PDA

View Full Version : Some Anti Name-Calling Folks...



wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 03:46 PM
...call names.

From the thread, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19879:


Name calling serves no earthly good. It is done by small people unable to express themselves in an intelligent way.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Chileice name-call by calling name-callers "small people"?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 03:54 PM
I don't think so. Name calling is generally thought of as being derisive and intended as an insult. I think that the term "small people" is just a term in describing how they act.

Caille
April 28th, 2005, 03:55 PM
...call names.

From the thread, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19879:



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Chileice name-call by calling name-callers "small people"?




You're wrong - consider yourself corrected.


BTW - you're an idiot, too

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 03:55 PM
Such as the phrase, "you're bigger than that," is used to describe someone who has the ability to take the higher ground.

Lucky
April 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Chileice name-call by calling name-callers "small people"?
You are not wrong, so I cannot correct.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:01 PM
I don't think so. Name calling is generally thought of as being derisive and intended as an insult. I think that the term "small people" is just a term in describing how they act.

So is faggot. What's the difference?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:02 PM
You're wrong - consider yourself corrected.


BTW - you're an idiot, too

I'm not wrong so consider yourself corrected.

In what way am I an idiot?

Caille
April 28th, 2005, 04:05 PM
I'm not wrong so consider yourself corrected.

In what way am I an idiot?



You are wrong




and you smell bad


and your mother dresses you funny












see you tomorrow ! :D

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:07 PM
You are wrong




and you smell bad


and your mother dresses you funny














see you tomorrow ! :D

Hey, I'm NOT wrong!

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:09 PM
So is faggot. What's the difference?

Faggot is term that is meant to be insulting and degrading. "Small" people is just a term to describe someone who is taking the low ground, as it were.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:11 PM
Faggot is term that is meant to be insulting and degrading. "Small" people is just a term to describe someone who is taking the low ground, as it were.

No that's a post by a small person.

Caille
April 28th, 2005, 04:12 PM
Hey, I'm NOT wrong!




so you concede the other two points ?
:chuckle:












gone

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:14 PM
No that's a post by a small person.

So, you are saying that I'm a small person because I disagree?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:16 PM
so you concede the other two points ?
:chuckle:












gone

Yep. My small attempt at humor. :chuckle:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:18 PM
So, you are saying that I'm a small person because I disagree?

No, I'm illustrating it can be used to be insulting and degrading.

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:21 PM
See, here's the thing, though, I didn't feel insulted. I was merely asking if it was your attempt to insult me. I think Chileice was merely describing what kind of people resort to name calling. From his post, I did not get the impression that he was trying to be insulting. Let me ask you this, what word would you have used instead?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Name calling is the biggest waste of time and does nothing to open the heart of the person that you are talking to. :nono:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:24 PM
See, here's the thing, though, I didn't feel insulted. I was merely asking if it was your attempt to insult me. I think Chileice was merely describing what kind of people resort to name calling. From his post, I did not get the impression that he was trying to be insulting. Let me ask you this, what word would you have used instead?

I wouldn't have posted that in the first place because I don't feel the same way about name calling as Cheliece does, but there are lots of names he could have used, including "small." He could have made his point just fine without using that or any other term.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Name calling is the biggest waste of time and does nothing to open the heart of the person that you are talking to. :nono:

So are you calling me a name, i.e., a time-waster?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Name calling, though, has to be approached with intent. What I mean by that is that when someone uses a word, they have to be intending for that word to be degrading or insulting. If I were to call you a "stupid moron" (which I'm not) then it's obvious that my intent was to be malicious. However, if I were to say to you, "Hey big guy," I would merely be greeting you with a nickname or as a friend. The fact of the matter is that "big guy" can also used to be insulting. If someone weighed 600 lbs and I called him "big guy" and meant to be insulting it would come out that way.

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:32 PM
So are you calling me a name, i.e., a time-waster?

Were you calling anyone a name?

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Name calling is the biggest waste of time and does nothing to open the heart of the person that you are talking to. :nono:
Jesus seemed to disagree.


Matthew 12:34
"Brood of vipers!


Matthew 22:18
"Why do you test me you hypocrites?"


Matthew 23:14
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:36 PM
So are you calling me a name, i.e., a time-waster? :bang:
If I meant you, I would have said WA is a time waster. :sozo2:

Grow a thicker skin...... :rolleyes:

Chileice
April 28th, 2005, 04:38 PM
See, here's the thing, though, I didn't feel insulted. I was merely asking if it was your attempt to insult me. I think Chileice was merely describing what kind of people resort to name calling. From his post, I did not get the impression that he was trying to be insulting. Let me ask you this, what word would you have used instead?

I suppose you could take it the wrong way and if anyone did, I apologize. I was not intending to single out any individual. What I intended to point out is that one can argue a case without resorting to name-calling. It is often done by people who are unwilling to take the time and effort necessary to put forth their thoughts in a reasoned manner. It is often done by people who are unwilling to admit they are wrong, as well. I think it takes a "big person", a "noble person" if you will, to take the time to express himself or herself in the face of people who oppose them. The opposite of those "big" people or "noble" people, in my mind, are people who are unwilling to support their ideas in a reasoned manner and who are not willing to admit that they could even be proved wrong.

Calling homosexuals names in general, and individuals in particular, just eggs them on. It galvanizes their opposition to any words of wisdom you might later try to share. It does the same in any case: with democrats or republicans or abortion activists. Name-calling proves nothing except that one is incapable or unwilling to do the hard work of listening and responding with manners, courtesy and tact. That does not preclude responding with the truth. But the truth can be told in a way that it is not intended to offend. It may offend, but that should not be our intent in sharing it.

That is where I was coming from. As I said, I never meant for anyone to feel I was name-calling them. I hope ny explanation clears up the speculation.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Jesus seemed to disagree.
So, you have the mind of Christ? His judgements were righteous and divine, (are yours?) that is why he warns us not to judge. When you call someone a name, you make a judgement about them that is meant to demean and be derogatory.

You can't convince me that it is ok......or even Chris-like. :nono:
Have I done it? Yes, but it's still not right!

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Name calling, though, has to be approached with intent. What I mean by that is that when someone uses a word, they have to be intending for that word to be degrading or insulting. If I were to call you a "stupid moron" (which I'm not) then it's obvious that my intent was to be malicious. However, if I were to say to you, "Hey big guy," I would merely be greeting you with a nickname or as a friend. The fact of the matter is that "big guy" can also used to be insulting. If someone weighed 600 lbs and I called him "big guy" and meant to be insulting it would come out that way.

Gosh, ninjashadow, Cheliece obviously meant it as an insult. Put differently he said, "Small people call others names." He called name callers small which means he name-called. If not, why didn't he leave it out altogether and say, "Name calling serves no earthly good. It is done by people unable to express themselves in an intelligent way."

Instead of: "Name calling serves no earthly good. It is done by small people unable to express themselves in an intelligent way."

Interjecting, "small" was obviously meant to hopefully hurt the persons that know they are name callers.

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 04:43 PM
So, you have the mind of Christ? His judgements were righteous and divine, (are yours?) that is why he warns us not to judge. When you call someone a name, you make a judgement about them that is meant to demean and be derogatory.

You can't convince me that it is ok......or even Chris-like. :nono:
Have I done it? Yes, but it's still not right!
Robin, what makes you think that Christ warned Christians not to judge?

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 04:43 PM
So, you have the mind of Christ? His judgements were righteous and divine, (are yours?) that is why he warns us not to judge. When you call someone a name, you make a judgement about them that is meant to demean and be derogatory.

You can't convince me that it is ok......or even Chris-like. :nono:
Have I done it? Yes, but it's still not right!
How about when the prophets and apostles did it?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:44 PM
That was my point, Chileice, although you said is far more eloquently. I did not feel that you were name calling, but merely the word "small" as an opposite of "noble."

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:45 PM
How about when the prophets and apostles did it?
Are you either of those?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:45 PM
:bang:
If I meant you, I would have said WA is a time waster. :sozo2:

Grow a thicker skin...... :rolleyes:

Grow a thinner skull. I wasn't offended, merely asking a question. I'll put it another way. Were you name-calling name callers by calling them time-wasters?

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Are you either of those?
Is that a dodge?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Gosh, ninjashadow, Cheliece obviously meant it as an insult. Put differently he said, "Small people call others names." He called name callers small which means he name-called. If not, why didn't he leave it out altogether and say, "Name calling serves no earthly good. It is done by people unable to express themselves in an intelligent way."

Instead of: "Name calling serves no earthly good. It is done by small people unable to express themselves in an intelligent way."

Interjecting, "small" was obviously meant to hopefully hurt the persons that know they are name callers.

Read his post, please. He said that he was not trying to be insulting and I never thought he was. You know, there are many different uses of a word and just because you think that it came across one way, doesn't mean that that was the way it was intended.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:48 PM
Grow a thinner skull. I wasn't offended, merely asking a question. I'll put it another way. Were you name-calling name callers by calling them time-wasters?
re-read my post, WA.....
I didn't call anyone a time waster! It was a statement of opinion that such dialogue is a waste of time.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Is that a dodge?
A fair question.
You're the one who is dodging.

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 04:50 PM
A fair question.
You're the one who is dodging.
No I'm not. You said that we shouldn't judge because we are not God. I followed up by asking why it was acceptable (indeed, standard procedure) for the prophets and apostles to do it.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Read his post, please. He said that he was not trying to be insulting and I never thought he was. You know, there are many different uses of a word and just because you think that it came across one way, doesn't mean that that was the way it was intended.

