Posted on 05/31/2003 10:42:16 AM PDT by tame
Yes, there was something that marked Peter as a disciple, it was a GALILEAN ACCENT.
70) And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereunto
73)And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.
i am afraid that you are making more of the passage than the context, grammar and syntaxt allows for. Peter's cursing was incidental to the entire process. Realise also that the LUKE account does not refer to the cursing at all, YET mentions that Peter is Galilean. Why do you suppose that this is?
Forgive the bluntness of the observation, but it appears that you have twisted a text out of context, and turned it into a pretext for an erronious conclusion.
Well, if we believe what the Bible says about the matter, Peter's language changed in that he began to Deny Jesus... up to that point "the bystanders came up and said to Peter, 'Surely you too are one of them'", and he began denying the Truth.
That's certainly a pretty adamant change of language from "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".
Ask yourself this... if Peter had said instead, "No! NO!! Enough of this! These lying and murderous accusations against this innocent Man are bullsh*t! (Peresh, Ex. 29:14) He IS the Christ!! He IS the Son of the Living God!!", do you really suppose that the Scriptures have recorded that Peter "began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man"?
No.
Because in such a case, Peter would not have been cursing (pronouncing Imprecatory Personal Attacks) or swearing (pronouncing False Oaths)... he might well have been using the sort of "harsh language" that Sailors are known to use (and which equivalent is found in Exodus 29:14), but in no way would his language qualify as a "swearing" or a "curse". Because the Biblical terms "swearing" and "cursing" are Scripturally-defined terms, referring to False Oaths and Personal Attacks -- and neither has anything whatsoever to do with Pagan, Druidic concepts of "Taboo Evil Words of Power".
"Cursing" as used in the verse in question could't have been an attack on Christ. That would have been blasphemy. He denied that he knew Christ, but didn't reject or malign him in any way. I'm wondering how his cursing (in his mind and whatever form it took) would have marked him NOT as a disciple.
Well, this Passage does not specifically define the Personal Objects of Peter's Curses.
But we do know what the Biblical Word "cursing" means. It is an Imprecatory Personal Attack. (As I have said before, while neither the word "manure" nor the term "bullsh*t" is anywhere defined as "Intrinsically-Evil" by Scripture, telling a Neighbor "You are a piece of Manure" or "You are a piece of Sh*t" would be a form of Cursing, regardless of the word for "feces" employed)
Regardless, if the Biblical Definition of the word "curse" found in every other Passage of Scripture has any meaning at all, we know that Peter began to levy Imprecatory Personal Attacks.
Whether Peter "cursed" used the Aramaic for "manure" or "bullsh*t" is entirely immaterial (or however he began to curse) -- even assuming there is any distinction in Aramaic, which I don't know there is. At the point that Peter began telling his accusers (or fellow disciples), "You are a piece of manure" (or "sh*t", or whatever), THAT is a Cursing...
Not the particular *construction of Sounds* signifying bovine feces, in and of itself -- which may be "immoral" given Pagan, Druidic concepts of "Taboo Evil Words of Power", but which concept of "immorality" is nowhere found in the Bible.
Bad language is a particular construction of sounds. Gossip is a particular construction of sounds. Blasphemy is a particular construction of sounds. Lying is a particular construction of sounds. I think the point is that speech is reflection of what's in our hearts and minds and that's certainly a biblical principle.
Take the Words "God", "Satan", "Good", and "Bad". In and of themselves, none of these Words are intrinsically-immoral to Speak or Write. Given one formulation:
They are True and Correct. Given another formulation:
They become Blasphemy and Lies. The words themselves are NOT intrinsically Immoral to Speak or Write, and there is nothing in the Bible which states or implies anything of the sort.
Biblically speaking, Words are simply NOT intrinsically Moral or Immoral absent their context in terms of a Communication of Thought. "Manure" is not a "bad word", but "You are a piece of Manure" is a Thought-Communication of Imprecatory Cursing... not the word itself, but the Cursing which is being communicated. The exact same rule applies to any four-letter construction of sound which signifies "manure", because there is nothing in the Bible which states, implies, or even intimates that the expression of the concept "feces" is intrinsically-immoral in itself, by any construction of Sounds and Letters whatsoever -- whether "manure" or "bullsh*t".
The idea that one construction of sound signifying a concept ("bull-manure") is "Moral" to use, and that another construction of sound signifying a concept ("bull-sh*t") is "Immoral" to use, is an invented concept -- one which hearkens back to Pagan, Druidic superstitions regarding Taboo "Evil Words of Power". It has nothing whatsoever to do with any Passage of Scripture, anywhere in the Bible.
