Scriptures vs. Political Correctness

[GreenMunchkin]

The question was raised in a report, and then got split into a separate thread here but am curious as to your thoughts.

Verses like Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs..." by today's standards appear insulting, however they are scriptural, and, while politically incorrect, true. But obviously they run the risk of hurting the feelings of people.

So is the fact these verses are now insulting mean they should be laid to rest, in terms of actual useage? Or does its "insultingness" just tell us how wrong the world has gone?

Not gonna poll it

 

[ContentInHim]

Nope, we should use them - maybe just not say the verse out loud to the person we are done casting to.

(Where did you say that poll was? )

 

[Criada]

I think praps the issue is who they are said too.
Cos, in the Bible, these are instructions to God's people - whether Israel in the OT or Christians in the NT. And the inference wasn't that they should go around calling people pigs or fools - it was kind of a private conversation between God and His people.
So - perhaps these are OK to use with other Christians - in a general, advice kind of way, to explain why non-Christians may not want to listen, but not helpful to share with non-christians.
Does that make any sense?

Course - it doesn't work on a forum, where anyone can read it, whether you were talking to them or not...

 

[Tangeloper]

Political correctness and defining supposed "hate speech" has run amok in our modern society. People (and astonishingly(?) many liberals) have forgotten what true Freedom of Speech means. I fear for this country in particular and our world as a whole because this type of ideology in regards to Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech and the like eventually leads down the road of true political and social oppression, government sanctioned propaganda, and will lead us back to the dark ages if continued on its present path. (George Orwell is I believe laughing right now when he sees how correct he was about the future of society...).

Setting aside for a moment that the Bible is truly a holy book, and looking at it in the way many non-religious types do (as a historical text) it is amazing to me that people (again, mostly liberals), could possibly object to a quotation from a book!!!

IMHO, Christians who object to the use of scripture in reference during debates -- without bothering to explain WHY they think such scriptures may not be applicable to the situation at hand (i.e. Context, etc...) -- have serious problems not related to political correctness or the wish to be more "tolerant" of others...

Honestly, this subject just really gets to me... So, I'll end my rant here! LOL

Suffice it to say that I disagree with people who object to mere words -- unless they are way beyond the bounds of decency and responsibility -- and even then while we have a right to be upset about it we do not have a right to prevent anyone from uttering any words they wish (this is of course, in general society -- not on "private property" so to speak as this forum is).

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Interesting thoughts.

So, without bringing the political aspect into it, purely from a "humanitarian" perspective, that particular verse, and others that could be deemed equally "insulting", are we to use them in public or not?

If the Bible used "pigs" as an analogy, are we entitled to do the same - from a spiritual perspective - or will we be doing more harm than good?

From my perspective, it's not something I'd ever say, but I hate that anyone would try to claim anything Biblical is wrong, or mean. Just seems to me that's the devil trying to quash the word of God, as always, and using political correctness to do so.

 

[ContentInHim]

The use of pigs is not wrong or mean - just sounds so in our day and age. Jesus was referring to pigs as the pagan sacrifice to Greek/Roman gods and thus probably to unrepentant pagans.

That said, the biblical references to dogs are NOT the way we think of our precious pets. Makes me sad, though I understand it was a cultural thing.

 

[JoeWill]

The question was raised in a report, and then got split into a separate thread here but am curious as to your thoughts.

Verses like Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs..." by today's standards appear insulting, however they are scriptural, and, while politically incorrect, true. But obviously they run the risk of hurting the feelings of people.

So is the fact these verses are now insulting mean they should be laid to rest, in terms of actual useage? Or does its "insultingness" just tell us how wrong the world has gone?

Not gonna poll it

Good question, GreenMunchkin.

The words would have been even more shocking as Jesus preached to the Jewish culture of the day. Both pigs and dogs were unclean animals that Jesus used as metaphors for those who are spiritually closed to the point where the precious teachings we have recieved would be trashed.

