# What Words in Popular Christianity Should Be Banned?



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

I saw a story this morning about Lake Superior State University's annual list of words and phrases that are overused and should be banned from the English language in the coming new year. Here are some of the words that made the list this year:


Green
Carbon Footprint
Maverick
Bailout

If one were to compile a similar list for overused words in popular Christianity, what words do you think should make the list? I posted a poll with some suggestions at my blog here, so if you have time, I'd appreciate your vote/opinion there as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 31, 2008)

1) Missional

2) evangelical

3) community

4) social justice

5) culture


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 31, 2008)

Sodomites. 

Call them homosexuals, sinners, unregenerate or something, but too many people (even some here) use the term sodomites in the same way many people call black people N*****. 

in my opinion the only thing that term does is raise pride in the person saying it and anger in the person to whom it is being said.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Nice list, Ben. I put "missional" and "community" on my poll, but somehow I forgot about "evangelical."

"Social justice" also definitely deserves a spot!


----------



## turmeric (Dec 31, 2008)

full-orbed

time and treasure

coming along side

All of those are WAY overdone!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 31, 2008)

1. Sanders Revolution. Come on: maybe some modern scholars have had a hard time understanding second temple judaism, but I think some of our older divines understood it pretty well. Well Sanders certainly had some insight (hey, I wouldn't trade away my copy of Paul and Palestinian Judaism), I think this so-called revolution has resulted in far more confusion than progress.

2. Over-realized Eschatology (While it's often true that this is a/the cause of a theological error, I'm growing weary of hearing, "The problem is that he has an over-realized eschatology." He probably does, but it just seems like this is slowly becoming a catchphrase.)

3. Roman Catholic/Pelagian. I'm probably guilty of this, too, but I've noticed that we often tend to apply the label RC or Pelagian to any theology we don't like in order to attach a bad stigma to it. Once someone has said, "Oh, well that's just pelagianism," then who is going to be willing to advocate it or even admit to liking certain parts of it? Again, the parallels are often there, but I think we use it as a rhetorical strategy more than anything.

4. (This one will probably ostracize me from PB members, but...): TULIP. I don't know, I've never liked this one very much. I think it normally just leads to stereotypes and confusion, as though this is what we emphasize above all, or is all we care about.

5. Missionaries. Real missionaries are great. Praise God for Perg and others out there. But my daughter is _not_ a missionary at school. She's a student. She's there to learn.

6. (I guess this isn't really a word, but) Mission Statement. Have you noticed most churches have mission statements now? "It's all the rage."

7. Simple. Or "non-churchy." Intentionally not using "churchy" or religious words in your church so you can reach out better. The flip side of that is, of course, that the rest of us don't care about the simple man or the unchurched, that we're elitist. I kind of resent that.

8. Community. Community is great; I love community. But the connotations given to it by the people who use this word most...?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

holistic


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> holistic



I almost put that one...


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 31, 2008)

Phrases pulled from Joel Osteen's web site (there's more, but you get the idea):

Achieving fullest potential
Discovering your purpose
Becoming Champions in Life


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Mission Statement (or Vision Statement) -- that's good, and I hadn't thought of that one!


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 31, 2008)

"bible based" when it is used to put down denominations with creeds and rules. Of course we are all "bible based", it is how one interprets what it says.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

What's wrong with evangelical? 

If restored to its original meaning, it is a great word. Maybe ditch the word Reformed, since TRs try to monopolize its usage and say that baptists ought not to be called reformed.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 31, 2008)

"Investing" as in, "Who are you _investing_ in?"


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 31, 2008)

Okay, I finally have to ask: what is a TR? I've heard so many people say that on this board to refer to someone, and I cannot figure out what it's supposed to stand for.


----------



## goretorade (Dec 31, 2008)

I am not trying to be rude, but what about reformed, calvinists, orthodox, confessional, presbyterian, etc. People use words like missional, evangelical, community, social justice, holisitic, culture, and etc. just as often as the "reformed" "community" uses it's over played words. What might be the concern here is not the use of words that we feel are over played, but a disdain for the brothers and sisters who use them. Just my two cents.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

TR = "Totally Reformed" or "Truly Reformed." As in, I'm more Reformed than the rest of you. It is usually used as a pejorative term.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> TR = "Totally Reformed" or "Truly Reformed." As in, I'm more Reformed than the rest of you. It is usually used as a pejorative term.



Ahhh...finally. Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Mission Statement (or Vision Statement) -- that's good, and I hadn't thought of that one!



I like it, it keeps us focused.


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 31, 2008)

Wow just realized a very obvious one "purpose"


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

goretorade said:


> I am not trying to be rude, but what about reformed, calvinists, orthodox, confessional, presbyterian, etc. People use words like missional, evangelical, community, social justice, holisitic, culture, and etc. just as often as the "reformed" "community" uses it's over played words. What might be the concern here is not the use of words that we feel are over played, but a disdain for the brothers and sisters who use them. Just my two cents.



Good points. For the most part, the disdain is certainly *not* for the brothers and sisters who use the terms, but for the overusage of the terms themselves. I have had to read books from both church growth and emergent perspectives, and many of those terms I mentioned above are used _ad nauseum_ throughout. But, to be fair, on my blog, I also included words like "covenantal."

I'm surprised no one has mentioned phrases like "purpose driven" yet!

, looks like A5Pointer just did!


