Jesus was more concerned about the hypocrisy and “heavy burdens” from the religious leadership of his time than correcting the behaviors of those on the social fringe. In fact, he went out of his way to befriend and identify himself with the furthest out: touching lepers, drinking and socializing with prostitutes and tax collectors. He didn’t set aside any laws, just added qualifiers to the law: those without sin should throw the first stone. He didn’t condone their behavior; it simply wasn’t the focus of his interest. As he welcomed them, they examined their own hearts, and came to their own radical conclusions about their need to change. He loved them and welcomed them, and allowed the rest to take it’s course. It was only the religious self-righteous that he challenged regarding obedience and behavior – mainly because their (our) biggest problem was (is) failure to see their (our) own flaws.
We -- Christian culture -- have trouble understanding this. We like to think of ourselves as being the marginalized, but this is not the point. Jesus was marginalized. He did not set out to re-establish his own rights. I think this is why I react with frustration at the Christian Right’s condemnation and fear related to the perceived culture war. Because to some degree, they are me. Is there a culture war? Sure. But I wonder if our demands for others to conform (and thereby create a Christian state?) often made implicitly upon those outside, fuel misunderstanding and antagonism far more than assuage it. We need to stop spending so much time in vindicating our position, and welcome those on the margins. The way that man did. The one we name ourselves for.
The paradox of insular language
-
We often develop slang or codewords to keep the others from understanding
what we’re saying. Here’s an example (thanks BK) of the lengths that some
are goi...
7 months ago
8 comments:
Martian Gar, while appreciating that you meant well, I feel it is my duty to inform you that earhlings of the female persuasion generally find the word whore offensive. It applies only to women, and has no male equivalent. The behavior I assume you are referring to is quite unisex. Prostitute is preferable.
Point taken!
The original title of this post (and the content of the former post) was meant as irony leveled agains those who use those terms, not a judgement of people often characterized by them.
I call men whores all the time, my dad, my sons, my pastor. I don't get the point.
Brendar-
Do you call them strumpets and harlots too? Old Norse: hora= adultress. Of course, in this age of ambiguous gender, it might be appropriate.
here is an amusing anecdote. i once knew a girl. i thought we were friends. i liked her parents. in complete jest, i called her mom a whore one day because all her kids seemed to have different last names. i thought it was apparent by the way i said it that i was only kidding around. a few days later, the girls mother approached me- very upset, crying. you wouldn't believe how hard it is to explain to a woman that the word whore can be used in jest. i frequently use it. i like the word. i do think men can be whores. it's very difficult to talk your way out of the word whore though. it rather backs you into an uncomfortable corner. the end
It's a great word because it can be used so inappropriately. If I called my 14 year old daughter a whore that would be sad but if I say to my 7 year old son, "you are such a whore." It becomes hilarious! You can say it two different ways too. You can say whore or whore
hmmm...like u-whore-a on star trek, when pronnounced the one way. i love brendars interactive comments! yay! i also love merriam-webster.
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
No More Idle Downloads Using NZB Downloads You Can Swiftly Search HD Movies, Console Games, Music, Software and Download Them @ Alarming Rates
[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]Usenet[/B][/URL]
Post a Comment