tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5964349952245879662..comments2024-03-12T03:53:57.725-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Management theoryBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6725532158481081122008-04-30T14:31:00.000-04:002008-04-30T14:31:00.000-04:00I, for one, am indignant that Kim's Jesus didn't u...I, for one, am indignant that Kim's Jesus didn't use a 1611 vulgarity!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-21821976749200877182008-04-29T14:30:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:30:00.000-04:00P.S. One of my favorite theologians once said: the...P.S. One of my favorite theologians once said: there are no bad words. Bad thoughts, but no bad words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84963464477037401082008-04-29T14:27:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:27:00.000-04:00I guess I just missed that part of the scriptures ...I guess I just missed that part of the scriptures where Jesus declared certain words 'unclean' (that is, profane). Is there a list somewhere of what these words are, so I can avoid them in the future?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-46849777275837627042008-04-29T02:48:00.000-04:002008-04-29T02:48:00.000-04:00*laughs*I'm fairly certain there is no foul langua...*laughs*<BR/><BR/>I'm fairly certain there is no foul language or vulgarities in my Red Letter version of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Why does this bother you so much? I mean, really? I've never seen someone get so upset at humor like this. It's not as if Jesus was the proverbial "butt" of a joke or His divinity made light of, etc., etc.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, we can discuss this back and forth and not really get anywhere. Time to move on, methinks. :) <BR/><BR/>P.S. Laugh a little.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54254872309910574742008-04-28T14:56:00.000-04:002008-04-28T14:56:00.000-04:00Kim Fabricius,Suppose people mean what they say, a...Kim Fabricius,<BR/><BR/>Suppose people mean what they say, and you're efforts at changing their words are both unnecessary and inappropriate. Would you have anything of your own to entertain us with?<BR/><BR/>When observing definitions of both profane and vernacular, it is clear that vernacular is not the term for words which are profane in nature. I believe profane stands.<BR/><BR/>Michael MettsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-13769037696932296052008-04-28T14:01:00.000-04:002008-04-28T14:01:00.000-04:00Hi Michael,I am sorry if my sketch has offended yo...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry if my sketch has offended you. I presume you're not a big fan of Stanley Hauerwas! <BR/><BR/>"Profane"? More like the vernacular, I should have thought. I mean it's not like I used the F-word (<I>not</I> "fundamentalism"). "Pretentious"? Perhaps you mean, rather, "smart-a**ed"? As for "entertaining", I certainly hope so!<BR/><BR/>But, again, I am sorry if I have offended you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35196890441534042012008-04-28T10:39:00.000-04:002008-04-28T10:39:00.000-04:00We are not discussing vulgarities. We are discuss...We are not discussing vulgarities. We are discussing profane language, which is irreverent language. To suggest that language like this is similar to Jesus' language is... nevermind, I can't help you.<BR/><BR/>This isn't linguistics or theology. This is a case of profane language for the sake of stylistic purposes - entertainment. Jesus is not so pretentious with his use of language.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54410604622691557902008-04-27T10:56:00.000-04:002008-04-27T10:56:00.000-04:00You know, why is one particular word considered, "...You know, why is one particular word considered, "dirty" while others are not, hmmm?<BR/><BR/>Sure, this is a theology blog, but let's indulge in some linguistic stuff!<BR/><BR/>The A word which some have taken issue with, literally, is not all that bad. It's just words. It's a combination of two words. You know what they are. People do have rear-ends, and physiologically, that orifice is oft times called a "sphincter."<BR/><BR/>So would it be just as bad if we said: "Asssphincter" or "Assorifice" versus "Ass_ _ _ _"?<BR/><BR/>What about Gluteus Cavus? If it was in Latin, would that be ok?<BR/><BR/>Or does it have to do with the actual reference to that part of the body where waste is dispersed hmm? Somehow that is profane? I won't disagree by nature and biologically it is somewhat dirty, given what is discharged, however, reality is, we as human beings have them.<BR/><BR/>Or is the issue associating a person's personality with anatomy that is dirty in nature? What is it exactly?<BR/><BR/>What about calling people, "Elbows" or "Knees"? Would that be more acceptable? We could use these descriptions to describe people who are prone to bending, waffling, or changing direction.