----------



## Theognome (Dec 31, 2008)

My all-time most hated term-

'JudeoChristian'

Theognome


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

he beholds said:


> "Investing" as in, "Who are you _investing_ in?"



I also like this one. In opposition to some Fundy methods of evangelism where you verbally assault a stranger with the Gospel, "investing" in a person means that discipleship is a long term process rather than a one-time cold contact. I use this term regularly because the word "discipleship" is more misused today than the simple imagery of long-term investment.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 11:01:48 EST-----

I have a personally disdain for the term "pragmatic" because this is what I have been called for being vigorous in my methods. Atleast 5 times now in 2 years. I.e. some couch-theologian doesn't like my efforts because they be less than perfect, just throw the term "pragmatic" at me. 

Why can't God or our faith ever be practical? Paul's theology was written out of missionary efforts, right!

The other is "Barthian." Let someone take one course in Bible school and immediately they condemn everything as Barthian, or gnostic or platonic.....


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Mission Statement (or Vision Statement) -- that's good, and I hadn't thought of that one!
> ...



I have no problems with keeping focus. As a matter of fact, I always like to think of The Great Commission as the church's mission statement! 

My aversion is more to the term "vision." That's not bad in and of itself, but its when churches uses the term and then proof text Proverbs 29:18 (equivocating the two terms) that rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

Postmodern-ism!?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Yikes, I sound grumpy tonight. Maybe I ought to log off and read a book.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 31, 2008)

Pertaining to worship in particular:

innovative
hip
relevant
fresh


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



Good point. I guess for church's vision statement are unneeded because we already have our orders. 

For mission societies or groups that specialize in more narrow areas, however, a statement might help...This would keep a church-planting mision org from primarily pursuing orphanage work. Or an orphanage from spending half its budget on literacy. Or an educational foundation from mostly healing the sick. Many good kinds of work, but sometimes we need to specialize and narrow are focus and communicate that specific purpose.


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 31, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Pertaining to worship in particular:
> 
> innovative
> hip
> ...



 

I wonder if Nadab and Abihu would have described their "strange fire" in any of those terms???


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> The other is "Barthian." Let someone take one course in Bible school and immediately they condemn everything as Barthian, or gnostic or platonic.....



How about "pagan"? Ouch, that one hits a little close to home.

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying all these words are "bad." Obviously some of them are even Scriptural. It's just that they sometimes become way overused. In some cases, perfectly good words and phrases become hijacked. Historically, this is the case with words like "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" (originally good and quality words, now more or less used negatively).


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

About relevant: When are we ever to be irrelevant Perhpas a better term would be meaningful. But, the term relevant attempts to show that we are trying to reach the culture where they can be most easily reached. I.e. if a people-group or culture is very interested in the end of the world, we shouldn't stay away from preaching on eschatology in reaction against relevance. It is not wrong to see the felt-needs of a people and answer them on a biblical basis. 

Okay, now I am waiting for someone to add the term "felt-needs" to the list.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Pertaining to worship in particular:
> 
> innovative
> hip
> ...



Yep, "relevant" is definitely one that needs to be included on the list.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

In reference to missionaries and churches, I get tired of the often-spoken-but-rarely defined terms, "Oversight," "accountability," and "under."


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> About relevant: When are we ever to be irrelevant Perhpas a better term would be meaningful. But, the term relevant attempts to show that we are trying to reach the culture where they can be most easily reached. I.e. if a people-group or culture is very interested in the end of the world, we shouldn't stay away from preaching on eschatology in reaction against relevance. It is not wrong to see the felt-needs of a people and answer them on a biblical basis.
> 
> Okay, now I am waiting for someone to add the term "felt-needs" to the list.



Yes, "felt needs" needs to be on the list, I feel.


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 31, 2008)

Definitely, "felt-needs."


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Ha, maybe we need to start a thread about the postives and negatives of "felt-needs." I certainly felt I needed a Saviour when I was awakened and first began to seek the Lord.


----------



## danborvan (Dec 31, 2008)

"Meeting people where they are"
or the more popular, but grammatically incorrect - "Meeting people where they are AT"

Who meets people where they are not? This phrase if often used by those who want to hyper-contextualize.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Again, Paul says to be all things to all people and urges us to refain from eating meat if it hurts a weaker brother. This, popularly known, is "meeting people where they are at." 

I suspect many of the reformed are not really "engaging the culture" at all but preaching to their own crowd. 

This is not hyper-contextualization but biblical contextualization.

Now,

I'm just waiting for both the terms, "engaging the culture" and also "contextualization" to be added to this list!


----------



## Zenas (Dec 31, 2008)

1. "Born-Again Christian"- I still don't understand this. It seems repetitive. 

2. "Evangelical Christian"- Ever met a non-evangelical Christian? I haven't because anyone, including Mormons, get grouped under this label. It means _*nothing*_ now. 

3. "Emergent Church"- Remains undefined but heavily used by an amorphous group of people with no doctrinal stance other than they have no doctrinal stance which is, therefore, oxymoronic. Delete it for reasons of stupidity. 

4. Missional. Nuff' said.

5. Josh Hicks. Come on, do we really need him?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

How about Puritan?


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> How about Puritan?



'Puritan' in a derogatory sense. I mean the sense that culture has stereotyped puritans as.


----------



## Staphlobob (Dec 31, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Sodomites.
> 
> Call them homosexuals, sinners, unregenerate or something, but too many people (even some here) use the term sodomites in the same way many people call black people N*****.
> 
> in my opinion the only thing that term does is raise pride in the person saying it and anger in the person to whom it is being said.