What I'm trying to get across is so many people do the very same thing they accuse others of doing and then dance around it with an excuse when they're called on it as Cheliece did. I'm also trying to get the point across that it's almost if not actually impossible to correct or judge someone without some sort of name calling.

Name calling is name calling.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 04:53 PM
re-read my post, WA.....
I didn't call anyone a time waster! It was a statement of opinion that such dialogue is a waste of time.

Then in essence you're saying anyone engaging in that type of dialogue is a time-waster. You, Agape4Robin, are a name-caller whether you'll ever admit it or not.

Mr. Coffee
April 28th, 2005, 04:54 PM
This is a difficult area. Because Stephen said, "You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears!" and then said, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin!" while they were stoning him (Acts 7). I guess you have to look at everything, and even then only God really knows a person's heart.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:55 PM
No I'm not. You said that we shouldn't judge because we are not God. I followed up by asking why it was acceptable (indeed, standard procedure) for the prophets and apostles to do it.
Standard procedure? So, again, you consider yourself to be in the ranks of those?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 04:55 PM
I agree with you. I see people like Ann Coulter go out and get on the case of liberals for name calling and then turn around and do the same thing. However, I really don't see that Chileice was name calling. It seems, and if I'm wrong I apologize, that you are attempting to make a word seem malicious that is not.

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Standard procedure? So, again, you consider yourself to be in the ranks of those?
:doh: That's not the point. I'm asking you if you think only God can judge or call names.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Then in essence you're saying anyone engaging in that type of dialogue is a time-waster. You, Agape4Robin, are a name-caller whether you'll ever admit it or not.
You're not a time waster?
I am....I have wasted alot of time.....so what? How is that derogatory or demeaning?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 04:58 PM
:doh: That's not the point. I'm asking you if you think only God can judge or call names.
That is the point.......
Let me put it this way...... I don't see your name listed as any one of the authors of the bible.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:00 PM
I agree with you. I see people like Ann Coulter go out and get on the case of liberals for name calling and then turn around and do the same thing. However, I really don't see that Chileice was name calling. It seems, and if I'm wrong I apologize, that you are attempting to make a word seem malicious that is not.

If it wasn't meant to be malicious, then he shouldn't have used it in that context especially when he was trying to get the point across that name calling is wrong. He, in fact, called name callers a name.

Chileice
April 28th, 2005, 05:00 PM
What I'm trying to get across is so many people do the very same thing they accuse others of doing and then dance around it with an excuse when they're called on it as Cheliece did. I'm also trying to get the point across that it's almost if not actually impossible to correct or judge someone without some sort of name calling.

Name calling is name calling.

But WA, name calling is usually a directed action. It is usually intended to hurt and to be inflammatory. Now if I describe a person who is a drug-addict as a drug-addict, that is not name-calling. However, if my intent is to shame that person and I call directly to his face and say, "you no good drug-addict", I am name-calling. I think it is a matter of tenor and what is in the heart. I had NO intent of finger-pointing or telling anyone they were "small" people. I'm not sure if it would have sounded better to say "ignoble". I'm not sure how I could have described what I wanted to say without using some word. But my point was certainly not to name-call. The very post itself was just a short simple statement about the uselessness of name-calling. I also wanted to point out that it is harmful to those who do it. It makes them appear petty and small. Now they may not really be that way. But it is hard not to assume that when they name-call.

I am not trying to make an excuse for myself. In fact I was quick to apologize and stand by that apology if someone was indeed offended. I appreciate Ninjashadow's understanding of my words and I hope that you will also accept them in the tone they were written.

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:01 PM
That is the point.......
Let me put it this way...... I don't see your name listed as any one of the authors of the bible.
Um, that's another dodge. (Stephen wasn't an author either.) Ok, since you don't seem to like that question, can we see some Scripture for your stance?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:04 PM
You're not a time waster?
I am....I have wasted alot of time.....so what? How is that derogatory or demeaning?

You tell me what a husband would think it means if his wife said, "You are such a time waster sitting there doing nothing." He'd definitely feel it was intended to be derogatory and demeaning.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:04 PM
Um, that's another dodge. (Stephen wasn't an author either.) Ok, since you don't seem to like that question, can we see some Scripture for your stance?
allow me to re-phrase that for you. I don't seem to recall seeing your name listed in the bible as an apostle or a prophet.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:06 PM
You tell me what a husband would think it means if his wife said, "You are such a time waster sitting there doing nothing." He'd definitely feel it was intended to be derogatory and demeaning.
derogatory and demeaning show intent to harm with words, not mere miscommunication, like what seems to be happening here. If I meant to be inflammatory I would have said that you were a waste of time....see the difference?

SOTK
April 28th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Yep. My small attempt at humor. :chuckle:

:darwinsm:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:09 PM
But WA, name calling is usually a directed action. It is usually intended to hurt and to be inflammatory. Now if I describe a person who is a drug-addict as a drug-addict, that is not name-calling. However, if my intent is to shame that person and I call directly to his face and say, "you no good drug-addict", I am name-calling. I think it is a matter of tenor and what is in the heart. I had NO intent of finger-pointing or telling anyone they were "small" people. I'm not sure if it would have sounded better to say "ignoble". I'm not sure how I could have described what I wanted to say without using some word. But my point was certainly not to name-call. The very post itself was just a short simple statement about the uselessness of name-calling. I also wanted to point out that it is harmful to those who do it. It makes them appear petty and small. Now they may not really be that way. But it is hard not to assume that when they name-call.

I am not trying to make an excuse for myself. In fact I was quick to apologize and stand by that apology if someone was indeed offended. I appreciate Ninjashadow's understanding of my words and I hope that you will also accept them in the tone they were written.

I won't because it was a hypocritical statement. You actually not only called name callers small but unintelligent as well.

Again, I'm pointing out that judging is OK but not when you judge and then say you're not judging. It's the same with name calling. You cannot judge someone for name calling without name calling.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:12 PM
derogatory and demeaning show intent to harm with words, not mere miscommunication, like what seems to be happening here. If I meant to be inflammatory I would have said that you were a waste of time....see the difference?

I'm not saying you're calling anyone a waste of time, you called name callers time wasters. If I'm a name caller, then you called me a time waster which means you called me a name.

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 05:13 PM
If it wasn't meant to be malicious, then he shouldn't have used it in that context especially when he was trying to get the point across that name calling is wrong. He, in fact, called name callers a name.

Actually, he in fact did not. The fact that you say he did, does not make it so, nor does that fact that I say he didn't. The facts are that he did not intend to name call and did not use the word in name calling. Had he intended it as such, then yes it would be name calling.

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:13 PM
allow me to re-phrase that for you. I don't seem to recall seeing your name listed in the bible as an apostle or a prophet.
We seem to be going through this several times. Let's simplify this,


So, you have the mind of Christ?
Why, yes I do.

His judgements were righteous and divine, (are yours?) that is why he warns us not to judge. Where?


When you call someone a name, you make a judgement about them that is meant to demean and be derogatory.
So Christ must have been about the meanest guy in history right?


I don't seem to recall seeing your name listed in the bible as an apostle or a prophet.

Correct, Imrahil was the Prince of Dol-Amroth which is in GOndor and therefore unrelated to Israel.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:14 PM
I'm not saying you're calling anyone a waste of time, you called name callers time wasters. If I'm a name caller, then you called me a time waster which means you called me a name.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill!

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:14 PM
Actually, he in fact did not. The fact that you say he did, does not make it so, nor does that fact that I say he didn't. The facts are that he did not intend to name call and did not use the word in name calling. Had he intended it as such, then yes it would be name calling.

He said, "They are small." He called them small. He called them a name.

Chileice
April 28th, 2005, 05:14 PM
I won't because it was a hypocritical statement. You actually not only called name callers small but unintelligent as well.

Again, I'm pointing out that judging is OK but not when you judge and then say you're not judging. It's the same with name calling. You cannot judge someone for name calling without name calling.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it IS a necessary part of judging. Perhaps others will prove me wrong. I hope not, as I find the idea of HAVING to be a name-caller quite distasteful.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 05:15 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it IS a necessary part of judging. Perhaps others will prove me wrong. I hope not, as I find the idea of HAVING to be a name-caller quite distasteful.

One cannot judge another without calling them a name either directly or indirectly. It's impossible.

Chileice
April 28th, 2005, 05:16 PM
He said, "They are small." He called them small. He called them a name.

Maybe as a person who says you must name-call, you took it as such. There is very little I can do about that. I would not be able to communicate at all without possibly offending you. All I can say is that it is not my intention. What you perceive is beyond my ability to control.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:17 PM
I'm the one who's the time waster....and I am wasting my time and my "breath".
I'm tired of dealing with you people!
:wave2:

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 05:19 PM
He said, "They are small." He called them small. He called them a name.

Yes, he labled them, but that is different than being malicious. On the same token, you could say that calling someone blonde, because they are in fact blonde, is calling them a name.

Emo
April 28th, 2005, 05:21 PM
The truth hurts.

A homo should be called a faggot or vice-versa.

An alcoholic should be called a drunkard or vice-versa.

A killer should be called a murderer or vice-versa.

A liar should be called a liar.

An idolater should be called an idolater.

An adulterer should be called an adulterer.

A fool should be called an idiot or vice-versa.

A moron should be called a dumby or vice-versa.

The list goes on.....