It seems more the case that the impact of some of these statements by Jesus is lost as we translate them into our own modern culture. For example, Jewish people drained the blood out of the animals they ate, because to eat any blood would make them spiritually unclean. Imagine the shock they would have had when Jesus said: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me".

Of course, Jesus had the ability to discern whether people needed to hear a soft or a hard message. We need to pray for a similar kind of spiritual wisdom to be given to us with regard to what to say.

However, we know that there is at least one circumstance where we are required to give a challenging message, and that is in the preaching of the gospel. Incorporated into the gospel message are themes of judgement, because if you tell people the good news that they can be "saved", the next obvious question is "saved from what?" There is nothing PC about saying that Jesus is the only way.

The Bible tells us that: "the message of the cross is foolishness to those that perish". It was "foolish" in the first century AD because crucifixion was seen as a great disgrace, and people would have had great difficulty in believing a faith centred on a crucified man. And it is foolish to many people today, so not much has changed really.

Personally I tend to tell people what I think they need to hear. A local street preacher in my town, says he would rather have people feel insulted by him now because he gave them the message, than have them really angry with him in the judgement because he knew the way and didn't tell them. That's my view as well.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Personally I tend to tell people what I think they need to hear. A local street preacher in my town, says he would rather have people feel insulted by him now because he gave them the message, than have them really angry with him in the judgement because he knew the way and didn't tell them. That's my view as well.

I agree. It's little use preaching a watered down version of the gospel, and a watered down version of Christianity. I believe that's called loving people into hell.

But. Do we need to adapt to the world's perspective, and respect it, if not abide by it, or with terminology that will inevitably make people feel demeaned, do we still use it and just pray the Holy Spirit will translate it for them?

 

[JoeWill]

Political correctness and defining supposed "hate speech" has run amok in our modern society.

We need to remind people that political correctness can be just as dogmatic as anything that Christianity preaches.

For example, one element of the PC movement in religion is the view that all roads lead to God. So proponents of this outlook allow me to choose my own faith but go on to insist that whichever road I take, it will lead me to the same place.

Such a view could also be considered offensive because it would mean that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was unecessary and therefore God sent his Son to die for nothing.

 

[JoeWill]

I agree. It's little use preaching a watered down version of the gospel, and a watered down version of Christianity. I believe that's called loving people into hell.

But. Do we need to adapt to the world's perspective, and respect it, if not abide by it, or with terminology that will inevitably make people feel demeaned, do we still use it and just pray the Holy Spirit will translate it for them?

Go back to what I was saying Munchkin. The Christian faith, its themes and terminology were just as offensive in the 1st century as they are now. That is why Christianity was the counter-culture of the day. So we can probably go a bit too far in responding to PC expectations.

I think there are ways to help avoid people feeling demeaned though. For example, if we let people know that they are sinners, we can point out that Christians are sinners too. The only difference between them and us is that we have accepted Jesus' payment for our sins on the cross. We can point to God's love for them, and so on.

Also, I think it's ok to employ words that we feel might cause less offense when talking to people, so long as it doesn't change the underlying Bible message. But I suspect that it is that underlying message which will cause the real offence in the world, as in Jesus' day.

Some of these verses like the example you gave with the pigs and the dogs, are teachings for Christians to hear or read, and not something that we are supposed to say to people.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Go back to what I was saying Munchkin. The Christian faith, its themes and terminology were just as offensive in the 1st century as they are now. That is why Christianity was the counter-culture of the day. So we can probably go a bit too far in responding to PC expectations.

I was thinking about this, actually. Back then, it would have offended because the system was inherently hierarchical and He defied it; nowadays it offends because modern society tells us we're all equal...

I think there are ways to help avoid people feeling demeaned though. For example, if we let people know that they are sinners, we can point out that Christians are sinners too. The only difference between them and us is that we have accepted Jesus' payment for our sins on the cross. We can point to God's love for them, and so on.

That's a good point, actually, because I've lost count of the times I've heard non-Christians say Christians think we're "so special", as if we think we've done something wonderful.

