# Pejorative terms: the poll



## turmeric

Okay, let's take a poll! How many want to call a sodomite a sodomite in evanglelism, how many think it detracts?


----------



## TimV

The PCA church I went to paid Chad Thomas to speak about that, and he said that nothing bad about homosexuals should be said, because homosexuals already know that we Christians think they are sinning. Rather we shouldn't use those sorts of word, and instead hug them and take them to movies.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Why would we need to be fixated on sexual sins in evangelism?


----------



## ADKing

We don't need to use them for shock effect or unnecessarily, but we certainly should feel free to use words that the Bible uses when appropriate.


----------



## turmeric

Well, we could call people cheats and liars as well, but for some reason peculiar to our psychology, the words I picked for my examples are more offensive than _cheat_ or _liar_.


----------



## Pilgrim

ADKing said:


> We don't need to use them for shock effect or unnecessarily, but we certainly should free to use words that the Bible uses when appropriate.



This is basically my position as well. I haven't given a lot of consideration to this, but I don't think you have to be Joseph Fletcher (situational ethics) to take the position that some behaviors, words and modes of expression are going to be more helpful in some situations than others.


----------



## blhowes

TimV said:


> The PCA church I went to paid Chad Thomas to speak about that, and he said that nothing bad about homosexuals should be said, because homosexuals already know that we Christians think they are sinning. Rather we shouldn't use those sorts of word, and instead hug them and take them to movies.


Hug them and take them to the movies?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc. 

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 06:46:42 EST-----



blhowes said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA church I went to paid Chad Thomas to speak about that, and he said that nothing bad about homosexuals should be said, because homosexuals already know that we Christians think they are sinning. Rather we shouldn't use those sorts of word, and instead hug them and take them to movies.
> 
> 
> 
> Hug them and take them to the movies?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't take them to a movie necessarily, but didn't Christ dine with tax collectors and sinners? He didn't hesitate to point out their sin, but didn't avoid interaction with them either.


----------



## TimV

Yeah, I thought the male date idea was pretty emergent. I'm still all for sodomite.


----------



## larryjf

I try not to limit my vocabulary before i can discern the actual situation that i am going to speak to.

A Buddhist friend of mine asked me where they were going when they died and i boldly told them how and why they were going to Hell. The only reason i did it as boldly as i did was because i discerned that my friend was testing my honesty with my convictions. They ended up respecting what i said and how i said it...without soft-peddling it.

Other situations will call for more discretion.

It depends on who you are talking to, where they are at in their sin, and so many other variables.


----------



## Pergamum

Just because we do not use the harshest of terms dealing with sinners does not mean we are going soft on sin. Another good example is calling someone struggling with sexual sin a whore. I suspect that we have drawn battle lines and are fighting the culture war AGAINST sinners rather than inviting them onto our side. Again, we are out to win people primarily and not just arguments. Our only offense should be the necessary one of the Cross.


----------



## blhowes

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I wouldn't take them to a movie necessarily, but didn't Christ dine with tax collectors and sinners? He didn't hesitate to point out their sin, but didn't avoid interaction with them either.


I think the gist of it is to treat them with respect, which I agree with. Don't avoid them like they're the plague, but use discernment in your interactions.

As far as calling them sodomites, I don't think I'd use the term most of the time. It just seems like an unnecessary barrior to raise when talking with somebody.


----------



## he beholds

ColdSilverMoon said:


> We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc.



Well, she wasn't a whore, as far as we know.


----------



## Pergamum

Whore, slut, Jezebel..all have connotations of loose living..but are needlessly offensive is we are trying to show grace to a soul.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

he beholds said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she wasn't a whore, as far as we know.
Click to expand...


She was promiscuous. In modern lingo should could be termed a "whore" for sleeping with multiple men.


----------



## Zenas

TimV said:


> The PCA church I went to paid Chad Thomas to speak about that, and he said that nothing bad about homosexuals should be said, because homosexuals already know that we Christians think they are sinning. Rather we shouldn't use those sorts of word, and instead hug them and take them to movies.



