Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

The DECISION On Brad Freeman's Religion Post
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post The DECISION On Brad Freeman's Religion Post doyle
As we're told that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," so it seems how the word "suck" is used, can mean different things to different people in different situations.

If one is teaching another how to siphon gas from a car, not something I do often Smile, there are few better words for telling them how to get the gas to come out.

Something else that doesn't happen to me so much anymore, is a woman whispering "Don't s**k too hard and leave a hickey on my neck." I actually married the last woman that whispered that in my ear Smile. At the time, she had been concerned that her Dad would see it and not be happy about it.

However, in some cases these days the word "suck" has taken on some really salacious meanings so I DO understand it when our viewers are offended by it. I support their right to share how they feel and I respect their feelings.

One of our regular posters, Brad Freeman, used the word in a recent post by stating that "Religion Sucks." I saw the complaints and read Brad's post.

Turns out, in my opinion, that particular post made an excellent point - taking an Old Testament incident and bringing it far more vividly to our attention. http://www.actscelerate.com/viewtopic.php?t=78037

So often, the focus of religion is on the snakes and not the Savior.

That's my opinion. What's yours?

Doyle
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
2/10/14 6:05 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Same purpose, different post skinnybishop
My opinion? You want my opinion?

My opinion is that if you have something to say...say it. Don't resort to shocking titles to generate attention. If your title draws away from your message, something is wrong. Brad cited the Apostles as examples of "shockers". But what they did never detracted from the message they spoke. That is the difference between Brad and the Apostles. Nobody cares about what Brad posted.....we are talking about the title.

In the end, I think it was another attempt by Brad to prove his ideas about grace, liberty, and the futility of keeping "religious rules". In other words, "I am going to put something many consider offensive, on purpose. When I am challenged, I will get to teach that person that they are justified by faith...not by what they say".

Its the same purpose for Brad...just a different post. I fully expect him to have several more "suck" posts in the next few days.....And some more attention getting posts in the days ahead.

Its his MOA. He likes the attention and the opportunity to spread his beliefs.

You asked for my opinion.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
2/10/14 7:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post DrDuck
Paint over it with any light brush you care to use but it is still the same crude expression. As I said in another thread, we who were in high school in the 1950s know exactly what is implied by the term being used and discussed. And it just ain't nice and cannot be made to be by any attempt at justification of its use. Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
2/10/14 8:10 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post I've heard numerous pastors use that term in the caseyleejones
pulpit. I will say that I was taken aback when I first heard it. Mark Driscoll first used it. His reference was that he doesn't speak in tongues and it kind of sucks since he is a preacher. Shocked...yes. I now shrug. Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11788
2/10/14 9:23 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Thanks Doyle. Smile
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
2/10/14 10:54 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post JLarry
I agree with Brad about Religion.

However I refuse to use the word he used to describe how bad religion is.

Most of us know where this word derived from that is why i refuse to use it and do not like to hear other use it.

I remember when the words scr_ _ed up was cursing. Now I hear it from the pulpit. IMO, we should be more careful with our use of words.

Love you Brad, just don't like the word.
_________________
Recorded Sermons @ www.pastorwiley.com

No one who died without Christ is happy about their decision.
Acts Mod
Posts: 3340
2/10/14 11:33 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post DrDuck
JLarry wrote:
I agree with Brad about Religion.

However I refuse to use the word he used to describe how bad religion is.

Most of us know where this word derived from that is why i refuse to use it and do not like to hear other use it.

I remember when the words scr_ _ed up was cursing. Now I hear it from the pulpit. IMO, we should be more careful with our use of words.

Love you Brad, just don't like the word.


The very moment I hear a preacher use these or most any kind of slang; I don't allow myself to attend anything else he has to say in that message. I am not past getting up and marching myself out.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
2/10/14 11:40 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Opinion.. demon hunter
My simple/quick opinion on anyone that has to use a cuss word or any other crude word to TRY to get an opinion across has a lack of vocabulary. Yes, I do use the word myself sometimes and use some of the Christianized cuss words but it is due also to my lack of vocabulary also....
_________________
Our careless feet leaving trails
Never minding the fragile dirt that we all end in
Friendly Face
Posts: 252
2/10/14 12:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post My opinion? bonnie knox
Doyle, I have to ask myself if Brad is oblivious to the connotations of the word. No, Brad is an educated, observant person; it would be highly unlikely (though not impossible) that an educated, observant person would be oblivious to all the baggage the word under discussion carries.
That leaves me to conclude that he (most likely) intended to use it for its shock value.
As I said, I skipped the thread. I would not have mentioned anything about it except that someone else started a thread in protest. I did suggest that at least the thread title be amended, and the title was amended by adding the word "poison."
Do you seriously think Brad is oblivious to the connotations of the word "suck"?
Had he not wanted to use a double entendre, he would have used a different title. Now the question is, if one uses a double entendre, is one in the clear (with respect to Acts Terms of Use) if at least one of the meanings is not vulgar? Of course, there may be descrepancies from one dictionary to another on whether "suck" is vulgar when used to mean "disgustingly offensive" which is one of the meanings Brad was using. As I pointed out, the American Heritage Dictionary does list the word as vulgar when used to mean "disgustingly offensive."
I believe you have concluded that Brad was not making a double entendre, which in my opinion is a naive conclusion.

If you, Doyle, conclude that using "suck" to mean "disgustingly offensive" is not vulgar and may be used on Acts, you should state that clearly. However, if you do think that use of the word is vulgar, it makes no sense to defend Brad's use of it because his point depended on the double entendre.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
2/10/14 12:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Uh.......... Purplebarney
Two things.......


