GFR7
New member
So much the better for you. :thumb: I just cannot stand being called something which is false and which is unprovoked. I think I'd better chill, like you do. Or I'll go :noway:
Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
- Status
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I'm not really that chill, honestly.
IMJerusha
New member
I wasn't interested in getting him banned. I was interested in educating him. You're right though, not worth my effort.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I have no problem with justified authority.
I do have a problem with authorities that punish actions that are not intrinsically evil.
Of course, the loophole that government-supporters use is to say that its immoral to break the law and thus that every law is justified. Which makes a mockery of any reasonable limits of government control.
I do have a problem with authorities that punish actions that are not intrinsically evil.
Of course, the loophole that government-supporters use is to say that its immoral to break the law and thus that every law is justified. Which makes a mockery of any reasonable limits of government control.
IMJerusha
New member
Sacred cows? Interesting. You've just implied, rather strongly in Christian circles, that the admins here are pagans.
...or anyOne else.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I see that the Jr. Libertarian reported me for mocking the religion he and Daddy Paul loves so much.
Just to prove that I am a muzzie, here's a family portrait (I'm the raghead on the left).
Just to prove that I am a muzzie, here's a family portrait (I'm the raghead on the left).
Last edited:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
No, i reported you for a personal threat.
IMJerusha
New member
You're taking me too literally
I hope they don't.
Think about it.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Yeah, you and culturewarrior are going on my ignore list. I'm done.
Heterodoxical
New member
As well as wisdom in not enabling and justifying bad behavior. BUT some people want to pick and choose what wisdoms they ingest.
Heterodoxical
New member
I guess Racial Epitaphs around here are OK as long as it's the RIGHT race you insult. Do we have a list of those?
GFR7
New member
Well, it's hard to be. But I am usually on scholarly forums (and others) where personal attacks and name-calling are absolutely verboten. I have never seen anything like what goes on here with him tolerated, anywhere. They are strict here about vulgarity (which is fine) but ought to be strict on the other as well.
Heterodoxical
New member
??? That's amusing to me. I"m not making fun of you just that position.
There is no scripture that speaks to saying the words you think of when you said vulgarity. It doesn't exist. There are statements about libeling a person, which is allowed on ALL christian boards, in fact is a staple. There are statements about cursing a man, which means belittle their name so it affects their standing.... Or ad hominems would be part of that. That is allowed.
But those words..... those specific words..... can't be said. SKUBALON is a Greek word for the offal, feces, urin, etc.. that was accumulated in a pot and dumped out of a window each day, counting on the rain to haul it away. It sits there and rots. It holds disease, maggots, etc... it feeds the bugs that are a pest to your home... If you step in it, you could likely get an infection and lose your foot. It was the vilest, most disgusting thing you could find in a city. It's a much more vulgar word than S word for feces is. Paul used that.
Paul would be banned from Christian boards. The "flavor" of the vulgarity of his word, is closer to calling a woman the "C" word, it was that disgusting.
It's just a perspective thing.
People spend more time concerned about ACTING Christian, which is what they think it should look like, than ever becoming christian and learning what that life is like, rather than acting and posing.
COlossians 2 at the last 1/3 talks about the people with this sorta myopic focus.
IMJerusha
New member
Thank you! :wave:
IMJerusha
New member
This is true.
GFR7
New member
Interesting. For my part, I only brought up their banning vulgarity because I received 2 infractions here for it (as you can see on my avatar) and was banned for 24 hours as well. :readthis:
Last edited:
Nazaroo
New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If they use the words "consenting adults", you know that they can't be a Christian).
I'm a muzzie, we only need the father's consent.
Excuse me, are these brides? or just bridesmaids?
Is this a hoax?
Nazaroo
New member
Controversial claims require strong proofs.
But this issue is not so simple:
Was 'σκύβαλον' (skubalon) profanity? ... @swasheck - If i'm not mistaken this term is a hapax legomina, * so exactly, contemporaries to Paul as well as context will be needed. Its been a while, but my last look into this revealed that the word was used typically in a derogatory sense. Perhaps another matter that someone could take up would be what other options did Paul/God have to use in penning this concept, and choosing this word. – Jesse Ledbetter Aug ---------- ...Greek Lexicon, I was able to find that this same word is used in the Septuagint (LXX). This passage makes it seem that it is not offensive (Ecclesiasticus – Sirach): 27:4 As when one sifteth with a sieve, the refuse remaineth; so the filth of man in his talk. The word means excrement or dung, which are polite and respectable words for offensive things which people, when bitterly cursing in anger, naturally refer to.27:4 ἐν σεισματι κοσκινου διαμενει κοπρια οὑτως σκυβαλα ἀνθρωπου ἐν λογισμω αὐτου To make the case that Paul uses profanity, or even a word that would offend others, would require more examples with more positive proof, especially considering that Paul opposes profanity: Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4 ESV) Paul also emphasised avoiding things that offend a brother, like meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:13). Therefore it is difficult to imagine he broke his own rule publicly, especially in a writing to the churches. For Paul to use a crude or offensive word would then be out of line with Paul's own imperatives. If Paul had used offensive language, he would have detracted from the argument that he was making. What Paul was saying is that righteousness based on the law was a human work that needs to be expelled with absolute prejudice, naturally lending itself to the concept of human waste. Indeed, in his mind righteousness by works was to be expelled from the body and put somewhere disgusting without touching it with one's hands. He intended to make one feel righteousness of the law as loathsome. To bring attention to himself by a obscene or offensive word would detract from the shock of the idea that everything we do in dedication to God, if without faith, is disgusting. The reason why he searches for an idea so revolting, like human waste, is because he wants the reader to understand how necessary the free gift of salvation through Christ's atonement is. Everything else must be expelled into a toilet. In this way inoffensive words present a clear, possibly offensive, doctrine. To be thorough, I looked up the word in arguably the most famous, exhaustive and academically authoritative book on biblical Greek definitions. Here is what I found in his final conclusion after many pages of evaluating many references in Greek writings: The two elements in σκύβαλον, namely, worthlessness and filth, are best expressed by a term like “dung.” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Volume 7, 447) |
So it seems that once again, the less modern translators were
not just being prudish, but were reflecting accurately the historical usage
of this Greek word, namely that it was not a piece of crude profanity,
but rather an ordinary word the ancient Greeks.