Sound advice. I'll be forming a movie outing with the campus LGBT group. (kidding)

I put that it can be useful. It's an extreme word in today's context and I wouldn't *LEAD* with it. However, after establishing myself in the conversation I think it's perfectly reasonable to drive home the point; not to be used to label the specific person as a "Sodomite" because that just degenerates the conversation into name calling, but as part of an illustration that homosexuality is an ancient and perverse practice, specifically labeled and condemned in Scripture. There is some sort of strange notion circulating today that being "ok" with homosexuality makes you "modern" and "open-minded". I fail to see how endorsing an *ancient* sexual perversion makes one *"modern"*.


----------



## TimV

> She was promiscuous. In modern lingo should could be termed a "whore" for sleeping with multiple men.


No, Jessi's right. You don't normally called divorced and remarried women whores if they don't charge. Christ said she was living in sin, and my understanding of the context leads me to believe He also said he'd divorced unlawfully, but those are different vices.

There are no shortage of harsh words for certain categories in the Bible. Things like worthless men, sluggards, evil beasts etc...


----------



## he beholds

_



16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

Click to expand...

_
I think this _*is*_ Christ calling her out on her sin. He may not have said the word "adulterer," or even, "sinner," but he did confront her with her specific sins. I think if we were evangelizing a gay person, it _could_ be proper and beneficial to name his sin. I think we'd be following Christ's example and be showing the person just how desperate he is for the forgiveness of his sins.


----------



## Archlute

Pergamum said:


> Whore, slut, Jezebel..all have connotations of loose living..but are needlessly offensive is we are trying to show grace to a soul.



Sure, but before you can show grace to a soul you must first show them their sin (the very reason that grace is needed), their need of repentance and turning in faith to Christ, and the purpose and accomplishment of the cross. It is only then that grace will be truly understood. 

Included in that would necessarily be a discussion of what the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture terms an "abomination". I do not think that the terms used in the apostolic letters were any less offensive to the culture of that day than they are to ours. Sinners have always reacted against their sins being labeled and frowned upon, whether in ancient society or our own. The universal condition of the human heart tends to flatten out historical and cultural distance.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> She was promiscuous. In modern lingo should could be termed a "whore" for sleeping with multiple men.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jessi's right. You don't normally called divorced and remarried women whores if they don't charge. Christ said she was living in sin, and my understanding of the context leads me to believe He also said he'd divorced unlawfully, but those are different vices.
> 
> There are no shortage of harsh words for certain categories in the Bible. Things like worthless men, sluggards, evil beasts etc...
Click to expand...


I agree with you, Tim. I was making the point, obviously not well, that Christ didn't use the harshest terminology when point out sin, except perhaps when it came to the Pharisees. Instead of whore, I should have said slut, or whatever the Aramaic equivalent is.


----------



## TimV

> Instead of whore, I should have said slut, or whatever the Aramaic equivalent is.



So a man and woman join Redeemer NY and they're in their 50s. She's on her third husband. You call her a slut?


----------



## okinawabones

I think if I'm willing to use such terms to evangelize others, then I should practice using them on myself at the same time. Keeping in mind that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that none among us are righteous (nope, not even me), it's probably worth stating to a "sodomite" that you yourself are a liar, thief, adulterer, fill-in-the-blank. This does two things- first, it puts me and the sinner I'm evangelizing on the same level from his perspective (oddly enough, it's also the most accurate perspective); and second, it makes the matter of his salvation one of the heart- and not wrapped up in the singular act (no matter how often repeated) of sodomy. I guess the point I'm trying (not so succinctly) to make is that I'm far more apt to name a sin that doesn't apply to me than I am to label myself with anything other than "plain ole sinner"- and in the process, put myself a little higher on the righteousness ladder.


----------



## kalawine

TimV said:


> Yeah, I thought the male date idea was pretty emergent. I'm still all for sodomite.



 You crack me up!

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 09:19:00 EST-----

I voted "No, it creates un-necessary offense apart from the necessary offense of the Gospel." 
All I'm trying to get a person to see when I'm evangalizing is that they are a sinner; not what "kind" they are. I always stress that we are all sinners.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Our only offense should be the necessary one of the Cross.



