I wrote on a Usenet newsgroup

Jesus warned about the one calling another a fool being in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22). Earlier in the text Jesus warned about insulting another… Now are ‘idiot’ and ‘guttersnipe’ synonyms for ‘fool’? ‘Raca’ and ‘fool’ are of course insults. Raca sounds like spitting and means “empty head”. Fool is the Greek “moron”, which I learned in seminary was their common word for ‘stupid person’. My faithful e-sword informs me that Eugene Peterson’s translation uses the word ‘idiot’ and ‘stupid’; other translations: ‘fool’, ‘worthless’… Elsewhere, ‘numbskull’, ‘airhead’

Mark:

Did Jesus follow his own advice in Matthew 23?

My response:

Or John the Baptist to the religious leaders?

I’ve thought of a couple of responses to that, but this is not the final word I think.

The authentic ministry of prophets includes words of judgment (and hope), and most of us probably aren’t commissioned prophets.

And if judgment belongs to God, Jesus… oops you know that you and I complete that sentence differently 🙂

Chuck:

Interesting when you decide to take Scripture in ultra-literal fashion, and when you don’t. Maybe you could enlighten me as to the principle you use for that.

RC:

Before I answer that Chuck, did you have any other response?

Chuck:

Clearly not until you explain to me the hermeneutic you’re leaning on to use the Matthew quote as you did…except to point out that “guttersnipe” isn’t, as you’ve suggested, a synonym for either “fool” or “idiot”, and that “idiot” and “fool” aren’t necessarily synonyms either. But that’s a triviality that’s really beside the point you seem to want to make. If you want to discuss my labeling of Lawrence from a biblical standpoint, I’m not going to try and defend what I’ve said on the differences in meaning between the words. I believe that in the past I’ve also referred to him as a “fool”, rendering any differences in meaning between “fool”, “guttersnipe”, and “idiot” pretty much moot in any case.

That said, I’m all ears…

RC:

Put simply, I think Jesus is saying we should be very careful not to demean another who is also made in God’s image. No?

Chuck:

I think you’re right. But I’m not sure that makes me calling [……..] a fool wrong (as in “immoral”, for clearly it is “correct”). I’m not calling the image God created of Himself in [……..] a fool when I call [……..]> one. I’ve no doubt that as God created him, [……..] was no fool. But the operative word here is “was”. [……..] has worked very hard to become what he is from what he was…that much is certainly clear. Such effort, especially in light of the sound biblical principle that we reap as we sow, shouldn’t go unacknowledged.

Think of it this way, Rowland: I’m just taking two biblical principles and weighing them against each other in light of the present circumstances. It keeps coming out the same: [……..] is an idiot. And I’m afraid until he begins to suspect he really is an idiot, he’s going to stay one.

But I don’t want to inhibit you from stroking his little guttersnipe feathers while he dies in the sewer of his own making if you think that’s best.

My final response:

I don’t think this conversation needs to go any further. I’ve made my point, and it stands. We can be jesuitical about it all but the warnings of Jesus don’t make any distinctions like ‘Respect the image of God in [……..] or whoever but you can attack him in this fallen life by calling him anything you want’.

I’ve said all I want to say on this. We’ll both answer to a higher authority…

[PS. If you read my posts carefully I try to show no fear/favour on these groups. If Lawrence or anyone else has an attitude or idea where my humble little input can be helpful, and if after prayer and thought – I usually try to sleep on the serious responses – I feel led to do a bit of ‘pastoral rebuke/correction’ I’ll do it. I can’t think of anyone in 12+ years of Usenet activity who has been exempt, which makes you wonder why I still have some friends left. Watch for post on Usenet psychology later today].

— Shalom! Rowland Croucher amdg