It was apparently unremarkable to early readers and teachers,
since no one brought any charge of profanity or lewdness against Paul
over this word, among the ancient Greek commentators or their opponents.
Our distance from ancient Greek usage enables opponents of the Bible
to give such arguments a degree of plausibility by taking opportunity
of current widespread ignorance of ancient Greek.
According to current scholarship, Heterodoxial's claim is both
non-historical and implausible.
Paul did not use profanity, while teaching against using it.
____________________________________
* hapax legomina, * - a word which only appears once in a text, or so rarely that some doubt as to its meaning arises.
The meaning for such words can be deduced by its usage in other documents or its translation by ancient writers into other languages.
It can also be nuanced by its context and the habitual thinking and expression of an author.
There are very few hapax legomina which give real trouble among the Biblical texts.
99% of them are limited to fauna and flora indigenous to the Middle East which
may now be extinct or may have migrated or changed habitats over millenia.
These however almost never significantly alter the text, and usually
a more familiar animal or local species will be substituted for clarity or sense.
Thus, we would have deserts becoming a habitat for 'jackals', or
a 'Cedar tree' in the translation, when the exact species of scavenger or tree
referenced by a prophet or narrator might be uncertain today.
From the same page: " Theologian and author Michael J. Svigel, whom contributor Swasheck provided a hyperlink to (in a comment beneath OP's question), said it well: "We should embrace a translation that conveys the rhetorical effect intended by the author [my emphasis], as crass and base as it may seem to our perhaps overly-pious ears (cf. Eccl 7:16 ['Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?'])." If Paul were to have used the S-word (and I am NOT suggesting he did), he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and for emphasis, not to shock or offend. Perhaps the use of the equivalent of the S-word in Paul's day did not offend people. I don't know. We do know that the word (i.e., σκύβαλον'--skubalon) was used by many authors in Paul's day as emphasis (see both Svigel, cited above, and Wallace, cited below) . Contributor Eric, above, cited an excellent article by Professor Daniel B. Wallace (in a comment beneath the OP's question), in which he suggests " The context [my emphasis] of Phil 3:1-8 is both polemical in tone [my emphasis] and contrasting flesh vs. spirit in content. As Lightfoot pointed out, v. 2 refers to Paul’s opponents as 'dogs.' But it does more than that—it also refers to them as 'the mutilation.' This term is a play on words with 'circumcision' (v. 3) and is only euphemistically translated as 'those who mutilate the flesh.' The etymology of both words reveals the apostle’s true intent: 'circumcision' (peritomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting around” while 'mutiliation” (katatomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting down” or 'cutting off.'6 Thus Paul is accusing his opponents of botching the job of circumcision so badly that the victim is left with mutilated genitalia. There is strong shock value in the apostle’s words here. In conclusion, the guiding principles of hermeneutics help us to interpret a haplax legomenon such as skubalon as we draw upon whatever cultural factors might be relevant to its use. More important,This statement is followed immediately by a diatribe [my emphasis] on the lack of value of the flesh. Thrice in vv. 3-4 is 'flesh' explicitly mentioned; it is further implied in references to circumcision (vv. 2, 3, 5). In this section Paul is essentially arguing that if his opponents could claim that the flesh had some value, he would be in a better position to do so. Yet he himself acknowledges that the flesh and his former life as a devout Jew are worthless; he counts them as nothing (v. 8). The crescendo of his argument is at the end of v. 8 where he says 'indeed, I regard them as skuvbala that I might gain Christ.' Having said this, he launches into a positive presentation of his new life in Christ." |
I don't entirely agree with this either.
Its not just about expressing the 'rhetorical effect' of the author.
In this view of translation, we are supposed to stop at the often myopic viewpoint of individual authors,
however, Christian study, historical hindsight, and cumulative wisdom often elevate texts
to bestow them with deeper and more universal truths,
which we can safely infer were intended by the real 'author' of Holy Scripture,
The Holy Spirit and God Himself.
When this happens, we would be taking a step backward
if we translate too narrowly, or in a way that might preclude
or obscure a meaning which God has intended to reveal to all.
Last edited:
GFR7
New member
Yes; it is a hoax.
This kind of posting of pictures irresponsibly without research accomplishes nothing good.
The little girls were not in fact the brides. They were family members of the brides or the grooms. This viral story was a complete fabrication.
Anyone who knows Muslim families and has been around the Muslim community (I was for 7 years in Pittsburgh and the University area there) knows that this kind of racist hate-mongering is the stuff of fantasy and wishful thinking.
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mass-muslim-marriage.shtml
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2009/09/child-brides-in-palestine-********.html (sorry- this link has been censored due to a foul word in it)---I will find other links; there are plenty of resources to show this is a false story.)
http://www.fentonreport.com/news/so...of-the-mass-child-marriage-youve-been-scammed
- Status