This is a false dichotomy. If the cross is the only offense, then why are unbelievers offended at so much else that Scripture says, or that Jesus says, or that Paul said, or that Peter said. This is a reduction of the bible's teaching to one point, and is not helpful. Jesus said that men would be offended at us because of "His words", and not just the ones in red talking about the cross.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Matthew1034

Voted "That's so gay!" for fun.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Here is another thought. Do pejorative terms push other Christians away? What I mean is calling people sodomites rub other Christians in such a way to cause strife among the breathren? I personally think so. I only hear pride when I hear the term.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't know. It seems to me that some people desire to make sure _others_ understand how sinful they really are. It's not that Scripture fails to call sin what it is but it's in our attitude toward sinners that the use of terms is most telling.

Christ didn't have a problem telling sinners to sin no more but He did so knowing they were toast without Him. Meanwhile, the Pharisees were convinced that Christ spent far too much time hanging around _them_ because, after all, wretchedness was not a quality they shared with _sinners_.

Who cares about terms, the real question is what we think about those who are perishing. Are we better than they?


----------



## turmeric

Rich, you nailed it, as usual. I have to remember, when I'm talking to an unsaved person, that there but for the grace of God go I. Literally. I think if there's any advantage in not being saved until later in life, it's that it gets really clear that it's not a matter of being better than anyone. I try to put myself in the other person's place when I talk to him or her. If someone called me a prejorative name, even sinner, which is still an acurate description of me, I would not have listened to anything else they said.

What I'm really not understanding is what appears to be a lack of humility in people who insist that they have nothing to do with their salvation, that before salvation they are incapable of turning to Christ without the agency of the Holy Spirit, in short, how can someone believe the TULIP thing and still feel a need to be so deliberately offensive? I think it's reaction to the overdone p.c. thing, but we're talking to dead people - dead like we were. How can we get this angry with dead and doomed people? Rant off.


----------



## JohnGill

*If we sanitize sodomite...*

Can we also sanitize the following terms:

murderer for people who commit murders
rapist for people who commit rape
pederast and pedophile for people who sexually molest children
adulterer/ess for those who commit adultery
liar for those that lie
thief for those that steal 
fornicator for those that commit fornication

If we're going to allow sinners to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable with one word for one sin, why not every word? Just because some unlearned use a perfectly fine term as a pejorative does not mean we should stop using it. Murderers don't like being called murderers, adulterers don't like being called adulterers, but 'homosexuals' don't mind being called 'homosexuals.' However, they don't like being called sodomites. If we're going to get rid of sodomite let's get rid of them rest of the terms for consistencies sake.


----------



## Pergamum

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our only offense should be the necessary one of the Cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a false dichotomy. If the cross is the only offense, then why are unbelievers offended at so much else that Scripture says, or that Jesus says, or that Paul said, or that Peter said. This is a reduction of the bible's teaching to one point, and is not helpful. Jesus said that men would be offended at us because of "His words", and not just the ones in red talking about the cross.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


By the Cross, I am meaning the basic Gospel message, which would include all those things you just wrote.

We are to speak the truth IN LOVE, and to be needlessly offensive is usually done to beat a person in an argument or belittle them, club them into the kingdom, instead of showing as much respect as possible to them.


Again, when Jesus dealt with struggling sinners, he wa very "nice" and gracious; He reserved his harsh replies for religious authorities and those in high places, and religious teachers 


The non-Christian world thinks os Christians as narrow, harsh, critical and judgmental. We denounce things much more than we love people. We give them pleny of fodder. Returning to a meek servanthood is the answer whereby we treat all people with respect and we try to be winsome and win people through love rather than beat them over the head with verbally abusive eipthets, whatever those may be (what is offensive being defined by the person offended).


----------



## LawrenceU

I am all for calling sin by Biblical names, but needless offense is useless. Note: I said 'needless offense'. I have met far too many Reformed folks who love to be so exacting in their vocabulary in dealing with sinners, and for some reason especially so in dealing with or discussing Sodomy, that they completely miss the boat; they seem to forget that the goal is to declare the great news that Jesus can free them from their death and sin.

I often think that some of the ones I have seen are more trying to impress other Christians with their 'boldness' than they are trying to fish for men.

I work with homosexuals / Sodomites every day. I live in a city that has a fairly large percentage of them, at least for the South. I rarely see Christians reaching out to them in a humble, ' I am also a sinner saved by grace. ' attitude.

I'm curious at how many discussing this thread actually interact with homosexuals at all. Not angry, just curious.