I think sodomite is a solid biblical word that is accurate and to the point. It's also got some good historical backing to it. So I'll continue to use it. 

However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it if we could also stop using "gay" - or at least turn it back to its original usage. But I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

Staphlobob said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomites.
> ...



I agree. I think we should call it what it is. If there was a stigma that went along with such a perverse lifestyle maybe those who practiced it would see the shame and sinfulness in it. Calling sodomy 'gay' just white washes something inherently contradictory to God and nature.

I say keep sodomy/sodomite and get rid of 'gay'.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 31, 2008)

"I just wanna..."


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Now,
> 
> I'm just waiting for both the terms, "engaging the culture" and also "contextualization" to be added to this list!



Done! 

I'm going to coin a phrase here, and I don't want anyone else to take credit for it: "We shouldn't engage the culture, because the next thing you know we'll be married to the culture."



Now, if I can get everyone to start using it, it'll be banned for 2010!!!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 31, 2008)

GMcClain20 said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



N***** was a neutral term derived from the Latin and Spanish nouns for black. Through times this word was used in a very negative way through racism. How is you being a homophobe any different? You are still speaking down on them for living the lifestyle they have. They are under the curse of sin just like you and I were before Christ's atoning blood. These people are no different liars or thieves. They are all sinners in need of a Savior. We should not be flipping our noses in the air when we are around them.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 01:14:18 EST-----

Adding a stigma to their lifestyle will not change them. They are bound to sin. The only way to free them is through Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm sure if your church's outreach was called, "Hellbound Homo Ministries" or "Disgusting AIDS-mongering Outreach" that your efforts would not be very successful. To be "politcally correct" often is the Biblical thing to do. 

We are out to win people, not just arguments.


----------



## SueS (Dec 31, 2008)

My current pick is the overuse of the phrase, "praise the Lord!" In some circles it is used so often that it becomes a verbal tic verging on a mantra. Think of a Christian Chatty Cathy doll constantly chirping, "Praise the Lord!" and you'll know what I mean.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 31, 2008)

pergamum said:


> we are out to win people, not just arguments.



*amen!!*


----------



## lwadkins (Dec 31, 2008)

Are we talking overuse in the sense that we are simply tired of hearing them, or overuse in the sense that they are in fact misused (placed in contexts that demonstrate misunderstanding of the term itself, or of its usage) and thus you see it used again and again outside of an appropriate context. (or both )


----------



## christianyouth (Dec 31, 2008)

Pietistic. It's a convenient label that anti-nomians use on any sermon that is spiritually demanding.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> GMcClain20 said:
> 
> 
> > Staphlobob said:
> ...



You are right it won't change them. Only God can change them. I think by not stigmatizing it we make it acceptable. It's not being homophobic to call a sodomite a sodomite or a homosexual a homosexual.

If I were an adulterer it wouldn't be right to simply say I like other women as much as my wife. You would surely say I am an adulterer and a cheater. I would be guilty of transgressing a union ordained and effected by God. It would be ludicrous to downplay such a sin with a sinner friendly label.

In the context of this board, mature conversation, and biblical study I see no reason to call any sin by any other name than what it is. Is there a better approach to be used pastorally? Of course. Is there a better approach to be used in an evangalistic outreach? Of course. In both cases I think the truth *must* be balanced with *Christ-like love and concern* for the sinning party. But that doesn't mean compromising the truth.

This has went way off topic so I won't respond to this matter here again. if you want to, start a new thread and we'll talk more about it. Maybe some other PB'ers with a wiser viewpoint can chime in.


----------



## Staphlobob (Dec 31, 2008)

"Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture. 

The color of one's skin is simply ontology. Sodomy is behavioral.

Could I be a sodomite if it were not for God's grace? Of course. I could be worse. In fact, all of us could. But the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

Staphlobob said:


> ...the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.



Good point.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Dec 31, 2008)

GMcClain20 said:


> You are right it won't change them. Only God can change them. I think by not stigmatizing it we make it acceptable. It's not being homophobic to call a sodomite a sodomite or a homosexual a homosexual.



I've never been particularly in favor of tossing around the term "sodomite," but one useful thing about the term is that it distinguishes those who _practice_ homosexuality from those who simply have homosexual inclinations. By the grace of God, not all homosexuals remain sodomites.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 31, 2008)

.

"The *originals*" 


My  gotta go!

.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I'm sure if your church's outreach was called, "Hellbound Homo Ministries" or "Disgusting AIDS-mongering Outreach" that your efforts would not be very successful. To be "politcally correct" often is the Biblical thing to do.
> 
> We are out to win people, not just arguments.



How about "Campus _Crusade_ for Christ." I heard that several years ago they realized they were having problems reaching out to Muslims with that name. I wonder why...


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 31, 2008)

I vote:
Bibel-based 
Seeker-sensitive
Progressing (in term of mission statements)


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Staphlobob said:


> "Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.
> 
> The color of one's skin is simply ontology. Sodomy is behavioral.
> 
> Could I be a sodomite if it were not for God's grace? Of course. I could be worse. In fact, all of us could. But the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.



If you would like, let's start another thread on the good and bad of political correctness. 


Being careful about how we use words is to show love to others and to eliminate the ignorance of those who do not strive to think of others.

