Words and Sentences…
Like many conversations, there are certain subjects which rise to the surface from time-to-time, often (and hopefully) becoming clearer over time. One such subject that probably bears another go is that of the language we use - words and sentences.
Setting the Stage
As part of the baseline for this discussion, I would like to borrow and briefly touch on some concepts from this article last fall. Specifically, there are three ways of classifying behavioral beliefs:
Absolutes - those things which are cross-cultural truths, which are demanded or forbidden. To do (or not do) such things is sinful, regardless of the cultural context.
Convictions - those things which are personally convicting, actions which a person believes they should (or should not) do. To do (or not do) such things would be sinning against one’s conscience, and therefore would be sinful. However, convictions are limited to the person or faith community (as with binding and loosing) and cannot be demanded cross-culturally.
Preferences - those things which are personally preferred, based on traditions or likes and dislikes.
Legalism occurs when Preferences or Convictions are raised to the level of Absolutes. This is the sin of the Pharisees. Relativism occurs when Absolutes are lowered to Convictions or Preferences. This is the sin of the Pagans and Hedonists.
Both are to be avoided.
The Words We Use
The Bible has a number of things to say about the words we use. Just a few relevant examples:
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. [...] but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
As we examine the Scriptures which deal with the subject of our speech, an absolute principle becomes clear - it is the content of our speech which is important. Specifically, if the content of our speech denies the deity of God, it is sinful and blasphemous. If the content of our speech denies the humanity of our neighbor, objectifying or proclaiming a curse upon them, it is a statement about an image-bearer of God and it is sinful and disrespectful of their maker.
Dirty Words
The concept of ‘dirty words’ is a rather new concept, in the grand scheme of things. While taking the Lord’s name in vain (which was more about ascribing God’s opinions as our own, apart from Scripture, not the simple speaking the name of the Lord, as some Pharisees interpreted it) is clearly a sin, the concept of certain words as ontologically ‘evil’ or ‘unholy’ did not arise until after the Reformation, primarily arising as a practice within Puritanism. Additionally, the concept of ‘vulgarity’ was one of class status (using the common-language terms for things rather than the Latin or upper-class vernacular. Both of these concepts have been conflated and traditionalized into what (at least in English-speaking culture) we sometimes call ‘obscenities’.
The Bible does not define specific words as ‘coarse’ or ‘obscene’ or ‘vulgar’. Rather, each society defines what words (if any) would be classified as such. Therefore, simply by definition, we cannot consider the use of specific words to be absolutely, cross-culturally, ontologically sinful. So, for some, the use of certain words may well be a conviction - which they should not act against! For others, it may simply be a matter of preference.
HOWEVER, there is caution to be had.
Content of Speech
As Scripture shows us, the content of speech is what is important. When language is used in a way that mocks God, ascribes actions to Him apart from scripture, or brings Him dishonor, it is sinful speech. When language is used in a way that says that a person is an object or to demonize a person, it is clearly a violation of the instructions on our speech and actions in Scripture - it attacks someone made in the image of God. Many of the ‘dirty words’ tagged in the English language are easy to abuse in this manner -
When one uses the word damn in a way that suggests that you are cursing them, or that you are ascribing God’s curses to them, it is sinful speech - not because the word ‘damn’ was used, but because it was used to convey a sinful message.
When one uses the word hell in a way that suggest another person ought to reside there, it is sinful speech - not because ‘hell’ was said, but because the sinful message which was conveyed.
If one suggests that another person should go have sexual relations with themself, it is sinful speech - not because a specific word (or gesture) was used, but because the message was debasing of someone made in God’s image.
To sum it up - no word or gesture is ontologically (in and of itself) evil - it is the message conveyed by those words or gestures which can be evil.
Freedom in Christ
While one has the freedom in Christ to avoid the legalism of tagging certain words as ’sinful’ to be religiously avoided, a great deal of wisdom is required, as well. Particularly in two cases:
1) If one is in a place where non-Christians are likely to identify you as a Christian, it behooves you to act in a manner which would not bring dishonor to Christ. If the cultural beliefs are such that certain words/phrases/actions would denote hypocrisy in the eyes of an unbeliever, prudence would suggest that to use that language might bring dishonor to Christ by driving away lost sheep.