Just so you know. I find homosexuality vile, disgusting, abhorrent, repulsive, and sinful. When I was in college I came within moments of killing a man for propositioning me in the dorm hallway. That is sin as well. They both are repulsive to our Holy God. Until we have hearts broken of the people around us dying in their sin and headed to hell it will not matter what language we use in 'witnessing' to the or trying to convince them of their sin. They will see us for what we are: arrogant judgmental jerks.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> Instead of whore, I should have said slut, or whatever the Aramaic equivalent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a man and woman join Redeemer NY and they're in their 50s. She's on her third husband. You call her a slut?
Click to expand...


NO! That's my point, you DON'T call her a slut, but you do call her actions sinful...


----------



## PresbyDane

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know. It seems to me that some people desire to make sure _others_ understand how sinful they really are. It's not that Scripture fails to call sin what it is but it's in our attitude toward sinners that the use of terms is most telling.
> 
> Christ didn't have a problem telling sinners to sin no more but He did so knowing they were toast without Him. Meanwhile, the Pharisees were convinced that Christ spent far too much time hanging around _them_ because, after all, wretchedness was not a quality they shared with _sinners_.
> 
> Who cares about terms, the real question is what we think about those who are perishing. Are we better than they?



I  we should not use those words to kick up the dust and get some emotions high, but if we want to use them to talk about the state we as humans are in and that that is why we need Jesus then ofcourse use the words, but make your motives sure first.


----------



## ADKing

Many brothers in this poll are reacting (rightly in my opinion) to the use of such terms in arrogance, anger or for the boldness effect. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, if we are to use the Bible in evangelism is it necessary, or right, to shy away from passages that use such "offensive" terms? I cannot see how. Part of the issue in my opinion is the attitude of the person being evangelized. I am firmly persuaded of the old Puritan addage that before we apply the salve of the gospel people must be broken by the law. Some people may already be open and feel their sins. In such a case it is not helpful at all to keep beating away! Give them the balm! However, in evangelism, often times we meet with people who have yet to be truly broken by a sense of sin. In such circumstances any reference to sin or calling it what it is will be offensive to them. Getting a sense for where a person is will go a long way in my opinion. 

As several people have alluded to, Jesus used different methods with different people. The woman at the well he treated tenderly (while yet dealing with sin). The Pharisees he outright condemned as a "generation of vipers". I dare say that could have rankled his hearers! 

If we must entirely avoid these "offensive" terms, how can we use such precious passages as the like?

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6.9-11).


----------



## Pergamum

LawrenceU said:


> I am all for calling sin by Biblical names, but needless offense is useless. Note: I said 'needless offense'. I have met far too many Reformed folks who love to be so exacting in their vocabulary in dealing with sinners, and for some reason especially so in dealing with or discussing Sodomy, that they completely miss the boat; they seem to forget that the goal is to declare the great news that Jesus can free them from their death and sin.
> 
> I often think that some of the ones I have seen are more trying to impress other Christians with their 'boldness' than they are trying to fish for men.
> 
> I work with homosexuals / Sodomites every day. I live in a city that has a fairly large percentage of them, at least for the South. I rarely see Christians reaching out to them in a humble, ' I am also a sinner saved by grace. ' attitude.
> 
> I'm curious at how many discussing this thread actually interact with homosexuals at all. Not angry, just curious.
> 
> Just so you know. I find homosexuality vile, disgusting, abhorrent, repulsive, and sinful. When I was in college I came within moments of killing a man for propositioning me in the dorm hallway. That is sin as well. They both are repulsive to our Holy God. Until we have hearts broken of the people around us dying in their sin and headed to hell it will not matter what language we use in 'witnessing' to the or trying to convince them of their sin. They will see us for what we are: arrogant judgmental jerks.



Amen, and yes I like your distinction between offense and "needless offense." Some offense is needful...however, I think many, in reaction against the Culture Wars and in reaction against PC language delight to be offensive just to rankle others. 

I have seen this with my own eyes of Christians being needlessly offensive when sinners - and even gays - have wanted to dialogue about religion. Phrases such as "you people" were used and I even got offended and I was a Christian.