I wouldn't use any of these terms unless there was enough evidence to base my claim.

Let the truth be told!

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:21 PM
I'm the one who's the time waster....and I am wasting my time and my "breath".
I'm tired of dealing with you people!
:wave2:
Oh come on! The discussion just started and you're already quitting? :confused: :sigh:

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 05:25 PM
I'll carry on for her Imra, though I'm not quite sure what the two of you were discussing. Can you catch me up?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Oh come on! The discussion just started and you're already quitting? :confused: :sigh:
Sarcasm.....nice. :rolleyes:

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Sarcasm.....nice. :rolleyes:
No sarcasm. I thought you were done and I was wondering why you were leaving. Nothing malevolent.

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:30 PM
I'll carry on for her Imra, though I'm not quite sure what the two of you were discussing. Can you catch me up?
I'm not sure if she is done but basically she stated that judging or name-calling is wrong and I believe it is justified and appropriate at times.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:31 PM
No sarcasm. I thought you were done and I was wondering whyyou were leaving. Nothing malevolent.
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, *******?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, *******?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?

I know this is directed at Imra, but...

No, never
Not usually
No, never
No, but I call my friend that all the time ;)
I would say, to start with, racial slurs.

Emo
April 28th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Oh, I forgot one or two.

A jerk should be called a jerk.

A whore should be called a slut, hooker, or tramp, whatever works for you.

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, *******?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?

Of the four examples you list, only one has anything to do with the person in question's actions.

A whore is a whore. Just as a liar is a liar and a thief is a thief. Their own behavior makes them unsavory.

SOTK
April 28th, 2005, 05:38 PM
You guys are arguing semantics. Just about any word or term can be derogatory in nature. It boils down to intent. Jesus' warning of comitting adultery from the heart comes to mind. Sometimes the intent is easy to read and see and other times it is not. If Chileice says his intent was not to be mean with the word or term he used, I have to believe him, however, I agree with WA that the word Chileice used could easily be used as a derogatory remark. As I said, it boils down to intent.

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 05:41 PM
You guys are arguing semantics. Just about any word or term can be derogatory in nature. It boils down to intent. Jesus' warning of comitting adultery from the heart comes to mind. Sometimes the intent is easy to read and see and other times it is not. If Chileice says his intent was not to be mean with the word or term he used, I have to believe him, however, I agree with WA that the word Chileice used could easily be used as a derogatory remark. As I said, it boils down to intent.

That's what I've been trying to say. I don't think that Chileice had the intent of name calling. "You people" can even come across as derogatory.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Of the four examples you list, only one has anything to do with the person in question's actions.

A whore is a whore. Just as a liar is a liar and a thief is a thief. Their own behavior makes them unsavory.
Your intent is to be demeaning and hateful.
So, what does that make you?

Imrahil
April 28th, 2005, 05:48 PM
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, *******?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?
Others are already dealing with this ridiculous line of reasoning so I'd like to go back to the original question that you are still avoiding.

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Your intent is to be demeaning and hateful.
So, what does that make you?
Someone who has rightly judged that whoring is wrong.

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Someone who has rightly judged that whoring is wrong.
So you care more about being right than trying to reach a lost person with the gospel?

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 05:51 PM
What makes you think that being tolerant of wicked behavior brings people to Christ?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 05:56 PM
What makes you think that being tolerant of wicked behavior brings people to Christ?
How is treating a person with respect interpreted as being tolerant?

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 05:58 PM
If you respect a person who is clearly doing wrong, then you confer acceptability on that action. Why do you think that Paul told us to not even eat with the sexually immoral and to toss them out of the church assembly?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 06:00 PM
If you respect a person who is clearly doing wrong, then you confer acceptability on that action. Why do you think that Paul told us to not even eat with the sexually immoral and to toss them out of the church assembly?
I didn't say to respect what the person does, but to respect them as a person. Even Jesus treated the woman at the well with dignity and respect and yet told her the truth in love.

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Yup. He pointed out to her that her "husbands" weren't her "husbands."

Did Jesus do the same for the Pharasees?

No. When someone clings to their evil behavior and tries to make that behavior seem acceptable, then is the time to call names. It is quite appropriate in that situation. IIRC, the woman at the well and the woman in the "cast the first stone" incident did not try to justify their behavior.

My reaction to a woman who is a whore and trying to change would be quite different than my reaction to a woman who is a whore and shows no shame in her game.

Lovejoy
April 28th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, *******?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?
You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:09 PM
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill!

The mole hill wouldn't have turned into a mountain if no one had responded to my original post, right?

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 06:09 PM
You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.
I can agree with that! :thumb:

Agape4Robin
April 28th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Welcome back WA....was dinner good?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Maybe as a person who says you must name-call, you took it as such. There is very little I can do about that. I would not be able to communicate at all without possibly offending you. All I can say is that it is not my intention. What you perceive is beyond my ability to control.

It has nothing to do with being offended or not being offended. Whether I'm a name caller or not, you called name callers a name. You called them "small" at the same time as you were proclaiming that name calling is wrong.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Yes, he labled them, but that is different than being malicious. On the same token, you could say that calling someone blonde, because they are in fact blonde, is calling them a name.

He may not have meant to be malicious, but derogatory, yes. I don't see how that can be denied.

BillyBob
April 28th, 2005, 06:15 PM
I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.

Ninjashadow
April 28th, 2005, 06:16 PM
I think he was just using it as an antonym for "noble."

Lovejoy
April 28th, 2005, 06:18 PM
I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.
It does seem to stall productive conversation! But hey, if the conversation was boring anyway...

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Welcome back WA....was dinner good?

I don't know. I forgot what it was! (Inside joke.) Anyway, yes, thank you, it was. My wife made her world-famous goulash.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Yup. He pointed out to her that her "husbands" weren't her "husbands."

Did Jesus do the same for the Pharasees?

No. When someone clings to their evil behavior and tries to make that behavior seem acceptable, then is the time to call names. It is quite appropriate in that situation. IIRC, the woman at the well and the woman in the "cast the first stone" incident did not try to justify their behavior.

My reaction to a woman who is a whore and trying to change would be quite different than my reaction to a woman who is a whore and shows no shame in her game.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crow again.
:sozo2:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:24 PM
I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.

:chuckle:

julie21
April 28th, 2005, 06:51 PM
What round is this thread up to...:think: 3 or 5 I believe, and so it will continue. Watching from outside the ring, it seems as though this could indeed go on like a fight in a school yard, with each main players supporters not really adding on to that which has already been said.."he said...she said..but he said....but she said" etc, and just going around and around and around in a huge circle...ad infinitum. It's unbelievable really. A stand-off situation as I see it...but then I could very well be wrong, so keep it going...what the heck...who's got anything better to do?

Chileice
April 28th, 2005, 06:54 PM
You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.

I guess this is true. If you want to paint fine lines, I guess I was name calling. In a sense I was saying that those who behave in an intentionally derogatory manner are using less of their abilities to be civil and using less communication skills than those who don't. If one takes that personally, I guess they would consider it "name-calling" even though it was just meant to be descriptive. I used the word "small" on purpose but not with the purpose WA took it to mean. I used it, as I have said, as an opposite to noble. This whole thread points out how amazingly entwined we can get over the use of language. I have written tons of posts and most of them were far longer than the simple statement I made. I never even saw any initial response to it on the original thread. Who would have thought that the turn of one word "small" could have generated such interest?

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Because you stated in a post that name calling was wrong and you name called in that very post. Simple as that.

Lovejoy
April 28th, 2005, 06:59 PM
I guess this is true. If you want to paint fine lines, I guess I was name calling. In a sense I was saying that those who behave in an intentionally derogatory manner are using less of their abilities to be civil and using less communication skills than those who don't. If one takes that personally, I guess they would consider it "name-calling" even though it was just meant to be descriptive. I used the word "small" on purpose but not with the purpose WA took it to mean. I used it, as I have said, as an opposite to noble. This whole thread points out how amazingly entwined we can get over the use of language. I have written tons of posts and most of them were far longer than the simple statement I made. I never even saw any initial response to it on the original thread. Who would have thought that the turn of one word "small" could have generated such interest?
If I had to sum your single statement up, it would be "do not follow these people (meaning those who name call just to be hurtful)." Nothing wrong with that, as it is your opinion on the matter. BTW, almost all of my POTD's have been for single sentence posts. People actually read those. :chuckle:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 06:59 PM
What round is this thread up to...:think: 3 or 5 I believe, and so it will continue. Watching from outside the ring, it seems as though this could indeed go on like a fight in a school yard, with each main players supporters not really adding on to that which has already been said.."he said...she said..but he said....but she said" etc, and just going around and around and around in a huge circle...ad infinitum. It's unbelievable really. A stand-off situation as I see it...but then I could very well be wrong, so keep it going...what the heck...who's got anything better to do?

You've posted 2,406 times and you just observed that happening at TOL? :chuckle:

BillyBob
April 28th, 2005, 07:19 PM
I have more to add but Crow already warned me once tonight....:noid:

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Yup. Y'all were getting rather descriptive there.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 07:21 PM
I have more to add but Crow already warned me once tonight....:noid:

Me too. I'd like to know how many warnings from Crow exist with both you and me mentioned in the same post. :chuckle:

Crow
April 28th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Oh, more than one.

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 07:26 PM
You always have enjoyed going out on a limb like that, haven't you. :chuckle:

BillyBob
April 28th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Yup. Y'all were getting rather descriptive there.

