Is calling Beanieboy a . . .

[Lighthouse]

no, because the phrase was an accurate description of the state of their hearts. calling someone a faggot is saying they are a homosexual, but you are saying it with a prideful attitude. the term is used to make ones self feel better because they aren't like that. there is no justification for using that phrase when we have the term homosexual which conveys the exact same thing but with no degrading connotation.

I don't feel better about myself because I'm not a homo. And do you think homosexuals should be ashamed of what they are, and do? Why do you think it was okay for Jesus to use degrading terms, but not us?

 

[wholearmor]

It's nice to see that the "no's" have pulled into a significant lead. I was pretty worried yesterday when there was a tie.

...for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

 

[julie21]

What conclusions did I jump to? I didn't assume that you knew how old the kid is.

Then why make reference to my being rude t a 13 year old as compared to a 45 year old? Of course you jumped to a 'conclusion' you turkey! Get a grasp of the English language and how to effectively use , and moreso, understand it!

 

[Lighthouse]

Doesn't it feel good to call people names? Even if it's a name Jesus never called anyone [turkey]?

And I knew you didn't know the ages of beanieboy, or Dread Helm. So no conclusions jumped to...

 

[wholearmor]

To all you who believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral or detrimental to society, I will be blunt:

You are all pompous bigots. If you fail to see that, which I am sure some of you do, then trust those of us who know better. Just accept that you are blinded by baseless hate and fear and buttressed by juvenile ideas about Christianity and the Bible.

You are incapable of making this decision for yourself and the rest of us. If you don't see connections to the suffrage and civil-rights movements, I am not surprised. I can't be chiding you; your inability to recognize the analogy is nothing short of astounding.

To think you would deny a human being equal rights in employment, marriage and housing makes me ashamed to call myself one.

If there is a heaven and you go to it, just be ready to look like a fool in front of God when he lays the painfully obvious truth out in front of you:

YOU HAVE NO BROTHERLY LOVE

...but your post does?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

I don't feel better about myself because I'm not a homo. And do you think homosexuals should be ashamed of what they are, and do? Why do you think it was okay for Jesus to use degrading terms, but not us?

why should one use the word "faggot" instead of "homosexual"? yes, homosexuals should be ashamed of that, but calling them faggots doesn't make them any more ashamed, in fact, it may make them less. the phrase "brood of vipers" was not a degrading term like "faggot" is. if there were no other word to describe homosexuality, then faggot would be acceptable because it would be an accurate description of their practice. i am unaware of any other term Jesus could have used besides "brood of vipers" that would have been an accurate description of the pharisees hearts. had there been, Jesus would've been in the wrong.

 

[Lighthouse]

why should one use the word "faggot" instead of "homosexual"? yes, homosexuals should be ashamed of that, but calling them faggots doesn't make them any more ashamed, in fact, it may make them less. the phrase "brood of vipers" was not a degrading term like "faggot" is. if there were no other word to describe homosexuality, then faggot would be acceptable because it would be an accurate description of their practice. i am unaware of any other term Jesus could have used besides "brood of vipers" that would have been an accurate description of the pharisees hearts. had there been, Jesus would've been in the wrong.

That would sond better if you said that Jesus would have used the other term. Do you think queer is a wrong term to use in this instance?

 

[aikido7]

Why do you think it was okay for Jesus to use degrading terms, but not us?

We stubborny cling to images of a powerful Jesus associated with redemptive or apocalyptic violence because:

1.We want him to be powerful enough to insure life after death.
2.We want him to defeat (or exclude) enemies.
3.And because we ourselves are weak and vulnerable we famtasize a god who will punish evil and establish justice.

Like many of Jesus' contemporaries who hoped Roman and sectarian rivalry would soon be subjected to God's violent judgement, many believers today reject the mustard seed and Jesus' invitation to be subversive weeds. And, too, it is hard to turn away from the Bible's violent images of God because they are pretty prominent--especially in the Hebrew Bible. You have been led from an early age that if it is in the Bible, then it somehow must be true.

I believe Jesus invites us to live according to his alternative vision and his experience of a nonviolent God whose real power is invitational, not coercive.





so if god is nonviolent and incapable of imposing justice now or in the future, how then are we to live?[

 

[God_Is_Truth]

That would sond better if you said that Jesus would have used the other term.

what do you mean?

Do you think queer is a wrong term to use in this instance?

yes, i see no reason to call someone a "queer" instead of a "homosexual". queer is intentionally offensive, degrading, derrogatory and extremely negative. homosexual is simply a statement of truth.

 

[wholearmor]

Matthew's community was dealing with a lot of marginalization and fear towards it. It was a new, struggling group of believers trying to live out the vision of Jesus.

Of course they would put their own words and struggles into their written portrait of Christ. It gave them a self-legitimacy, and let their enemies know that they were carrying out the wishes of Jesus.

I think you're doing the same thing.

If Jesus were really the bitter, badgering figure sometimes depicted by the evangelists, he would be a hypocrite and just like the common man that he clearly wasn't.

These verses are about power struggles carried on by early disciples. Not about Jesus.

I believe Jesus walked his talk. He was compassionate and transparent and loving. It's way too easy to be mean and petty....

