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