----------



## Honor

I have a gay friend... I would never use the word Sodomite. I have told him that the Bible calls what he does as blatant sin... but I also pointed out that I am no better than he... Sin is sin. But I have a Saviour. and he can too. But to call him a sodomite is a bit ridiculous because it goes out of the way to be hurtful. You don't think that gay people don't know that Christians think their behavior is wrong? you don't think that they get called out enough about it. But do we say anything to the obese preacher who clears out the buffet after church? No, because one sin makes us uncomfortable, the other is cool... especially here in America... you wouldn't go up to your pastor and and be like "Hey glutton!" that would be rude and you have have no couth. Why would you do that to a gay guy?


----------



## turmeric

As a glutton,


----------



## DMcFadden

JohnGill said:


> *Can we also sanitize the following terms*:
> 
> murderer for people who commit murders
> rapist for people who commit rape
> pederast and pedophile for people who sexually molest children
> adulterer/ess for those who commit adultery
> liar for those that lie
> thief for those that steal
> fornicator for those that commit fornication



Sure!
* a victim of unjust social structures who "acted out" in ways frowned upon by society
* non-consensual sexual relations
* a "lover" of children
* a swinger
* a spin-artist
* an economically disadvantaged person "foraging" in the best way he can in an unjust society
* a practitioner of "free love"



Frankly, I never avoid words like sin/sinner. However, being rude for rudeness sake is hardly a great way to practice gracious speech seasoned with salt.


----------



## Thomas2007

turmeric said:


> Okay, let's take a poll! How many want to call a sodomite a sodomite in evanglelism, how many think it detracts?





turmeric said:


> Okay, let's take a poll! How many want to call a sodomite a sodomite in evanglelism, how many think it detracts?



The Scripture says:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God..." 1 Cor 10:31-32​
and

"Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses..." 2 Cor 6:3-4​
I voted "It can be useful sometimes..." because words like "sodomite" can be used without inflection or intent to violate the Scriptures command. I believe it is the correct word. I think it just requires prudence.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I believe it depends on the context of the situation. If we just use name calling then it will be assumed by the lost person that they are being looked down on. How can we look down on them when we are no better than them? That being said, we must boldly proclaim God's judgment against wickedness...the same judgment we would be crushed by if not for God's saving grace.


----------



## ReformedChapin

I don't see a reason to use pejorative terms other than to offend people you are trying to witness too. No I am not advocating a lovey dovey Gospel out there or trying to compromise the message. The problem is that people don't understand the message and if all you are doing is calling them names they will just be set in defense mode and everything else you say it's just a blur.


----------



## Staphlobob

When I use the term "sodomite" it's not with arrogance or pride. Just the opposite - it's with fear and anxiety. The use of the word is equivalent to "Nazi" today, so deliberately using it is to make oneself vulnerable to the scorn and rejection of the world. Doubtless there is a part of me (as with all of us) that longs to be liked and accepted by the world. Hence the anxiety. However dedication to truth and being approved of by God has to override such desire. 

"Sodomy" is a useful word for evangelism because of reformed theology's understanding of the origin of faith. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something like, "The entire universe is claimed either by God or the devil." And he was right. And that includes our speech. The words we speak - and that means *all* of the words we speak - are either law (needed by antinomians) or gospel (needed by the anxious and desperate). To deliberately use "sodomite" is to stand upon the law and, if it's God's purpose, to ultimately bring a person to grace and repentance. 

"Homosexual" is, for many people, a non-offensive word that carries neither law nor gospel. Being merely descriptive in nature, it is as comfortable in the vocabulary of scientists as well as the Hollywood elites. That it is presently being viewed in a negative way by the pro-sodomite forces, one must wonder if those who presently hold to its use will bend the knee to social convention and change to something more acceptable by the world.

OTOH, "gay" is affirmative. Perhaps one might say it is the polar opposite of "sodomite." 

Furthermore, as a reformed pastor I am not to be concerned with whether my words are liked - or not liked - by the world because salvation is not up to me. While being deliberately obnoxious is not part of Christian ministry, neither is being concerned with how I'm viewed. What really matters is to be passionate about God's truth and purposes since faith is His gift and so doesn't depend upon my being acceptable to others. Romans 10:17 doesn't teach anything regarding whether or not an evangelist's words are acceptable to others.

