A:
B:This is blasphemous because Jesus was without sin...meaning He would never curse, but I get the point...
Takers?That's definitely an important distinction, it's unfortunate that the wording does not show better respect to the Christ figure in this text. At the same time I worry and am more offended by those who use the Christ figure to justify, fuel and vindicate their misanthropic hatred towards those human beings who are different from them. Especially when those individuals prove that they don't understand the basic principals of Jesus Christ's work. They use his name only to veil their own prejudices and do it in his name as righteousness with no regards to the pain it inflicts. They in effect are failing to see the irony of their claims - which is something I believe this text tries to offer, even if it's blunt and unrefined. The ideal that we should as people love all people regardless of their flaws is completely neglected simply because the person doesn't like aspects about the individual. Instead these individuals in question use this text to harm rather then love. Which was Christ's greatest achievement and offer of salvation. He gives threw both love and forgiveness of mankind. That use of his name to justify the great malice in those individuals heart to me is harder to swallow then a particular word usage that means only what we as people wish it to mean.