'Freddy Mercury' ?????? :confused:


I thought that one was one of the funniest. :chuckle:


[I'll refrain from listing the others I thought were particularly humorous....] :angel:

wholearmor
April 28th, 2005, 09:16 PM
'Freddy Mercury' ?????? :confused:


I thought that one was one of the funniest. :chuckle:


[I'll refrain from listing the others I thought were particularly humorous....] :angel:

Are you drunk enough to overcome your common sense yet? :cheers: :chuckle:

Lighthouse
April 28th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Name calling is the biggest waste of time and does nothing to open the heart of the person that you are talking to. :nono:
I kept myself from calling a friedn a slut once, because she was being one, but all I did was tell her she needed to dump her boyfriend because she knew that the things they were doing was wrong. She felt I was calling her a slut anyway. I might as well have the way she reacted. So why not go ahead?

Lighthouse
April 28th, 2005, 09:40 PM
So, you have the mind of Christ? His judgements were righteous and divine, (are yours?) that is why he warns us not to judge. When you call someone a name, you make a judgement about them that is meant to demean and be derogatory.

You can't convince me that it is ok......or even Chris-like. :nono:
Have I done it? Yes, but it's still not right!
Jesus never told us not to judge. He told us not to be hypocrites about it. And to judge righteously, as He did [and does].

Jesus basically called one woman a slut. He called the Pharisees many things. He called Peter Satan, once. What's not Christ-like about it?

Lighthouse
April 28th, 2005, 09:58 PM
Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
It is okay to call the wicked wicked.


Do you call black people, *******?
No. They were born black.:duh: It's not wrong to be born black.


Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
If they're not gettin' paid, then I call them a slut.


Do you call Jews, kikes?
No. They were born Jewish.:duh: It's not wrong to be born a Jew.


Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?
No. It's not his fault he was born out of wedlock. If you want to insult someone with that term then use it towards the parents who have the bastard child.


Where does the line get drawn?
Judge and mock the wicked, for their wickedness. Judge the panty-waist Christians for reperesentign Christ as a pansy, when He was the furthest thing from that. Then draw the line.

Caille
April 29th, 2005, 07:55 AM
Oh, I forgot one or two.

A jerk should be called a jerk.

A whore should be called a slut, hooker, or tramp, whatever works for you.





OK - you're a jerk

Caille
April 29th, 2005, 08:04 AM
It has nothing to do with being offended or not being offended. Whether I'm a name caller or not, you called name callers a name. You called them "small" at the same time as you were proclaiming that name calling is wrong.




Worse than that WA - he called them (gasp) "name callers"

Chileice
April 29th, 2005, 08:36 AM
Worse than that WA - he called them (gasp) "name callers"

The funniest thing of all is that I had no idea who I was "name-calling". I read the thread before there had been any replies and thought about saying something right then. But I thought, "Maybe this thread will just die out", it sounded so ridiculous. But later when I saw it was already on page seven, I clicked directly from "New Posts" to the end of page seven. The only person that even knew had posted to the site was beanieboy. I posted a one-line post. Looked at it once more before WA had posted his anser to my post and never even looked at that thread again until I discovered thios thread. So I certainly had NO individuals in mind when I supposedly "name-called" them.

Lovejoy
April 29th, 2005, 05:24 PM
The funniest thing of all is that I had no idea who I was "name-calling". I read the thread before there had been any replies and thought about saying something right then. But I thought, "Maybe this thread will just die out", it sounded so ridiculous. But later when I saw it was already on page seven, I clicked directly from "New Posts" to the end of page seven. The only person that even knew had posted to the site was beanieboy. I posted a one-line post. Looked at it once more before WA had posted his anser to my post and never even looked at that thread again until I discovered thios thread. So I certainly had NO individuals in mind when I supposedly "name-called" them.
C'mon, everybody knows you were talking about me, the most infamous name caller of them all!

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 09:43 PM
It is okay to call the wicked wicked.


No. They were born black.:duh: It's not wrong to be born black.


If they're not gettin' paid, then I call them a slut.


No. They were born Jewish.:duh: It's not wrong to be born a Jew.


No. It's not his fault he was born out of wedlock. If you want to insult someone with that term then use it towards the parents who have the bastard child.


Judge and mock the wicked, for their wickedness. Judge the panty-waist Christians for reperesentign Christ as a pansy, when He was the furthest thing from that. Then draw the line.
Last I heard, it was God's job to judge.......did He give you special instructions?

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 09:47 PM
Jesus never told us not to judge. He told us not to be hypocrites about it. And to judge righteously, as He did [and does].

Jesus basically called one woman a slut. He called the Pharisees many things. He called Peter Satan, once. What's not Christ-like about it?
Your exegisis leaves much to be desired.

You should pray for wisdom about this matter.

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 10:10 PM
Last I heard, it was God's job to judge.......did He give you special instructions?
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye."

-Matthew 7:1-5


"Judge not according to teh appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

-John 7:24

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 10:13 PM
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye."

-Matthew 7:1-5


"Judge not according to teh appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

-John 7:24



This is talking about spiritual discernment, not giving us a license to judge another's life.
Only God sees the intentions of the heart!
Can you? :rolleyes:

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 10:18 PM
Your exegisis leaves much to be desired.
How so? Would you care to show me how I am wrong?

You know, you aren't a very good TruthSmacker. You might want to consider changing your signature...:think:

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 10:22 PM
This is talking about spiritual discernment, not giving us a license to judge another's life.
Only God sees the intentions of the heart!
Can you? :rolleyes:
Balderdash!

I know that out of the heart the mouth speaks. People show the intentions of the heart by what they say.

I used to say some of the same things you do, when I didn't want to be judged for the things I did, that I should not have been doing. Are you afraid of being judged?

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Lighthouse said:

How so? Would you care to show me how I am wrong?

I did.


You know, you aren't a very good TruthSmacker. You might want to consider changing your signature...:think:
Ooooohhhhhhh..................I'm sooooo concerned about your opinion of me........ :rolleyes:

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Balderdash!

I know that out of the heart the mouth speaks. People show the intentions of the heart by what they say.

I used to say some of the same things you do, when I didn't want to be judged for the things I did, that I should not have been doing. Are you afraid of being judged?
By you? :chuckle:
Certainly not, but feel free .........if you think you can. :rolleyes:

Poly
April 29th, 2005, 10:27 PM
This is talking about spiritual discernment, not giving us a license to judge another's life.


When God tells us to judge, He's certainly not telling us to judge whether or not the weather's nice. He tells us to judge people's lives. You make a judgment concerning them spiritually and then He gives you directions on how to act depending upon what judgment you make. (Where's Knights "Judging for dummies" signature when you need it. :doh: )


Proverbs 24:25
...but to them that rebuke him shall be delight and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Proverbs 27:5
...Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.

Luke 7:43
Thou has judged rightly.

Luke 12:57
Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

1 Corinthians 6:3
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more the things that pertain to this life?

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 10:46 PM
When God tells us to judge, He's certainly not telling us to judge whether or not the weather's nice. He tells us to judge people's lives. You make a judgment concerning them spiritually and then He gives you directions on how to act depending upon what judgment you make. (Where's Knights "Judging for dummies" signature when you need it. :doh: )


Proverbs 24:25
...but to them that rebuke him shall be delight and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Proverbs 27:5
...Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.

Luke 7:43
Thou has judged rightly.

Luke 12:57
Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

1 Corinthians 6:3
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more the things that pertain to this life?

Luke 7:43 is a dialogue between Jesus and Simon. Jesus asked Simon which of the two debtors He described would love the money lender more. And Simon "answered" correctly. He discerned the truth of the parable. Meanwhile, there was the woman who was kneeling at the feet of Jesus weeping and wiping Jesus's feet with her hair. She was labeled as a sinner by the Pharisee, but did Jesus rebuke her? Did he call her a whore? No, He showed her compassion.

Luke12:57 is Jesus's teaching the disciples about the interpretation of the times. In particular, He was talking about being reconciled with your enemy.
Hhhmmm...... :think:

1Cor.6:3 is Paul telling the corinthian church to handle disputes among themselves instead of going to court. This was a problem and was setting a bad example to those who were watching how they as christians were behaving.


Sounds to me like you like to use scripture by your concordance with out actually reading it in context.

Poly
April 29th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Luke 7:43 is a dialogue between Jesus and Simon. Jesus asked Simon which of the two debtors He described would love the money lender more. And Simon "answered" correctly. He discerned the truth of the parable. Meanwhile, there was the woman who was kneeling at the feet of Jesus weeping and wiping Jesus's feet with her hair. She was labeled as a sinner by the Pharisee, but did Jesus rebuke her? Did he call her a whore? No, He showed her compassion.

Luke12:57 is Jesus's teaching the disciples about the interpretation of the times. In particular, He was talking about being reconciled with your enemy.
Hhhmmm...... :think:

1Cor.6:3 is Paul telling the corinthian church to handle disputes among themselves instead of going to court. This was a problem and was setting a bad example to those who were watching how they as christians were behaving.


Sounds to me like you like to use scripture by your concordance with out actually reading it in context.

And in all of the above, people's lives were being judged which is something you said we do not have a license to do. God doesn't seem to have a problem in giving His people this license as long as they judge rightly.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:00 PM
And in all of the above, a person's LIFE was being judged. Something you said we do not have a license to do. God doesn't seem to have a problem in giving His people this license as long as we judge rightly.
But in none of those cases was there any name calling.
Luke 12 was Jesus teaching.
Luke7 was a parable...presumably not a real person.