Also, I think it's ok to employ words that we feel might cause less offense when talking to people, so long as it doesn't change the underlying Bible message. But I suspect that it is that underlying message which will cause the real offence in the world, as in Jesus' day.

You can watch someone like Ray Comfort, who won't censor himself, or scriptures, and flat-out tells people they're sinners, etc... and then you get the other side that thinks people can be tempted into Christianity with promises of hugs and unconditional fuzziness and a "better life".

I'm sure the latter method has more converts, but the former method brings people to Christ who remain converted. Although, now we're inching towards the OSAS-discussion territory, so am backing off slowly

Some of these verses like the example you gave with the pigs and the dogs, are teachings for Christians to hear or read, and not something that we are supposed to say to people.

True. Except Jesus wasn't afraid to say it to peoples' faces, either... vipers, hypocrites, fools... those are every bit as "insulting" as dog and pig, I reckon.

 

[JoeWill]

I was thinking about this, actually. Back then, it would have offended because the system was inherently hierarchical and He defied it; nowadays it offends because modern society tells us we're all equal...

That's a good point, actually, because I've lost count of the times I've heard non-Christians say Christians think we're "so special", as if we think we've done something wonderful.

You can watch someone like Ray Comfort, who won't censor himself, or scriptures, and flat-out tells people they're sinners, etc... and then you get the other side that thinks people can be tempted into Christianity with promises of hugs and unconditional fuzziness and a "better life".

I'm sure the latter method has more converts, but the former method brings people to Christ who remain converted. Although, now we're inching towards the OSAS-discussion territory, so am backing off slowly

True. Except Jesus wasn't afraid to say it to peoples' faces, either... vipers, hypocrites, fools... those are every bit as "insulting" as dog and pig, I reckon.

Christianity was offensive in the 1st century for loadsa reasons. To tell a staunchly monotheistic Jewish society that Jesus was God's Son, wouldn't have been an ideal start.

I used to tell the blokes at work that I was a Christian because I knew I was bad, not because I thought I was good.

I know we had trouble on my street team when we started edging towards the love only gospel. People just said "Ahhh, that's nice" but did not feel the need to make a Christian commitment. My money would be on the guy who tells it like it is.

I like you GreenMunchkin.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Christianity was offensive in the 1st century for loadsa reasons. To tell a staunchly monotheistic Jewish society that Jesus was God's Son, wouldn't have been an ideal start.

Do you know what I've always wondered? Paganism was seen as acceptable; Christ was brutalized and killed. Why?

I used to tell the blokes at work that I was a Christian because I knew I was bad, not because I thought I was good.

What did they say when you said that?

I know we had trouble on my street team when we started edging towards the love only gospel. People just said "Ahhh, that's nice" but did not feel the need to make a Christian commitment. My money would be on the guy who tells it like it is.

Concur. That being said, maybe there's a difference between "sinner" and pig. People who don't believe there's such a thing as sin, probably don't mind being called a sinner. But the pig/dog/fool reference is deemed offensive, regardless.

I do wonder, though, whether a Christian forum ought to be stifling the use of those terms. I'm not sure it got resolved in the thread I posted in the OP, but as a Christian environment, perhaps it's our responsibility to not to align ourselves with the world's standards.

I like you GreenMunchkin.

Likewise, Mr Will! Tis an English thing

 

[JoeWill]

Do you know what I've always wondered? Paganism was seen as acceptable; Christ was brutalized and killed. Why?

What did they say when you said that?

Concur. That being said, maybe there's a difference between "sinner" and pig. People who don't believe there's such a thing as sin, probably don't mind being called a sinner. But the pig/dog/fool reference is deemed offensive, regardless.

I do wonder, though, whether a Christian forum ought to be stifling the use of those terms. I'm not sure it got resolved in the thread I posted in the OP, but as a Christian environment, perhaps it's our responsibility to not to align ourselves with the world's standards.