Do you favor using negro or black, sodomite or homosexual, jap or japanese, slant-eye or Chinese, spic or Hispanic, white or cracker, handicapped or crippled, mentally handicapped or retarded? Pepper your daily language with these terms and you'll see the impact for Christ you'll have.

How many Scriptures do we need to post to reinforce the idea that out of our mouths should come gentleness and that we try not to needlessly offend others.


----------



## PastorTim (Dec 31, 2008)

Joel and Osteen and Joyce and Meyers, altar call, ask Jesus into your heart etc


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 31, 2008)

GMcClain20 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > How about Puritan?
> ...



That's because historically, "puritan" was applied to covert anabaptists. In the 17th - 19th centuries, the term could mean either Reformed or anabaptist radical. Because in England the anabaptists were on the "no-fly" list, people who shared their beliefs just let others call them something else. So when you read about a "Puritan" in history, you have to do some digging to figure out if he were Reformed or really an anabaptist (sometimes he himself may not have not known where his beliefs fit).


----------



## Calvin'scuz (Dec 31, 2008)

How about "Spirit-led."


----------



## davidsuggs (Dec 31, 2008)

1 flesh out
2 agape (too too many sermons built entirely on this translation)
3 trespasses/those who have trespassed against me (just say debts/debtors!)
4 presuppositional (I'm in this camp but there has got to be a shorter word)
5 worldview (not all uses but at least the shallow overused part)
6 seeker-friendly "church"
7 "roman" catholic (stretching it I know, but surely the self-contradiction can be gotten rid of)
8 free will


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 31, 2008)

Calvin'scuz said:


> How about "Spirit-led."



I am with you on that one, acually the first one to come to my mind but edited myself as I thought it might take the thread in another direction.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 31, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> 4 presuppositional (I'm in this camp but there has got to be a shorter word)




I've thought the same thing for a while.


----------



## lwadkins (Dec 31, 2008)

Culture / cultural
culturally relevant


----------



## christianyouth (Dec 31, 2008)

"Lordship Salvation" - I don't like when people call the preaching of repentance "Lordsihp Salvation". It makes it sound like this is some new teaching.


Amen to "Innovative, fresh, hip, and sodomite".

I agree with the person who says "Bible based" is over used. 

I like what Pergamum said about 'missional', I think it's a good word. It lets people know that this is a church has an outward focus and is about doing Christ's work. 



Hmm.... I'm not sure about "World view". It's an over used phrase, but I can't think of a replacement for it. Some people say "World picture", and I've heard others call it a 'meta-narrative'. But world picture sounds corny to me, and meta-narrative is a term that is unfamiliar to most people, whereas most people understand the term 'world view'.



Good words here on this thread! I use some of these words sometimes though!


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Dec 31, 2008)

Zenas said:


> 1. "Born-Again Christian"- I still don't understand this. It seems repetitive.
> 
> 2. "Evangelical Christian"- Ever met a non-evangelical Christian? I haven't because anyone, including Mormons, get grouped under this label. It means _*nothing*_ now.




definitely these two!


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> TR = "Totally Reformed" or "Truly Reformed." As in, I'm more Reformed than the rest of you. It is usually used as a pejorative term.



Can "Reformed" be used in a quantitative manner anyway? How is it measured? Can one say " I've kept more Lord's Days than you." or "I've sung more Psalms Exclusively than you."?

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 05:14:25 EST-----



Staphlobob said:


> "Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.
> 
> The color of one's skin is simply ontology. Sodomy is behavioral.
> 
> Could I be a sodomite if it were not for God's grace? Of course. I could be worse. In fact, all of us could. But the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.



Thanks for posting this, Staphlobob. It was just a couple weeks ago in a particular conversation that I got so tired of hearing "Gay" that I thought to myself, "No more. I'm going to refer to it matter-of-fact-ly as Scripture does and call their practice sodomy." It is a useful and proper term.

btw, I vote to ban "Ask Jesus into your heart" and "I felt led..."


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 31, 2008)

D. Paul said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > TR = "Totally Reformed" or "Truly Reformed." As in, I'm more Reformed than the rest of you. It is usually used as a pejorative term.
> ...



I think it's more of a "I'm closer to the original Reformers" than you are, or "I'm closer to the WCF than you are." For what it's worth, it's not usually the TRs who call themselves that, but others who direct the term at others. For instance, I was indirectly called a TR upon occasion while in seminary.

Something Doug Wilson said several years ago (and I think this might have even been during the original Auburn Avenue lectures) struck me as funny (even if I don't agree with him, he still has a great sense of humor). He referred to TRs, and then went on to talk about BRs (Barely Reformed), followed by the WRs (What's Reformed?).


----------



## Staphlobob (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Do you favor using negro or black, sodomite or homosexual, jap or japanese, slant-eye or Chinese, spic or Hispanic, white or cracker, handicapped or crippled, mentally handicapped or retarded? Pepper your daily language with these terms and you'll see the impact for Christ you'll have.



Again, you're placing ontology into the same bowl as behavior.

OTOH, because I regularly use the word "sodomite" and rely upon nouthetic counseling rather than synthetic, I'm often referred to as a "TR." Then again, having an "impact for Christ" doesn't always mean being a doctrinal pushover but, quite often, aggravating those married to the zeitgeist by steadfast use of scriptural language and carrying around a biblical worldview.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 05:39:12 EST-----



davidsuggs said:


> 7 "roman" catholic (stretching it I know, but surely the self-contradiction can be gotten rid of)



When I was one of their seminary students and clergy, we were often offended by the protestant use of the word "Roman." Then we were taught to soften our stance and, in a strong move towards "multi-culturalism", taught that it was simply a reference to a particular flavor of catholicism. So I still use it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 31, 2008)

emerging
emergent

emerge already!


