Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[Soloist]

So since it seems to be the consensus that infestation is an ok word to use to describe a group of people, i guess i am allowed to say this:

MennoNet is infested with JohnH and his supporters.

If John's position is immoral then I suppose that response would be in line with what John is saying.
Or you could just say that he and anyone who defend him are like a den of copperheads. Wouldn't that be just as insulting?

I think the Bible uses language similar to "infestation" sometimes but I don't feel comfortable using such language just because it is used in the Bible.

I suppose the argument would be that she’s a supporter then.

[Bootstrap]

So since it seems to be the consensus that infestation is an ok word to use to describe a group of people, i guess i am allowed to say this:

MennoNet is infested with JohnH and his supporters.

If John's position is immoral then I suppose that response would be in line with what John is saying.
Or you could just say that he and anyone who defend him are like a den of copperheads. Wouldn't that be just as insulting?

I think the Bible uses language similar to "infestation" sometimes but I don't feel comfortable using such language just because it is used in the Bible.

Maybe I'm reading her wrong, but I interpreted justme's post like this: "You who call other people an infestation, why should we not call you an infestation?" I don't think she was encouraging anyone to actually use that kind of language.

Some people who are very, very sensitive about how other people talk about them describe other people with terms I would not use to describe anyone, period, ever. Some people who have described others as an "infestation" were upset when justme did it. That was her point.

I'm really surprised that this thread has gone on so long. I think Jesus and Paul had so much to say about how Christians should speak that I can't use that kind of language about others. I was surprised to see people defend it for so many pages.

[Bootstrap]

I'm confused.

justme has clarified what she was actually saying. Others continue to speak as though she had not. By now, it should be clear that she was not actually calling JohnH an infestation, no?

Are people still missing her point?

Thank you JM.
I don't think infestation is an ok word to describe a group of people.


To the rest of you, how does this statement make you feel? Valerie told us it feels insulting. I can imagine it does feel insulting.

So since it seems to be the consensus that infestation is an ok word to use to describe a group of people, i guess i am allowed to say this:

MennoNet is infested with JohnH and his supporters.

I hope I've made my point.

[Bootstrap]

I don't have a biblical basis for this, but I have preferred to reserve strong language like "infested" for the elite and powerful who also commit grievous sins. Just seems like the right thing to do, even though the Bible doesn't have any qualms about using harsh language to describe entire groups of people, including ethnic groups; Paul said he is "all things to all men", so sometimes it's important to accept cultural strictures around our speech even if the Bible doesn't teach us to require them.

I prefer to avoid strong language like this. To me, it's neighboring on profanity, not the kind of language that should be used. And it is often used instead of actually clearly explaining what a person believes and why. Language like this is dehumanizing, and it bypasses rational discussion.

If you have a strong argument, you don't need this kind of strong language. You can be vivid and clear without it. It doesn't help explain things more accurately. And it tends to distract from the actual topic.

In social media, it sometimes feels like people are competing to find or invent the strongest possible language to condemn others. It gets attention. It's more likely to go viral. But it doesn't seem right to me.

[temporal1]

boot:
I was surprised to see people defend it for so many pages.

i’ve been surprised mods have allowed pages+pages of “you” statements. i’m tryng to learn about how the forum has changed, is changing, as the next chapter unfolds.

also, evidently, maybe no members flagged mods about “you” statements. i didn’t.
mods ask to be flagged. i guess most of us don’t think of it right away.

or maybe this topic is just an anomaly.

[temporal1]

So since it seems to be the consensus that infestation is an ok word to use to describe a group of people, i guess i am allowed to say this:

MennoNet is infested with JohnH and his supporters.

If John's position is immoral then I suppose that response would be in line with what John is saying.
Or you could just say that he and anyone who defend him are like a den of copperheads. Wouldn't that be just as insulting?

I think the Bible uses language similar to "infestation" sometimes but I don't feel comfortable using such language just because it is used in the Bible.

i think justme’s rewording is pretty useful. for a few reasons.
one is about dfferences in approach, some prefer undertones, others are more direct. i don’t see it as right-wrong.

i like ken_s’s responses in this topic. (and elsewhere)

i don’t believe anyone is defending JH, he posts a lot, most have felt a sting or had disagreement at some point; due to volume, the odds are this will happen.

