Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

[knpraise]

I did generalize too much.  I know some who do not wave underwear and preach condemnation to the masses.   Talk about generalizing  !! 

 

But what I have seen expressed on this site and (especially) on that other site is the very thing I had in mind when I wrote the post in question.  

 

jd

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

John, the list of SP's that you got on is indeed profane.  I tried to help them with a list, but they are so unruly and unable to keep the foul language off that I cancelled the list, taking a lot of criticism for doing so.  In fact, I tried this twice over the years. 

 

Nevertheless, they wear their faults openly before all, and they are not necessarily worse than the white-walled Christians who appear proper on the outside.  Furthermore, not all Street Preachers are as you describe.  Some, like myself, deplore the foul language, and we constantly reprove those preachers who seem to think that they are in a men's locker room and are therefore free to behave in a profane manner.  I believe in living in public and private the same life.  No different behavior from me in the men's locker room, or in this Octagon that you have observed. 

 

In many ways, trying to generalize about Street Preachers is like trying to generalize about the homeless.  It is such a diverse group, that it cannot be done fairly.  I support street preachers, and now my church is supporting one as well.  There are some that you can trust not to misrepresent the faith, and it is a shame that your church is not out there in the streets compelling people to follow Jesus Christ.  Every church should have a few street ministers within it.

 

David Miller

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:40 PM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Just for the record  --  Debbie's point is without debate.   The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community.   I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves --  all in the name of the Lord, of course  --  and then present that they are not  underserving of pesecuation.   More than than  -  their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time.   They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed.   

 

In this valley (where I live)   -  SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. 

 

jd

 

 

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. 

 

As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ.  If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes.  You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. 

 

David Miller

----- Original Message -----

From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM

Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'

Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property.

Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage.

It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be taken aback if I get roundly told off for not observing it among them! 

But in any case David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?)

That's likely already more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop blathering!

D
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:17 AM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

> Judy wrote:
>> What is wrong with the following scenario
>> apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I
>> seriously doubt they say
>
> Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell.  I tell them
> that I am on no better ground than they are.  The testimony of Jesus
> Christ
> is what we bring.
>
> People come under conviction and hear whate ver they want to hear.  A few
> weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner
> to
> her school.  I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started
> describing
> my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, "wait a
> minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'.
> What is so condemning about that?"  She was speechless then.  She saw what
> she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been
> trained to believe that public preachers are all about.  People believe
> the
> lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in the
> face.  I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued, but
> this one is a message of hope.  Jesus will heal you.  Yet, even that
> message
> is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty.
> They
> should not have to look upon it with their eyes.  The same people who talk
> about tolerance talk this way.  Amazing.
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> HYPERLINK http://www.InnGlory.org 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.
>

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006