----------



## Curt (Dec 31, 2008)

Resonate.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 31, 2008)

Theognome said:


> My all-time most hated term-
> 
> 'JudeoChristian'
> 
> Theognome



I second that one!


----------



## Confessor (Dec 31, 2008)

Papist.

Even if you think "Catholic" is a gross misnomer for the RCC, calling someone something that they do not like being called can only create negative dissension.

For what it's worth I only use the word as a joke around my Catholic friends.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 31, 2008)

Tim,

I voted for "Personal Savior" in your blog. I seldom hear this phrase said in a meaningful way -- it is associated with something *you* must do. Such as, "you need a personal relationship with Jesus" or "you need to have Jesus as your personal Savior." The phrase itself puts man before the Savior and disassociates the Savior from His Bride.  He is a kinsman redeemer, a family Savior, not a personal one.

I associate the term loosely with those who say "well, _my _Jesus wouldn't send billions of people to hell" or "if there was only one person on the earth, Jesus would have died for them."


----------



## Confessor (Dec 31, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> Tim,
> 
> I voted for "Personal Savior" in your blog. I seldom hear this phrase said in a meaningful way -- it is associated with something *you* must do. Such as, "you need a personal relationship with Jesus" or "you need to have Jesus as your personal Savior." The phrase itself puts man before the Savior and disassociates the Savior with His Bride.  He is a kinsman redeemer, a family Savior, not a personal one.
> 
> I associate the term loosely with those who say "well, _my _Jesus wouldn't send billions of people to hell."



How did I overlook "personal savior"?!

I dislike that for the same reasons you listed, and also because it makes Christ, the sovereign King of the universe, appear to be a beggar who just wants to be chosen by men. It makes Him an option among other options, rather than the _only_ option.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 31, 2008)

Confessor said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > Tim,
> ...



Well put, Ben, I concur. Its as if when you tell someone they need to have Jesus as their personal Savior they think it is because of their power or will that He is not already, and leads them to think its optional, like you said, and may even make someone feel prideful that God's will for their needs is according to their own will!

The phrase, in the public contexts I've heard it used, doesn't even generate conversation. But if we say, "Jesus died for His people," or "Jesus is the Savior of his people" then those who hear will wonder who his people are instead of wondering why their fate depends so much on their personal interest in Jesus, who is only a historical figure at best to them at that point anyway.


----------



## Zeno333 (Dec 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> I saw a story this morning about Lake Superior State University's annual list of words and phrases that are overused and should be banned from the English language in the coming new year. Here are some of the words that made the list this year:
> 
> 
> Green
> ...



The phrase "Inner Self"

It has way too many connotations and connections to the New Age Movement that denies all major tenants of Christianity.


----------



## shackleton (Dec 31, 2008)

Seeker Sensitive, Seeker Friendly, Purpose Driven whatever, anything that has to do with sitting and talking about your _feelings_, any music where the theme is, Jesus is my boyfriend.


----------



## Zeno333 (Dec 31, 2008)

GMcClain20 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > How about Puritan?
> ...



good one...

Very few realize that many Puritans had lots of children partly since they loved sex....(that is sex within marriage as God intended it to be). In contrast, the term "puritanical" many times refers to the idea of something non-sexual.


----------



## jd.morrison (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> holistic



 Pergy!


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Jan 1, 2009)

panta dokimazete said:


> emerging
> emergent
> 
> emerge already!



hehe!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > "Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.
> ...



BINGO!

I thought about this at work today. Christ did not say to the woman caught in adultery, "Hey Whore......" Technically she was a whore, but Christ did not refer to her as one.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2009)

Bolivar....I laughed out loud when I read your "Hey Whore" post above. Great example.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 1, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Staphlobob said:
> ...



You're right. No more "sodomite." Not even "homosexual" as it might offend them. 

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is now the phrase for me.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2009)

Why don't we start another thread on homosexual evangelism. 

I'm sure some of you guys endear yourself to this needy group of folks with your rhetoric.

-----Added 1/1/2009 at 01:44:47 EST-----

Discernment

This too often means pickiness.

Same goes for the word "convicted" - too often means some personal guilt trip that they want to lay on you too, "Brother, I've really been feeling convicted lately...."


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Why don't we start another thread on homosexual evangelism.
> 
> I'm sure some of you guys endear yourself to this needy group of folks with your rhetoric.
> 
> ...



Better yet ... a thread on the difference between wanting to be liked by the world, and standing upon gospel truth. When do we step onto a slippery slope? Or, what's the difference between wanting to win friends and influence people, and the sharp edges of Christianity?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2009)

We want only the cross to be an offense, not our own offensiveness in calling folks derogatory terms.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> We want only the cross to be an offense, not our own offensiveness in calling folks derogatory terms.



I think what he's trying to ask is where we would draw the line -- i.e. when does a statement move from the category of being offensive in a good way to offensive in a bad way?

FTR I am not a fan of "sodomite."


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 1, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I saw a story this morning about Lake Superior State University's annual list of words and phrases that are overused and should be banned from the English language in the coming new year. Here are some of the words that made the list this year:
> 
> 
> Green
> ...




