in my video statement were crafted and chosen very carefully, though, so as to show continued support for my church's leadership while at the same time being honest and open about what I am experiencing and not letting an inaccurate narrative guide perceptions of the situation. I have been very nervous about posting it, not wanting to put anyone in a negative light, but after much prayer and contemplation, I thought it was the best way I could proceed. Thus far, I have received no negative pushback. Only positive support, including from several board members who would have been involved in the decision. (I haven't heard from my senior pastor yet, but I didn't say anything in the video that I haven't already expressed to him.) One person, who commended me via private message, told of when he was released eight years ago. He internalized it, and in so doing it led to years of negativity for him. He suggested to me that the approach I have chosen is the better approach. If this embeds or links correctly, here is the video in question: www.facebook.com/alfinch/videos/10154964970738230/www.facebook.com/alfinch/videos/10154964970738230/Lucas, I am glad that you found a way to express yourself and to do so in an honest way.
|
|
|
Post by Susan Unger on Aug 20, 2017 23:15:40 GMT -5
Yeah, that was one of my concerns with the transition. It isn't so hard for people to keep on participating in something that they've been participating in. However, once a change has taken place, expecting people to make the transition is likely expecting too much. And despite Scott's rhetoric, I don't think that the Facebook groups are all that the DOTCOM was previously. The glory days of NazNet are sadly a thing of the past. The main problem I have seen with NN on FB has been the influx of 3 or 4 posters (and growing) whose apparent sole purpose is to lament that our denomination is no longer the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene or that we are so Catholic (the RCC is a cult after all) now or that we don't know what true revival is or that it's not 1967 before Mildred Wynkoop wrote her meddling book (ok this one was me but you get my point). I was scared of this and hoped that the admins would quickly flag such rhetoric as not very Nazarene friendly but alas no such luck. The Concerned Nazarenes lite (as I have dubbed them) seem to be there to stay For what it's worth, I think I'd take a quiet Naznet.net over that The format and this fundamental change in tone is why I post very little there anymore. All I can think of is that critical thinking skills are a lost art.
|
|
Cam Pence
New Member
Posts: 35
CotN Connection: Ordained Elder
|
Post by Cam Pence on Aug 21, 2017 7:55:51 GMT -5
I think the "least of these" component here shows us where the heart of understanding should be for creating a true dichotomy between "the Church" and "the world" in that it points us to an "others centered" place. Like I said there is a conversation to be had about the words we speak, primarily how they affect others. Now we cannot discount the cultural norms here as the convictions of many people is informed by these norms (i.e. swearing). When the bit about "unwholesome talk" was jotted down in the Scriptures, the words we consider to be "cuss words" didn't even exist (nor did the English language), so obviously they didn't have those specific words in mind. They did, however, very obviously have language that was self-centered in mind. I think the words we say should (1) bring life and truth and (2) take others (see "the least of these") into account. When we do this, the issue becomes more than a petty glance at "cussing" and more of a holistic understanding that our words can be selfish or selfless. To use language (holistic, not just swearing) around people whom you know are dragged down but it, for example, is a perfect example of "unwholesome talk". Just the simple use of most words, however, I don't think necessarily constitute it (I am keeping in my that there are words whose sole purpose are to destroy and I obviously don't give them the benefit of the doubt here). Gotta go yell at a bunch of young men at football practice so I will check back later.....but am I reading your words correctly if I say that it sounds like you would be ok with me, as a pastor, from my pulpit this Sunday, dropping a few "F" bombs as long as they were used in positive manner? Something like - "Good morning congregation. You look (Insert bomb) amazing this morning." "You did a (insert next bomb) incredible job at yesterdays outreach" I would certainly hope that you would not see that appropriate in any circumstance or cultural situation. Well, Jim, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that, no, I do not think it would be a good idea to use expletives from the pulpit, however, once again, that's not for the sake of a single word that society has deemed "good", "bad", "uncouth", whatever. If you were to say to me and me alone (and I know you wouldn't and that's fine but just bear with me here), "Cam, you look @#$%ing great today!", I would likely be flattered (I have been losing some weight). Individual words don't generally do not bug me or bring me down in the slightest. If you say that to a congregation, there very well may be people who struggle with those words for any number of reasons (the reasons don't much matter). For the sake of those people (not just words themselves), I think it would be a colossally bad idea to use the words, even if the intention is to build up and encourage. In our context (CotN, clergy) it is obviously a fine position to abstain from what culture has deemed "swearing" for a number or reasons, not least of which are personal conviciton, love for those we are called to serve,..........job security . I think you get my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 8:54:01 GMT -5
Reminds me of Tony Campolo: “I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a ****. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said **** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.” I don't want to be the one who cares more about "****" than things that really matter. So while I don't want to curse myself, I see at quite insignificant. I rather have curse words than a cursed philosophy of life. I get the point he was trying to make but I think it was totally unnecessary. I guess we disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 21, 2017 11:19:03 GMT -5
I get the point he was trying to make but I think it was totally unnecessary. I guess we disagree. Did his cussing result in fewer starving children? I doubt it, but it's OK to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Gina Stevenson on Aug 22, 2017 13:29:38 GMT -5
I guess we disagree. Did his cussing result in fewer starving children? I doubt it, but it's OK to disagree. Yeah, it's fine to disagree (& I don't like what's considered swearing, either). But as for the question, & the presumed answer ("I doubt it"), it's really too bad we can't check with whomever all heard Tony do this to learn whether there may have indeed been some(one?) who were/was jolted into realizing the point he was making ~~ as they gasped at his "shocking" word(s) ~~ and the state of their priorities, and did begin to do something about it. If only one, well . . . . Just curious . . . but then I tend towards curiosity, anyway. ☺
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 22, 2017 13:59:13 GMT -5
Did his cussing result in fewer starving children? I doubt it, but it's OK to disagree. Yeah, it's fine to disagree (& I don't like what's considered swearing, either). But as for the question, & the presumed answer ("I doubt it"), it's really too bad we can't check with whomever all heard Tony do this to learn whether there may have indeed been some(one?) who were/was jolted into realizing the point he was making ~~ as they gasped at his "shocking" word(s) ~~ and the state of their priorities, and did begin to do something about it. If only one, well . . . . Just curious . . . but then I tend towards curiosity, anyway. ☺ This popped up on my feed today:
|
|
|
Post by Emiko Cothran on Aug 22, 2017 14:13:53 GMT -5
Jesus told stories in a way that was deliberately provocative to shock people into seeing the truth.
