Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

km991148

theological wrote: »

I'm apparently meant to find it impressive that nozzferrahhtoo supports "free" speech provided it is in a small corner of a park in London. The fact that you have mandated it should be in a small corner of a park in London rather than anywhere in public betrays the fact it isn't free.

Alright, tell us the name of your street and when the restrictions are lifted, I'll bring round the PA system and get started. I prefer the night shift - any volunteers for daytime? All sound? ye?

Vieira82

NaFirinne wrote: »

Lovely times we are living when peoples are being arrested for street preeching now.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/street-preacher-fails-to-halt-trial-over-singing-and-referencing-jesus-1.4395703

and why can't he preach like others do, a small stand, a friendly aproach and a few flyers offered? Oh and like others mentioned before, not being abusive towards others?

lexi-lexi

I've come across this particular guy several times both in Gorey and in Wexford town. He called my teen daughter a hore of babylon and an occasion of sin because she wore a tshirt with a round neck on a hot summers day. He also shouted graphic descriptions of abortion at my 8 year old daughter and when I confronted him he ignored me and said 'youre blessed as your mammy didnt abort you ' .

I've witnessed him scream abuse at lone women and groups of teenage girls as well as preach about gay people burning in hellfire. People are absolutely sick of him. There is a reason he was ran out of Waterford. If you search any article about him on Facebook you will see countless comments from people who have been abused or upset by him

I have never had any problem with people preaching on the street, once done in a respectable manner, my own father is a street preacher but what this man has been doing is disturbing. He needs help

NaFirinne

lexi-lexi wrote: »

I've come across this particular guy several times both in Gorey and in Wexford town. He called my teen daughter a hore of babylon and an occasion of sin because she wore a tshirt with a round neck on a hot summers day. He also shouted graphic descriptions of abortion at my 8 year old daughter and when I confronted him he ignored me and said 'youre blessed as your mammy didnt abort you ' .

I've witnessed him scream abuse at lone women and groups of teenage girls as well as preach about gay people burning in hellfire. People are absolutely sick of him. There is a reason he was ran out of Waterford. If you search any article about him on Facebook you will see countless comments from people who have been abused or upset by him

I have never had any problem with people preaching on the street, once done in a respectable manner, my own father is a street preacher but what this man has been doing is disturbing. He needs help

If this is the case then I have to agree with you here. If he is nothing but being abusive to people then that's not preeching the gospel. It's just abusing people and doesn't sound Christian to me.

Timberrrrrrrr

NaFirinne wrote: »

If this is the case then I have to agree with you here. If he is nothing but being abusive to people then that's not preeching the gospel. It's just abusing people and doesn't sound Christian to me.

You were told this in the fifth post of the thread

tobothehobo wrote: »

Alot more to the story. He has on many occasions been very abusive to people walking past especially young women and teenage girls. He deserves whatever he gets and much more.

theological

Cabaal wrote: »

What you've argued above is homophobic, you can try argue that its not....but it is.

Same as if you tried to argue if the bible said a white man shouldn't marry a black woman (or visa versa) wasn't racist. It is racist.

While some people may want to try make excuses for holding and preaching homophobic or racist views by claiming that somehow their religion gives them a free card. Thankfully most reasonable people see the hate for what it is.....so do our courts!

So simply stating that (shock and horror) people have different views about what marriage is is homophobic?

As far as I'm concerned, people have the liberty to do what they like under the law, but they don't have the right to force me to agree.

Can people disagree about marriage without having a "dislike of or prejudice against gay people"? I think so.

I find it ironic that people who profess to be socially liberal are anything but when it comes to freedom of thought and expression.

NaFirinne

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You were told this in the fifth post of the thread

Mearly giving the gospel can be viewed as abusive by people.


Qouting scripture can be viewed as abusive by people.


Establiing what this man did to warrant being abusive is important.


There are many christians down in wexford and I'm suprised that none of them challenged him if he was calling himself a christian while actually being abusive to passers by.


Especially being abusive towards children is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

NaFirinne

Cabaal wrote: »

What you've argued above is homophobic, you can try argue that its not....but it is.

Same as if you tried to argue if the bible said a white man shouldn't marry a black woman (or visa versa) wasn't racist. It is racist.

While some people may want to try make excuses for holding and preaching homophobic or racist views by claiming that somehow their religion gives them a free card. Thankfully most reasonable people see the hate for what it is.....so do our courts!

This is probably a discussion for another thread but a mod can decide on that or not.


However for a christian the Bible is God's word and God's word needs to be taken seriously.


So for a Christian the Bibical teaching on marriage is what God has defined as what marriage is, which is different from how our Laws have defined what marriage is.