And in 1Corinthians, Paul was asked to instruct the believers in that church.

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Robin-
You're missing the point of the woman who washed Jesus' feet. She was submitting to Him. No reason to point out ot her how vile she was. She knew. And she was disgusted by herself, and wanted to be free.

Poly
April 29th, 2005, 11:10 PM
But in none of those cases was there any name calling.


Did I say there was? No. Probably because that's not what we were talking about.

I'll go real slow like for ya this time. You said...


This is talking about spiritual discernment, not giving us a license to judge another's life.


to which I responded with verses that show that God doesn't have a problem with us judging "another's life" as long as we do it in the correct way.

If we were talking about name calling, I would have listed verses where Jesus called people names but instead, I listed verses concerning judging since that's what we're talking about here at the moment and I like to stay on topic.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:16 PM
Robin-
You're missing the point of the woman who washed Jesus' feet. She was submitting to Him. No reason to point out ot her how vile she was. She knew. And she was disgusted by herself, and wanted to be free.
But the pharisee did point it out. Jesus could have judged her for her sin, but because of her repentance He forgave her. I didn't bring out that scripture, Poly did. She said we have the right to judge other people's very lives. There is a fine line between judging a person for what they do, or wether or not you as a christian should continue to hang out with them. However,actions are not always what defines a person. You cannot look into their heart and judge what makes a person tick. To call names is childish and serves no good purpose, and you can't convince me otherwise.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:18 PM
Did I say there was? No. Probably because that's not what we were talking about.

I'll go real slow like for ya this time. You said...



to which I responded with verses that show that God doesn't have a problem with us judging "another's life" as long as we do it in the correct way.

If we were talking about name calling, I would have listed verses where Jesus called people names but instead, I listed verses concerning judging since that's what we're talking about here at the moment and I like to stay on topic.
You are the one who is off topic, dear heart. Read the name of the thread....
I am an anti-name calling "folk", but you seem to think that in calling names, it's really judging a person, so it's ok.
That is what I dispute.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:21 PM
Sheesh..... :doh:
And I'm the southern baptist! :thumb:

Poly
April 29th, 2005, 11:28 PM
You are the one who is off topic, dear heart. Read the name of the thread....
I am an anti-name calling "folk", but you seem to think that in calling names, it's really judging a person, so it's ok.
That is what I dispute.

You cannot be this dense, really.

Did you realize around here that a topic could get started and then trails of other topics tend to form?

Yes, the initial topic is about name calling. But I responded to one post where you made a false statement about judging. Yes, those verses say nothing about name calling. I never said they did. Why would I since that's not what we were talking about at the moment? They do speak of judging which is what I was responding to because THAT is what we were talking about at the moment.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:34 PM
You cannot be this dense, really.

Did you realize around here that a topic could get started and then trails of other topics tend to form?

Yes, the initial topic is about name calling. But I responded to one post where you made a false statement about judging. Yes, those verses say nothing about name calling. I never said they did. Why would I since that's not what we were talking about at the moment? They do speak of judging which is what I was responding to because THAT is what we were talking about at the moment.
And I refute your claims that the scriptures you quoted were not about judging a person. They were instruction.

Don't be so condescending to me. I have treated you with respect and I expect the same from you. We obviously disagree....fine. But to resort to sarcasm and a condescending attitude toward a sister in Christ is just plain rude.

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 11:38 PM
But the pharisee did point it out.
And he had no room to, because she was submitting to the Lord!


Jesus could have judged her for her sin, but because of her repentance He forgave her.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! She was repentant! Do you understand that? And the difference between the repentant and unrepentant?


I didn't bring out that scripture, Poly did.
:noway:Really? She did?:rolleyes:

I can read, Robin. I was confronting your missing out on what happened in that instance.


She said we have the right to judge other people's very lives.
She is in complete agreement with Jesus.


There is a fine line between judging a person for what they do, or wether or not you as a christian should continue to hang out with them.
How can you judge whether or not you should hang out with them, if you don't even judge what they are doing?


However,actions are not always what defines a person.
How are they not? Actions speak louder than words.


You cannot look into their heart and judge what makes a person tick.
They reveal their hearts when they speak, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."


To call names is childish and serves no good purpose, and you can't convince me otherwise.
Stubborness is childish. And you are very stubborn.

And I'd really like to see you tell Jesus He was being stubborn for calling the Pharisees vipers, and whitened sepulchres...

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2005, 11:43 PM
And I refute your claims that the scriptures you quoted were not about judging a person. They were instruction.

Don't be so condescending to me. I have treated you with respect and I expect the same from you. We obviously disagree....fine. But to resort to sarcasm and a condescending attitude toward a sister in Christ is just plain rude.
:baby:

I can just picture Stephanie Tanner; "How rude.":rolleyes:

Poly
April 29th, 2005, 11:47 PM
And I refute your claims that the scriptures you quoted were not about judging a person. They were instruction.
:darwinsm:





Don't be so condescending to me. I have treated you with respect and I expect the same from you. We obviously disagree....fine. But to resort to sarcasm and a condescending attitude toward a sister in Christ is just plain rude.

I guess this just slipped your mind. :rolleyes:


So if I called you a self righteous bit**, that would be ok?

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:51 PM
[QUOTE=lighthouse]And he had no room to, because she was submitting to the Lord!


DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! She was repentant! Do you understand that? And the difference between the repentant and unrepentant?
Do you know the differnce between telling the truth in love and just being rude, disrespectful and condescending?




She is in complete agreement with Jesus.
:rolleyes:


How can you judge whether or not you should hang out with them, if you don't even judge what they are doing?
If you look at the people that Jesus "hung out" with, they were not all sinless folks.


How are they not? Actions speak louder than words.
So, you are defined by every mistake you have made?



Stubborness is childish. And you are very stubborn.
Because I won't use derogatory words when talking to a homosexual or a prostitute?..(just for example.)


And I'd really like to see you tell Jesus He was being stubborn for calling the Pharisees vipers, and whitened sepulchres...Don't you worry about what I will have to account to Jesus for. You have your own explaining to do.

Agape4Robin
April 29th, 2005, 11:55 PM
:darwinsm:



I guess this just slipped your mind.
That was a question. I did not call you a self righteous bi***.

Poly
April 30th, 2005, 12:10 AM
That was a question.
So??

You could have made your point with a more respectful question yet you chose one that was very sarcastic and condescending so don't give me your baloney about how you've treated me with respect.

Lighthouse
April 30th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Do you know the differnce between telling the truth in love and just being rude, disrespectful and condescending?
Do you know the difference between love and sugar coating the truth?




:rolleyes:
Can you show otherwise?


If you look at the people that Jesus "hung out" with, they were not all sinless folks.
:duh:

And they all came to repentance, didn't they? And Pauls still wrote that we should not even eat with those who claim to be Christians but are living is willful disobedience.


So, you are defined by every mistake you have made?
When a man sleeps with a man, that is not a mistake. When a man and a woman commit adultery, it's not a mistake.



Because I won't use derogatory words when talking to a homosexual or a prostitute?..(just for example.)
Because you're convinced you're right, and aren't even willing to find out if you are or not. you're stubborn.

And a faggot is a faggot, just like a whore is a whore.


Don't you worry about what I will have to account to Jesus for. You have your own explaining to do.
See. You're afraid of being judged. Sounds like you're hiding something.:think:

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 12:13 AM
So??

You could have made your point with a more respectful question yet you chose one that was very sarcastic and condescending so don't give me your baloney about how you've treated me with respect.
Gee....didn't mean to cut straight to your heart......




Oh, wait........yes I did.

Poly
April 30th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Gee....didn't mean to cut straight to your heart......




Oh, wait........yes I did.

At least you see that this



I have treated you with respect.

is false.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 12:20 AM
[QUOTE=lighthouse]Do you know the difference between love and sugar coating the truth?
How have I sugar coated the truth?






:duh:

And they all came to repentance, didn't they? And Pauls still wrote that we should not even eat with those who claim to be Christians but are living is willful disobedience.

So I won't be having supper at your house?

When a man sleeps with a man, that is not a mistake. When a man and a woman commit adultery, it's not a mistake.
It's not?



Because you're convinced you're right, and aren't even willing to find out if you are or not. you're stubborn.
And you're not convinced that you are right?


And a faggot is a faggot, just like a whore is a whore.
:baby:


See. You're afraid of being judged. Sounds like you're hiding something.:think:
Judged by you? No......
Hiding something? Nothing is hidden from God. And when I am called to give an account for my life, I bet you don't even come up in the conversation.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 12:22 AM
At least you see that this



is false.
Your interpretation....just like your interpretation of scripture....

Lighthouse
April 30th, 2005, 12:31 AM
How have I sugar coated the truth?
You aren't honest. You hide the truth, because you think it's more loving. And you obviously hide the truth in your own life.







So I won't be having supper at your house?
Are you living in willful disobedience to the Lord?:think:


It's not?
No. They didn't accidentally get naked, and get in bed with each other.:rolleyes:



And you're not convinced that you are right?
I'm convinced that God is right.

However, you are the one who said, "...and you can't convince me otherwise."


:baby:
Do you think I was whining?



Judged by you? No......
Hiding something? Nothing is hidden from God. And when I am called to give an account for my life, I bet you don't even come up in the conversation.
Well, I think we're getting ot the source of why you don't judge others. You won't even judge yourself.:nono:

Poly
April 30th, 2005, 12:34 AM
Your interpretation....just like your interpretation of scripture....

