Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[JohnH]

Do you think it's wrong to refer to, for example, "thieves", in order to avoid offending thieves?

I do not think this passage applies to the situation JohnH is referring to. This is talking about how we talk TO people outside the faith. If I’m not mistaken, that is not the concept or use of the word JohnH was talking about- that’s a different topic altogether imo.

Different passages speak to different situations. I hope we will spend time looking at the actual texts that contain these commands in threads like these:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9026

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9027

Sounds great. I’m waiting 24 hours to post any replies on those threads, as you requested I do.

[justme]

i think it would be good to review the use of the word in question, as used in this thread. feel free to read several pages worth. or the whole thing.

It wouldn’t make any difference. It simply doesn’t work to have this many people flooding the country.

Incidentally the #3 group of illegal aliens by country are Indians. India is a long way from America and it involves either a plane ride or a very long boat ride to get here. Why are so many infesting this country?

[JohnH]

i think it would be good to review the use of the word in question, as used in this thread. feel free to read several pages worth. or the whole thing.

It wouldn’t make any difference. It simply doesn’t work to have this many people flooding the country.

Incidentally the #3 group of illegal aliens by country are Indians. India is a long way from America and it involves either a plane ride or a very long boat ride to get here. Why are so many infesting this country?

justme,

Didn't we have a thread where a few people discussed that, and I agreed it's not good to use it in that context and apologised?

Would you like me to make an apology specifically to you?

Is there something else I need to do to please you with regard to this?

[mike]

i think it would be good to review the use of the word in question, as used in this thread. feel free to read several pages worth. or the whole thing.

It wouldn’t make any difference. It simply doesn’t work to have this many people flooding the country.

Incidentally the #3 group of illegal aliens by country are Indians. India is a long way from America and it involves either a plane ride or a very long boat ride to get here. Why are so many infesting this country?

justme,

Didn't we have a thread where a few people discussed that, and I agreed it's not good to use it in that context and apologised?

Would you like me to make an apology specifically to you?

Is there something else I need to do to please you with regard to this?

In that thread, Josh never actually apologized, just suggested he could use a different word than ‘infested,’ but later claimed he had said he was sorry for using the word. I never found the place where he actually had said he was sorry, but maybe I missed it in 38 pages of discussion. Nobody ever pointed it out to me then, at any rate.

Just like in this thread, there are pages and pages of defense. A real apology, if you’re actually sorry for using this language, might build some goodwill. But if you aren’t actually sorry, then of course don’t bother. Just be aware there will be a lot of pushback when you talk like this.

[JohnH]

In that thread, Josh never actually apologized, just suggested he could use a different word than ‘infested,’ but later claimed he had said he was sorry for using the word. I never found the place where he actually had said he was sorry, but maybe I missed it in 38 pages of discussion. Nobody ever pointed it out to me then, at any rate.

Just like in this thread, there are pages and pages of defense. A real apology, if you’re actually sorry for using this language, might build some goodwill. But if you aren’t actually sorry, then of course don’t bother. Just be aware there will be a lot of pushback when you talk like this.

It did not communicate what I intended and caused needless offence without a good reason for doing so. I learned many people consider it a much “stronger” term than I am accustomed to thinking it does.

With that in mind, I have reserved it nowadays for when a sharper meaning is intended - such as when I recently used it to describe the current Presidential administration’s infestation with practicers of various forms of abominations and immorality.

I’m not really sure what’s left to complain about. Are you asking for a more vociferous apology? I usually have not seen much good from demanding people apologise for not meeting speech codes. One thing I appreciated about MN is that this place has not been a place with stringent speech codes and purity tests and struggle sessions applied, but I suspect that may be changing now.

[barnhart]

We are living in an age that seems to me increasingly comfortable categorizing people in dehumanizing ways. The unborn, the unborn with genetic disease, the old and infirm, the terminally ill, the undocumented, those from poor countries, those who practice same sex relationships, those with gender dysphoria, all these souls are individuals Jesus cares about and is asking his church to extend love on some level. Blessed (happy) are those who find a way to do that and remain faithful.

