Blaine wrote: > That's just it, he had the same dignity and presence > on the colt as he did otherwise. He was always dignified, > even naked upon the cross. He had inner dignity. > Salt Lake City street preachers have no presence.
I don't doubt that the ones who followed him saw his dignity, his "inner dignity" and presence. However, Jesus obviously did not appear that way to everyone. Some people objected to what he said. They thought he was full of himself, arrogant, prideful, and blasphemous. Perceptions differ, depending upon whether one believes or not. What would you think of some man riding into your town on a donkey, and people lining up with palm branches paying him homage? Would you admire his dignity and presence, or would your thoughts take you elsewhere? Blaine wrote: > That is why they need to bang on drums, blow > whistles, wave underwear, etc. Noone will pay > heed to them otherwise. That is not true. I often just stand on a street corner with a Bible. I can get a crowd with no amplification, no signs, no tee shirt with a slogan, etc. The signs and theatrical tactics simply assist in the kind of situation where people are very distracted by some other activities. For example, in a parade, people are engrossed in the party atmosphere, and a big sign and truth horn can grab their attention. As Ruben has described it, they are in a stupor and these other things simply assist in jolting them out of that stupor. I don't care if someone can point to a Bible verse indicating the use of such tactics or not. If it helps get the message across, use it. I don't see anything in the Bible about using radio, television, cassette tapes, CD's, or even just microphones in a church, but if the tools help accomplish the goal, then I support using them. Blaine wrote: > They look and act like they need a handout. (:>) Surely you exaggerate! :-) Blaine wrote: > Are these guys even employed other than their > street preaching? Jesus had a job as a carpenter, > Paul was a weaver, Peter was a fisherman, etc. Well, Peter left his fishing job to follow Jesus, and Jesus left carpentry to preach the gospel. Surely you know these things. Nevertheless, when it comes to street preaching, you will not find full time clergy doing this kind of thing. It simply is too undignified and most believers are afraid to support it. You are barking up the wrong tree in trying to find dirt like this on street preachers, as if they can't get a job. I often have sinners on the street tell me this same thing. "Why don't you go get a REAL job." They are so deceived, even as you are. I am a software developer. Nobody pays me to go preach. Rather, I pay my own way. I admit that once in awhile, some nice old black lady might come up with her last two dollars and give it to me, saying, "God bless you for doing this." But she does this like the widow casting her last two mites in the Temple treasury. God moves here in this way to bring blessing upon herself rather than because she is actually supporting the ministry. Most of the time I have no money in my pocket when I preach. However, a few times when I was going, the Spirit would tell me to put a few dollars in my pocket. Then when I'm preaching, sure enough, somehow some girl will ask me for money, testing me to see what I would do. Thank God for his Spirit of wisdom. I reach in my pocket and hand her the money. Oh, the doors of opportunity for preaching that such a thing sometimes opens. Just ask the guys on the list who preach. Kevin is a computer geek like me, but he is much more important working on government contracts or something like that. Dean is a carpenter like Jesus I think, or maybe just in construction in some way. Ruben is a painter. The list goes on and on. Vacation to these guys is going somewhere to preach Christ, not sit on the beach somewhere and sip fruity drinks. You have no idea of the dedication these men have for Christ. To see you sloppily and ignorantly malign them as you have is very sad indeed. Jesus Christ sees it and he sees what these men are doing, and believe me, you will not want to hear from him on this matter when he finally speaks to you. You see, Jesus sees your life too, and how much you do things for yourself rather than others. When he compares you and your comfortable life to the street preachers and these idle words that you have just spoken, you will be very ashamed in his presence and Jesus Christ himself rebukes you and proves to you that your words have no merit. The street preachers, on the other hand, will have something they never have in this life, honor and respect. The upside is that honor and respect will be coming from the greatest source ever, the head and king of all kings, Jesus Christ. Blaine wrote: > Through it all, did he ever resort to undignified > methods? Even when he cleansed the temple, he > retained his dignity--it must have been awesome > to see his righteous indignation!! You are projecting your own ideas into the passage. We don't know enough about these events when he cleansed the temple. I can hardly imagine this being very dignified. I imagine his apostles were very embarrassed the first time they witnessed it. As I said before, it would not surprise me to learn that they had to bail him out of jail. Clearly his clearing of the temple did not last. It seems to me that Jesus went back year after year, to do it again. The third time they decided they had enough of this troublemaker and so they put him to death. Blaine wrote: > John did the best he could with what he had. Sorry, Blaine, but John chose to wear camel skin just as