OTOH, if I'm obsessed with how I speak, how I'm received, whether or not I'm accepted, then to that same extent someone's salvation will depend upon me. Arminians resort to marketing techniques as a way of trying to make themselves at ease with the world so that they will be thought of in a kindly (and hopefully respected) manner. Thus, if people are to decide for Christ such a decision is - in large part - based upon the likeability and rationality of the evangelist. So he'd better watch his language and make it non-offensive. He'd better impress the world.

Again, being deliberately detestible is not in the arsenal of Christian ministry. But then, neither is concern about it. So, in the end, I stick with the word sodomy.


----------



## Rangerus

I cannot think of one ordinary conversation, evangelical or otherwise, where those terms would be helpful. Most people feel that talk should remain in the locker room. 

However I certainly feel there is a specific place and time of which sodomite and whore not only could be used but should be used. But bostly among knowledgeable, intelligent individuals who have a deep understanding of what each word means. Never in mixed company.


----------



## MOSES

If a sinner is not 'offended' and 'cut to the heart' then he will never repent. The gospel truth is an offense to sinners.
I don't know about you all..but I did not repent until I was offended.

*Of all of scripture guess who the guy was that consistly used the most derogartoy terms in scripture?*
Jesus

he called certain sinners
- snakes/vipers
- scorpions
- dead men
- hyprocrites
- extorotionist's
- self indulgers
- blind guides
- whitewashed tombs
- unclean
- lawless men
- Sons of Satan
- Robbers
- Thieves

Etc. etc...

Perty much every derogatory name in the book, in Jesus day that is, was used by him.
Also, let's not forget about some of the imprecatory psalms, some of Paul's "derogatory" use of words, etc.

Note: of course, as was the case with Jesus' words...there is a time and a place to be "derogatory" in calling out sin and sinners.


----------



## Staphlobob

Precise and to the point. Very good. Thanks.


----------



## AThornquist

Every gay person in the US and Canada is running to the Westborough Baptist church because they see the love of Christ and...oh yeah, that God hates fags.


And by the way, MOSES, check out who those names so often refer to: pharisees. Highly religious self-righteous people. And by the way, I think Jesus had a right to use such harsh language: He was perfect!


----------



## ReformedChapin

AThornquist said:


> Every gay person in the US and Canada is running to the Westborough Baptist church because they see the love of Christ and...oh yeah, that God hates fags.
> 
> 
> And by the way, MOSES, check out who those names so often refer to: pharisees. Highly religious self-righteous people. And by the way, I think Jesus had a right to use such harsh language: He was perfect!



Excellent Post brother. Jesus tended to be hard on those who were supposed to know the truth not outsiders. If we started insulting people who don't know of the gospel they will just ignore us.


----------



## AThornquist

...But let me clarify: for some people, blunt truth is certainly what appeals to them. For many, especially in today's PC "sensitive child" society, using blunt truth is very easily construed as anything but truth, just "judgment." The only way to know when and what to say is to be led by the Spirit and see each situation in its own context. Generalizations are often not true.

(When I was in the eighth grade or something like I was highly perverse and a self-righteous hypocrite. A non-believer told me so. It changed my life.)


----------



## ReformedChapin

AThornquist said:


> ...But let me clarify: for some people, blunt truth is certainly what appeals to them. For many, especially in today's PC "sensitive child" society, using blunt truth is very easily construed as anything but truth, just "judgment." The only way to know when and what to say is to be led by the Spirit and see each situation in its own context. Generalizations are often not true.
> 
> (When I was in the eighth grade or something like I was highly perverse and a self-righteous hypocrite. A non-believer told me so. It changed my life.)


I have been often criticized in my church for being too direct. But even I realize that one must be careful as to how one addresses people in the church and how one addresses people outside the church. Believers should know better and when they make purposeful sinful mistakes they should be corrected. My big worry is to how some Christians treat non-believers. They assume that taking the direct route non-believers will understand what they are telling them and not just insulting them. We should be really careful as to how we deal with each individual's case.


----------



## AThornquist

Yeah, I think you're totally right. We can't have a set way to talk to every kind of person. Some like direct, others are so beat up spiritually that they need to be talked to with special sensitivity. May our God guide us in our speech. The tongue is powerful--for God's glory... or not.


----------



## JohnGill

Who determined that sodomite was pejorative? The sodomites? If so then why are we allowing them to set the verbal agenda? If Christians, then when did this occur?