:yawn:


You're simply not worth the trouble anymore.
Besides, it's sometimes more fun to sit back and watch people hang themselves with their own words.

SOTK
April 30th, 2005, 01:02 AM
Robin,

Can you think of a situation where name calling would ever be appropriate? Or is it your stance that name calling is inappropriate, period?

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:12 AM
Robin,

Can you think of a situation where name calling would ever be appropriate? Or is it your stance that name calling is inappropriate, period?
I think there is a difference between being defamatory and beligerent (which Jesus never was) and saying the truth in love.
Jesus made right judgements about some people, but I think that He, being God is able to do so with out error.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:12 AM
:yawn:


You're simply not worth the trouble anymore.
Besides, it's sometimes more fun to sit back and watch people hang themselves with their own words.
Spoken like a true ............christian?

Frank Ernest
April 30th, 2005, 07:20 AM
I think there is a difference between being defamatory and beligerent (which Jesus never was) and saying the truth in love.
Seems I remember this little incident with Jesus and some money-changers in a temple.


Jesus made right judgements about some people, but I think that He, being God is able to do so with out error.
OH! That's the difference! Now, if Jesus had called someone a faggot, that would be ok.

I understand! When Jesus called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers" and children of the devil, he was just being judgmental without error, saying the truth in love.

Got it! :darwinsm:

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:24 AM
[QUOTE=lighthouse]You aren't honest. You hide the truth, because you think it's more loving. And you obviously hide the truth in your own life.

You know nothing about my life, so don't pretend you do based on a few posts.






Are you living in willful disobedience to the Lord?:think:
Nope........


No. They didn't accidentally get naked, and get in bed with each other.:rolleyes:
On that I agree, but it's still a mistake. We are all tempted and led astray.



I'm convinced that God is right.
That's because you treat God as though you know the heart and mind of God. I look for the meaning of the words used by the writers of the bible and follow the context of what is actually being said, not simply what I think it means based on my own interpretation. I pray for wisdom before I read those words. I don't have my own agenda when reading scripture. I look for the meat, not just the milk.



Do you think I was whining?
No, just childish.



Well, I think we're getting ot the source of why you don't judge others. You won't even judge yourself.:nono:
God is my Judge. Because the heart is most decietful and He knows my heart better than even I do.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Seems I remember this little incident with Jesus and some money-changers in a temple.

OH! That's the difference! Now, if Jesus had called someone a faggot, that would be ok.

I understand! When Jesus called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers" and children of the devil, he was just being judgmental without error, saying the truth in love.

Got it! :darwinsm:
What is your point? :yawn:

Nineveh
April 30th, 2005, 07:37 AM
I think the point is accuracy in judgement.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:39 AM
I think the point is accuracy in judgement.
Jesus was Holy and Inerrant in His judgements......are you?

Nineveh
April 30th, 2005, 07:40 AM
When you find me to be in error, as a Christian brother, I would expect correction.

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:41 AM
When you find me to be in error, as a Christian brother, I would expect correction.
On this we agree, but I am a sister......just so you know.

Nineveh
April 30th, 2005, 07:56 AM
So am I, so why split hairs?

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 08:08 AM
So am I, so why split hairs?
Didn't I say that I agreed with you? :doh:

Nineveh
April 30th, 2005, 08:13 AM
I don't usually make allowences for gender when I speak about being a "brother" in Christ, it's silly :)

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 08:17 AM
I don't usually make allowences for gender when I speak about being a "brother" in Christ, it's silly :)
Ummmmmm.....ok...............

Lighthouse
April 30th, 2005, 07:52 PM
You know nothing about my life, so don't pretend you do based on a few posts.
I don't have to pretend anything. You portray yourself as bitter towards those who would judge.






Nope........
Then why the remark about not eating with me?


On that I agree, but it's still a mistake. We are all tempted and led astray.
I don't like to use the term mistake, because it makes it sound like an accident, and it is certainly not an accident.

And it is most certainly wrong.



That's because you treat God as though you know the heart and mind of God. I look for the meaning of the words used by the writers of the bible and follow the context of what is actually being said, not simply what I think it means based on my own interpretation. I pray for wisdom before I read those words. I don't have my own agenda when reading scripture. I look for the meat, not just the milk.
I am a new creation, having been transformed by the renewing of my mind, so that I have the mind of Christ. I leave myself open to the Spirit, and He leads me into the truth. And shows me when I am in error. I got past the milk of the word when I started questioning doctrines, and sought God out for myself.



No, just childish.
How so?



God is my Judge. Because the heart is most decietful and He knows my heart better than even I do.
Do you think that would go over well in a court of law? Would you have told Solomon that you didn't trust him to make a judgment? Even though God gave him the wisdom for such...

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I don't have to pretend anything. You portray yourself as bitter towards those who would judge.






Then why the remark about not eating with me?


I don't like to use the term mistake, because it makes it sound like an accident, and it is certainly not an accident.

And it is most certainly wrong.



I am a new creation, having been transformed by the renewing of my mind, so that I have the mind of Christ. I leave myself open to the Spirit, and He leads me into the truth. And shows me when I am in error. I got past the milk of the word when I started questioning doctrines, and sought God out for myself.







Do you think that would go over well in a court of law? Would you have told Solomon that you didn't trust him to make a judgment? Even though God gave him the wisdom for such...
Hello again :Brandon:

Me? Bitter? YOu are the one justifying that it is ok to use name calling as a means of outreach....

So, when is dinner?

As have I.......

Didn't realize I was on trial here..........

BillyBob
April 30th, 2005, 08:02 PM
Is Beanieboy a faggot in this thread or just the other one?

Agape4Robin
April 30th, 2005, 08:04 PM
Is Beanieboy a faggot in this thread or just the other one?
Just name clling in general.

Frank Ernest
May 1st, 2005, 04:15 AM
Is Beanieboy a faggot in this thread or just the other one?
Switch-hitter?

Frank Ernest
May 1st, 2005, 04:18 AM
Hello again :Brandon:

Me? Bitter? YOu are the one justifying that it is ok to use name calling as a means of outreach....
Matthew 3:7-8 - Example of name-calling as a means of outreach.

julie21
May 1st, 2005, 04:39 AM
Matthew 3:7-8 - Example of name-calling as a means of outreach.
...but in all honesty Frank [ and respectfully too, I might add], that particular form of outreach, 'name-calling' used by John the Baptist and directed at the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't quite work, did it?
In fact, wasn't it this same group of people that gave Him up to the barbaric Romans for crucifixion?
Don't you think it could very well have fanned the flames of hatred towards not just John, but in the end, the Christ Jesus?

Frank Ernest
May 1st, 2005, 04:53 AM
...but in all honesty Frank [ and respectfully too, I might add], that particular form of outreach used by John the Baptist and directed at the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't quite work, did it?
In fact, wasn't it this same group of people that gave Him up to the barbaric Romans for crucifixion?
Hey! Somedays you're the bug and somedays you're the windshield (that would be windscreen where you are).

The other part is the Pharisees didn't give Him up to the Romans. They couldn't execute Jesus without Procurator permission. Pilate chose to be complicit in order to avoid some local nastiness. Even so I would suggest to you that the name-calling, such as it was, certainly got their attention. If one is going to advance an argument, one must get the attention of the potential listener, especially if that listener is powerful and entrenched. The Pharisees chose to remain powerful and entrenched.

As an exercise, why not paraphrase the words of John the Baptist in a nice non-name-calling way that would have gotten the desired result? Let me know what you come up with.

julie21
May 1st, 2005, 06:06 AM
Okay Frank..
yes the name calling did get their attention...but looking at John's statement in verse 8 of that passage, did they , the Pharisees and Sadducees repent and go on to bear 'good' fruit, or did they ignore John the Baptist's name calling? I concede that I was in error in part re their handing Jesus up to the Romans. They were [ the chief priests and teachers of the law, as stated in Luke 23 ] however just as complicit in their actions in taking Him to Pilate as if they had put Him on the cross themselves.

I don't believe that you could paraphrase the name calling used by John the Baptist in such a way as to have the effect that would have been desirous, for it is evident from the Bible, that the hearts of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were not to be swayed.
The thing is, that we are not privy to the contents of another man's heart, so our name calling may have exactly th same result as John's did with that particular group. It is interesting though that Jesus didn't name call Nicodemus in His ministry, and look at the fruit that supposedly was borne from that 'loving' approach .

Lighthouse
May 1st, 2005, 08:34 AM
Nicodemus came to Jesus, in submission. Jesus had no reason to call him any names, Julie.:rolleyes:

Caille
May 1st, 2005, 09:22 AM
Nicodemus came to Jesus, in submission. Jesus had no reason to call him any names, Julie.:rolleyes:



Did he come to him without sin ?

Turbo
May 1st, 2005, 10:50 AM
Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. Matthew 15:15-16Come on, Jesus, was that really necessary?

Agape4Robin
May 1st, 2005, 12:00 PM
Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. Matthew 15:15-16Come on, Jesus, was that really necessary?
Again, that is Jesus.....God......He was privy to the hearts and minds of men.

We are not! :nono:

The Edge
May 1st, 2005, 12:19 PM
So what's your point?

Agape4Robin
May 1st, 2005, 12:21 PM
So what's your point?
Me?

Turbo
May 1st, 2005, 12:21 PM
Again, that is Jesus.....God......He was privy to the hearts and minds of men.