some street preachers choose to wear a shirt with a "Trust Jesus" message on it. John was sending a message out with the clothing he wore. He wore his clothing inside out. Blaine wrote: > There is some truth in this, but just because it > was the Catholic way does not mean it had no roots > in original Christianity. In fact, it seems to me > this is an argument for organized authority, rather > than against it. I read my Bible, Blaine. Jesus never left one man in charge. Even when he sent them out, they always went out in pairs. When Paul says in the book of Galatians that he went to Jerusalem, he speaks of three who SEEMED to be pillars. They did not have this hierarchical organization like this world system and the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church take up. This organized form of authority is CONTRARY to the teachings of Jesus who taught that he that would be great among us, let him be the servant of all. When the apostles fought over who would be in the top position, Jesus always rebuked it. Status and position are not part of Christ's program for the believer or for his church. David Miller wrote: >> I see a lot of wickedness that comes from thinking this way. >> It is glorying in the flesh. I think Paul addressed this >> error in the following verse: >> >> For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or >> compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: >> but they measuring themselves by themselves, and >> comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. > (2 Corinthians 10:12 KJV) Blaine wrote: > Sorry David, this does not compute??? Read the verse. Paul makes it clear that he would not do what some Christians were starting to do, compare themselves and commend themselves. This is what happens when you ordain some people into the priesthood and not others. This is what you do when you call one man THE PROPHET and others not. This is what you do when you ordain TWELVE to be apostles, but not others. It is very clear to me that this organization of the Mormon church is antichrist. Your PROPHET sits in the place of Christ, and your TWELVE apostles usurp the place of the true apostles that Christ ordains in the church, which numbers way more than twelve. David Miller wrote: >> The Biblical way of receiving authority is directly >> from the Lord Himself. If the Lord Himself is not >> sending you into ministry, then you are following >> a ministry of men and not of the Lord. Ultimately, >> we are all accountable to him for what we say and do. Blaine wrote: > There were several apostles and many other officers > of the church called after the Lord was gone. You > mentioned one office, that of a Bishop. "Let no man > take this honor unto himself except he be called of > God as was Aaron." Aaron was called by revelation, > through Moses. Was this authority from men? Mormons > receive their callings in much the same way--they are > called of God by revelation through their leaders who > have themselves been called of God in the same manner. Not one person in the New Testament was ordained of men to be an apostle, a prophet, an evangelist, a pastor, or a teacher. Not one. Men ordained elders (also known as bishops) and deacons only. These are the only governmental positions of the church. The offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are offices of spiritual ministry and therefore only Jesus through the Holy Spirit commissions men to walk in these offices. Mormons do not receive their authority in the same was as the Aaronic priesthood. In the Aaronic priesthood, your position was determined by birth, not by who laid their hands on your head. This was a shadow, a typology, of the priesthood of Christ which was to come. It signified that one's position in life was determined by election of God and not by the choice of men. Men do not choose who will be born of a particular ancestry. God chooses that. In the same way, it is the HOLY SPIRIT who sets men apart into offices of spiritual ministry. When men pretend that they can ordain others into this office, they are playing games and usurping the place of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as Scripture says, let no man take this honor upon himself. Men do not ordain others into offices of spiritual ministry. Only God does this through the Holy Spirit. Blaine wrote: > Free speech does not give a man the right > to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, It does if there really is a fire! In any case, we are not talking about private areas like a theater. We are talking about public areas, and if you fail to make this distinction, you will never understand the concept of free speech. Blaine wrote: > or other wise impose difficulties or hardships on > others. We all have the right to shut it off, > but these Salt Lake City preachers refuse-- > they obviously have no respect for the rights > of others. The ones who are not respecting rights in this case are the Mormons who want to forbid free speech in the public arena. You THINK that you have a right to complete quietness and complete control in the public arena. This is a false idea. Blaine wrote: > Saddam Hussein was the same way. He imposed > HIS WILL over all others, often with his speeches, > obnoxious though they were, but even resorted > to unrighteous dominion by physical force. > It is just a matter of degree what street > Preachers have been doing or attempt to be > doing in Salt lake City. This is ridiculous. Who is seeking to take over governmental control of Salt Lake City from those who presently hold power