|
'Large sections of the Bible.that are included in
my understanding'. The majority, not including those on TT, would do so,
Dean.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 08, 2006 17:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of
truthtalk?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/8/2006 5:33:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit'
of truthtalk?
How can that (my interpretation implies Dean)
be wrong?
cd: Because your interpretation
disallows large sections of the Bible Lance that are included in my
understanding.
Where does one go from here? Your honor,
my client pleads insanity.
cd: That's it Judge Moore-Thank
you Lance.Kinda reminds me of the Sylvester Stallion movie" Judge Dredd" or
something like that. Hence forth that's what it will be-"Judge Moore" at
your service:-)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 07, 2006 18:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit'
of truthtalk?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/7/2006 6:04:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
'spirit' of truthtalk?
Follow your conscience, Dean. Sometimes
your conscience is directed by God but, sometimes....
cd: I do not preach another conscience
Lance-I preach the written word of God -from the Bible itself-again
words have meaning and it is written in English .How can that be
wrong?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 06, 2006 20:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
'spirit' of truthtalk?
cd: Is speaking of the greatness if Christ "objective" to
you Lance? That is what I we do. Would you like to come and hear me
speak-or Kevin? He is Just across the falls and I will meet you
there? We only encourage others to come to Jesus-why are we wrong to
do so?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/6/2006 12:23:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
'spirit' of truthtalk?
Me too, Dave. When TRUELY OBJECTIONABLE
BEHAVIOUR is objected to (by 'acting out') these persons
occasionally do seem surprised.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 06, 2006
10:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
'spirit' of truthtalk?
DAVEH: OK Dean, I understand your sensitivity
to such and will respond without using the words you find
objectionable. I would like to continue to discuss this, as
I find it interesting to see how SPers
think.
I am curious as to why one would
still show up on somebody's doorstep when an objectionable topic
is mentioned rather than discuss it with them via the phone or
email? What is to be accomplished by a personal visit?
Most folks would understand such a visit to be a physical threat,
even though it could be claimed that the offended has a
constitutional right to confront the
offender.
The reason I ask this is
because it seems to me that many SPers seemed surprised that they
are physically attacked when confronting sinners on the
streets. Yet they feel compelled to stare the jaws of death
(so to speak) in the mouth. Is this a martyr complex of
sorts? Does it give SPers confidence if they are persecuted
for the Lord's sake ? I suppose an argument can be made that
if one dies while in the service of the Lord, it would be a
feather in the cap of the persecuted while at the same time
driving the persecutor even deeper into hell. To me that
seems like rather odd logic, considering that the SPer (or guy
showing up on the doorstep) is somewhat a catalyst in this
scenario. IOW....Is a SPer guilty of promoting a problem
when he uses his constitutionally guaranteed free speech to
aggravate a situation that can and will likely turn to
violence?
Dean Moore wrote:
Moderator: Wouldn't have to show up in
Portland DaveH-all I would have to do is click a button and my
problem is solved and that is exactly what I going to do the
next time you use the words-****************** in the
combination that you used them below. Discussion over-warning
given!
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
3/5/2006 12:52:41 PM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?
DAVEH: Dean, from
what you said previously about the oneness of husband and
wife, if I were to ask you about ************,, you
would take that as a personal attack on ****** and would then
presume it to be a personal attack on you as well, and then
proceed to come to Portland and show up on my doorstep.....is
that correct? Wouldn't it be smarter just to say the
same thing to me via email or a phone call, rather than show
up on my doorstep? What would be accomplished by coming
to Portland?
If I were then
to assume you are on my doorstep for a reason other than an
amicable discussion, and felt my life was being threatened by
your presence on my doorstep, I would probably not answer the
door. Wouldn't that just frustrate your reason for going
to all that effort, cost, time and travel in an effort to come
to my doorstep? Would you proceed to pound on my doo r
expecting me to open it? If I did not respond to your
pounding, then what would you do? And if you continued
to pound on my door, what would you do if I opened it with a
gun in my hand, as I might do if I perceived you as being a
threat to me in my home?
At
that point, if you turned and left, nothing else would happen
and you would have spent a lot of effort for little reason
other than to satisfy your pride. If on the other hand
you were to raise the level of confrontation by arguing, and
if I misunderstood the reasons you were on my doorstep
confronting me and refusing to leave, would you be surprised
if it led to a lethal action on my
part?
IF that above scenario were to
occur, how do you think the law would view this matter?
Would I be found guilty of manslaughter, or would you be
guilty of threatening my life to the point of my using
justifiable lethal means in self-defense? In my defense,
I'm sure my lawyer would quote your comment.....
....
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
