Brutality Ignored?

[ChristianTonyB]

Depends on the culture from my perspective. In some cultures, what are often thought of as expletives by some are actually just innocuous words in someone's limited and crude vocabulary. So it certainly comes down to intention and knowing your audience. Try speaking intellectual or proper to some people and they might get offended like they're being talked down to.

As Paul said "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." That's about meeting people where they are, not necessarily where they need to be. This certainly requires wisdom and prayer, but I hope that helps you understand how expletives can be used to give grace to some hearers.

No, it doesn't help me understand that at all, it seems like you may be inadvertently twisting scripture to justify a perspective, which is unwise.

Obviously expletives weren't embedded in any of the lauguages given out at Babel. It's more likely bad habits were tolerated and eventually became the norm, that still doesn't make that right though.

But I agree with your inference, and like his and our Lord did, Paul would have allowed the expletives to fly over his head so that he could still reach out and save. But I've had to check people and their expletive riddled language in the past, particularly when there were women and children within the hearing range.

I'm more concerned at people that have been Christian for a long time, and still use expletives, and some even blaspheme God by using His title as a form of expletive in their everyday conversation. Jesus would be far from impressed by that, and would be checking to see if the person's pastor has been on the job!

 

[stilllearning]

Crucifixion is a interesting study in and of itself. Depending on the source they give the Phoenicians, Assyrians, or Babylonians as the originator of this form of capitol punishment.

Most popularized by the Romans use of which came to them when they fought the Carthaginians. Which Carthage was trade outpost of the Phoenicians in it's early days. Carthage also worshipped the god baal- Hamon, which is the baal that Jezebel would have been associated with since she was from Tyre.

Baal Hamon is also mentioned as a place that a vineyard was in Song of Solomon 8:11. Anyway I digress in Deut 21 God mentions hanging on a tree as capitol punishment. So I personally find it had to be popular amongst the Canaanites as a form of capitol punishment. To what extent the various Canaanites used it I have not run across a source to say. However, do believe it had to be at least in effect in Phoenicia. Which would fit with God mentioning it in Deut before they came into the land.

So anyway crucifixion came to Rome by way of Carthage during the Punic wars which Phoenicia is the Greek name for the area and peoples that share that culture and ethnicity and the Roman name was Punic. So anyway is a interesting study into the history of crucifixion throughout ancient history and the death of our Lord by it during the Greco-Roman classical period.

 

[Runningman]

No, it doesn't help me understand that at all, it seems like you may be inadvertently twisting scripture to justify a perspective, which is unwise.

Obviously expletives weren't embedded in any of the lauguages given out at Babel. It's more likely bad habits were tolerated and eventually became the norm, that still doesn't make that right though.

But I agree with your inference, and like his and our Lord did, Paul would have allowed the expletives to fly over his head so that he could still reach out and save. But I've had to check people and their expletive riddled language in the past, particularly when there were women and children within the hearing range.

I'm more concerned at people that have been Christian for a long time, and still use expletives, and some even blaspheme God by using His title as a form of expletive in their everyday conversation. Jesus would be far from impressed by that, and would be checking to see if the person's pastor has been on the job!

I think we probably have two different perspectives about who Paul was. In that case, I assure you no scripture was twisted.

It isn’t really the words that are said that are a problem, but the way they are intended.

Christians should be very tough, not easily shaken by someone’s words. Rather than sheltering people all the time, I believe it’s better to teach them to grow thicker skin and that’s Biblical.

 

[ChristianTonyB]

I think we probably have two different perspectives about who Paul was. In that case, I assure you no scripture was twisted.

It isn’t really the words that are said that are a problem, but the way they are intended.

Christians should be very tough, not easily shaken by someone’s words. Rather than sheltering people all the time, I believe it’s better to teach them to grow thicker skin and that’s Biblical.

In my opinion your use of the second scripture, in proving your argument with the first, had the effect of disempowering the first. No one needs to put their own twist on scripture to emphasise its veracity, it's embedded in it. I know Paul, and he would not approve of the way you have misused his saying.

But I agree, we all have to thicken our skins, and accept criticism. We've become too easily offended, and for reasons of political correctness as it is often referred to, we tend to dance around rather than get straight to the point.

 

[Lanolin]

You cant really thicken your own skin but you can wear someone elses (leather) or put armour on.

 

[JohnDB]

But I've had to check people and their expletive riddled language in the past, particularly when there were women and children within the hearing range

Coarse language is not unwholesome language.
1st & 2nd Samuel is an extremely coarse limerick. Song of Solomon is pornographic by today's standards. And when Jesus used "You brood of vipers" it was the strongest expletive they had in that day and time. There were plenty of good reasons why Jesus was never going to win the coveted "Rabbi of the Year" award.
(And no, I'm not trying to license my own filthy mouth)
A person can be quite vicious and hurtful without ever using salty language.

That's not to say that a person should use a lot of coarse language...but it isn't quite the sin you are making it out to be either. Nobody wants to listen to a potty mouth. And it does harm your witness by the perception of it.

Language is subjective...and creating legalisms out of a twisted scripture is anti-Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

In my opinion your use of the second scripture, in proving your argument with the first, had the effect of disempowering the first. No one needs to put their own twist on scripture to emphasise its veracity, it's embedded in it. I know Paul, and he would not approve of the way you have misused his saying.

But I agree, we all have to thicken our skins, and accept criticism. We've become too easily offended, and for reasons of political correctness as it is often referred to, we tend to dance around rather than get straight to the point.

Why wouldn’t have Paul used “bad words” if that made him more relatable to the people he was trying to save? He just said he became all things to all people but you seem to be contradicting him now and then blaming me for it. We’re just going to have to strongly disagree on this point about words I think.

I agree with the rest of what you said.