How do you explain Matthew 21:12-13?

 

[wholearmor]

why should one use the word "faggot" instead of "homosexual"? yes, homosexuals should be ashamed of that, but calling them faggots doesn't make them any more ashamed, in fact, it may make them less. the phrase "brood of vipers" was not a degrading term like "faggot" is. if there were no other word to describe homosexuality, then faggot would be acceptable because it would be an accurate description of their practice. i am unaware of any other term Jesus could have used besides "brood of vipers" that would have been an accurate description of the pharisees hearts. had there been, Jesus would've been in the wrong.

Why should one use the word "gay" to describe them? Would Jesus have used it?

 

[Lighthouse]

what do you mean?

Jesus would never be wrong. What you said seems to indicate that He could have been. I know you don't believe that. I was merely suggesting that you reword it.

yes, i see no reason to call someone a "queer" instead of a "homosexual". queer is intentionally offensive, degrading, derrogatory and extremely negative. homosexual is simply a statement of truth.

So you don't think Jesus was ever intentionally offensive?

What's wrong with the term queer?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why should one use the word "gay" to describe them? Would Jesus have used it?

There's nothing gay about homosexuality.:nono:

 

[Lucky]

Maybe we should just offend with the truth of the gospel. :think:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Jesus would never be wrong. What you said seems to indicate that He could have been. I know you don't believe that. I was merely suggesting that you reword it.

ah, well if anyone finds anything that could have been used instead of "brood of vipers" that simply describes accurate the state of the pharisees hearts that is less offensive, then i'll definately reword it.

So you don't think Jesus was ever intentionally offensive?

certainly not in the way one is offensive when one says "faggot" or "queer".

What's wrong with the term queer?

it intentionally belittles the homosexual as to make them less of a person or some sort of odd ball for being a homosexual. it doesn't lead to repentence or to Christ. kindness is what leads us to repentence.

Romans 2
4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

calling someone a faggot or queer seems neither kind, nor tolerant nor patient to me, and certainly not something that will lead them to repentence.

 

[wholearmor]

Maybe we should just offend with the truth of the gospel. :think:

Then some of them revert to believing they're homosexual Christians.

 

[julie21]

WA: How do you explain Matthew 21:12-13?

I would explain it that Jesus could do as He wished, and on this ocassion of losing His patience, did just that.
I am sure that Aikido 7 has his own spiel on it.

WA: Why should one use the word "gay" to describe them? Would Jesus have used it?

I wouldn't personally use that term , and Jesus wouldn't have used it in His day as evidenced in the Bible. It's a mute point to question if He would use it today, unless we want to presume what Jesus would do.

Lighthouse:So you don't think Jesus was ever intentionally offensive?

What's wrong with the term queer?

Jesus was intentionally offensive when He wanted to be. I can read where he was intentionally offensive to the "brood of vipers" and in the Temple with the money changers, but I don't read where He, in His ministry on earth, was offensive or abusive or derogatory to a homosexual.

Nothing wrong with the term 'queer'...if you use it in its original context...or do you wish to use it from the 'worldy' perspective? Not going to be 'of' the world are you?... which IS NOT what we are to be, told to us by Jesus. Remember?

 

[Lighthouse]

certainly not in the way one is offensive when one says "faggot" or "queer".

You really don't think so?

You don't think queer is descriptive?

it intentionally belittles the homosexual as to make them less of a person or some sort of odd ball for being a homosexual. it doesn't lead to repentence or to Christ. kindness is what leads us to repentence.

We need to know we are worthless, before we realize the greatness of His kindness towards us, in that He believed we were worth it.

Romans 2
4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

See above.

How long do you think He tolerates wickedness? Do you think He is actually tolerant of it?

calling someone a faggot or queer seems neither kind, nor tolerant nor patient to me, and certainly not something that will lead them to repentence.

Have you seen the tape of Bob Enyart's show, Terry's Call?

I don't think Bob used the terms "queer", or "faggot", but he did use the term "pervert." And he offended Terry. Bob wasn't nice. But what he did was loving, and kind. Terry repented. I think you need to look into your definition of kindness.

 

[julie21]

Maybe we should just offend with the truth of the gospel. :think:

Now, that WOULD be a change!

 

[God_Is_Truth]

You really don't think so?

You don't think queer is descriptive?

the problem isn't that it's descriptive, the problem is it's more than descriptive.

We need to know we are worthless, before we realize the greatness of His kindness towards us, in that He believed we were worth it.

knowing we are worthless doesn't come through name calling. it comes through truth, without anything added to it.

How long do you think He tolerates wickedness? Do you think He is actually tolerant of it?

till the day we die, he tolerates it.

Have you seen the tape of Bob Enyart's show, Terry's Call?

I don't think Bob used the terms "queer", or "faggot", but he did use the term "pervert." And he offended Terry. Bob wasn't nice. But what he did was loving, and kind. Terry repented. I think you need to look into your definition of kindness.

kindness is stating the truth, nothing more, and nothing less. to call someone a pervert is to say they are perverted which means they have spoiled something that was good. this is different from faggot and queer because while those are more than just descriptions, calling someone a pervert is not.