Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[temporal1]

I haven't gotten yelled at for a while...but...isn't there a NT passage where Jesus' words could be paraphrased, (with a bit of imagination) 'It would better for pedophiles to be drowned like rats'?

JH references such fairly regularly.

[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.

[temporal1]

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

I’ve been thinking about this question. It seems to me the answer is yes. When I was bullied in middle school and early high school there was little physical cruelty, but I consider the verbal insults to be cruelty.

I’ll leave Szd and others to debate the details and implications of certain words but for me the Golden Rule will keep me from using this language.

me, too. stopping others is another matter.
lots of language is cruel. often, very pretty/polite language can be misused for (abuse).

Wayne once described JH as “a man without guile”. Which i took to be an interesting compliment for JH.
Not always pretty, not always correct. Without guile. Not a bad place to be.

[barnhart]

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.

We are likely not far apart but I maintain the word "infestation" carries with it the obligation of elimination. An infestation in any other context mandates harsh action at minimum. English is the most lexically rich language in the world, there are so many other words to use that do not bear that connotation.

[ohio jones]

I think you seem to be implying that Jesus always spoke kindly to and about sinners. Yet he said things like this:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

oe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Ye fools and blind:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Emphasis added.

I think there's a big difference between using strong language directed to a person or group of people, on one hand, and using similar language to talk about a group of people. One can be a means of conviction and call to repentance (or voluntary emigration, in the case of immigrants); the other offers no such opportunity. It uses ridicule to identify a threat and polarize the listeners against it, a thoroughly Alinskyite tactic.

[ohio jones]

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

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

[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.

If so, would you also say that you are shifting the goalposts by avoiding discussion about removing immoral leaders from church leadership?

Considering the quote from JohnH that Szdfan used as the springboard for this discussion says (emphasis added):

I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.

The OP mentions both public offices and church offices, and my responses discuss both as well, so I don't think I'm shifting the goalposts at all.

Perhaps it helps if I say I cannot imagine why any Christian would object to the removal of immoral people from positions of honor and authority whether in public office or church office.

I share your concern of immortal people in public office and I simply would leave any church that fails to remove immoral people. This is not difficult. Why does it need to be connected with labeling groups of people infestation?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I don't think it's right to label a group of people as an infestation due to their national origin, citizenship, hair color, etc.

Jesus labeled the Pharisees a brood of vipers because of how they acted and the damage they caused. JohnH said he calls immoral people in public office or church office an infestation because of how they act and because he thinks they ought to be removed.

The NT instructions for cases where there is sin in the church is to root out the sin and expel the unrepentant sinner. Why would you leave a church what fails to remove unrepentant immoral people? Isn't it because you think the church should remove (eliminate, if you will) such people? Like you would remove vermin from your house?

[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.

We are likely not far apart but I maintain the word "infestation" carries with it the obligation of elimination. An infestation in any other context mandates harsh action at minimum. English is the most lexically rich language in the world, there are so many other words to use that do not bear that connotation.

Elimination in the sense of removal, yes. JohnH stated "removal" as the fix for the problem of immoral people in public or church office. Would you agree that immorality and promotion of immorality by someone in a position authority and leadership in government or the church is cause for harsh action? At least for removal from office at a minimum?

[barnhart]

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.

We are likely not far apart but I maintain the word "infestation" carries with it the obligation of elimination. An infestation in any other context mandates harsh action at minimum. English is the most lexically rich language in the world, there are so many other words to use that do not bear that connotation.

Elimination in the sense of removal, yes. JohnH stated "removal" as the fix for the problem of immoral people in public or church office. Would you agree that immorality and promotion of immorality by someone in a position authority and leadership in government or the church is cause for harsh action? At least for removal from office at a minimum?

Removal, certainly.

[JohnH]

Elimination in the sense of removal, yes. JohnH stated "removal" as the fix for the problem of immoral people in public or church office. Would you agree that immorality and promotion of immorality by someone in a position authority and leadership in government or the church is cause for harsh action? At least for removal from office at a minimum?

Removal, certainly.

I would prefer to see repentance and such people now living the full life God intended them to have when he created each one of them.

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.