Words are not to be banned; they are to be used in their proper context, for the glory of God. "Proper context" could be satire, teaching, poetry, curses, blessings, etc. I know that the idea of the post wasn't to argue against that, but I figured it'd be fun to be a stick in the mud.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 1, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > We want only the cross to be an offense, not our own offensiveness in calling folks derogatory terms.
> ...



When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.

sodomite vs homosexual



> FTR I am not a fan of "sodomite."



The mean, self-righteous, judgmental side of me is.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 1, 2009)

panta dokimazete said:


> When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.
> 
> sodomite vs homosexual



When the Supreme Court was debating the issue (one of several times), the more conservative judges used the word "homosexual" while the more liberal employed "gay." It was later said by the pro-sodomite side that "homosexual" was a pejorative term and therefore offensive. 

Hence the real agenda is not to have people be inoffensive (i.e., homosexual), but to force them to positively _approve_ of the behavior. Another reason I stick with sodomite. It's not meant to be offensive (though it is), but merely biblical and accurate.

So once again, when have Christians stepped over the line and married the zeitgeist? But perhaps that's for another thread.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 1, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > I saw a story this morning about Lake Superior State University's annual list of words and phrases that are overused and should be banned from the English language in the coming new year. Here are some of the words that made the list this year:
> ...




Just for that, I'm voting to ban "stick in the mud."


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 1, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Just for that, I'm voting to ban "stick in the mud."



You can't ban me!!!!


----------



## Okinawamama (Jan 1, 2009)

Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2009)

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.



Uh Oh! The MacDaddy is gathering the rabble to tar and feather me! I guess I'm doomed!

By the way, I'm offended that your name on PB is the same as that used by pimps. What about the cross being your only offense!


----------



## Okinawamama (Jan 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.



According to word-detective.com:



> When we call someone a "stick in the mud" today we usually mean a party-pooper, a no-fun homebody, the sort of sourpuss who never wants to go to the movies, cruise the mall, get drunk and throw toilet paper in the neighbors' trees or just generally have good old All-American fun. But "stick in the mud" didn't start out as a noun, a thing, a person. "Stick in the mud" is actually a short form of the verbal phrase "to stick in the mud," meaning to "stick," or stay, in an unpleasant or demeaning situation, rather than dragging oneself out of the metaphorical mud. "To stick in the mud" first appeared around 1620, and was a further development of earlier metaphors such as "to stick in the briers" (or clay, or mire) meaning simply "to be in difficult circumstances." Somewhere along the way, around the early 18th century to be specific, "stick in the mud" arose as a contemptuous term for someone who is not only "stuck in the mud," but actually seems to enjoy being there.


----------



## okinawabones (Jan 2, 2009)

Outreach
On mission
End times


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.



Sorry,

I was lacking in vocabulary before:

"Stick in the mud": noun, Archaic: 1. One whose missional carbon footprint needs to circle-back with the vision of the sodomite.

2. One whose visionary mission needs to come along side the sodomite's carbon footprint.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 2, 2009)

Puritanical, I hate people using puritanism as a pejorative.

Global Warming.

Hope.

Change.

Gay Rights.

Rickrolled.


----------



## okinawabones (Jan 2, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.
> ...


Hehehe...now THAT'S funny...


----------



## JoelYrick (Jan 2, 2009)

Sorry if I'm repeating, but I'm sick of seeing Christian as an adjective. Christian night club, Christian coffee cups, Christian clothes, etc. I can think of some helpful exceptions like, "Christian Church," but I hear other uses far more often. I wonder if Christianity could be dropped as well.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 2, 2009)

Staphlobob said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.
> ...



Awesome. Redefine a term ex post facto and accuse the users of being derogatory.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...



Acceptable social discourse changes over time. Next time to see a black mentally-handicapped person then, just call them a negro imbecile and see how many friends you make.

We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 2, 2009)

My 2009 resolution is to pray for the death of the term "contextualization".


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 2, 2009)

Doubtless social discourse changes (esp. regarding ontology). But Christian discourse does not. And certainly not Christian discourse regarding behavior.

Now, if someone wishes to start another thread to discuss the theology of our language that would certainly be a gay thing to have happen. 

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 01:09:19 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.


 
Actually political correctness is what truly lacks love as it redfines sin as "disease" and evil as "lack of self-esteem." PC-ism is offensive and refuses to face facts. E.g., it's no longer "he died" but "he passed." 

As someone once noted, the Victorians had a fascination with death but refused to talk about sex. Today pc-ism loves to talk about sex but denies death. Weird.

So as a Christian I refuse to be loveless and harm people by being "pc" and so refusing to speak plainly. Sodomy it is.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 2, 2009)

I can think of quite a few graphic terms for it, but this is a Christian (sorry) board. I don't mind calling it "gay", as long as we point out, in the proper context, that being "gay" is a sin. There are going to be people who don't know what "sodomite" means very shortly.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2009)

Staphlobob said:


> Doubtless social discourse changes (esp. regarding ontology). But Christian discourse does not. And certainly not Christian discourse regarding behavior.
> 
> Now, if someone wishes to start another thread to discuss the theology of our language that would certainly be a gay thing to have happen.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of Christians who do not use the terms sodomite or ****** when addressings gays and still do not cover-up the fact that it is sin or relegate it to disease. We do not have to become Fred Phelps in order to state that homosexuality is not disease, but is sin. There is needed harshness and unneeded harshness and I think many Christians hate gays and so use the most venomous terms available.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 01:25:14 EST-----

ABOUT CONTEXTUALIZATION:



mvdm said:


> My 2009 resolution is to pray for the death of the term "contextualization".