So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?

NaFirinne

NaFirinne wrote: »

So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?

Depends on perspective.



To a Christian no, because nothing attributed to god can be seen as wrong such as the random killing of the first born.



Yes to a non believer.

Timberrrrrrrr

NaFirinne wrote: »

Mearly giving the gospel can be viewed as abusive by people.


Qouting scripture can be viewed as abusive by people.


Establiing what this man did to warrant being abusive is important.


There are many christians down in wexford and I'm suprised that none of them challenged him if he was calling himself a christian while actually being abusive to passers by.


Especially being abusive towards children is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

Literally, It's in the fifth post!

He has on many occasions been very abusive to people walking past especially young women and teenage girls

NaFirinne

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on perspective.



To a Christian no, because nothing attributed to god can be seen as wrong such as the random killing of the first born.



Yes to a non believer.

So is the perspective that if your a Bible believing Christian then your against Homosexuality thus you are Homophopic.


And from a Christian perspective in turn if your for homosexuality your against the bibical teachings of God?


And as you said from A Christian perspective God is Good.

NaFirinne

NaFirinne wrote: »

So is the perspective that if your a Bible believing Christian then your against Homosexuality thus you are Homophopic.

What else would you call someone against homosexuality?

NaFirinne wrote: »

And from a Christian perspective in turn if your for homosexuality your against the bibical teachings of God?

Christianity being the NT, where did Jesus say this? You're probably more familiar with it than I.

NaFirinne wrote: »

And as you said from A Christian perspective God is Good.

Yes, in the same way Satanists think Satan is A OKAY.

smacl

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is probably a discussion for another thread but a mod can decide on that or not.


However for a christian the Bible is God's word and God's word needs to be taken seriously.


So for a Christian the Bibical teaching on marriage is what God has defined as what marriage is, which is different from how our Laws have defined what marriage is.


So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?

There's a gay megathread here which contains discussion about Christian views to homosexuality. From my own experience I've met Christians who are all for allowing gay marriage as well as those who staunchly oppose it. Given the recent referendum result it would seem that the majority of Christians in this country don't have an issue with gay marriage from a legal perspective.

NaFirinne

Deleted User wrote: »

What else would you call someone against homosexuality?




Christianity being the NT, where did Jesus say this? You're probably more familiar with it than I.


Yes, in the same way Satanists think Satan is A OKAY.

I think that's getting out of the scope a little bit.


It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


Again I think this topic is big enough for a seperate thread for discussion.


There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.


Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.





We are all sinners before God, we are all on an equal footing. The Gospel message is to repent and seek the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then follow his ways and live a righteous life as best you can.


Repent as in to change your life for the better. You do not need to be a slave in Sin. The Blood of Christ was given that all might be saved and homosexuality doesn't exclude anyone from seeking that.

NaFirinne

NaFirinne wrote: »

It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.




...


Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.

Again back to perspective. Which came first, the bible or marriage. Historically it would be marriage.



There is a bit of pick and mix when it comes to the OT. Things like 'not being allowed to wear clothes made of two threads (as just one example)' get dismissed/ignored by saying the NT of Jesus supersedes the OT. But, other times, when they want to they still quote the OT as relevant.

theological

God created the world before anyone got married. I think that gives Him the right to define what it is and its intention.

As for the New Testament Jesus explicitly leans on the Genesis understanding on marriage in Matthew 19. He condemns sexual.immorality as it was understood by His hearers in Mark 7. It is untrue to suggest therefore that NT Scripture doesn't speak about marriage and the right place for sexual expression. I suspect you know this.

It differs to areas that Jesus fulfilled such as dietary laws because Jesus explicitly refers to dietary laws in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. I suspect you know this also.

This is the reason why I'm preferring the level of discussion on Christian matters on Reddit rather than here. The arguments on the sceptical side are on a higher level.

Hotblack Desiato

I think you'll find the rules of engagement on Reddit are very different from boards in general and this forum in particular. Hardly a fair comparison.

theological

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think you'll find the rules of engagement on Reddit are very different from boards in general and this forum in particular. Hardly a fair comparison.

The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

salmocab

theological wrote: »

The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

I’d imagine they just have more interest in arguing. Most atheists don’t care what others believe just like most religious people aren’t too worried about what others do. As with most things in life the noisy minority make the noise.

theological

theological wrote: »

God created the world before anyone got married. I think that gives Him the right to define what it is and its intention.

When was this to the nearest billion years? Also, where is it said that it's now okay to wear two threads?

smacl

NaFirinne wrote: »

I think that's getting out of the scope a little bit.