It is not a matter of BIBLICAL MORALITY. If it were, you could cite the Chapter and Verse. But you can't.
It may be an Anglo-Saxon Social Convention which we choose to reasonably observe out of deference and civility... but that's exactly what it is. Nothing else.
I am more offended by those that teach lies and heresies denying the Trinity and the physical resurection of Christ. The judgement will fall heavy on those false teachers of little chilfren.
Car did you ever hear of the **restoration** movement? All manner of false teachings came out of it..interesting study.
No one will burn in eternity for saying *uck...but denying the Jesus of the Bible gets you a "do not pass go " card...
It is called straining at a gnat and swallowing a Camel
Thanks for pointing that out. I believe that is the correct interpretation of that passage. I should have read the other gospel accounts more closely before commenting.
Now when I left the Presbyterian church I did so because I longed more for those things I read in the Bible.
At no time could the mainstream religion provide answers, accept to say the Heavens are closed!
But I knew in my heart the things I read were true and had to be so for it was written and about as well ss testified in the scriptures!
For many of you mainstream it is enough!
I am thankful I followed my quest and it was answered.
The Holy Spirit has witness to me countless times I am being instructed from the Lord on high. One of my benchmarks was the Holy Spirit that is in many of the traditional hymns it is the same!
It is the spirit in the music that edify the soul and witness to the things of the Lord!
Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!
You may think of the Trinity as 3 persons in One. For me the Trinity is 3 persons of the Godhead!
I wish not to content on this for we have been over this for many years and years to come I am sure!
My point is I wish not to speak ill of the mainstream because we differ!
I appreciate the avenue mainstream does provided!
Concerning why his language gave him away, I think Calvinist Dark Lord came up a sound conclusion on this question. See his earlier post.
The idea that one construction of sound signifying a concept ("bull-manure") is "Moral" to use, and that another construction of sound signifying a concept ("bull-sh*t") is "Immoral" to use, is an invented concept -- one which hearkens back to Pagan, Druidic superstitions regarding Taboo "Evil Words of Power". It has nothing whatsoever to do with any Passage of Scripture, anywhere in the Bible.
Despite that I'm still not buying your explanation on this. What you are descibing is profanity.
Profane
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
OR tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes 1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God. 2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
Now none of these sound particulary holy or good.
Even if you wanted to take into account that such profanity in it's "best" sense is mere vulgarity...language of the great masses of the people...then using them "just like everyone else" is just another example of Christians wanting to be part of the world in a sense. The bible is replete with examples of this injunction.
Now is using profanity cursing? Aren't we wishing harm on someone or something when we associate a profanity with them? In your example of calling communism bull****...aren't you really just cursing communism?. Insert whatever word you want but aren't you in some form wishing harm on communism (and by extension it's adherents) by associating it with something unsavory?
If you believed, or respected, communism you wouldn't describe it in such a fashion. In fact, isn't respect what it all boils down to? Aren't you really just expressing disrespect for the person or thing by describing it in terms that you know are profane and nearly always used in an insulting fashion? To many that is not an expression of Christian love.
Finally do you really think that if Christ returned today that he would walk around describing this, that and the other thing as "bullshit"? Or that he would say "You guys have really f**ked things up?" I have a hard time believing that he will do that then and since his spirit lives in Christians I have a hard time believing he would do it now.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.OR tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes 1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God. 2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
Douglas, i believe that you need to look at your citations carefully. Let's examine them in detail shall we?
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.In what way has OrthodoxPresbyterian shown either contempt or irreverence for anything sacred? He has not applied any such terms to God, First Person of the Trinity, nor Jesus the Son of God and God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, nor God the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, nor the Church that He created on earth, Nor His Law given to man for the preservation of society and to demonstrate our complete inadequacy before a Holy God, and our utter dependence upon His Grace and Mercy, nor The Gospel message that is the Revelation to Mankind of the Grace and Mercy applied to His people by virtue of the Sacrifice of Jesus for the sin of Mankind. (long sentence, isn't it!) Nothing in OP's posts have been of this nature.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.If you would examine this particular form closely, you could easily think of many benign activities of day-to-day life that fit this criteria, such as employment, family life, science, and so on. i believe that you can agree that this particular definition does not fit your intentions.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.Can we say Gnosticism? i would certainly think that everyone on this thread is guilty as charged, but again, i seriously doubt that this is what you had in mind.
4. Vulgar; coarse.It can be observed that the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, as well as II Peter are written in a form of Greek that is called "vulgar", as opposed to Luke, Acts, and Hebrews, which was written in a "Literary Koine", and is much more formal in style and presentation. Yet note that ALL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED are the Word of God. i would defy anyone to deny the simplistic beauty of John's writings, the lament of the angels in Revelation can almost move one to tears, even in the Greek Form. Again, not what you had in mind.