The word "suck" is not "derived from" a sexual expression so that is wrong

We are STILL discussing the post so I would say that Brad got his message across better than anyone on this board so well done Brad!!!
Acts-celerater
Posts: 704
2/10/14 1:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Uh.......... bonnie knox
Purplebarney wrote:
Two things.......


The word "suck" is not "derived from" a sexual expression so that is wrong

We are STILL discussing the post so I would say that Brad got his message across better than anyone on this board so well done Brad!!!


Yes, and his point was lost amongst the discussion of whether or not Acts considers the word "suck" vulgar. (The amount of discussion is not necessarily the most accurate metric on how well a point was made.)
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
2/10/14 2:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bigchurchmouse
Burplebarney, do you think getting your point across is the same as getting attention? Brad got attention but I doubt than many people remember anything he actually posted on the original thread. Do you think he is satisfied just because he "stirred the pot" even if no one paid attention to the contents of the thread? Maybe he has the Donald Trump mindset that thinks that even bad publicity is good. I don't believe he gained any respect from many who post on Acts. It does not fit what I believe the Bible teaches about coming out from the world and being a separate people

As I stated earlier, why would a minister work to get people to church and then drive them away with "shock" words or phrases? What would that accomplish? I know Acts is not a pulpit but I assume he would readily use it in a sermon since he considers it an acceptable word.

I certainly don't share Doyle's reasoning on leaving the post intact. JMO


Last edited by bigchurchmouse on 2/10/14 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2857
2/10/14 4:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Uh.......... DrDuck
Purplebarney wrote:
Two things.......


The word "suck" is not "derived from" a sexual expression so that is wrong

We are STILL discussing the post so I would say that Brad got his message across better than anyone on this board so well done Brad!!!


I don't know how you come to that erroneous conclusion. It most certainly does find its source in a vulgar homosexual phrase. I do not know how far back it goes, but it was all to commonly used, among a few others very much like it, in the high school I attended. Mostly used by the few who thought it was cute or cool to uses vulgar means to express themselves.

The discussion of the post has garnered some attention but by no means a record. The original post (last time I checked) had only two replies. So much for Brad's message.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
2/10/14 4:13 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: My opinion? Cojak
bonnie knox wrote:
Doyle, I have to ask myself if Brad is oblivious to the connotations of the word. No, Brad is an educated, observant person; it would be highly unlikely (though not impossible) that an educated, observant person would be oblivious to all the baggage the word under discussion carries.
That leaves me to conclude that he (most likely) intended to use it for its shock value.
As I said, I skipped the thread. I would not have mentioned anything about it except that someone else started a thread in protest. I did suggest that at least the thread title be amended, and the title was amended by adding the word "poison."
Do you seriously think Brad is oblivious to the connotations of the word "suck"?
Had he not wanted to use a double entendre, he would have used a different title. Now the question is, if one uses a double entendre, is one in the clear (with respect to Acts Terms of Use) if at least one of the meanings is not vulgar? Of course, there may be descrepancies from one dictionary to another on whether "suck" is vulgar when used to mean "disgustingly offensive" which is one of the meanings Brad was using. As I pointed out, the American Heritage Dictionary does list the word as vulgar when used to mean "disgustingly offensive."
I believe you have concluded that Brad was not making a double entendre, which in my opinion is a naive conclusion.

If you, Doyle, conclude that using "suck" to mean "disgustingly offensive" is not vulgar and may be used on Acts, you should state that clearly. However, if you do think that use of the word is vulgar, it makes no sense to defend Brad's use of it because his point depended on the double entendre.


I can handle the use of the word, I hear it a lot, but to tell the truth Bonnie said it well, so Thumb Up What she said.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24269
2/10/14 5:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Uh.......... bradfreeman
bonnie knox wrote:
Purplebarney wrote:
Two things.......


The word "suck" is not "derived from" a sexual expression so that is wrong

We are STILL discussing the post so I would say that Brad got his message across better than anyone on this board so well done Brad!!!


Yes, and his point was lost amongst the discussion of whether or not Acts considers the word "suck" vulgar. (The amount of discussion is not necessarily the most accurate metric on how well a point was made.)


That's true. And for that, I'm sorry I used the term.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
2/10/14 5:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
In Florida, suck was used as a non cuss word in the seventies and eighties...I know - because I used it.

I wouldn't use it in the pulpit, however.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
2/10/14 6:02 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Hmmmm....... Purplebarney
So you're saying the word "suck" originated and has always been a sexual term? Acts-celerater
Posts: 704
2/10/14 7:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hmmmm....... bonnie knox
Purplebarney wrote:
So you're saying the word "suck" originated and has always been a sexual term?


I don't think anybody is saying that. What several posters have been saying, however, is that in the not-so-distant past, "suck" was used as a vulgar insult which most definitely did have sexual meaning. Rafael explained it very well in another post. Gradually the meaning was broadened to include inanimate objects as well as humans. So it went from meaning "you engage in a disgusting homosexual act" to "this thing is as disgusting as someone who engages in a homosexual act." Just because people mindlessly repeat a word they have heard others use without a thought to what it means does not change the word's history. How on earth do you think "sucks" came to mean something is disgustingly offensive??
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
2/10/14 7:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hmmmm....... DrDuck
Purplebarney wrote:
So you're saying the word "suck" originated and has always been a sexual term?



As used in modern day slang speech, absolutely it did. This discussion is not about the generic definition of the word but the evolution of its use in today's vernacular.

Good explanation Bonnie.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
2/10/14 8:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post John Stevenson
I find it interesting that he posted a thread entitled ""Sucks" defended" and in that thread he gave several dictionary definitions for the word sucks. But in his original thread he took the liberty to define religion on his own terms and not utilize the dictionary.
_________________
www.bwcuhrichsville.org
Acts-celerater
Posts: 671
2/10/14 9:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.