This term is useful because it shows efforts to make the Gospel understandable in indigenous contexts. Translating the Bible is contextualization. What else should we call it? I use and I like contextualization because we are transmitting the Gospel, not Western culture to our target people.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 2, 2009)

Authentic
Missional
Small Groups or Growth Groups (because these are called --> Families)
Seeker-Sensitive


----------



## danborvan (Jan 2, 2009)

Community
Transparent
Worship - when it is restricted to singing and not the rest of the liturgy


----------



## FenderPriest (Jan 2, 2009)

My word choice: "Just."

Christians should universally stop using the word "just" with reference to any form of Christian discipleship, counseling, mortification of sin, or alteration of thought and life. There is no such thing as "just do..." in the Christian life - it is all couched in, empowered by, prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit in the Gospel.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 2, 2009)

Can we quit banning words please? My vocabulary is running out.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2009)

reminds me of _1984..._the dictionaries got smaller every year....down the memory hole...


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> There are plenty of Christians who do not use the terms sodomite or ****** when addressings gays and still do not cover-up the fact that it is sin or relegate it to disease. We do not have to become Fred Phelps in order to state that homosexuality is not disease, but is sin. There is needed harshness and unneeded harshness and I think many Christians hate gays and so use the most venomous terms available.



Ah, the (God-given?) ability to read hearts justified by the phrase "I think." Would "judgmental" be one of those banned terms? After all it would be politically-correct to do so.


----------



## he beholds (Jan 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > "Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.
> ...



Some of those words are offending a non-sinful attribute (colors of skin, shapes of eyes, ethnicity, handicapped-ness) whereas the sodomite/homosexual terms describe a person who sins in a specific way. I don't call people sodomites, but I would call them gay or homosexual. What else could they be called????? (For the record, I would also call someone who steals, a thief, and someone who lies, a liar. Are those terms acceptable?)

And is handicapped out? Or mentally retarded? I thought both were still in (and my step-brother is both handicapped and mentally retarded).

And, I call black people black. I'm only 27, but apparently I'm way out of the loop.


----------



## Zeno333 (Jan 2, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Staphlobob said:
> ...



I guess one day in the future, white people will be referred to as "Melanin Challenged"? Sorry, could not resist that one.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2009)

My dog back home is a canine-american.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 2, 2009)

I honestly don't think the distinction between chosen attributes and unchosen ones is relevant. For instance, if I thought "sodomite" was a legitimate term to call a homosexual, and I called one that, and he was deeply offended, I would not respond, "Oh, well, you made that choice," but rather, "That shouldn't be offensive, just descriptive. That's what you are." In other words,, I would use the exact same defense for calling a black person black (rather than African-American) as for calling a homosexual a sodomite. The only relevant part of the discussion is whether or not "sodomite" (or "black") is descriptive or pejorative, as JD described.

This is a much harder issue to resolve than I thought it would, because it is evident that whether or not people take offense at something cannot be the sole criterion, yet it is significant. The fact that homosexuals disliked the descriptor "homosexual" is evident of this. There's no way that can be pejorative, but they still find it offensive apparently.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Staphlobob said:
> ...



The point was that they determined that the term was "bad" after the fact and then judged the users according to the new standard.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jan 3, 2009)

LOVE

I'm not for completely banning this term but its really really overused. Not just by popular Christianity, but more so in that circle. I think we need to copy the Greeks in this aspect and adapt several words to replace the word love in many instances. Don't they have like 3 words for our one, love?


----------



## Rangerus (Jan 3, 2009)

The english language is sometimes very generic and limited when it comes to words as "thought" concepts. Greeks used 5 words for love. Eros,Philia,Agape,Storge (affection for an offspring),Thelema (desire to do something).

CS Lewis had four in "The Four Loves" affection, friendship, eros, and charity.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 4, 2009)

Here is my list. I am sure some have been mentioned previously:

'Christian' used as an adjective.
The improper use of reflexive pronouns.
Using the past tense of 'to get' to denote need or desire: eg. 'I have got to go to town.'

Okay so the last two aren't limited to the OP. They just drive me nuts. I've got to get a cup of coffee.  

Ugh.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 4, 2009)

_Translating the Bible is contextualization. What else should we call it?_

How about "translating"? 

The problem with "contextualization" is it is a made-up word that has become so amorphous as to give license to all sorts of mischief beyond common sense translation. If the emergent crowd loves "contextualization", klaxon sirens should be going off in our head. I stand with Paul Washer in his unvarnished condemnation of the term.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 4, 2009)

_"Calvinism is the doctrine from the pit of hell"_

That's really annoying. Half the time they don't even understand it.


----------



## caoclan (Jan 4, 2009)

The Shack
Rob Bell, Nooma
The "challenges" put on by some churches , i.e. "The 30-day (or 7-day) sex challenge"
"Thinking outside the box"
The assertion that we should focus on sex in the church (you know, because "God invented sex")


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 4, 2009)

caoclan said:


> "Thinking outside the box"



 to that

What is "the box," anyway? Scripture?


