----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:56
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free
speech
Blaine 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.
> 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?)
LOL
If 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.
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!
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