2) If you are in a place where a weaker brother, without the understanding of freedom in Christ, might emulate your actions and sin against their convictions as a result, then you should not use your speech in a way that would bring dishonor to God by leading them to sin.
Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
With both of these cases in mind, it requires a great deal of wisdom to determine when it is appropriate to use such language, so as to avoid both of these pitfalls. There are legitimate places in which certain words could be used (a clinical discussion of the words, themselves; in legal/civil testimony; some illustrative usage; etc.), but great care is required.
As a Christian and a parent, I have found that my best personal policy is this:
I retain the right to use any and every word (or gesture) necessary as pertains to a situation, within the bounds of God-given wisdom and self-control, but I almost never exercise that right.
Who is to Judge?
There is a situation apart from the two listed above - using such language for a non-sinful message within a group of mature Christians. Such a group would not see your usage of a word as damaging their image of Christ, nor would they be tempted to sin against their conscience. There are some examples of this in Paul’s writing -
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Within such a group, there will be typically one of three responses -
1) A Pharisaical response which condemns someone else for their choice of words apart from message content. The use of certain words doesn’t change their own image of Christ or tempt them to violate their conscience, but rather instills a sense of legalistic pride that they don’t use certain words.
2) A Hedonistic response which revels in using such words just for the sake of using them, often leading to careless usage
3) A brotherly response which accepts the use of such words in a way that does not violate their own conscience.
But who is to judge such matters of Conviction?
Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. [...] When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
I have been guilty many times of using language in a way that was sinful - as have other writers on CRN.Info. As we have seen them, we have tried to repent and apologize. Additionally, we have called one another to account when we’ve seen each other losing control over our language (the content conveyed). In the end analysis, it’s not the words used, but the message conveyed that is at issue.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
More often than not, those who seem to care a great deal about which particular words, phrases or gestures are used are the very same people who use ‘clean’ language to express the most vile, dehumanizing and demonizing messages. Jesus’ words are perfectly illustrative of that concept.
As such, perhaps a focus on the messages conveyed instead of a legalistic policing of the words used is the best - and most Christian - policy.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Chris L: Very well thought out devotional. Thanks Chris.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
So what are you trying to say here Chris?
Haha, j/k.
So basically, what’s in my heart (my attitude) is more important than the individual words and will come across no matter what words I use.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Hi Chris,
Thanks for another great article. It was put very well to convey this truth.
Dave.
p.s. I got “Our Father Abraham” today! (two weeks + early). I’m plowing through it while working today on a private job waiting for windows to install
June 19th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Good thoughts. I’ve seen some real growth in maturity in the writers here over the past year. I remember times I’ve attempted to express my “offendedness” about the use of bad language and got blown off, basically. (Not complaining, just stating a fact.)
This is sort of off track from the point, but this is about the idea of specific bad words. I thought it was always good for Christians to be “relevant to the culture”. Our culture does have particular words and phrases that are considered to be vulgar (not that it stops anyone from using them!). I think I’ll be “relevant” and consider them vulgar as well. The way I see it, each “bad” word in our language has plenty of synonyms to substitute for them nicely. I personally am going to stick to using those synonyms! :p The problem with “bad words”, and I think this was mentioned, is that they are just thrown around, and the meaning is forgotten. Each one of those words has a meaning and should be used according to their meaning. A big reason they are considered offensive is not because of the meaning, though that is part of it, but because a person might use them outside of their meaning and completely offend someone who is thinking of their meaning!
Language is a special gift from God and we need to use it well. “Be good stewards of it”!
June 19th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Great article Chris L.
I think that, because of our brokenness, we get drawn to a specific aspect of the Bible. That area of brokenness resonates with something in the Gospel or Bible. Sometimes we feel challenged by the Word in that area of brokenness and this is how it should be. We need to realize, however, that our objectivity gets clouded by our brokenness. We can easily dwell on that area and make our own subjective experience with the Bible part of the Gospel. I think this is why some people are more sensitive to things like words and gestures than others.