----------



## ReformedChapin

JohnGill said:


> Who determined that sodomite was pejorative? The sodomites? If so then why are we allowing them to set the verbal agenda? If Christians, then when did this occur?



The culture? Don't we as christians have to react to the culture as it defines itself?


----------



## JohnGill

ReformedChapin said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who determined that sodomite was pejorative? The sodomites? If so then why are we allowing them to set the verbal agenda? If Christians, then when did this occur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture? Don't we as christians have to react to the culture as it defines itself?
Click to expand...


No! Most definitely not! We, as Christians, are to conform the culture to Christ. We are not reactive, we are to be proactive. To allow sinners to set the agenda for us is sin.


----------



## ReformedChapin

JohnGill said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who determined that sodomite was pejorative? The sodomites? If so then why are we allowing them to set the verbal agenda? If Christians, then when did this occur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture? Don't we as christians have to react to the culture as it defines itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! Most definitely not! We, as Christians, are to conform the culture to Christ. We are not reactive, we are to be proactive. To allow sinners to set the agenda for us is sin.
Click to expand...


Oy. I didn't say we should conform to the culture as the culture demands. I mean the culture defines itself obviously we should react to it in a Christ like manner. But we still use the culture standards it has created for itself. Sodomite is looked as a direct insult, if you walk up to a homosexual and tell him you sodomite repent. What is he going to think? Why not use the label that they use for themselves?

C'mon dude.


----------



## JohnGill

ReformedChapin said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture? Don't we as christians have to react to the culture as it defines itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! Most definitely not! We, as Christians, are to conform the culture to Christ. We are not reactive, we are to be proactive. To allow sinners to set the agenda for us is sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oy. I didn't say we should conform to the culture as the culture demands. I mean the culture defines itself obviously we should react to it in a Christ like manner. But we still use the culture standards it has created for itself. Sodomite is looked as a direct insult, if you walk up to a homosexual and tell him you sodomite repent. What is he going to think? Why not use the label that they use for themselves?
> 
> C'mon dude.
Click to expand...


Because we don't allow sinners to define themselves. By giving into the 'cultural standards' that the wicked have created for themselves, we are giving ground to the enemy. I've never found a reason to use the term sodomite in evangelism, sodomy yes, but I won't refuse to use a word simply because a practitioner of that sin doesn't like the name for one who practices that sin. Nor will I use a word that they are comfortable with. I don't call pedophiles or pederasts practitioners of 'child love' as they wish.


----------



## JBaldwin

As I have been reading through this thread, I cannot help but think of the kind of evangelism that I was familiar with when growing up in fundamentalism. The more intense the terminology, the more guilt that could be heaped on an individual, the better. The general attitude was if a person is committing adultery, call them an adulterer and add any other nasty harsh words that you can think of, and perhaps you can persuade them by guilt or fear of hell into the kingdom. In that fashion, a person was manipulated by guilt. 

While I find nothing wrong with calling sin what it is, I believe there is (as many have mentioned) an attitude of arrogance to avoided. When sharing the Gospel with others, if we fail to point out God's hatred for sin or fail to call sin what it is, then I think we diminish the sacrifice of our Lord. On the other hand, there are many ways of pointing out someone's sin without rubbing their nose in it. That takes the Holy Spirit's guidance and direction and wisdom that does not come from us. We do not know a person's heart, but we can trust when sharing the Gospel with someone that the Lord will give us discernment to say the right words at the right time, whether those words be harsh or gentle.


----------



## AThornquist

For the past ten or fifteen minutes I have typed responses and then deleted them for fear that I may not respond in a way that honors the Lord or shows due respect and love for fellow heirs of the Kingdom. With that said, let me just say that if something is unnecessary and may hinder our cause of sharing the love of Christ, then it should be abandoned. Referring to people as sodomites just so happens to qualify.

Is offending believers and non-believers through your use of an unnecessary word worth doing? I surely hope you don't think so.


----------



## turmeric

Okay, folks, my little statistics experiment is done, thanks all for participating.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> Note: of course, as was the case with Jesus' words...there is a time and a place to be "derogatory" in calling out sin and sinners.



And Christ knew the time and place because He possessed maturity and prudence that fools lack. Even Satan quoted Scripture properly when he was tempting Jesus but all he can do is ape wisdom.


----------