[mike]

In that thread, Josh never actually apologized, just suggested he could use a different word than ‘infested,’ but later claimed he had said he was sorry for using the word. I never found the place where he actually had said he was sorry, but maybe I missed it in 38 pages of discussion. Nobody ever pointed it out to me then, at any rate.

Just like in this thread, there are pages and pages of defense. A real apology, if you’re actually sorry for using this language, might build some goodwill. But if you aren’t actually sorry, then of course don’t bother. Just be aware there will be a lot of pushback when you talk like this.

It did not communicate what I intended and caused needless offence without a good reason for doing so. I learned many people consider it a much “stronger” term than I am accustomed to thinking it does.

With that in mind, I have reserved it nowadays for when a sharper meaning is intended - such as when I recently used it to describe the current Presidential administration’s infestation with practicers of various forms of abominations and immorality.

I’m not really sure what’s left to complain about. Are you asking for a more vociferous apology? I usually have not seen much good from demanding people apologise for not meeting speech codes. One thing I appreciated about MN is that this place has not been a place with stringent speech codes and purity tests and struggle sessions applied, but I suspect that may be changing now.

I'm not asking you for anything. Except maybe don't claim josh apologized in the other thread referenced when he did not.

[mike]

We are living in an age that seems to me increasingly comfortable categorizing people in dehumanizing ways. The unborn, the unborn with genetic disease, the old and infirm, the terminally ill, the undocumented, those from poor countries, those who practice same sex relationships, those with gender dysphoria, all these souls are individuals Jesus cares about and is asking his church to extend love on some level. Blessed (happy) are those who find a way to do that and remain faithful.

Oddly, we are at the same time living in an age where speech is more highly regulated and policed, and where speaking the truth comes with consequences. Where speaking the truth about things like people's sexual preferences and gender claims is potentially really costly. Words and truth do matter, and at the same time that we avoid dehumanizing language, we must speak the truth.

[temporal1]

We are living in an age that seems to me increasingly comfortable categorizing people in dehumanizing ways. The unborn, the unborn with genetic disease, the old and infirm, the terminally ill, the undocumented, those from poor countries, those who practice same sex relationships, those with gender dysphoria, all these souls are individuals Jesus cares about and is asking his church to extend love on some level. Blessed (happy) are those who find a way to do that and remain faithful.

Oddly, we are at the same time living in an age where speech is more highly regulated and policed, and where speaking the truth comes with consequences. Where speaking the truth about things like people's sexual preferences and gender claims is potentially really costly. Words and truth do matter, and at the same time that we avoid dehumanizing language, we must speak the truth.

That’s the central conundrum about free speech. It requires tolerance of speech that is unwanted.

[ken_sylvania]

In that thread, Josh never actually apologized, just suggested he could use a different word than ‘infested,’ but later claimed he had said he was sorry for using the word. I never found the place where he actually had said he was sorry, but maybe I missed it in 38 pages of discussion. Nobody ever pointed it out to me then, at any rate.

Just like in this thread, there are pages and pages of defense. A real apology, if you’re actually sorry for using this language, might build some goodwill. But if you aren’t actually sorry, then of course don’t bother. Just be aware there will be a lot of pushback when you talk like this.

It did not communicate what I intended and caused needless offence without a good reason for doing so. I learned many people consider it a much “stronger” term than I am accustomed to thinking it does.

With that in mind, I have reserved it nowadays for when a sharper meaning is intended - such as when I recently used it to describe the current Presidential administration’s infestation with practicers of various forms of abominations and immorality.

I’m not really sure what’s left to complain about. Are you asking for a more vociferous apology? I usually have not seen much good from demanding people apologise for not meeting speech codes. One thing I appreciated about MN is that this place has not been a place with stringent speech codes and purity tests and struggle sessions applied, but I suspect that may be changing now.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to communicate here, but the overall impression this gives me is that, in your opinion, you did nothing wrong at all and you are not sorry for what you did. It appears that you are, perhaps, sorry that other people misunderstood what you intended to communicate but you believe that it is an "other people" problem, not a JohnH problem. If there is nothing wrong with the language you used, why not defend it instead of falsely claiming to have apologized for using it?