This seems like the sort of tactic he may just have employed.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 22, 2017 15:07:26 GMT -5
Jesus told stories in a way that was deliberately provocative to shock people into seeing the truth. This seems like the sort of tactic he may just have employed. Yeah, no, I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Emiko Cothran on Aug 22, 2017 17:31:07 GMT -5
You don't believe Jesus would say or do something shocking and culturally taboo in order to make an important point?
I have read of him doing so many, many times!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 22, 2017 17:57:24 GMT -5
You don't believe Jesus would say or do something shocking and culturally taboo in order to make an important point? I have read of him doing so many, many times! Apples and oranges. Speaking the truth is so much different then being vulgar to get a reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Emiko Cothran on Aug 22, 2017 19:43:23 GMT -5
The punch line, "You are more upset that I used a swear word then that children are starving." Is exactly the sort of story Jesus would tell.
Making his audience see and feel their own hypocricy, making them face it by angering them with a provocative story is just his style.
His parabels were designed to shock. to make you think. To shake up your brain and turn your world view around so you could see it differently.
Think of the good Samaritan. A Jew of Jesus's day would argue there could be no such thing. And it isn't a story of a Jew helping a hurt Samaritan, which would show "yes, even your enemies" but a Samaritan helping a Jew. No way! Would never happen! They are the bad guys.
It would be like a story today where a pastor, then a Sunday school teacher refuse to help... Then a radical Islamic Muslem stops to help, and goes above and beyond what would be expected of even the first two!
Jesus would make a point of healing on the Sabbath. He was know to be able to heal with a word, yet on the Sabbath he healed mixing spit or making someone walk to the river to wash... Making a POINT to break the traditional way the Sabbath was kept.
He ate and stayed with the worst kind of sinners.
He didn't do ritual washing of utensils.
He may even have been willing to drink wine with a fly in it or eat pork.
He had no qualms against breaking the social customs and cultural taboos of his people in order to make a point to his audience that had punch.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Wright on Aug 23, 2017 8:48:21 GMT -5
The punch line, "You are more upset that I used a swear word then that children are starving." Is exactly the sort of story Jesus would tell. Making his audience see and feel their own hypocricy, making them face it by angering them with a provocative story is just his style. His parabels were designed to shock. to make you think. To shake up your brain and turn your world view around so you could see it differently. Think of the good Samaritan. A Jew of Jesus's day would argue there could be no such thing. And it isn't a story of a Jew helping a hurt Samaritan, which would show "yes, even your enemies" but a Samaritan helping a Jew. No way! Would never happen! They are the bad guys. It would be like a story today where a pastor, then a Sunday school teacher refuse to help... Then a radical Islamic Muslem stops to help, and goes above and beyond what would be expected of even the first two! Jesus would make a point of healing on the Sabbath. He was know to be able to heal with a word, yet on the Sabbath he healed mixing spit or making someone walk to the river to wash... Making a POINT to break the traditional way the Sabbath was kept. He ate and stayed with the worst kind of sinners. He didn't do ritual washing of utensils. He may even have been willing to drink wine with a fly in it or eat pork. He had no qualms against breaking the social customs and cultural taboos of his people in order to make a point to his audience that had punch. Again, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Jesus went against the cultural customs of the day to expose their wickedness. He went against the worldly actions of the day to share the truth. In contrast, what you seem to be defending is the idea of acting like the world by using vulgar language to get a reaction. Should Christians really be defending mimicking the worldly ways or should we be separate? In my opinion there is no justification for purposely using vulgar language, it is unnecessary. Now, let's get back to finding ways to feed hungry children.
|
|