Your sloppy reading doesn't help.
as opposed to searching ONLY to find something that backs up your presuppositions instead of investigating both sides to actually have the information to make a decision. Why does your insult not hurt me much?
In fact, the link is an open site that encourages anonymous posters and comments.
OHHH a RED NECK version of offensive christians to be peer reviewed by other offensive christians... GOTCHA!
I quoted a combination of opinions (the most credible) from the page, which presents comments from dozens of posters.
So, you push opinions over research. Noted. You'd rather have other people tell you what to believe, than investigate it yourself and learn what you can so you know WHY you believe what you believe. CHECK! (we are different there.)
I suggest you read the full discussion including the various threads of comments.
I've spent about 60 hours one week on this one word alone, I'm not making a flippant guess at the meaning of the word. Until you present something substantial enough to make me go change some views..... and other people's opinions in a chat forum, isn't that big a deal to me. I read comments from people who spent a life studying the language and heads up bible translation teams, and other like sources.
You also have to factor out the tendency to eisegesis on this topic. After 800 years of "don't say those words" it becomes so common, even though it's not biblical it's accepted. THEN people have to go and justify their claims, which means they'll bend anything they can reach at to serve their purposes. Even trained professionals have such strong presuppositions they do that. Like the Greek word Sarx, or flesh. People insist it's the human body, and SOMETIMES IT IS! But not always. If it's not sometimes used as a metaphor for something, then you had walking skeletal Apostles. But someone loyal to king james, who always saw flesh will lean towards flesh even WITH the screwed up interpretations it causes people to have in other places...
There is a lot to consider on it. As I said, 60 Plus hours at least. I was arguing against a person who taught intro Greek at a So Cal school. So I had to be uber prepared compared to the usual chat room debate.
You are probably welcome to contribute your own opinion as well.
If you felt there was a need and that I needed to be there, I don't know you, but I would do it for you. There is no need there... not sure why I would bother entering a debate that is so heavily biased to use circular logic and think it's ok.
Since I can't determine your sincerity in learning, I'm going to assume the best.
I don't know you after all and the skubalonish events I've experienced from others shouldn't affect me. Daniel Wallace, Dallas Baptist University, Scholar of New Testament Scholars, respected as one of the top TEN in the world of this generation by atheist and christian students of Koinonia Greek has his comments on the link
HERE
DTS is known for being very conservative, southern baptist like in it's roots. Perhaps not AS FAR as southern baptist, but closer there than not. So, you should have some confidence with the background not making any liberal claims here. Oh, D. Wallace has literally written the text book most of the colleges use today for teaching Greek.
I hope that helps to give you enough thought to actually research the topic if you are going to voice an opinion on it. And I realize how crappy that sounds.... I dunno how to say it other wise, but it's not intended as a crappy comment.
I'm not sure that modern concepts like "obscene" are even relevant here.
Perhaps I've been influenced by the fact that in Canada,
the obsenity laws were struck down and removed from the
Canadian Criminal Code by homosexual lawyers in the 80s.
"christians" "hold to a higher standard" or as Paul puts it, makes up things that make them feel holy but are not even close to reality in the faith, and just give them false impressions of themselves. The word "CUSSING" is a bastardized (not a dirty word look it up.) version of Cursing. Cursing in NT Greek would be when you insult a person's name. You put a curse on them so others think less of them. That affects their lives in that culture. Of course that's just one example. The thought that saying one particular word would be a curse like that, is hilarious in context and syntax and grammar in Greek.
Don't you find it ironic every christian forum will kick you off for the S, D, H, F, words, but could care less if the real offenses that are repeated are committed, libel, slander, etc... It just speaks to the hypocrisy that has become standard in our faith. WHICH IS NOT condemning people to being hypocrites. If it's all they have ever heard and been taught, why would they even think to question it to learn better?
Maybe they were right that "obscene" is an artificial modern
'Christian/Enlightenment' concept related to gentrification.
That would be the word VULGAR more than obscene.... but... there is still some truth to it.