That said, I also think we need to be sensitive towards people who, through their brokenness, came to emphasize and even eschew a part of the Bible. When we treat them with love, show them their subjectivity in love, we might help them on their path of healing. When we, however, hand them the truth strait on, it hurts. It’s like being handed a prickly pear with the skin on. It is nice, sweet and healthy on the inside but ouch! Hurting people with the truth never helps it just drives them away from us and further away from the truth that can set them free.
Talking about love… Love is expressed and comes to its full potential within relationship. Discernment, like all spiritual gifts and ministries is for the edification of the body of Christ and should function with its highest value as love. If love for our brother/sister, who is being discerned and corrected, is not our motivation, we cause hurt and destruction even if our words are filled with divine truth. My opinion is that all spiritual gifts and ministries including discernment should function within relationship. Relationship keeps us in check. Relationship keeps us together on the journey of healing and growth. I think Paul had this in mind when he put 1 Cor 13 (Love) in the middle of discussing spiritual gifts and ministries 1 Cor 12 & 14.
So back to words… Our words should be motivated by love. Not sometimes. Always. I think Chris L made this quite clear in his article. Thank you Chris.
Where I have hurt anyone of you with my words, I apologise. Please forgive me.
Hey, rejoice with me. The payment of a house that I sold finally came through. In the current situation in SA with bond rates going up, this is a wonderful relief!
June 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am
So, let’s see…
On June 18th, ‘08, Pastorboy puts up a post showing where one of the main contributors here uses some pretty vulgar language to describe his views. This can be found at http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/2008/06/tim-reed-pastor.html
And on June 18th, ‘08, this post comes up, calling into question the concept of vulgarity.
Mere coincidence? Spin control?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Jazz - I started this article last fall and posted it on my own website (http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/) on Tuesday night (though I cleaned up some serious grammatical issues yesterday). Since I’d already communicated to the other writers I was putting something together on the subject, Tim may have already known this was coming when he posted the song from BHT…
June 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Jazz,
I think you should ask yourself; why are you looking for reasons to tear a brother down and make a scene?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I think you should ask yourself; why are you looking for reasons to cloud the issue of a “brother” who is in the wrong to use that language because brother Jazz has been offended by this “pastor’s” conduct?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
1) I didn’t realize that Tim was Jazz’ pastor.
2) I don’t think Jazz fits into the category of either a brother who will be tempted to sin as a result of Tim’s post, nor do I think he fits into the category of an unbeliever who would view the use of individual words as religious or irreligious. So, that puts him into one of the latter 3 categories mentioned above:
a) A legalistic pharisee with a plank in his eye;
b) A hedonist who revels in the use of language simply because it feels good, regardless of the situation;
c) A mature brother who understands that his personal convictions may not align with the personal convictions of other brothers.
As far as it concerns me - I probably would not have reposted the BHT song - not because I think it was inappropriate (I quite agree with the sentiment and believe that the language used is the key to experiencing it), but rather because it would cause legalistic brothers to further participate in their Pharisaical ways…
June 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Will it go around in circles?
I am sure it will!
June 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Ken, good job answering for someone else’s problem and switching the focus of the original question. Why don’t you answer for you own crimes against the Body of Christ which you refuse to repent from before you take a shot at Tim? You seem to indicate that your use of words could be an issue, and if you’re saying “you do it too” to us that only means…you have a problem too that needs to be dealt with. And you know what the Lord says about taking that plank out FIRST…
Joe
June 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Ken,
Interesting that you choose to call me a “pastor” (with scare quotes) and stick up for pastorboy as someone called by Christ to fill that position. More team politics at play. Repent of your slander.
If that’s the standard you believe to be true then you’d best be getting to changing your ways because there’s a lot of people out there that are offended by your conduct.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Throw a stone into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one who got hit….
June 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Which explains your reaction to the poem.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Yay!!!!
It’s the cliche’ game!
Can I play too?
Here’s mine:
A rolling stone gathers no moss.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
my contribution:
Never eat spinach with a stranger.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Who’s next?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
never eat spinach with a stranger?
huh. that’s new for me.
Never eat spaghetti on a first date.
nc-2
chris-1
PB-1
June 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I don’t know about that anymore. Keith Richards is looking pretty grim nowadays.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Never loan your ipod, ever.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
nc-2
pb-1
chris-1
tim-1
phil-you get 1 point cuz that was funny
cliche’s, people. Let’s see if we can get this thread to 50
June 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
actually, we should see if PB posts anymore.
