your acceptance doesn't matter, the meanings of words change over time
Then why are you attempting to take the word out of context? You’re just playing a game of semantics.
Context, kids:
Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth discriminate?
Yeah he did.
Not everyone was chosen to be his Apostle.
I am affraid you need the definition of discrimination:
"The unjust or pre- judicial treatment of different categories of people especially on the grounds of race , age or sex. "
I do not think He was "unjust".
How about a look back to an earlier English dictionary - Websters 1828:
DISCRIMINATION, noun
1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.
2. The state of being distinguished.
3. Mark of distinction.
There are a couple major types of dictionaries - prescriptive & descriptive. Prescriptive are in the mode of stating rules. Descriptive change with the times and describe how words are used.
Although discrimination has come to have a bad connotation, it really just means to distinguish, to observe differences, to judge. We all observe differences, distinguish, judge, discriminate every day.
Buying into the cultural changes of languages is nothing more than buying into the ideologies, beliefs, laws, practices of a culture.
We get taught we can't discriminate on the grounds of sex, so now we move to there being no gender. This is all a ploy to change the way people think, by redefining the words we use, to go along with godless legislation and ideologies.
And, yes, Jesus discriminates properly, accurately, according to absolute Truth. As Christians we are to be learning from Him to think, speak, and discriminate. We are not to be taking on the thinking of worldly, godless cultures according to their godless legislation & ideologies.
Context done.
You 2 may not like what's being said here, and I'm not speaking for JimR, but the way I see it and the way I proceeded, JimR, whether knowingly or unknowingly, opened up the deeper issue.
He's absolutely correct in what he said when he answered the question posed to him by saying Jesus did discriminate when He made a choice of Apostles.
Maria's question in light of the article about redefining a word was obvious, but her question as stated was open for Jim to do what he wanted with it. By doing so, he took us back to what this article is really about: it's mainly about redefining, not discrimination (in one sense).
The point is simple: By redefining words, our language is being used to assert an ideology that some of us do not accept. Whether you see it or acknowledge it, this all goes to legally force us to alter the way we perceive & think, simply by changing the meaning of a word. We think according to our vocabulary. You force us today to alter the way we discriminate/perceive reality re: sex in one context, then the next volley is to make another change, and then another, and so on it goes.
Discrimination is actually a pretty interesting battleground word as Jim's answer brought out. It goes to the basis of our perceiving/distinguishing/discriminating reality. As I've said, we all discriminate. It's going from this fact, to giving us a legal standard for our discrimination, to telling us discrimination is a bad thing in & of itself.
We go from judging, which we do naturally, to being told how & how not to judge. to being told not to judge. Some of us will simply not allow secularism to define our words or our standards, nor tell us to have none. We won't let secularism tell us how to think, nor how our conscience is to be wired.
What sex are you - male or female? > Don't ask that question in this context - that's discrimination! (insert new definition for discrimination - change descriptive dictionaries) > That's an improper question in any regard!! - Don't offend me!!! - You're discriminating against me!!!! (next change in descriptive dictionaries?).
What's in a word..........? It seems the nuances of the discussion went past you - you were unable to discriminate/finely distinguish what was being said. Or you just disagree with it. Either is fine since we can't force the thinking of each other. But the one with the sword will use such tools to try to do just that.
For Silver: All this argument to force the one definition, reject the points being stated to you, because the dictionary I used was "200 years old," and finally come out & openly say I'm not smart, have you considered this more contemporary Merriam-Webster dictionary (since you're not answering what one you prefer)?:
Definition of discrimination
1a: p
rejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment //racial discrimination
b: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2:
the quality or power of finely distinguishing //the film viewed by those with discrimination
3a:
the act of making or perceiving a difference: the act of
discriminating //a bloodhound's scent discrimination
b psychology : the process by which two
stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to
,
DISCRIMINATION,
PERCEPTION,
PENETRATION,
INSIGHT,
ACUMEN mean a power to see what is not evident to the average mind.
DISCERNMENT stresses accuracy (as in reading character or motives or appreciating art). the
discernment to know true friends
DISCRIMINATION stresses the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent. the
discrimination that develops through listening to a lot of great music
PERCEPTION implies quick and often sympathetic discernment (as of shades of feeling). a novelist of keen
perception into human motives
PENETRATION implies a searching mind that goes beyond what is obvious or superficial. lacks the
penetration to see the scorn beneath their friendly smiles
INSIGHT suggests depth of discernment coupled with understanding sympathy. a documentary providing
insight into the plight of the homeless
ACUMEN implies characteristic penetration combined with keen practical judgment. a director of reliable box-office
acumen
Discriminating Among Meanings of Discrimination
Discrimination has senses with neutral, positive, and negative connotations. On the one hand, it can refer to "the act (or power) of distinguishing" or to "good taste, refinement." These meanings, sometimes reinforced with modifiers (as in
a fine or
a nice discrimination), stress an ability to perceive differences as an index of unusual intelligence. On the other hand, when the perception of difference is marked by invidious distinction or hostility, the word (often followed by
against) takes on very negative overtones, as in the senses "act of discriminating categorically rather than individually" (
discrimination against women, age
discrimination) and "a prejudiced outlook or course of action" (racial
discrimination). The original, neutral sense of
discrimination, "the act of distinguishing," came into English by the early 17th century, followed by the positive one associated with superior discernment in the 18th century.
Discrimination in the "prejudice" sense has been in use since the early 19th century, almost 200 years ago.
Silver: you're clearly wrong that this is only a 200 year old definition matter based upon Webster 1828. The word discrimination still carries the 200 year old meaning and JimR was absolutely right in his response. I especially like the title of the last section above from M-W. And it is informative as to when this change in, or addition to meaning is said to have come about.
All said & done, JimR also stayed with redefinition - the point of the article - and did not accept Maria's redirecting. In my view this was a Well Done JimR! Even if I'm wrong about Jim's intent, the opening was there by his response to pick up the ball & move forward, which is what I did.
FWIW, I've no major problem with the initial work involving discrimination (using your preferred definition & context), but I'm a firm advocate of the slippery-slope argument. I do have a problem with where this is obviously all headed. I retain my right to discriminate (JimR's choice of meaning in context & my side of the discussion) based upon how Christ instructs me according to reality, Truth & Righteousness. This is where all this inevitably goes:
NKJ Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.
BTW, I can get to a connection between judging & discriminating via words like distinguishing. This is all ultimately a matter of judging according to God or men. It's the normal practice and nature of secular people to be adversarial to God. Notice how I altered my language to be more inclusive to accommodate the sensitive?