We are not! :nono:(I will remind you that Paul wrote that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) and that Jesus and Paul encouraged believers to judge rightly. So apparently it can be done.)


OK, so do you agree that it's OK to call someone a name so long as the judgment is right? If I understand you correctly, that is what you are saying.


For instance, twice the Psalmist wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (14:, 53:1)

Some people openly state that they believe there is no God.

Is it OK to openly call such a people fools? Or is it wrong?

Agape4Robin
May 1st, 2005, 12:28 PM
(I will remind you that Paul wrote that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) and that Jesus and Paul encouraged believers to judge rightly. So apparently it can be done.)


OK, so do you agree that it's OK to call someone a name so long as the judgment is right? If I understand you correctly, that is what you are saying.


For instance, twice the Psalmist wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (14:, 53:1)

Some people openly state that they believe there is no God.

Is it OK to openly call such a people fools? Or is it wrong?
Judgement as it pertains to assessing a situation is always the right thing to do. If you show a person in scripture what God has to say about not believing in God, then it is not you saying that they are a fool. The offense is not on you. But no where in scripture is the word faggot or slut.
Even if it did, read context, context, context!!!!

The Edge
May 1st, 2005, 12:35 PM
Me?
No.

Turbo
May 1st, 2005, 12:48 PM
Judgement as it pertains to assessing a situation is always the right thing to do. If you show a person in scripture what God has to say about not believing in God, then it is not you saying that they are a fool. The offense is not on you. Do I necessarily have to actually show them or quote the verse, or can I rightly just call atheists fools?


But no where in scripture is the word faggot or slut. So our namecalling must be strictly limited to those specifically used in the Bible?

Slut is out, but whore and whoremonger are in?

Faggot is out, but abomination, pervert, and sodomite are OK?


Is that what you're saying?

Turbo
May 1st, 2005, 12:50 PM
So what's your point?
Me?

Delmar
May 1st, 2005, 12:51 PM
Do I necessarily have to actually show them or quote the verse, or can I rightly just call atheists fools?

So our namecalling must be strictly limited to those specifically used in the Bible?

Slut is out, but whore and whoremonger are in?

Faggot is out, but abomination, pervert, and sodomite are OK?


Is that what you're saying?
I can make those adjustments.

The Edge
May 1st, 2005, 02:23 PM
Yes, by post 172.

Agape4Robin
May 1st, 2005, 02:35 PM
Do I necessarily have to actually show them or quote the verse, or can I rightly just call atheists fools?

So our namecalling must be strictly limited to those specifically used in the Bible?

Slut is out, but whore and whoremonger are in?

Faggot is out, but abomination, pervert, and sodomite are OK?


Is that what you're saying?
That is not what I'm saying at all.

How do you hope to reach any of the lost, while they are lost, when you resort to name calling and labeling them? Is your respect for others only limited to the repentant and the saved? Or do you desire to bring others into the kingdom? Does your heart break when you see the lost who are oblivious to their sin? Or are you disgusted?

It's time that we roll up our collective sleeves and get our hands dirty and harvest for Christ, but let's not have that dirt come from our own mouths. Only the Holy Spirit can prepare the heart, and you never know when you are advancing the work of the Holy Spirit or hindering it. We must not assume anything.....being loving is not the same thing as being tolerant......there is a difference.

Lighthouse
May 1st, 2005, 02:36 PM
Did he come to him without sin ?
Stupid question.

Why does it even matter? Those who come to Him in submission are treated differently than those who deny, defy, and reject Him.:duh:

Frank Ernest
May 2nd, 2005, 04:44 AM
Okay Frank..
yes the name calling did get their attention...but looking at John's statement in verse 8 of that passage, did they , the Pharisees and Sadducees repent and go on to bear 'good' fruit, or did they ignore John the Baptist's name calling? I concede that I was in error in part re their handing Jesus up to the Romans. They were [ the chief priests and teachers of the law, as stated in Luke 23 ] however just as complicit in their actions in taking Him to Pilate as if they had put Him on the cross themselves.

I don't believe that you could paraphrase the name calling used by John the Baptist in such a way as to have the effect that would have been desirous, for it is evident from the Bible, that the hearts of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were not to be swayed.
The thing is, that we are not privy to the contents of another man's heart, so our name calling may have exactly th same result as John's did with that particular group. It is interesting though that Jesus didn't name call Nicodemus in His ministry, and look at the fruit that supposedly was borne from that 'loving' approach .
Name-calling had the effect on these people of waking them up. They knew what they were, reveled in it, and continued to their own destruction with it. They did not ignore John the Baptist's name-calling. They killed him.

Before one can get another person from Point A to Point B, one must correctly identify Point A. Taking some watered-down approach to that doesn't cut it. (I do believe the modern age has developed the ideas of "intervention" and "sensitivity training" which are nothing more than group name-calling sessions.)

What needs to be understood is that the very people who are so adamantly against name-calling, use it as a weapon. The idea behind supposedly prohibiting it is to prevent someone else (the opposition) from doing it. So if someone calls me a right-wing Christian fanatic extremist, that's acceptable. If I return the favor by calling that person a filthy left-wing stupid atheist, why, that's name-calling and just can't be allowed.

Getting the picture?

Frank Ernest
May 2nd, 2005, 04:52 AM
Judgement as it pertains to assessing a situation is always the right thing to do. If you show a person in scripture what God has to say about not believing in God, then it is not you saying that they are a fool. The offense is not on you. But no where in scripture is the word faggot or slut.
Even if it did, read context, context, context!!!!
I do believe Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoitus" which is not a very nice word. (Look it up if you need to.) I do believe the word translated as "harlot" is used fairly often in God's Word.

Yes, the contexts are quite clear.

Caille
May 2nd, 2005, 07:25 AM
I do believe Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoitus" which is not a very nice word. (Look it up if you need to.) I do believe the word translated as "harlot" is used fairly often in God's Word.

Yes, the contexts are quite clear.



Depends on which concordance you're looking at. Mine has it in Greek as "gnopokibhut". :chuckle:

Caille
May 2nd, 2005, 08:14 AM
Stupid question.

Why does it even matter? Those who come to Him in submission are treated differently than those who deny, defy, and reject Him.:duh:


OK Brandon, I realize you ride the short bus, so I'll try and make it simple.

You wrote:
Jesus had no reason to call him any names, Julie.


I responded:
Did he come to him without sin ?


If he came to him with sin (unless you believe he was without sin ?) then Christ was perfectly justified in calling him names.

beanieboy
May 2nd, 2005, 03:05 PM
Do I necessarily have to actually show them or quote the verse, or can I rightly just call atheists fools?
So our namecalling must be strictly limited to those specifically used in the Bible?
Slut is out, but whore and whoremonger are in?
Faggot is out, but abomination, pervert, and sodomite are OK?
Is that what you're saying?

I think the point may be that:
It makes no sense to go from being unsaved, to being saved and then judging others as "fools" when you were that yourself once.
It makes little sense to go from putting your head down, crying for God's mercy, to then saying, "YOU are a sinner! YOU are disgusting!"

I think that you are arguing semantics, and that is not the point. The point is to approach another, realizing that you, too, have fallen short of the glory of God, and you have been shown mercy and forgiveness, and are commanded to do the same to others (even those who haven't repented). Jesus asked God to forgive his tormentors even without them asking for forgiveness.

Humility. I believe that is the point.

Agape4Robin
May 2nd, 2005, 03:12 PM
I do believe Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoitus" which is not a very nice word. (Look it up if you need to.) I do believe the word translated as "harlot" is used fairly often in God's Word.

Yes, the contexts are quite clear.
Why do you insist on going on with the idea that calling someone a faggot or a slut for that matter, is ok with you?

Do you call your friends who live together outside of marriage, or are having sex outside of marriage, fornicators? Whoremongers? Do you constanly tell them that they are going to hell if they don't get married?

How about the rest of you?

Lovejoy
May 2nd, 2005, 03:24 PM
Why do you insist on going on with the idea that calling someone a faggot or a slut for that matter, is ok with you?

Do you call your friends who live together outside of marriage, or are having sex outside of marriage, fornicators? Whoremongers? Do you constanly tell them that they are going to hell if they don't get married?

How about the rest of you?
I have never needed to, I don't believe. When I was "astray" I avoided my best friend almost completely. He was, and is, one of the most dear Christian men I have ever known. While he never verbalized a judgement against my behavior, neither did he ever live down to it or participate with it. He was able to issue conviction without ever saying a harsh word. It worked, too. I came around. All he needed was a perfectly spotless witness (try getting one of those, though). Now I try to do the same, by keeping my behavior at the standard that I see as appropriate. However, I do not let things I see as good be spoken of as evil, and vice versa. A few days ago, a lady in my class came up and told me about how her group was talking about me, and what a good man they think I am. She was amazed by it, because our little gossipy class hardly ever wastes breath on saying nice things. And all I had to do was try to live up to the standard of the One who is good, the One whom that praise truly belongs.

Agape4Robin
May 2nd, 2005, 03:37 PM
I have never needed to, I don't believe. When I was "astray" I avoided my best friend almost completely. He was, and is, one of the most dear Christian men I have ever known. While he never verbalized a judgement against my behavior, neither did he ever live down to it or participate with it. He was able to issue conviction without ever saying a harsh word. It worked, too. I came around. All he needed was a perfectly spotless witness (try getting one of those, though). Now I try to do the same, by keeping my behavior at the standard that I see as appropriate. However, I do not let things I see as good be spoken of as evil, and vice versa. A few days ago, a lady in my class came up and told me about how her group was talking about me, and what a good man they think I am. She was amazed by it, because our little gossipy class hardly ever wastes breath on saying nice things. And all I had to do was try to live up to the standard of the One who is good, the One whom that praise truly belongs.
Thank you Lovejoy, that is my point.