there? You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between ideas and actions. This seems to be the same problem that Dean has had in my discussions with him. David Miller wrote: >> Free speech should NEVER be looked upon as >> an imposition. An imposition would be if >> they came into your Temple during the middle >> of one of your ceremonies and demanded that >> you listen. To preach in a public area >> is never an imposition because it is a public >> area. >> >> The imposition in a public area happens when >> someone complains and claims that they have a >> right to quietness when they go out in public >> areas. These are the ones who are imposing >> their unconstitutional views upon others. >> These are the lawless ones. Blaine wrote: > What you are talking about is not free speech, > it is making a public nuisance of yourself!! > You do not have the right to do that, no matter > where you are. Sorry, Blaine, but you are ignorant of the law. This is why you guys have lost in court on this matter. The law is on the side of the public to gather public assemblies in public places, and to be vocal and speak about the issues of the day in public places. This struggle has centuries of history behind it. It always has been that those in power suppress those under their power. The government always has a tendency to silence the public and disarm the public. This is why our Constitution has established that government will not infringe upon the right to speak, nor to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. True freedom and peace comes by allowing the Street Preachers to speak in public places, not by getting rid of them. If you don't like the message, walk away. Blaine wrote: > Public dialogue is one thing, imposition of one > man's views in such a way as to make a nuisance > of himself is another. Speech is not a nuisance and never has been. People might get irritated over the message. People might even get offended. That does not make speech a nuisance. Again, if you don't like the message, walk away from the public area where free speech is being exercised. There is no imposition except when you want to convert the public area into a private use area that you control for yourself. I believe that selfishness alone blinds people from seeing the truth of this. Blaine wrote: > Are you saying the ones who complain have no > right to free speech, to complain? They have a free speech right to complain in the public arena. They can speak back to the preachers and present their viewpoint. I often have people want to say something, and I stop preaching so they can present their viewpoint. When they get done, then I address what they said and show how it was wrong. Blaine wrote: > That they would be breaking the law if they did? > Whooo, this is getting good!! Their heart is lawless if they go to the police to complain. People have a right to complain to the police legally, but their heart is lawless, against the first Amendment of the Constitution. That is why the police, if acting lawfully, will say, "sorry, sir, there really is nothing I can do. They have a right to be there and to speak." Sometimes people who complain and fail to get the police to react will then act themselves. They physically attack the preacher. Sometimes they steal your Bible, your banners, whatever they can get away with. Once a man stole my car while I was preaching. Blaine wrote: > What I hear you saying is that noone has the > right to speak against or otherwise resist > listening to you. You know this is wrong. No, what I am saying is that people should resist speech with speech and violence with violence. Trying to get the police to act lawlessly is a cowardly form of violence. They need to resist falsehood with truth, by speaking the truth, not by resorting to violence (authorized violence or otherwise). Blaine wrote: > Since we all have to live in this world, why do > you think it is OK to ignore the opinion of > decent men and women? That seems a sure road > to failure. We should hear everyone, but when it is judged to be falsehood, we ignore it. That is what I mean. The retorts and objections are often the same, I believe it is because they are inspired by demons, by principalities in the air. So when we hear the objections of demons coming through the mouths of men, we ignore it. That is an admirable trait. That is integrity. Blaine wrote: > Ever think maybe they don't come back because > they see you are determined to be right regardless > of what they say? I have had that impression myself. > (:>) Yes, that is a common objection to me. I hear it from sinners, from Christians, and even from other Street Preachers who disagree with me on a particular subject. I usually consult with my wife on matters like this, because she knows me better than anyone. The verdict usually is that they misunderstand me and misjudge me. I am not determined to be right, but rather I am determined to try my best to express the truth, always at the same time listening to what is said in objection to it and weighing the truth or falsehood of what is said. Blaine wrote: > I think it might be this making up little > straw men that you do, too. That is always > a communication blocker. I consider this an ad hominem attack if you don't give me any specific example of a straw man. To my knowledge, I have never constructed a straw man argument. Please, by all means, educate me and enlighten me of the straw men arguments that I have constructed. I think I work very hard at actually hearing you all. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