Likewise, Mr Will! Tis an English thing

I suppose that at the human level, the death of Christ was all tied up with politics. He threatened the established Jewish religious order and authorities of the day. So like you say, it has a lot to do with hierachies. Also, the Romans were interested in the political connotations of the idea that Jesus was "King of the Jews" - that he might lead an uprising. They made sure they really ridiculed that possibility with the crown of thorns etc.

I'm not sure how much the guys at work understood my Christianity and my attempts to explain it. They saw religion as something dangerous and to be avoided. Working-class men more than most of us, tend to be affected by what they see. If they read in The Sun newspaper that a vicar was having an affair with someone's wife, that is what shapes their perception of Christianity.

But I did use to put up some Christian posters and testimonies on my sorting frame, and God said that he would use that material to plant seeds, and that later, he would water those seeds.

One problem with the pig / dog / fool terminology, is that people wouldn't understand the context of your application of those words.

 

[Voegelin]

Political correctness and defining supposed "hate speech" has run amok in our modern society . . .

Certainly has grabbed society. But it is not undirected, thoughtless or well intentioned. It comes from Frankfort School Critical theory. It was and is an attack on Western Christian civilization--on the faith itself. Christians should stop buying into the notion that the motivations behind PC are compassionate. They are not.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I know. Especially when it starts to destroy itself. Like, it's ok for this person to say such and such about Christianity but, oh no! Watch out if a Christian says what he believes about touchy issues! No respect. No respect at all....

 

[Time2BCounted]

Christianity was offensive in the 1st century for loadsa reasons. To tell a staunchly monotheistic Jewish society that Jesus was God's Son, wouldn't have been an ideal start.

I used to tell the blokes at work that I was a Christian because I knew I was bad, not because I thought I was good.

I know we had trouble on my street team when we started edging towards the love only gospel. People just said "Ahhh, that's nice" but did not feel the need to make a Christian commitment. My money would be on the guy who tells it like it is.

I like you GreenMunchkin.

Whats funny about this is that I have had the great pleasure of studing with some Hebrew Scholars for a while from both the messianic and the nonnmessianic Jews. Very lively discussions let me tell ya lol, talk about passionate in what they believe.

Deuteronomy 6:4 is called "The Shema" and is a foundational passage, which says...


Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Think about this as you remember Caiaphas charging Jesus with this paqssage because
He declared Himself God.s Son, claiming there is onloy one God.

The funny thing is I have been able to present this to nonmessianics who do not believe in Christ, ask them the original wording, and they have no basis for this believe because it uses a pluarl, Elohim, or "Gods", with a word "echad" which means literally, a composit of more than one, joined into one.

So what the passage actually says is "Hear o Israel, YHWH (the Eternal One), is Elohim (Gods), Echad, joined or united as one YHWH (Eternal One)

Literally speaking they couldnt LEGALLY Charged Jesus as they did based on this passage. Perhaps this IS one reason they held the trial at night so that those members of the Sanhedrin who knew this passage and halfway believed, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, possibly were not there to speak out for Him and argue His case.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I suppose that at the human level, the death of Christ was all tied up with politics. He threatened the established Jewish religious order and authorities of the day. So like you say, it has a lot to do with hierachies. Also, the Romans were interested in the political connotations of the idea that Jesus was "King of the Jews" - that he might lead an uprising. They made sure they really ridiculed that possibility with the crown of thorns etc.

For sure. And yet it's the Romans and the Pharisees that subjugated the Jewish people, but most of them still chose that life over one with Christ. It happened the way it was supposed to, but the mind boggles.

Imagine being alive then, witnessing Him healing people and seeing His love and integrity... and still choosing your old way of life. Astonishing, really.

I'm not sure how much the guys at work understood my Christianity and my attempts to explain it. They saw religion as something dangerous and to be avoided. Working-class men more than most of us, tend to be affected by what they see. If they read in The Sun newspaper that a vicar was having an affair with someone's wife, that is what shapes their perception of Christianity.

I think that's the same more most, actually. For example, look at the abuse cases within the Catholic Church in America recently. Have had countless discussions with people who think that's what represents Christianity. They don't really want to acknowledge those individuals don't even represent Catholicism, let alone Christianity as a whole.

