IRONY!??!??

[quote author=subllibrm]I felt he had a valid point. I don't believe that every preacher needs to use coarse language to make a point that has been made (famously BTW) or emulate that technique. Put another way, tossing in the "surprise" potty mouth words doesn't come across as cutting edge or relevant, it sounds desperate and trite.[/quote]

His usage of that particular word wasn't to be "cutting edge or relevant". It was to prove a point, largely the fact that people would be offended over his word choice and be completely apathetic to the fact that a Birmingham, AL-sized chunk of kids die every week because they don't have enough food to eat.

In short, the Church has gotten pretty good at being offended over things that don't even matter and could care less about the things that do.

"Oh no! That man said a bad word! Oh...another child got beaten for a minor infraction. Oh wells."
"Oh no! That church has a contemporary service! Oh...another single mom got shunned by that church. Oh wells"
"Oh no! People are calling us arrogant, hypocritical jerks! Oh...we do have a habit of being arrogant, hypocritical jerks. Oh wells."
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=subllibrm]I felt he had a valid point. I don't believe that every preacher needs to use coarse language to make a point that has been made (famously BTW) or emulate that technique. Put another way, tossing in the "surprise" potty mouth words doesn't come across as cutting edge or relevant, it sounds desperate and trite.
Click to expand...

His usage of that particular word wasn't to be "cutting edge or relevant". It was to prove a point, largely the fact that people would be offended over his word choice and be completely apathetic to the fact that a Birmingham, AL-sized chunk of kids die every week because they don't have enough food to eat.

In short, the Church has gotten pretty good at being offended over things that don't even matter and could care less about the things that do.

"Oh no! That man said a bad word! Oh...another child got beaten for a minor infraction. Oh wells."
"Oh no! That church has a contemporary service! Oh...another single mom got shunned by that church. Oh wells"
"Oh no! People are calling us arrogant, hypocritical jerks! Oh...we do have a habit of being arrogant, hypocritical jerks. Oh wells."
[/quote]

Like I said, we're in the time of apostasy.  Been going on for a while now.

The church needs an apostate exam.
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=subllibrm]I felt he had a valid point. I don't believe that every preacher needs to use coarse language to make a point that has been made (famously BTW) or emulate that technique. Put another way, tossing in the "surprise" potty mouth words doesn't come across as cutting edge or relevant, it sounds desperate and trite.
Click to expand...

His usage of that particular word wasn't to be "cutting edge or relevant". It was to prove a point, largely the fact that people would be offended over his word choice and be completely apathetic to the fact that a Birmingham, AL-sized chunk of kids die every week because they don't have enough food to eat.

In short, the Church has gotten pretty good at being offended over things that don't even matter and could care less about the things that do.

"Oh no! That man said a bad word! Oh...another child got beaten for a minor infraction. Oh wells."
"Oh no! That church has a contemporary service! Oh...another single mom got shunned by that church. Oh wells"
"Oh no! People are calling us arrogant, hypocritical jerks! Oh...we do have a habit of being arrogant, hypocritical jerks. Oh wells."
[/quote]

Why are you acting as if I disagree with him on the point? I already said I understood the what and why of his using that word to make that point.  The part you quoted wasn't even directed at him or that message. Follow the pronouns and punctuation and you will see that I switched from him (first sentence) to them (the rest of the paragraph).

So what I don't understand is the current "need" to throw the random "a**hole" into a sermon (I'm sorry, talk). It comes across as a desperate attempt to be cutting edge (that's the problem with cutting the edge, it can only be done once).

On another SFL post that I commented on, I made this same point when the author felt compelled to refer to the subject matter as (a popular substitute for manure). I was chided for my prudishness and so on. My challenge back was if that word was necessary to make the point, would it not have been an even more persuasive argument if he had dropped an "F" bomb instead?

It is as if in a desperate need to prove that "I am not one of "them"' they must change out of "their" uniform of suit and tie into bermuda shorts and sandals and change the vocabulary from "thus saith the Lord" to "damn straight" to have any hope of being "relevant".

So back to the OP. What is different between this fella and Marty/Guy? Nothing but the clothes and vocab. Snide, self-satisfied snark without a trace of grace of mercy.
 
[quote author=subllibrm]Why are you acting as if I disagree with him on the point? I already said I understood the what and why of his using that word to make that point.  The part you quoted wasn't even directed at him or that message. Follow the pronouns and punctuation and you will see that I switched from him (first sentence) to them (the rest of the paragraph).[/quote]

My apologies. :)
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=subllibrm]Why are you acting as if I disagree with him on the point? I already said I understood the what and why of his using that word to make that point.  The part you quoted wasn't even directed at him or that message. Follow the pronouns and punctuation and you will see that I switched from him (first sentence) to them (the rest of the paragraph).
Click to expand...

My apologies. :)
[/quote]

No prob Bob. I'm certainly not going to be a rsc2a about it.  ;D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top