"Don't Raise a Dinah:" Thoughts?

[Mii]

Sorry I didn't watch the whole video, he's talking too much nonsense. I have a feeling that because of this fool's words, his daughters might become pregnant as teens and make him a ridicule (because that's how it usually goes when people talk arrogantly like him). And it sounds a very stupid idea to teach kids that dad will pay for everything then husband will be paying (where's the accountability and teaching them to contribute). What a recipe to bring up spoiled brats. Just because a homemaker woman is praised in the Bible, doesn't mean some don't have other callings and that they aren't praised also. Lydia was a businesswoman, Deborah was a judge, Priscilla was a teacher. He is preaching out of his own complexes don't even bother listening to this dude...

This could be just semantics (difference between fool and foolish) and is off-topic ha. I didn't realize in the KJV the word "raca" is in plain text, but take a look at Mt 5:22 and tell me what you think. It seems calling someone "trash" is a serious offense (what raca means to me as that is the harshest common interpretation) and I did have someone sternly rebuke me for having that mentality, although I didn't feel like I was saying that but it was probably close enough to him and his words stuck with me either way.

but fool? It seems pretty clear to me that this is worse. Foolish is calling out behavior not a person and Idm using that in application toward a person. Perhaps contextually this is saying that even over something so tiny as calling someone a fool you are in serious error (illuminating the filthy rags of our righteousness apart from Christ) but I am uncertain. Anyway, just stuck out to me. Thanks for summarizing the video without me having to watch...I'm pretty closed to new pastors but do like to learn about them without listening, in order to interact if necessary, so pretty helpful.


Note: I'm not coming against you here, just something that I've noticed in the last year or so. I've also cut out stupid and it's ironic that the strong translation includes "blockhead" because that was something of a catchphrase in Charlie Brown.

 

[SoulWeaver]

This could be just semantics (difference between fool and foolish) and is off-topic ha. I didn't realize in the KJV the word "raca" is in plain text, but take a look at Mt 5:22 and tell me what you think. It seems calling someone "trash" is a serious offense (what raca means to me as that is the harshest common interpretation) and I did have someone sternly rebuke me for having that mentality, although I didn't feel like I was saying that but it was probably close enough to him and his words stuck with me either way.

but fool? It seems pretty clear to me that this is worse. Foolish is calling out behavior not a person and Idm using that in application toward a person. Perhaps contextually this is saying that even over something so tiny as calling someone a fool you are in serious error (illuminating the filthy rags of our righteousness apart from Christ) but I am uncertain. Anyway, just stuck out to me. Thanks for summarizing the video without me having to watch...I'm pretty closed to new pastors but do like to learn about them without listening, in order to interact if necessary, so pretty helpful.


Note: I'm not coming against you here, just something that I've noticed in the last year or so. I've also cut out stupid and it's ironic that the strong translation includes "blockhead" because that was something of a catchphrase in Charlie Brown.

I am really thinking about behavior when I say fool. People might think I imply something else but that's all it was. It can come across as too sharp, maybe I shouldn't have said that. We cannot pronounce human beings worthless, which is what raca really means in substance, as you seem to have instinctively understood and I did make a disclaimer in another post that I am not speaking in this sense. I realized that I've been thinking about these things in the back of my head since that post. As you probably know I don't go around calling people fools, liars and whatever derogatory, I don't like applying to people, whether they are forum members or not, I believe forum members that know me can attest to that. Thinking about it again, why I said that. Sometimes I think, am I sugarcoating instead of calling spade a spade? Is there a true difference between fool and foolish as applied to someone, or are we just deluding ourselves that there is some difference. I thought of that one before. I used to think on the same page as you but that has since eroded. Does the Bible really shrink from using words like whore, liar, murderer, or tiptoes, saying that people are just whorish, liarish, or murderous. Now some people shower others with derogatory terms, which is definitely coming from a very wrong place. As I was typing it, I meant to write "foolish", but then I felt like I was watering it down in some timidity instead of saying as it is, which isn't a place of truth either. Either way, that's just pertaining to him in this video. He might be a completely different person on another day. I've been a fool on some days myself, which doesn't mean I remained like that. I personally said it without contempt. But I see it may strike others wrong, so I will be abstinent next time. I apologize to you personally dear, and appreciate making me think about it.

 

[Mii]

I am really thinking about behavior when I say fool. People might think I imply something else but that's all it was. It can come across as too sharp, maybe I shouldn't have said that. We cannot pronounce human beings worthless, which is what raca really means in substance, as you seem to have instinctively understood and I did make a disclaimer in another post that I am not speaking in this sense. I realized that I've been thinking about these things in the back of my head since that post. As you probably know I don't go around calling people fools, liars and whatever derogatory, I don't like applying to people, whether they are forum members or not, I believe forum members that know me can attest to that. Thinking about it again, why I said that. Sometimes I think, am I sugarcoating instead of calling spade a spade? Is there a true difference between fool and foolish as applied to someone, or are we just deluding ourselves that there is some difference. I thought of that one before. I used to think on the same page as you but that has since eroded. Does the Bible really shrink from using words like whore, liar, murderer, or tiptoes, saying that people are just whorish, liarish, or murderous. Now some people shower others with derogatory terms, which is definitely coming from a very wrong place. As I was typing it, I meant to write "foolish", but then I felt like I was watering it down in some timidity instead of saying as it is, which isn't a place of truth either. Either way, that's just pertaining to him in this video. He might be a completely different person on another day. I've been a fool on some days myself, which doesn't mean I remained like that. I personally said it without contempt. But I see it may strike others wrong, so I will be abstinent next time. I apologize to you personally dear, and appreciate making me think about it.