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 4, 2009)

"fun"

Don't get me wrong--I love (sorry Sonoftheday) to have fun. However, our short life is not about FUN! Christian kids today are more often than not living to just have "fun" but be "good people" at the same time. LIFE IS NOT ABOUT FUN. When we are so focused on what to do to entertain ourselves and have fun we lose such precious time to work, glorify our King, and store up treasure in Heaven. It breaks my heart so badly when I see people living for today and not for eternity...  It is my struggle too by the way; I'm not saying that I am totally beyond this by any means.


----------



## caoclan (Jan 4, 2009)

Not sure if this was previously, but "incarnational" (even the spell check doesn't like that one!!!)


----------



## Grymir (Jan 4, 2009)

'Wholly other'


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2009)

mvdm said:


> _Translating the Bible is contextualization. What else should we call it?_
> 
> How about "translating"?
> 
> The problem with "contextualization" is it is a made-up word that has become so amorphous as to give license to all sorts of mischief beyond common sense translation. If the emergent crowd loves "contextualization", klaxon sirens should be going off in our head. I stand with Paul Washer in his unvarnished condemnation of the term.




Why don't we start a new thread on contextualization.

Contextualization goes beyond just translating. 

Using local musical forms instead of using translated English hymns is another good example of contextualization. If you are not EP, why import a European pipe organ and translate a european tune when the local culture uses a wooden flute and has beuatiful music that is able to convey the Gospel message? This is good contextualization, to use local music.

Also, even something as simple as the way the bible is printed is contextualization. In Mslm cultures, calligraphy and special art helps to identify the Bible as a holy and important book.

Washer was condemning the excesses of contextualization I believe. All missionaries contextualize and adapt the message so as to be understandable to the target audience (read the Apostles Paul's sermons and how he differed according to his audience).

If you think the term contextualization is silly, we could use the term "cultural adaptation" or "indigenization" I guess, but the concept is a true concept even if excesss abound.


----------



## beej6 (Jan 5, 2009)

"dispensational"


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 5, 2009)

_"The Lord SHOWED ME THE TRUTH"_


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2009)

GAWWWWWD (making the word God into 2 syllables is my pet peeve)


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 5, 2009)

I do not know if this has been mentioned but after reading a Modern Reformation article today "Post-evangelical" should also be taken of the list.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 5, 2009)

" well in my bible it says"


----------



## mvdm (Jan 5, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> GAWWWWWD (making the word God into 2 syllables is my pet peeve)



But Perg, isn't that the California "contextualized" version of the word?


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 5, 2009)

_"Jesus loves you!"_

as a witnessing tool


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2009)

mvdm said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > GAWWWWWD (making the word God into 2 syllables is my pet peeve)
> ...



Maybe I should have spelt it *GAHH-DUH*, the southern Fundy version. The Cali surfer-dude version would be more akin to GAWD I guess.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 5, 2009)

ReformedChapin said:


> _"Jesus loves you!"_
> 
> as a witnessing tool



Or "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

I always wondered why Moses didn't use that line with Pharaoh.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 5, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> > _"Jesus loves you!"_
> ...



Jacob have I loved, and Esau, I just liked a whole bunch.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jan 5, 2009)

Ban: Unchurched, The prosperity gospel as a whole.

Should be understood for their true meaning: relevant.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 5, 2009)

> The Shack
> Rob Bell, Nooma



Can we ban Rob Bell (and Eugene Petersen, too)?


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jan 5, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> "fun"
> 
> Don't get me wrong--I love (sorry Sonoftheday) to have fun. However, our short life is not about FUN! Christian kids today are more often than not living to just have "fun" but be "good people" at the same time. LIFE IS NOT ABOUT FUN. When we are so focused on what to do to entertain ourselves and have fun we lose such precious time to work, glorify our King, and store up treasure in Heaven. It breaks my heart so badly when I see people living for today and not for eternity...  It is my struggle too by the way; I'm not saying that I am totally beyond this by any means.



I thanked this post not just because you mentioned me (though that factored in) but because I faced this "FUN" stuff every week at my old church. One of the purposes of a meeting of the church body is to fellowship, but this fellowship does not have to be FUN. In fact I LOVE (and I mean LOVE not just like) the times that meeting with my brethren is not FUN, probably moreso than when it is. Whenever I am going through tough times (like I have been recently) I do not need to have FUN I need a sincere handshake, hug, and deep conversation about my Lord, His sacrifice, and His Sovereignty. IF I want fun Ill go fishing, bowling, or just stay home with my 360.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 5, 2009)

Sonoftheday said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > "fun"
> ...



Amen.
I truly can relate.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 6, 2009)

TBN (is that a word?)


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Jan 6, 2009)

Keep Sodomite...or use BUGGERER...but get rid of s-h-a-r-e; especially in relation to the gospel.

I will surely come back at another time and post a few more. 

Lastly, calling someone a Sodomite has Biblical context...calling someone a N***** is a completely different situation, for Acts states that the Lord hath made all nations of one blood, and established the borders thereof...He didn't make men lustful for other men.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 6, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> TBN (is that a word?)



Trinity Brocast Network?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2009)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> Keep Sodomite...or use BUGGERER...but get rid of s-h-a-r-e; especially in relation to the gospel.
> 
> I will surely come back at another time and post a few more.
> 
> Lastly, calling someone a Sodomite has Biblical context...calling someone a N***** is a completely different situation, for Acts states that the Lord hath made all nations of one blood, and established the borders thereof...He didn't make men lustful for other men.



I'm glad some of you guys are not called into homosexual evangelism.


Bugger is a dirty word I think isn't it.


----------

