Of course I try to calm down situations that are tending to boil over.
Have you ever been in a riot situation? I have. How do you control an Anarchist?
How do you control a riotous person? A thug? a muslim?
Do you know what "hecklers veto" is?
A hot head or two is not an invitation to stop my FREE Speech it is the job of the police to qwell the "disorderly" not the speech. Speech that is unpopular is not an invitation to violence!
Welcome violence? CMON
please hit me - hit me. Your imagination runs amuk. You are Sooooooo Melodramatic!
I just believe in FREE Speech & Free exercise if you do not like it TUFF stick your fingers in your ears!
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: Kevin has said that he doesn't try to incite anger in those to whom he preaches, and I accept him for that. But, I wonder if he tries to calm situations that show evidence of heating up. It seems to me, the confrontational approach as I've heard used by SPers often times lends itself to verbal contention (arguing) that can easily escalate. If SPers are physically attacked, is it truly unprovoked? And...do they try to do mitigate the situation before it reaches a level of violence? Or.....do they welcome violence as evidence of persecution against their message....in essence, it validates their mission....sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. Just something to ponder.....
Lance Muir wrote:I'm with you on this one, Dave.----- Original Message -----From: Dave HansenSent: June 20, 2005 00:25Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ContentionDAVEH: LOL........Naw, if you've been around TT very long, you'd know I'm pretty slow to anger, Kevin. However, I do wonder if that is one of your techniques when street preaching. Is it your goal when street preaching to stir others to anger? From my LDS perspective, it would appear that is what you try to do by waving underwear at the LDS folks at Conference time. Am I wrong on that?
Kevin Deegan wrote:Stir men to Anger?Are you angry? If so there are some good Anger management programs available.
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote:DAVEH: The question is not whether I accept the passage, Kevin....but rather if you accept it. Do you think the contending part applies to you?So you accept this scripture?
DAVEH: From the BofM, 3Nep 11..........When are you gonna stop the "foolish genealogies"?No contending about the Law! It applies to ALLWhere do you get thye teaching that "contention is of the Devil"?
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
..........Is it your desire to stir men to anger, Kevin?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Kevin Deegan wrote:
> And you know LDS say contention is of the Devil. Must have got the
> teaching where JD caught it.
DAVEH: Or perhaps JD got it from Titus 3:9-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