And, naturally, it's only the negative things that make the press. Wow, society's really gunning for Christianty. I mean, I know we all know that, but it really is.

But I did use to put up some Christian posters and testimonies on my sorting frame, and God said that he would use that material to plant seeds, and that later, he would water those seeds.

And He never breaks a promise

One problem with the pig / dog / fool terminology, is that people wouldn't understand the context of your application of those words.

No. Very few people would feel wholly comfortable using words that appear universally pejorative. But it still sits very uncomfortably that anything Biblical - spoken by Jesus Himself - would be seen as insulting, or as a Very Bad Thing.

Certainly has grabbed society. But it is not undirected, thoughtless or well intentioned. It comes from Frankfort School Critical theory. It was and is an attack on Western Christian civilization--on the faith itself. Christians should stop buying into the notion that the motivations behind PC are compassionate. They are not.

Hiya, Voeglin! Is good to see you

What's Frankfort School Critical Theory?

The logic is fairly linear, actually. PC is inextricably tied into this peculiar post-modern phenomenon of fuzzywuzzy new-ageism, and that's a direct attack on Christianity, but all wrapped up in bubbles and serentity. They're the two different sides of the same coin.

 

[JoeWill]

Imagine being alive then, witnessing Him healing people and seeing His love and integrity... and still choosing your old way of life. Astonishing, really.

Very few people would feel wholly comfortable using words that appear universally pejorative. But it still sits very uncomfortably that anything Biblical - spoken by Jesus Himself - would be seen as insulting, or as a Very Bad Thing.

I'm also surprised now at how closed Jewish scholars are to the idea that the Isaiah 53 passage could be about Jesus. The parallels are so striking.

Have you thought any more about these words? It occurred to me that not many of them were directly applied by Jesus to ordinary people. The words "dogs", "pigs", "fool" seem to be used in parables, where they were only applied to hypothetical people. "Hypocrite" appears in a least one parable, but outside of that, it was directed only at the Pharisees - I think (?)

The most offensive terms I could think of Jesus using of ordinary people is when he called the nation a "generation of fornicators". Jesus spoke with the kind of authority of an Old Testament prophet, so his words may have been understood in that context.

Your CF character looks great by the way.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm also surprised now at how closed Jewish scholars are to the idea that the Isaiah 53 passage could be about Jesus. The parallels are so striking.

Amazing, isn't it? [bible]Isaiah 53:5[/bible]
That alone is a huge indication. And this is quite apart from the hundreds of prophesies He fulfilled. Hundreds of them.

Have you ever spoken to a Jewish individual about it? I never have, and it just doesn't compute. Jews for Jesus are doing wonderful things, though. Especially if the prophesies are right about there needing to be a mass revival amongst the Jewish people.

Have you thought any more about these words? It occurred to me that not many of them were directly applied by Jesus to ordinary people. The words "dogs", "pigs", "fool" seem to be used in parables, where they were only applied to hypothetical people. "Hypocrite" appears in a least one parable, but outside of that, it was directed only at the Pharisees - I think (?)

Golly, do you know, that hadn't even ocurred to me until you pointed it out? It seems so obvious, doesn't it? But it wasn't... huh.

So, I have a question: Jesus used those words within the structure of a parable; He was telling a story. So if we then use the same terminology, are we doing Him an injustice? We're sullying His methodology, almost? It suddenly feels that way, a little.

The most offensive terms I could think of Jesus using of ordinary people is when he called the nation a "generation of fornicators". Jesus spoke with the kind of authority of an Old Testament prophet, so his words may have been understood in that context.

And, of course, no-one since has had His level of authority. He's given us His authority, but we can't possibly ever become like Him, so by casually regurgitating His words we are actually woefully misrepresenting Him. Ok, so where does PCness fit into this? There's no doubt it's not a Christian development... but it's not the main reason we shouldn't use the same words He used.

Dude, it's like a light's gone on! Thank you!

Your CF character looks great by the way.

No-one can resist a lollypop