Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[Wesleyb]

I share your concern of immortal people in public office ...

So do I, but Sen. Byrd did eventually die.

Senator Thurmond got a little closer but he’s gone too.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

Ken, I think you are possibly shifting the goalposts by turning the discussion toward guarding the purity of the church.

As a side note, I think that "elimination" in this context has a different connotation than "removal." When used in the same sentence as "undesirable people" I think "elimination" suggests killing rather than removal from office.

FWIW, I dislike JohnH's use of the word "infestation" and in particular I object to using "infestation" as he used it in the context of immigration from India. I think the latter use is indefensible.

Well, Ken, the reason he uses such terminology as "infestation" is possibly reflective of a critical difference in the theology of his church.

Most of us do not have the concept of a "death sin." Particularly, we characterize sin on the part of an unbeliever as his natural state, and simply one who is awaiting the grace of God, not beyond the reach the grace of God, and we simply wait for him to come to the grace of God.

The Church of God in Christ (Mennonite) holds a view of certain sins as "death sins." While most of us would agree that the wages of sin is death, among unbelievers, we simply don't have a hierarchy of sins. Sin is a state, which can be redeemed by the grace of God, received through repentance and faith. However, this classification of some sense as "death sins" tends to create a sense that there are simply some sins that really exist beyond the grace of God. In other words if one is guilty of one of these "death sins" one is worthy of death. I can't conceive of any other justification for using the term infestation.

My world view puts all persons as being individuals for whom Christ died, and thus within the reach of the grace of God, if they repent and believe, no exceptions.

[Bootstrap]

The example of Jesus is relevant here. He treated people as well, even people guilty of sins like adultery. But he also said, "go and sin no more!"

When we treat other people as less than human, imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal, etc., we are not following the example of Jesus. And in general, that kind of dehumanization has really bad consequences.

But holiness is important.

Did anyone imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal?

That’s exactly why dehumanizing language is dangerous. When people are described as an “infestation,” it becomes easier to justify treating them in ways we would never consider acceptable toward fellow human beings. History shows that this is not harmless. An infestation needs to be dealt with, urgently.

No one has to explicitly say “cruelty is no big deal.”

[JohnH]

The Church of God in Christ (Mennonite) holds a view of certain sins as "death sins." While most of us would agree that the wages of sin is death, among unbelievers, we simply don't have a hierarchy of sins. Sin is a state, which can be redeemed by the grace of God, received through repentance and faith. However, this classification of some sense as "death sins" tends to create a sense that there are simply some sins that really exist beyond the grace of God. In other words if one is guilty of one of these "death sins" one is worthy of death. I can't conceive of any other justification for using the term infestation.

My world view puts all persons as being individuals for whom Christ died, and thus within the reach of the grace of God, if they repent and believe, no exceptions.

J M,

This is a completely incorrect exhibition of our doctrines. If you wish, we could dialogue privately about this. Otherwise I will do so here.

A “death sin” is simply any sin you would be excommunicated for. Your church has them too. Nobody gets excommunicated for rolling a stop sign so they can get to McDonald’s 10 seconds faster. Everyone gets excommunicated for openly cheating on their wife. Make sense?

We do not believe any sin is beyond the reach of the grace of God and every excommunicated person we hope repents and returns to God’s grace. I have attended members’ meetings and raised my hand to reaccept people after such a thing many times.

I think Mr Bessent could repent and experience a joyful, victorious Christian life.

[JohnH]

The example of Jesus is relevant here. He treated people as well, even people guilty of sins like adultery. But he also said, "go and sin no more!"

When we treat other people as less than human, imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal, etc., we are not following the example of Jesus. And in general, that kind of dehumanization has really bad consequences.

But holiness is important.

Did anyone imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal?

That’s exactly why dehumanizing language is dangerous. When people are described as an “infestation,” it becomes easier to justify treating them in ways we would never consider acceptable toward fellow human beings. History shows that this is not harmless. An infestation needs to be dealt with, urgently.

