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.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40
PM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
----- Original Message -----
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: <[email protected]>
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