But it seems as though there are others on this thread who seem to think homosexuality is a more evil sin or something. What I think we miss is that to God, sin is sin and it is all detestable to Him.

When others are saying,"well I was a drunken moron and my friends told me so and I didn't like it, but boy, I straightened out my life." You are an example of what a Godly man, who lived his life for you to see, convicted you. No one needed to brow beat you and call you names. When you are in sin, and you realize it is sin, name calling will do nothing but drive a wedge between you and coming to Christ. No one likes to be on the defensive.
Let's leave the judging to God.

Lighthouse
May 2nd, 2005, 10:03 PM
If he came to him with sin (unless you believe he was without sin ?) then Christ was perfectly justified in calling him names.
1] He came to Him with sin.
2] He was repentant.
3] Christ is justified in all He does, because He never does anything unjustified.
4] It would have been unjustified to call a repentant person a name, because there is no reason to point out the sins of one who knows their sins, and that they are in need of a Savior.
5] The only one I know who points out the sins of those who knopw their sisn is the accuser, the adversary, Satan himself.

Lighthouse
May 2nd, 2005, 10:08 PM
Why do you insist on going on with the idea that calling someone a faggot or a slut for that matter, is ok with you?

Do you call your friends who live together outside of marriage, or are having sex outside of marriage, fornicators? Whoremongers? Do you constanly tell them that they are going to hell if they don't get married?

How about the rest of you?
Well, I'm going to, if he quits coming over with his girlfriend. Mainly because she's not a Christian, and what I have to say to him deals with being a Christia, so it would make no sense to her. Not at this point anyway.

I also noticed that if I talk about the wrongs I've done, some people will feel convicted, because I'm talking about changing my life, and they feel worse about their sin. It's odd. But, whatever works...

Lighthouse
May 2nd, 2005, 10:22 PM
Thank you Lovejoy, that is my point.

But it seems as though there are others on this thread who seem to think homosexuality is a more evil sin or something. What I think we miss is that to God, sin is sin and it is all detestable to Him.
It's more detestable to have homosexual sex, than to steal. Murder is worse than lying, isn't it?

Homosexuality is an abomination. And goes against every edict of God on sexual relationships. Sexual immorality in general is considered the sin to be most avoided, in the Bible. For it is more than a sin against God, and more than a sin against others. It is a sin against one's own body.


When others are saying,"well I was a drunken moron and my friends told me so and I didn't like it, but boy, I straightened out my life." You are an example of what a Godly man, who lived his life for you to see, convicted you. No one needed to brow beat you and call you names. When you are in sin, and you realize it is sin, name calling will do nothing but drive a wedge between you and coming to Christ. No one likes to be on the defensive.
So what if no one likes to be on the defensive? There are a lot of things people don't like. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Kids don't like getting spanked. But it's very corrective, which is great.

I have a friend who I talked to a few weeks ago, and got into how I wanted to change my life, and she was talking about how she wanted to change as well. So I suggested some things she should do. And I told her it would be hypocritical to do half of it, an not the other half. She told me I was just making her feel like a worse sinner, and to leave her alone. I didn't call her a slut, but she acted as if I had. So, seeing as how I get the same reaction either way, why not be blatantly honest?


Let's leave the judging to God.
No. Because God doesn't leave it to Himself. He told us to judge righteously.

Caille
May 3rd, 2005, 07:44 AM
1] He came to Him with sin.
2] He was repentant.
3] Christ is justified in all He does, because He never does anything unjustified.

:crackup: :crackup:

Brandon, maybe you should just stick to comic books.



4] It would have been unjustified to call a repentant person a name, because there is no reason to point out the sins of one who knows their sins, and that they are in need of a Savior.

Did he seek him out and upbraid him before he came to him repentant ?




5] The only one I know who points out the sins of those who knopw their sisn is the accuser, the adversary, Satan himself.



Again, Brandon, maybe you should stick to comic books.

Lighthouse
May 3rd, 2005, 08:15 AM
:crackup: :crackup:

Brandon, maybe you should just stick to comic books.
Why? What is wrong with what I said about Christ? Do you think He ever did anythign that was unjustified? Or are you resorting to insults, in an effort to draw attention away from the fact that you are losing this debate?




Did he seek him out and upbraid him before he came to him repentant ?
Who are we talking about, again? One of the Pharisees, was it. If so, then the answer is obviously, "Yes." Don't you read your Bible?







Again, Brandon, maybe you should stick to comic books.
If you don't like losing, maybe you should adjust to what is correct and true.

Caille
May 3rd, 2005, 09:00 AM
[QUOTE=Lighthouse]Why? What is wrong with what I said about Christ? Do you think He ever did anythign that was unjustified?


you do realize that your interpretation of the bible is just that. And that in order to try and make sense of it in your mind, you interpret it such that it always comes out justified, in your perception ? It's called circular logic. Look it up sometime.




Or are you resorting to insults, in an effort to draw attention away from the fact that you are losing this debate?

:chuckle: man, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black





Who are we talking about, again? One of the Pharisees, was it. If so, then the answer is obviously, "Yes." Don't you read your Bible?

:shocked: Wow - maybe we're finally getting somewhere. And what did Jesus upbraid him for ? (hint: obstructing the path to God) Did he condemn him for any of his other sins ? Or was he sinless, besides obstructing the path to God ?







If you don't like losing, maybe you should adjust to what is correct and true.

back to your comic books, child


1Cor.13
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Lighthouse
May 3rd, 2005, 09:53 AM
you do realize that your interpretation of the bible is just that. And that in order to try and make sense of it in your mind, you interpret it such that it always comes out justified, in your perception ? It's called circular logic. Look it up sometime.
No matter what either of us think, can we not agree that Jesus was never unjustified? If not, then you are not a Christian.





:chuckle: man, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black
I've enver done it because I'm losing a debate. I've done it because people keep saying the same thing over and over again. Ask keypurr.






:shocked: Wow - maybe we're finally getting somewhere. And what did Jesus upbraid him for ? (hint: obstructing the path to God) Did he condemn him for any of his other sins ? Or was he sinless, besides obstructing the path to God ?
Yes, He did. His pride, for one. And what about the men who brought the woman caught in adultery?








back to your comic books, child
Do you have any idea what art and storytelling are? I read things like The Watchmen and The Punisher...


1Cor.13
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
What are you calling childish?

julie21
May 3rd, 2005, 06:37 PM
Lighthouse: post #193 :
4] It would have been unjustified to call a repentant person a name, because there is no reason to point out the sins of one who knows their sins, and that they are in need of a Savior.
5] The only one I know who points out the sins of those who knopw their sisn is the accuser, the adversary, Satan himself.


So with your post # 4 above...how 'justified' are you in pointing out the past sins of one who knows their past sins, has repented and come to Christ because they knew they needed a Savior?

Would you also like to clarify exactly point number 5 from your post quoted above for me please?

See, the way that I interpret what YOU wrote, is this...
There is only one being who points out the sins of those who knows their sin...and that being is the accuser, satan himself.
Is that correct?

And as far as I have determined from my studies, as well as lengthy discussion, satan will point out these sins that have been forgiven by Christ, once we come to repentance through faith and belief that His blood on the cross has washed us clean.
That is why we need the "Helmet of salvation", because satan will point out our past sins as a way to make us think we are not saved, that our 'past' sins still count against us with Christ, that we are sluts or whores, or whatever.

So satan is the ONLY one to do this is he Lighthouse?..
Food for thought there, I think.

Lighthouse
May 4th, 2005, 08:30 AM
So with your post # 4 above...how 'justified' are you in pointing out the past sins of one who knows their past sins, has repented and come to Christ because they knew they needed a Savior?
Do you really think I was doing it to point out your sins?:rolleyes:


Would you also like to clarify exactly point number 5 from your post quoted above for me please?

See, the way that I interpret what YOU wrote, is this...
There is only one being who points out the sins of those who knows their sin...and that being is the accuser, satan himself.
Is that correct?

And as far as I have determined from my studies, as well as lengthy discussion, satan will point out these sins that have been forgiven by Christ, once we come to repentance through faith and belief that His blood on the cross has washed us clean.
That is why we need the "Helmet of salvation", because satan will point out our past sins as a way to make us think we are not saved, that our 'past' sins still count against us with Christ, that we are sluts or whores, or whatever.

So satan is the ONLY one to do this is he Lighthouse?..
Food for thought there, I think.
Between God and Satan, Satan is the only one to do it, for the reasons stated above.

However, since I know you're referring to what I did, I didn't do it to make you feel guilty, or ashamed. I did it to point out to you, once again, that the old you [without Christ] is someone you now hate, and despise. You abhor what you did, and who you were. Which is why you're so thankful to God for His grace and love. Not to mention that having the mind of Christ is why you abhor the old you, because He does too.

Chileice
December 26th, 2005, 10:19 AM
This thread flew... maybe from a misunderstanding... but it flew so it gets nominated.

Mr. 5020
December 26th, 2005, 01:26 PM
This thread flew... maybe from a misunderstanding... but it flew so it gets nominated.Whatever name-caller!