Moving along to your second definition citation:
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes 1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God. 2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.Just what has OP treated with irreverence? In which citation in which post has OP profaned the name of God? Demonstrate how OP has used language in an improper manner Within the context of this very serious situation In what way has OP been abusive?
My rant is over Douglas, it is my hope that you do not take my words as overly harsh, because i would draw your attention to something else:
Take your above definitions and apply them to the contention of this entire thread. Have you noticed that -although tame has recieved a Clear word from the Scriptures on this particular subject, he Continues to question what God has said. Does this not qualify as "PROFANE" under the definitions you have given above? Is this not much like the serpent questioning the Revelation of God in the words "Yea Hath God Said"...? So Douglas, take your definition, think through the situation, and then see who is really being profane here. In point of fact, you could probably make a case of this thread going beyond profane straight into blasphemy. Note that i have not, and do not attribute any of these behaviours to you, this statement is merely for your consumption.
Regards,
CDL
I appreciate the avenue mainstream does provided!
You need to get with the program, slick, and read my opinions more closely before writing--that would help you avoid misrepresentations. I do not question what God says on the subject, and I believe suicide is wrong.
Yeah, right...worth defending...not!
Every thing is relative so therefore no wrong!
Who among us standing before the Lord on Judgement day would use/defend these words to discribe our interactions with our follow man?
You are right Rest, but you may be pointing at the wrong side here.
I found Calvinist_dark_lords use of a word "diaprax" interesting. If you read up on it, you will see exactly what may be going on here.
Here is a brief part:
The goal of Diaprax in the church is to rid the flock of its pesky and divisive hang-ups and habits that impede unity and change – personal convictions and restrained behaviors that are based on Biblical truth rather than political correctness, pragmatism and personal taste.
Diaprax is a truth-silencing technique that covertly promotes humanist ideals and a reciprocating brotherly love known in the Greek as 'phileo' through imagery (arts/media) and conversation (opinion/dialog) at the expense of the more Godly, obedient, self-sacrificing, truthful and unworldly 'love-your-enemy' kind of love called 'agape' – the kind of love that drove the Apostle Paul to speak the bitter truth about sinful man from the chains of a dark and lonely prison; the kind of love that caused Stephen to cry out: "lay not this sin to their charge" as the angry crowd stoned him to death for his cutting words of conviction; and what moved the Lord Jesus Himself to say as He hung on a cross for the sins of the world: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Those who GO along to GET along, the cowardly essence of Diaprax, are rewarded with the 'phileo' love of tolerance and flattery. Those who courageously challenge the consensus are shamed, ridiculed or rejected for their 'hateful' attitude', 'mean-spiritedness' and 'ungodly' disruption of the group's 'purpose-driven' unity.
Diaprax is REALLY all about is unlearning your core values – letting go of anything that keeps you from moving toward the new paradigm of global harmony. It's about turning one's ears from the Ancient of Days to the latest noise on the street for spiritual guidance and direction.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/proctor/diaprax.htm
This is not a debateable subject. You cannot rationalize someone killing themselves! You either do what God says or you don't. Someone making themselves a "victim" of people who are telling him the truth regardless of the wording is practicing this method whether he realizes it or not.
...While he believes suicide is morally wrong in many circumstances, he believes that it is the optimal moral choice in rare circumstances such as his. He is a Christian and he believes he has brought too much shame to his church, God, and his family to the point that less shame would be brought on God's kingdom if he simply "checked out".
Now, I realize the immediate outcry most of you will voice against suicide, but on further contemplation is suicide always wrong without exception? What say you?
You need to get with the program, slick, and read my opinions more closely before writing--that would help you avoid misrepresentations. I do not question what God says on the subject, and I believe suicide is wrong.
The reader will notice that the proposition put forth does not match the question initially asked. i have searched in vain for any statement from tame on this particular thread where he asserts that suicide is always wrong. While he may be correct in what he has asserted in the above quote, this is not the question that he asked
Nobody here is a "mind reader", we all must rely on what is written. This question has been addressed from a variety of perspectives, Protestant Calvinist, Protestant Non Calvinist, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Latter Day Saints. All have presented Authoritative statements that say suicide IS always wrong, and is always wrong without exception. The matter is, as katnip has put it: NOT DEBATABLE.
If "getting with the program" means "going along to get along", the reader does not have to guess at my view on that issue. Since even the consensus answers the original question with a definative "Yes, suicide is always wrong without exception", one must wonder just WHO needs to "get with the programme" here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.