I probably don't care, except that it was a stepping-stone for
homosexual lawyers to have real criminal acts like sodomy legalized,
so that they could do those things to one another and to young boys
without being horse-whipped and put in jail, which was what
we used to do in Canada.
MOre heterosexual people are pedophiles than homosexual. If it condemns one sexual preference it condemns the other even more.
My view is that dangerous sexual perversions and corruption of youth
should remain regulated by law as criminal acts.
Raise your youth so they won't be corrupted. That's an easy one. Parent should be parents.
here's a newsflash though. You can't "turn a person gay". You might convince them to try a same sex experience, but you can't turn them gay. They no more choose to be gay, than you chose to be heterosexual. Just like you don't choose how many synapses your brain produces or beats your heart produce. Try me on this. But, I'd prefer to avoid distractions and hold that chat private. Of course you could run and show and tell to whomever, but the chat being private it would be uninterrupted and easier to track.
But returning to your apparent 'argument' that the reasoning is circular,
I have to disagree.
Are you sure about what circular reasoning is? The man said nearly point blank literally, Paul couldn't be cursing because Paul spoke against cursing and he doesn't contradict himself. That's circular reasoning, no matter what posture you want to take on the argument. To say otherwise would be like calling red, blue.
Although many Christians are indeed concerned about profanity,
I believe it is indeed mentioned rather clearly and explicitly in other
N.T. texts as sinful activity which is to be avoided.
I believe it isn't. I know it isn't. I'm willing to discuss them all with you. You'll discover they discuss THINGS you say about people, not words you say TO people.
You can make the presumption that Paul was self-contradictory
and/or hypocritical, but I think that rather the burden of proof
and the onus is on you to prove that claim.
Errr, your position has him being contradictory. I have no issue with him saying what he said....
Its not up to Christians to 'disprove' every slander or bogus claim
against Paul or other NT authors. There simply isn't time.
So you'll run and pretend that things dont' exist that you don't like and dismiss them rudely as slander or bogus claim? (libel technically but... I got the idea.)
Why let reality get in the way of a perfectly good fantasy, right?
I get it. It's hard to have to change views you were taught as a child. What else could be wrong. It's scary. I'll tell you about that experience sometime if you wish too... 12 years of angst at the lies I was taught... was very frustrating for me.
- - -
Angry/violent, and profane are two quite distinct personality traits.
Your smearing and blending doesn't contribute to intelligent discussion.
My what? Show me some, please. Your empty accusations don't discredit me they merely make you appear to whine...?
Hitler was not profane; he was quite discplined most of the time
in his writing and in his public expression, no matter how worked up
he got himself.
I only use this extreme illustration to prove the distinction.
And proving the distinction disproves your claim
that Paul's anger makes Paul's alleged 'profanity' likely.
Ok, you can be in water and not be wet. I understand your position. Paul wanted to see people cut their walnuts up in pieces, but he wouldn't say a vulgar word for fecal waste in the streets.... I get it.... (I really don't, but I'm trying to be polite.) You'll forgive me for accepting Daniel Wallace's explanation over yours, right?
As a scientist I don't believe in 'proofs' but rather probabilities.
I'm assuming the word "scientist" is used loosely, even optimistically, as you have not shown a tendency to the schooling of hard logic. I taught the class, really, I can recognize it when I see it.
You may work in a place that does science, but I can't see you being a scientist actually doing and writing the summations of the work studied.... I could be wrong, am I?
I'm sorry to detect you've been brought up indoctrinated into scientism
rather than science.
I love it when someone who is wrong, and wants REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD to be right, resort to ad hominem posturing to support their claims. I'll stick to Wallace as one of MANY who's opinion is more expert than any thing you ahve produced, INCLUDING your scientifically sharpened, steel trap mind.
Since you resort to rambling insults here.. which is typical for this place, rather than discuss the points, I'm cutting my response short. It appears I gave you too much credit above. Sue me for being optimistic.
Lemme guess, you type the notes of the scientists who do the actual research...... right?