There is definitely something to be said about not watering things down. I ran into this recently with trying to meet someone halfway and sort of tiptoe around an untruth in order to just maybe make them amenable to the gospel by giving them a thumbs up that they are on "a journey" to truth.

In the end, I just ended up being unable to say anything because no matter what way I said it, it would be disagreeable from a worldly perspective and there was no middle ground that I could see that wouldn't be "lukewarm". It was pretty frustrating and exhausting and I went to sleep earlier than I normally would have.


For me it's not semantics because I typically point out the behavior and not the sum total of a person. I don't say a person is "foolish" but rather they are "being foolish", and then it is usually further impressed on me to be specific and be productive with the specificity (which you were). For myself, it's an important distinction for the simple fact that being too "blanketed" in a summary of a person seems arrogant and that has been a lifelong crucifixion. Your usage was clearly "being" now that I've thought a bit harder with some more info.

Anyway, it just stuck out like I said and either way, I looked a little deeper and it brought back a large memory block of progression in my own life. I do use powerful language and I'm not opposed to it, but usually in regard to what someone is "being" not what they are...I used to call people retarded, morons, idiots, stupid, etc. and I've been called out for it, one of the few things actually that I've been called out for which says something to me. It was just a question/concern...but I also was curious about your opinion and honestly thanks for sharing, it was heartfelt and I appreciate it

 

[Moses_Young]

Alright, I broke character and will answer the poll sincerely, checking, "He is totally wrong, and it disrespects women," which most closely represents the lesson of Dinah's ordeal, or Shechem's example, whichever may apply. The resulting disappointment resulting from expecting those such as Shechem, having no previous instruction toward biblical recommendations of love honor and respect (i.e., the essence of the establishment of marriage) in spite of his proclaiming of it 'tenderly' which, was notably only after the more obvious brute behavior he exhibited that was, at the least, grossly lacking in any semblance of 'tenderness.'

Are you speaking from a frame of reference of Shechem having raped Dinah, or having seduced Dinah? Despite the KJV using the word rape, the other descriptions such as Shechem "speaking tenderly to her" make me think this might be more a case of seduction than rape.

 

[Mem]

Are you speaking from a frame of reference of Shechem having raped Dinah, or having seduced Dinah? Despite the KJV using the word rape, the other descriptions such as Shechem "speaking tenderly to her" make me think this might be more a case of seduction than rape.

I'm not to the point of of absolute certainty as to make the claim that any and all crime is violence, but I am confident its valid to qualify that statement as truth to say all are to some degree. Earlier, I was not entirely kidding when I stated that I believe Anderson is a closet homosexual (implying thus his reason for hating himself and so others so much). Tho it might have seemed that I had only been trying to besmirch his character, and thus his credibility, it is my sincere opinion that he not only forms his worldviews and opinions but also says what he says coming from this dark closet with only a bit of light coming from one of those stick up puck lights....I make my assumptions going by the (disrespect which translates in some degree if not totally into hatred) for women, (female) children, among any and other populations that he habitually judges in general rather than as the unique individual that each and every one of us are and so should be individually view as...

Back to your question, I gather that he managed to get her alone and so seduction might've well have been a factor in furthering the place of vulnerability that Dinah exasperated herself venturing into the city, unawares perhaps. Whether that she did this with naivety to the presence of knaves or complete awareness can still be argued, but I don't think it can be argued that empowerment against danger should've been long since employed before coming to this tragic juncture encountering such an example of other than gentlemanly character, an opportunist regarding her personal dignity of little value (that I doubt particular specifics of her neckline would have much influenced either way).

 

[Mem]

I don't know if I'm a worse writer than a speaker but the five minute window to edit is unfriendly to either. I used the term exasperated about when I should've written the correct intended meaning of 'exacerbated'. :/

 

[lenna]

It doesn't make sense for a woman to show cleavage if she doesn't want it stared at. I'm not saying men should stare, but what is the point of a woman dressing in skimpy clothes if not to invite attention? And why would women who wear such clothes complain if they are whistled at?

Did I mention cleavage> Let me check. No I did not. We are not having that discussion. I don't care for your remarks about women as it is and you have just made it worse. Not interested in any response you fancy would make you feel better.

I don't profess to know what goes on in any woman's mind but my own.

 

[Mem]

I have a time telling the difference between a friendly smile from a lecherous grin. Hate to assume the worse but, yea, who knows any others' mind.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Didnt Dinah's brothers have the man that was in love with her killed.

 

[Butterflyyy]

Didnt Dinah's brothers have the man that was in love with her killed.

Wasn't he a rapist

 

[Butterflyyy]

Didnt Dinah's brothers have the man that was in love with her killed.

If you read the whole account in Genesis 34 it's very interesting. He had sex with her before marriage and without her Father's permission, it was a disgrace, disrespectful and it defiled her.
Her brothers did far worse than just kill him.
I can't see anywhere that God disciplines them for it either.