Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Christian Forum' started by summerjack, Dec 27, 2013.
Differing definitions for crude relative to how a christian conducts themselves?
Same definition - different audiences. Personally - I found nothing crude in the following statement because he used the correct biological terms:
“It seems like, to me, a ******—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
I do not believe that to be a crude statement by what I define the word crude to mean - and no - I do not read GQ.
In order for it to have been a crude statement - I believe he would of had to have used vulgar words/terms to describe the act and/or the body parts.
Certainly entitled to your opinion whether it was crude or not.
Regardless, I don't think audience rightfully determines definitions regarding one's conduct.
Was he mean or was he direct? There's a difference--and yes, some respond to direct much better.
I assume you've read the Bible---the bulk of it could be taken as being "attacking" or "mean". It's pretty direct in many cases, not a lot of pulled punches.
You know, the more I read what he said the less crude is really is. He used no vulgar terms, no nasty words. The problem is he said what so many think but don't have the cojones to say and somebody got their feelings hurt.
I'm pretty sure Jesus hurt a lot of people's feelings.
Heck i figured he and pontious pilote were on good terms. I thought it was awful harsh to make him carry all that dogwood that far but it makes sence now. pilote was a gay sissy baby!
As mentioned, you can differ on crude.
I know men of God that I respect a great deal and it's frankly beneath them to speak in the manner Phil did with some of what he said. I don't say he's a bad person for that but I proudly admire them for it as well. See the difference?
Take two men who are lovingly ministering to a person fighting same-sex attraction or who is caught up in heterosexual promiscuity.
Phil says 'don't be a *****' and 'how can a man want to have sex with a man'. Bob says God loves you and so do I. Let's talk about the problems you're having and take a look at what God's word has to say about them and what answers it provides for you to have a happy, fulfilled life?
Phil isn't 'wrong' per se and neither are compromising the truth, but which of them is exemplifying the spirit of Christ?
The Bible (Word of God) says a man will not enter heaven if you lie with men. I'd say that was pretty straight foward, and not sugar coated at all. We are so afr?id to hurt someone's feelings, everyone wants us to walk on eggshells when we have a message that they don't want to hear.
Again, I get what you're saying and agree to an extent. But I also see Phil just as much exemplifying the spirit of Christ---there are many instances in the Bible that Jesus is very direct and almost confrontational, no sugarcoating whatsoever. I know plenty of people just like the ones you speak of, and quite honestly aspire to be one myself, but they can't reach everyone. Sometimes people need a direct verbal kick in the butt to get something across.
But could audience determine the mindset one might have on answering a question?
If asked "If you were to be reincarnated - what would you like to come back as?" Would you give the same answer to Parents Magazine as you would Playboy Magazine? I wouldn't.
I think the term his family used in describing his comments was "coarse."
That seems about right.
Class will tell.