I’m sure he might win.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Don’t eat yellow snow…
You’ll always find what your looking for in the last place you look
If you’re looking to be offended, you will never be disappointed
June 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Your wife’s food is always better than your mothers - especially if she asks you to compare the two!
June 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
your mom is always better than yellow snow, unless the eagle flies at midnight, time to make the donuts.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Chris L-4
NC-3
Chris-1
Tim-1
PB-1
phil-1
If you love something let it go, if it comes back to you, it was yours.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
The fatman walks alone.
Purple monkey dishwasher.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
–1) I didn’t realize that Tim was Jazz’ pastor.–
Where does Ken ever say he is?
–2) I don’t think Jazz fits into the category of either a brother who will be tempted to sin as a result of Tim’s post, nor do I think he fits into the category of an unbeliever who would view the use of individual words as religious or irreligious.–
So, does that give you the license to use any language you want around me?
–Jazz - I started this article last fall and posted it on my own website (http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/) on Tuesday night (though I cleaned up some serious grammatical issues yesterday).–
Very interesting. Still, considering the post at the downgrade, and the one concerning the use of the middle finger in a church’s lyrics display, I do find it curious that the deconstruction of vulgarity should be put up now.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
boring.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Have I told Jew lately that I love you? That’s racist!
Peas and carrots…
June 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
good heavens,
I can’t keep up with the score…
but I like the cliche’s.
keep ‘em coming.
Here’s one in honor of PB’s inaugural cliche. It’s kinda the same idea…different form:
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The most inflammatory blogger gets the links.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
aaaaaauuuuugggggh!
A middle finger with the back of the palm out is NOT the same thing as a middle finger with the front of the palm out.
one word:
obtuse.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If you take offense at something that is not a sin - is the offense the fault of you or the person who offended you?
If you were from the Middle-East and I touched you with my left hand (considered unclean), would I be sinning, or would I just be insensitive to your cultural conviction?
If I wore jeans up front during Sunday worship and you were offended, would I be in sin?
If I wore a suit on stage and you were offended that I was trying to put on airs, would it be my issue or yours?
Is the immature Christian one who seeks to be offended or one who only holds himself to his own convictions?
If simply giving offense is a sin, then there’s pretty much no way to ever truly repent.
Paul wrote:
Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.
This is particularly important concerning personal convictions - otherwise we end up with the PC, litigation-happy nonsense of modern America - where being offended is cause to sue.
Series of events:
1) Article on the imagined vulgarity at GCC.
2) This Article (on FTA)
3) Downgrade
4) This Article (reposted here)
It was the imagined “obscene” gesture at GCC that caused me to dust off the article I’d started and finish it - with the primary impetus being to define the difference between individual words/motions and content/intent.
I used to have a teacher who used his middle finger to push up his glasses when he would start sweating. Nobody thought it was an obscene gesture. Context, context, context.
In the case of GCC, Ingrid ripped it out of context and slanderously accused them of “giving God the middle finger”…
June 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
This is the problem with the sector of religious people who are willfully oblivious to reality:
When they attempt to make cultural comments, they tend to get it all wrong, and thus look really really stupid.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The squeaky finger gets the bird.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ok…a few cliches:
The legalist gets the guillotine.
Jesus was a liberal.
A monkey can’t use hand grenades and bananas at the same time.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
A few Charismatic ones. . .
With the appointing comes the anointing
God will supply your need not your greed
I can feel God in this place
I was on my knees under my desk when I heard God in an audible voice . . .
June 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
let go and let God…
wherever you are, there you will be
Father, we just wanna thank you just for just all the things you’ve done just for us.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Don’t vote as a Republican, vote as a Child of God
June 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I once saw a donkey and his face reminded me of some Christians
Just quote the word brother
Just plead the blood
Can I get an amen?
June 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
After being a dick to someone:
Well, the Gospel is offensive. The Truth hurts.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
“Amen (random Christian commenter)!”