<BR/>Or, how about "Nosehole" - after all, think of all the mucus and stuff that gets dried up in there or when one sneezes, it approaches speeds of up to 200 MPH. <BR/><BR/>Or is it the intent of the use of the word itself that is so offensive? The mere utterance of the word transporting people's imaginations to dark and mysterious places where evil must certainly lurk. The opening (or exit) into hell perhaps?<BR/><BR/>I don't know. All I know is that it all seems sort of silly, at least to me. I myself feel very silly for have even brought any of this up.<BR/><BR/>But you see that's the great message of Christ - we are saved by grace - we don't have to play C.Y.A. (Or for some, C.Y.A.H.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you can flame and roast me over the pyres of righteousness. I welcome it. :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84150157782369249522008-04-26T21:58:00.000-04:002008-04-26T21:58:00.000-04:00Jiminy crickets, of course Jesus used vulgar langu...Jiminy crickets, of course Jesus used vulgar language. Vulgar simply means the language of the common people. Look it up. That has nothing to do with curses or 'common swearing', which has to do with taking an oath, usually to a God, either false or true. In other words, 'asshole' ain't no curse word, neither is it swearing!<BR/>And to call it casual is already a contestable hermeneutical move. Context, as you suggest, is everything. I think that given the literary context in which Kim used it, it was anything but casual (in its very casualness!). It was a wonderfully ironic use of the title of a very popular book currently making the rounds. <BR/>(and now the little voice in my little bitty vulgar brain is saying, 'why in the world are you even arguing about this with these folks? Are they serious, or are they just sh-tting you?')<BR/><BR/>Exeunt, stage left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-46288324963998503282008-04-26T21:07:00.000-04:002008-04-26T21:07:00.000-04:00If using vulgar language in certain contexts is wr...If using vulgar language in certain contexts is wrong, then claiming Jesus wouldn't have used it such contexts isn't docetic. <BR/>Maybe vulgar language is fine, I don't know. I would be curious to know if Egregious, Kim, or anyone else has any interesting defenses of "casual swearing," in light of the obvious prooftexts against it (apart from the all-too-obvious "Paul said shit that one time!").<BR/>-DannyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-36222504170309713152008-04-26T01:38:00.000-04:002008-04-26T01:38:00.000-04:00Anonymous: Christ's indignation is not having a pr...Anonymous: Christ's indignation is not having a profane tongue.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73305393650493446152008-04-25T18:06:00.000-04:002008-04-25T18:06:00.000-04:00I think Michael's reaction typifies an unreflected...I think Michael's reaction typifies an unreflected docetism. While affirmation of the full divinity of Christ is necessary and commendable, do not forget the full humanity. And, I'm fairly certain that the whole 'brood of vipers' and 'unwashed sepulchre' bits are rather equivalent to 'asshole' in tonality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-745108716114154282008-04-25T12:30:00.000-04:002008-04-25T12:30:00.000-04:00Yes, dear Michael, I too feel the bitter cut of th...Yes, dear Michael, I too feel the bitter cut of the sharp two-edged sword (Prov. 5:4, Heb. 4:12), especially here: <BR/><BR/>Prov 10:32: The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked what is perverse.<BR/><BR/>May the great Wound of Love guard us from the darts of the evil one this day, my brother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-78252675224889504392008-04-25T12:04:00.000-04:002008-04-25T12:04:00.000-04:00Proverbs warned me this might happen. Time to mov...Proverbs warned me this might happen. Time to move on. Good day to you St. Egregious.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-58811217409585799042008-04-25T12:00:00.000-04:002008-04-25T12:00:00.000-04:00actually, Michael, I think one could quite serious...actually, Michael, I think one could quite seriously argue that Jesus is the very definition of uncouth. So, to quote from one of my favorite theological sources, the Oxford English Dictionary, here are two definitions of uncouth: <BR/>1. Of an unknown or unfamiliar character; unusual, uncommon, strange; marvellous.<BR/><BR/>2. Of an unfamiliar or strange appearance or form; spec., having an odd, uncomely, awkward, or clumsy shape or bearing.