BLAINE : I think Ruben and his boys get a little too worked up over some of the gossip they hear about what goes on in the Mormon temples, don't you? (:>)
So you are against GOSSIP? You HYPOCRIT! You GOSSIP about the Obscene screaming that you NEVER Witnessed!
You are a HYPOCRIT & a FALSE WITNESS.
With all the partial posts of articles from you lately & now this. I am going to have to reconsider whether I can ever trust your words again.
Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:56 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speechBlaine wrote:
> I disagree that it is because "men like to control
> others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate
> free speech," although that may be what happens in
> some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the
> rights of the populace--which is the right not to have
> to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally
> abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life,
> liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural
> rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends
> where my chin begins.
You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe you
now need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying here
much more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe in
free speech.Blaine I believe in responsible free speech, but not just letting it all hang out. I also believe in natural rights, and I do not believe the supreme court ajudicates responsibly all the time. Maybe they do the best they can, but then again, maybe they just hold themselves above it all and never come down to earth and look at what nonsensical laws they have created. I think they do the latter too much. Before they allowed pornography on the internet, you could hardly even find a photo of a girl wearing a lowcut blouse showing cleavage. Now, anything goes. I think they made a huge mistake in calling that stuff freedom of _expression_, and saying it is all legit. The same with Larry Flint and his Hustler mag, and others like it.I now see sites on the internet oriented towards helping people get unhooked from pornography. Kevin posted one last week. This is a growing trend. Children who are unsupervised, as a lot of them are not, are doomed by this irresponsible adjuducation to becoming perverts. If guys like President Clinton don't ruin this country, I am sure the Supreme Court will. I am willing to bet Clinton was himself hooked on pornography. And Pres. Kennedy. You can't tell me freedom of _expression_ is all OK just because the courts allow it. Why do you think they no longer enforce laws against adultry? Because the police and the law enforement people are all hooked on porno crap and the adultry that it spawns. The cops would all have to be arrested, and probably the judges and prosecutors too. Pretty soon we will not be able to walk down the street without either meeting a street preacher, a porno addict, a baby murderer, a gay married couple, or whatever. (:>) (I like that one, what do you think?) LOLIf people need to be protected from the public speech of others, then
this is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. You
believe in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which is
palatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparently
does, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to be
silenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen.Blaine: Dean means well . . . I think. But I think what you are seeing in me is a good ol' Republican conservative stance. You street preachers are too liberal. I side with Sean Hennity, and people like him. I am not part of the lunitic fringe, if that is what you are saying.
Blaine wrote:
> If what the person is saying is known to him as
> being an insult to the other person, he are
> definitely crossing the line, even if by his
> own definition the word may mean something else.
Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-)
I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offended
to be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they have
hijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to use
the word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay.
In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan.
Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay!Blain: I have taken no stance on Homosexuals, other than I believe laws disbarring their activities should have been enforced a long time ago. But what you say is true, as far as I am concerned.
Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexual
offends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them as
homosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." Now I know
they don't like the word "sodomite," so are you saying that when I read
Deut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I need to edit the words "whore" and
"sodomite" out of it before I read it, just because I know that some
people will feel insulted?Blaine: OK, well , what I think we should be talking about is whether or not street preachers are right in condemning decent people at all. . You are basically telling me street preachers have a right to be bigots, and to foist their bigotry off on anyone they please, and use freedom of speech and _expression_ as a cover. Isn't that what street preachers are all about? At least regards Mormons?
David Miller wrote:
>> Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words
>> like "whore" in public? Do you think that words like
>> "queer" or "faggot" or "homo" or "homosexual" also
>> should be made illegal? What about the word
>> "fornication"? I had a student this week tell me that
>> he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used
>> by preachers. I asked him what alternative word he
>> would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one.
>> I was not surprised. :-)
Blaine wrote:
> Using these terms per se, is often done, even in church
> services and church scriptural classes. On the other hand,
> accusing people of being such is and has been held to be
> basically illegal. I am surprised the street preachers
> who did this were not sued.
LOL. What planet do you live on? If a college student tells me that he
or she has sexual intercourse on the weekends with different partners,
you can bet that I will refer to that student as a "fornicator" to the
other students. It is NOT illegal to do so, and I have never been sued
over it.Blaine: I think what we are talking about is street preachers going in among Mormons and denigrating their religion. The justification given for doing this so far has been that its OK to harrass these good people BECAUSE the street preachers do not agree with their brand of religion. Again, this is pure bigotry. Do you agree with that? or not, and if not, what would you call it?
I remember a girl coming up to me crying one night because the preacher
I was with called her a fornicator. She said he had no right to call
her that. As I talked with her, I learned that she had slept with three
different men that last year and had an abortion too. She was about to
go on a missions trip as a missionary the very next week! Well, God
brought conviction upon her and I assured her that she WAS a fornicator
and that she needed to repent. The preacher was not her problem. Her
problem was that she was deceiving herself because she did not see
herself as God saw her, which was as she really was: a fornicator.
Other Christians had deceived her into thinking that she was a good
person.Blaine: Hmm, this story sounds suspiciously like another you told me--the person was a guy, that time. (:>)
Blaine wrote:
> Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am
> not speaking from my personal experience. I am
> speaking of what I read about later in reliable
> reports. According to reports from various sources
> --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets
> with the street preachers, media reports, and even
> reports from members of Protestant denominations--
> there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear,
> even donning some of these garments.
Has it ever occurred to you that you have been lied to?Blaine: Of course, people lie all the time. Including street preachers. But the media can't seem to get away with it, or they get manhandled sooner or later. I think my sources are basically good ones however. As good as the street preachers, who obviously have an ax to grind. However, I did believe Ruben's account, pretty much. He seemed to be telling it like it was. I thought it was a little humorous even. I did see the situation as avoidable however. I think Ruben and his boys get a little too worked up over some of the gossip they hear about what goes on in the Mormon temples, don't you? (:>)Can you imagine
what the news reports were when Paul came into town? You Mormons are
treating street preachers the same way the Jews treated the apostle Paul.Blaine: There is a basic difference between being a pariah and a martyr. I see the street preachers as pariahs, not martyrs. (:>) They bring it on man, and start things they may not be able to finish. (:>) I hope all works out for the Church and them, too bad we can't feel more amicably toward one another. I think Ruben means well he just has his ladder leaned against the wrong wall.. (:>)
I suggest you go down yourself and see what is going on. Don't base
your opinion on glorified gossip.
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.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
