RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity
expresses itself in many ways. The homosexual agenda and the feminine
movement is part of it. It is the spirit of Antichrist. The concept is
expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7. Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel.
Daniel 11:37
(37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of
women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'?
Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie
and
myself understand the issues, David.
Lance
PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David?
----- Original Message -----
From: David Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
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 whatever 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
----------
"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.