No one has to explicitly say “cruelty is no big deal.”

Do you have any commentary, then, on such language being used in the OT and NT?

[temporal1]

1) Does everyone agree there is 1 unforgivable sin? (Debatable word choice isn’t it.)

2) Does everyone agree some sins are also crimes in human law, regardless of faith or atheism? General example, murder.
(Christianity isn’t the sole source of human morality.) There’s significant overlap.

3) Does everyone agree the U.S. has the First Amendment?

4) Does everyone agree churches, private entities, households, forums, may set+observe rules that might restrict 1A freedoms?

i’m now convinced i would not take a young impressionable child to Germany to live, he might be scarred for life.
Maybe Hawaii, Guam, or Denmark.

i’m happy the forum has mods for every reason.

[Bootstrap]

Do you have any commentary, then, on such language being used in the OT and NT?

Not without spending some time studying this carefully. It's certainly not the way Jesus approached sinners - closer to the way he treated the self righteous Pharisees.

[ken_sylvania]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

Ken, I think you are possibly shifting the goalposts by turning the discussion toward guarding the purity of the church.

As a side note, I think that "elimination" in this context has a different connotation than "removal." When used in the same sentence as "undesirable people" I think "elimination" suggests killing rather than removal from office.

FWIW, I dislike JohnH's use of the word "infestation" and in particular I object to using "infestation" as he used it in the context of immigration from India. I think the latter use is indefensible.

Well, Ken, the reason he uses such terminology as "infestation" is possibly reflective of a critical difference in the theology of his church.

Most of us do not have the concept of a "death sin." Particularly, we characterize sin on the part of an unbeliever as his natural state, and simply one who is awaiting the grace of God, not beyond the reach the grace of God, and we simply wait for him to come to the grace of God.

The Church of God in Christ (Mennonite) holds a view of certain sins as "death sins." While most of us would agree that the wages of sin is death, among unbelievers, we simply don't have a hierarchy of sins. Sin is a state, which can be redeemed by the grace of God, received through repentance and faith. However, this classification of some sense as "death sins" tends to create a sense that there are simply some sins that really exist beyond the grace of God. In other words if one is guilty of one of these "death sins" one is worthy of death. I can't conceive of any other justification for using the term infestation.

My world view puts all persons as being individuals for whom Christ died, and thus within the reach of the grace of God, if they repent and believe, no exceptions.

I don't see how you reconcile this hypothesis with JohnH's previous comments in this thread:

That doesn’t mean I’m calling for his “elimination”. I’d just like to see him repent and stop being an adulterer. The same goes for other sins which are choices.

Part of my choice with “infestation” is to propose it might be time to abandon the structure. That’s how I feel about the edifice of American politics; it is merely an observation that it seems to be infested with perverts of the worst kinds. I would like to see those individuals repent and live a life of wholeness, too.

[ken_sylvania]

Do you have any commentary, then, on such language being used in the OT and NT?

Not without spending some time studying this carefully. It's certainly not the way Jesus approached sinners - closer to the way he treated the self righteous Pharisees.

I guess the self righteous Pharisees weren't sinners?

And you don't think the adulterers and immoral people in government who claim to be doing God's will are self-righteous hypocrites?

[Bootstrap]

Do you have any commentary, then, on such language being used in the OT and NT?

Not without spending some time studying this carefully. It's certainly not the way Jesus approached sinners - closer to the way he treated the self righteous Pharisees.

I guess the self righteous Pharisees weren't sinners?

And you don't think the adulterers and immoral people in government who claim to be doing God's will are self-righteous hypocrites?

Feel free to express your opinion on these things. As I have said, I would really want to spend more time studying this carefully in the Bible before commenting further.

Here's one thing that's very clear to me: one of the things that the Pharisees really hated about Jesus was the way he treated lepers, sinners, tax collectors, and others as fully human, beloved by God. Because I put the example and teachings of Jesus first, that's where I start.