Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[JohnH]

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?

I had no intent to do anything wrong. However, if a wide group of people found my speech offensive, it's something I would need to stop doing, particularly if there was no compelling reason to keep using it. Miscommunication or causing unneeded offence is not something I want to do.

I have no interest, however, in a struggle session, particularly one where certain people keep framing it as if it somehow makes you a Nazi sympathiser to use certain terms. Myself and other people (including quite liberal people) have used "infested" to innocuously refer to people for quite a long time, often without particularly ill intent, such as "Boy, there sure are a lot of you contractors infesting the building these days" (back when I was a contractor), and a laugh from me in response, since, yes, there certainly were a lot of contractors at the place I was working.

It's probably analogous to "retarded", which used to be a completely acceptable thing to say, but now is something I would avoid in many contexts, even if someone actually is retarded and no insult were intended, or if it weren't referring to a person at all, but just a course of action. I would, not, however, participate in a struggle session because someone found that I'd said "retarded" 10 years ago. I would not say it today in a context where it would cause needless offence and would not communicate clearly.

[JohnH]

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.

Jesus also cares about individuals who conduct genocides, commit mass murder, sexually abuse children, are gross religious hypocrites (and it seems often the last two go together). That doesn't mean that it's wrong to use strong, pejorative terms to speak about both such acts, and about such people who choose to do these things. As a Christian, we have a duty to find a way to extend love to such people and even to pray and believe for their conversion. (Doing so for religious hypocrites is a particular challenge for me.)

I also find it disgusting that you would lump the unborn with genetic disease and illegal aliens in with people who practice same sex relationships and crossdressers. Unborn children haven't done a single thing wrong. Illegal aliens are often just people who didn't know what they were getting into and are trying to find a job and work hard. People who practice same sex relationships are doing something entirely unnecessary and committing a gross abomination. Crossdressers are people who get a thrill out of wearing women's clothes. The Bible is very clear on how these are abominations.

Someone who jumps a border and works without a valid visa is, on the other hand, not committing a grievous abomination in God's eyes. I think it's very disturbing to lump them together. Homosexuals and transsexuals are celebrated and protected in society, and live openly, not in the shadows. Illegal aliens are not.

[GaryK]

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?

I had no intent to do anything wrong. However, if a wide group of people found my speech offensive, it's something I would need to stop doing, particularly if there was no compelling reason to keep using it. Miscommunication or causing unneeded offence is not something I want to do.

I have no interest, however, in a struggle session, particularly one where certain people keep framing it as if it somehow makes you a Nazi sympathiser to use certain terms. Myself and other people (including quite liberal people) have used "infested" to innocuously refer to people for quite a long time, often without particularly ill intent, such as "Boy, there sure are a lot of you contractors infesting the building these days" (back when I was a contractor), and a laugh from me in response, since, yes, there certainly were a lot of contractors at the place I was working.

It's probably analogous to "retarded", which used to be a completely acceptable thing to say, but now is something I would avoid in many contexts, even if someone actually is retarded and no insult were intended, or if it weren't referring to a person at all, but just a course of action. I would, not, however, participate in a struggle session because someone found that I'd said "retarded" 10 years ago. I would not say it today in a context where it would cause needless offence and would not communicate clearly.

You have said numerous times that you apologized for using "infestation" in another context. Can you show the forum where you apologized? If you didn't apologize, I think it would be good to correct your misstatement.

[JohnH]

You have said numerous times that you apologized for using "infestation" in another context. Can you show the forum where you apologized? If you didn't apologize, I think it would be good to correct your misstatement.

Sorry. I thought I made it clear I wouldn't use it again, and didn't intend to offend with it, and haven't used it in that context ever since (either here, or anywhere else).

I am not going to engage in a struggle session where I have to prove that the above was a good enough apology. If you think I have a spiritual problem, feel free to reach out to me personally or a minister in my church.

Thanks.

[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.

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.

I agree with you. I was writing in response to the subject of this thread which is about the justification of dehumanization. We can avoid this and still say what is true.

[ken_sylvania]

You have said numerous times that you apologized for using "infestation" in another context. Can you show the forum where you apologized? If you didn't apologize, I think it would be good to correct your misstatement.

Sorry. I thought I made it clear I wouldn't use it again, and didn't intend to offend with it, and haven't used it in that context ever since (either here, or anywhere else).

I am not going to engage in a struggle session where I have to prove that the above was a good enough apology. If you think I have a spiritual problem, feel free to reach out to me personally or a minister in my church.

Thanks.

Thank you for clarifying your position.
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you are not sorry for having used the language that you did.

[mike]

You have said numerous times that you apologized for using "infestation" in another context. Can you show the forum where you apologized? If you didn't apologize, I think it would be good to correct your misstatement.

Sorry. I thought I made it clear I wouldn't use it again, and didn't intend to offend with it, and haven't used it in that context ever since (either here, or anywhere else).

I am not going to engage in a struggle session where I have to prove that the above was a good enough apology. If you think I have a spiritual problem, feel free to reach out to me personally or a minister in my church.

Thanks.

More twisting and obfuscation. Nobody is making the point you have to make a good enough apology or any at all, or that you have a spiritual problem. What we are saying is that you never actually apologized at all in the previous thread referenced, even after having claimed multiple times to do so. That's all this is.

[GaryK]

You have said numerous times that you apologized for using "infestation" in another context. Can you show the forum where you apologized? If you didn't apologize, I think it would be good to correct your misstatement.

Sorry. I thought I made it clear I wouldn't use it again, and didn't intend to offend with it, and haven't used it in that context ever since (either here, or anywhere else).

Perhaps you did make that clear but I'm unclear how that is the same as apologizing for using it in that context.

[JohnH]

To be frank, I don’t particularly clearly what I posted on this forum 4 years ago, and couldn’t find it until t1 found it. It’s not straightforward to search for old posts from my old name when the Great Purge happened.

Since that time, I was cautious not to use “infestation” or “infested” about groups of people unless it is about serious, sinful, grievous conduct, and never to use as a term to mean inconvenient or undesirable or other less pejorative meanings. So that is what has been meaningful to me. I also felt genuinely bad about what I wrote being interpreted by someone reading it to feel like I said something very pejorative about a group of people for an immutable characteristic.

I’m not sure how much more of a struggle session is needed. I think changes in conduct are more important than statements of apology, but I’ll repeat myself and say I’m sorry I used that term that way and caused offence, and I’m also thankful to Grace for taking the time to rebuke me and to teach me.

Is there something else you’d like me to do or say?