June 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Pot calling the kettle black
June 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Man loving-semi pelegian”
“Painted girls of sodom”
“Rob Bell is a heretic”
June 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Never stand down wind at a bean eating contest.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Sorry that’s not a cliche that’s just some good ol’ advice.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
8 year old flouncing in a bikini
June 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I asked God . . . and He said to me . . . so I asked Him . . . and He said . . .
As all heads are bowed and eyes closed . . .
June 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
nc - you are correct, that word picture is sinful language as well.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
throw a rock into a….
dang. that’s already been said.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
actually, I was saying the thing about pots and kettles as part of the “cliche’ game”.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
–Series of events:
1) Article on the imagined vulgarity at GCC.
2) This Article (on FTA)
3) Downgrade
4) This Article (reposted here)–
Very well, then. Perhaps my skepticism was not as accurate as could be wished. My apologies to you.
–If you take offense at something that is not a sin - is the offense the fault of you or the person who offended you?–
So, are you saying that using vulgarities is not sinful?
–If you were from the Middle-East and I touched you with my left hand (considered unclean), would I be sinning, or would I just be insensitive to your cultural conviction?–
I think we all know there is a difference between inadvertent social misunderstandings and the use of intentionally offensive language and symbols. The fact that one popular Tibetan symbol looks disturbingly like a Nazi swastik does not mean that Tibetans are anti-semites, nor that they shouldn’t use that symbol.
However, if a person started running around Israel leaving that symbol all around, and when caught said it wasn’t offensive because it was Tibetan, I would say that either that person was very ignorant indeed and needed a to get a clue, or was simply trying to weasel out on a technicality.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
So people shouldn’t use potty language because it might offend some over-sensitive Christians?
June 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Haha. So completely apt.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I haven’t laughed so hard since the last post that attempts to denigrate my church and imply that I am a false convert to the cause of Christ.
Here’s a cliche for you:
If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!
June 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!”
Julie - can you say that with hand signals?
June 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Did you read the article? The short answer: It depends.
The long answer: No word is ontologically sinful, and it is a matter of conviction on their usage, especially keeping in mind Paul’s admonitions regarding the responsibility of freedom in Christ.
Does the Bible define what sin is, or does the secular society in which you live?
I would note that the concept of ‘dirty words’ is primarily an artifact of the English language, and an outcome of the Puritan movement - during Jesus’ day, there was no such thing…
If you are referring specifically to vulgarities (i.e. references to bodily parts and functions), this is historically a class-based prejudging of words. In modern usage, clinical or medical (i.e. ‘educated’) terms are generally seen as “polite” and slang (uneducated) terms as “vulgar”. So the societal bias against such words has nothing ontological to it, but rather a class-based bias - which is why, in general, folks who consistently lace their conversations with four-letter words are seen in secular society not as ‘evil’ but as ‘uneducated’ or ‘unrefined’.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Julie - welcome!
I’m down NW of Indy, and though I can’t say I’ve ever been to Granger, a number of my Purdue friends were from there…
I appreciate artistic expressions, and to anyone that watched the video of your Easter service - unless they were specifically looking to find something offensive, there was nothing wrong with it…
Keep up the good work…
June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
And anything that is an outcome of the Puritan movement should be looked at sideways, if at all…
June 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Evan,
I wouldn’t completely discount them - a number of practices which improved medicine, the American system of government and a number of other things we take for granted today came from that movement.
As with all human movements, moderation and sifting is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff…
June 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
So what good will come from the ODM movement?
June 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Eugene,
This era’s example of how not to be.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Chris, that’s why i said “looked at sideways.”
As in, based on their overarching themes, start with skepticism…
How did Jon Stewart put it? Something about how they came to America looking for religious freedom to practice the most stultifyingly oppressive type of Christianity ever known to man…
June 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
LOL-I could try Rick but would certainly be misinterpreted.
Thanks for your warm welcome Chris. Come visit someday when you’re up this way. The door’s always open!
June 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Plenty of things. 1) they help wake up people who don’t think about things at all 2. Sites like this spawn in moderation to the extreme 3. it creates discussion on issues.
Obviously there are negatives, but there is usually a way to look on the bright side.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Kind of like experiments in the chem lab at work - there’s no such thing as a bad experiment - you can always learn what doesn’t work…