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the OED is not your cup of tea. How about Isaiah 53: 2-3. I think that's about as uncouth as it gets. Thanks be to God I can be an asshole beloved in the sight of God, who became a curse for me. A real one, and not just a lil ole word. And thats the offense, the one that saves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-36821024639003422562008-04-25T11:44:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:44:00.000-04:00I thought that there was something more to do with...I thought that there was something more to do with that comment than I understood. Even so, it's poor authorship, IMO as an author, to use such uncouth words (on the lips of the Son of God no less; perhaps the real purpose might be understood to spark controversy) in order to illustrate the point.<BR/><BR/>This is usually a clear sign the author has failed to do their job. The author is now relying on words rather than making use of them.<BR/><BR/>Here's an example of good writing, the difference should be obvious enough - http://missionrus.blogspot.com/2006/03/er-jesus-homeless-schizo.html.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/>Michael MettsMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-17588370345616648912008-04-25T11:28:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:28:00.000-04:00Michael, its a quotation from a well known book. S...Michael, its a quotation from a well known book. Should Kim have written the "NO A--h--e Rule"? But that would suggest that Jesus would dare not speak the language of the people, that we was above all that. Not quite the point, I should think!<BR/>If we Christians are offended by a mere word (which is, by the way, not truly a curse but a vulgarity), how in the world are we going to be able to sit with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors (not to speak of middle managers at the branch bank!) without covering our ears much of the time? Perfectly pious, maybe, but utterly cut off from the possibilities of love, dialogue, and conversion. <BR/>Somehow, though, I sense I am now guilty of trying to convince you of something you are fairly sure of. Sh-t, I think I better just sh-t up now!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-17979952075925753942008-04-25T11:18:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:18:00.000-04:00But would not a non-cursing Jesus with a quick-wit...But would not a non-cursing Jesus with a quick-wit at the end, also serve the author's intended expression? I'd suggest that the last line be changed to something more appropriate. More edifying. I enjoyed the dialogue down to that point. Thank you.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-76641778693365761772008-04-25T11:02:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:02:00.000-04:00Irony was always one of Jesus' strong suits, Micha...Irony was always one of Jesus' strong suits, Michael! And linguistic piety was not, I think, high on his list of virtues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-43724321945251406162008-04-25T09:58:00.000-04:002008-04-25T09:58:00.000-04:00Maybe I'm dense, but why is the curse-word on the ...Maybe I'm dense, but why is the curse-word on the lips of Jesus necessary again?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010921001006698533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-58830261511066837552008-04-24T22:12:00.000-04:002008-04-24T22:12:00.000-04:00The picture is hysterical, by the way. "there's al...The picture is hysterical, by the way. "there's always free cheese in the mousetrap, baby..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-7084048878873681432008-04-24T02:26:00.000-04:002008-04-24T02:26:00.000-04:00I once had a bumper sticker on my car, that someho...I once had a bumper sticker on my car, that somehow disappeared. It was during my quasi-irreverant days, but whatever:<BR/><BR/>"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you are an a _ _ h _ _ e."<BR/><BR/>A crude restatement of we are saved by grace? Bwahaha. Oh God, Kim, you sure know to turn things on the proverbial ear. Much needed. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14166162617480452512008-04-24T01:06:00.000-04:002008-04-24T01:06:00.000-04:00Thanks Kim! You brought a tear to my eye and a smi...Thanks Kim! You brought a tear to my eye and a smile to my face.Meredithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05076364508884699137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-4969146959560016272008-04-23T20:57:00.000-04:002008-04-23T20:57:00.000-04:00Re. Richard and Steve's allusion to my allusion: R...Re. Richard and Steve's allusion to my allusion: Robert Sutton, <I>The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilised Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't</I> (Sphere, 2007).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-15122060522401792952008-04-23T20:37:00.000-04:002008-04-23T20:37:00.000-04:00"I love Sutton's book. It really does, for a non-r..."I love Sutton's book. It really does, for a non-religious, secular, management book, have a great deal of gospel in it."<BR/><BR/>At least (the gospel) is showing up somewhere!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com