The OP is about what’s found in the Bible.
In my view, it’s a lot like the word, “trinity” which also receives great debate, not being in the Bible.

The Bible uses stronger language than “infestation” - the purpose is to be jarring.
Jesus was definitely jarring.

Jarring language serves a purpose. Overuse of those words renders them useless. Currently on full display on the internet.

Scriptures do not say there are banned words. The Constitution protects free speech.
Private forums could ban words, i presume. The gov dabbles in banning words, and thoughts, i guess.

i don’t believe there are 1-2 posses on forum. i hope not to witness it. there are members with differing opinions.

i try to reject binary thinking everywhere. the overall internet thrives on it.
it shows up here. i don’t believe it thrives here.

i believe the Bible describes 1 unforgivable sin. jarring language isn’t it.

[JohnH]

I prefer to avoid strong language like this. To me, it's neighboring on profanity, not the kind of language that should be used. And it is often used instead of actually clearly explaining what a person believes and why. Language like this is dehumanizing, and it bypasses rational discussion.

If you have a strong argument, you don't need this kind of strong language. You can be vivid and clear without it. It doesn't help explain things more accurately. And it tends to distract from the actual topic.

In social media, it sometimes feels like people are competing to find or invent the strongest possible language to condemn others. It gets attention. It's more likely to go viral. But it doesn't seem right to me.

Then why does the NT use such language?

[Bootstrap]

I prefer to avoid strong language like this. To me, it's neighboring on profanity, not the kind of language that should be used. And it is often used instead of actually clearly explaining what a person believes and why. Language like this is dehumanizing, and it bypasses rational discussion.

If you have a strong argument, you don't need this kind of strong language. You can be vivid and clear without it. It doesn't help explain things more accurately. And it tends to distract from the actual topic.

In social media, it sometimes feels like people are competing to find or invent the strongest possible language to condemn others. It gets attention. It's more likely to go viral. But it doesn't seem right to me.

Then why does the NT use such language?

As far as I can tell, there is at least one example involving Cretans, and it puzzles me - I don't have a great explanation.

And there are TONS of teachings on Christian speech that warn against this kind of thing. These are clear commands. I intend to follow them. Sins of speech are also sins.

Do conservative Anabaptist churches teach about sins of speech?

[JohnH]

As far as I can tell, there is at least one example involving Cretans, and it puzzles me - I don't have a great explanation.

And there are TONS of teachings on Christian speech that warn against this kind of thing. These are clear commands. I intend to follow them. Sins of speech are also sins.

Do conservative Anabaptist churches teach about sins of speech?

Yes. However, conservative Anabaptists do not teach modern, liberal-progressive speech codes, nor claim that the Bible somehow teaches them.

In particular, making generalisations about groups of people where the grouping is based on behaviour is considered acceptable. It is acceptable, for example, to speak of "thieves" as a class or group of people. A statement might be made such as "You shouldn't park your car there; there are lots of thieves there who will break into your car." Such a statement is not considered to do any of the following things:

- Deny the humanity of the thieves.
- Somehow call for a mass execution of all thieves simply by asserting that a group of people who are thieves exist
- Somehow deny that thieves are created in the image of God
- Lead to some kind of terrible human rights abuses of thieves

Instead, it's just entirely reasonable to speak of groups of people based on the individuals in those groups and their decision to engage in wrongdoing. However, many conservative Anabaptists do find creative ways to engage with those individuals and try to be a witness to them and eventually help them no longer be a member of such a group.

[Bootstrap]

As far as I can tell, there is at least one example involving Cretans, and it puzzles me - I don't have a great explanation.

And there are TONS of teachings on Christian speech that warn against this kind of thing. These are clear commands. I intend to follow them. Sins of speech are also sins.

Do conservative Anabaptist churches teach about sins of speech?

Yes. However, conservative Anabaptists do not teach modern, liberal-progressive speech codes, nor claim that the Bible somehow teaches them.

I was mostly asking if they systematically teach what the Bible teaches, based on those Scriptures and taking them seriously. I have been surprised by the length of this thread.

I don't know what triggered the political turn on a question about biblical teaching.

Can we please have a discussion instead of a fight, and keep our eyes on the subject?