It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


Again I think this topic is big enough for a seperate thread for discussion.


There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.


Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.





We are all sinners before God, we are all on an equal footing. The Gospel message is to repent and seek the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then follow his ways and live a righteous life as best you can.


Repent as in to change your life for the better. You do not need to be a slave in Sin. The Blood of Christ was given that all might be saved and homosexuality doesn't exclude anyone from seeking that.

While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.

Hotblack Desiato

theological wrote: »

The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

Are you actually expecting a free and fair discussion here? The rules explicitly protect Christianity from any sort of critique.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you actually expecting a free and fair discussion here? The rules explicitly protect Christianity from any sort of critique.

theological wrote: »

The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

With respect theological, if you want strong debate with atheists on boards you are better off starting a thread on the atheist and agnostics forum. Firstly, you'll get a broader atheist audience and secondly, as pointed out, the local charter there is more suited to debate that challenges the Christian position.

On a personal note, in my opinion suggesting the quality of debate on this forum here is inferior to that found on reddit is disrespectful of both the posters here and of the forum. You should perhaps bear this in mind if you want your own posts here to be treated with respect.

theological

smacl wrote: »

While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.

It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

Why? Well if you water down Christianity to be whatever the world says then it offers nothing different to anybody. Sunday mornings would be better spent off on bed. Uncompromising Christianity which proclaims a distinctive radical life giving Saviour is the only one that will survive into the long term for two reasons.

Firstly because it is distinctive, secondly because God will preserve His word and His people.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

Its an issue I have not looked into at all. But you seem to know the figures well enough. Could you cite your sources perhaps? smacl offered one above, but I am not seeing one in your counter claim.

I would be interested to see statistics showing not just which churches are growing, and which are dying.... but statistics which are explicitly showing WHY each is doing so..... which your assertion above suggests you have access to.

theological

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Its an issue I have not looked into at all. But you seem to know the figures well enough. Could you cite your sources perhaps? smacl offered one above, but I am not seeing one in your counter claim.

I would be interested to see statistics showing not just which churches are growing, and which are dying.... but statistics which are explicitly showing WHY each is doing so..... which your assertion above suggests you have access to.

The phenomenon I've described is well documented.

Hotblack Desiato

Paywalled.

Does it refer largely or exclusively to the U.S.?

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

The phenomenon I've described is well documented.

That is not a study or a document. It is a news paper article. Specifically about protestant churches in Canada, rather than all churches everywhere. So I am struggling to see how this is relevant to your above assertions?

Further what the article is saying is markedly different from what you are claiming it is saying. Which is hardly a surprise given your claims about what I said were markedly different from what I said too. It would appear you changing things people say into something else, is something of an issue we have to watch for here as we move forward.

Firstly: What you said above, and I asked for a citation for, was "It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing."

So what you specifically claimed was about homosexuality and homosexual marriage. You very specifically said "on this issue". I am not putting words in your mouth, like you did to me. It is 100% exactly what you said. And the article you linked to does not mention this issue AT ALL. So your article is not a citation backing up your assertion at all. And it is not a citation supporting the assertion that I asked for a citation to support. Maybe try again?

Secondly: What the article also says is that the churches who were teaching Christian Thought and were already dying off tried to switch to more liberal thought to stem that decline. And the switch did not stem that decline (Quote: "But the liberal turn in mainline churches doesn’t appear to have solved their problem of decline."). In other words the decline was already in progress BEFORE the switch in teaching.

So the problem here with your link is that the claim that liberalism is a predictor of decline, while conservatism is the opposite, is a confounded prediction based on the churches who have recognized they are ALREADY in the decline, are the ones who try to shift to be more liberal and appealing in a failed attempt to reverse the decline.

Thirdly: Their own study shows quite quickly why their churches are declining and it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal teachings. The problem ACTUALLY is that in the declining churches the congregation are simply not believing the claims any more. When asked two survey questions “Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body leaving behind an empty tomb.” and “God performs miracles in answer to prayers” then the people in the declining churches were less likely to say they agreed with / believed those statements. These statements do not follow a liberal/conservative divide either. They are quite low bar statements for churches of either type to be honest. And if the congregation are losing faith in even those most basic tenets of faith.... then I doubt liberal or conservative teachings on the matter are the issue there.

But we see much the same thing in Ireland. When the Bishops Congregation did a survey of Catholic Belief in Ireland found many Catholics do not believe many of these claims either and in fact 8% of Catholics do not even think there is a god. Which I would have expected was a very low bar to have to reach to qualify for most definitions of "Catholic".But I had my expectations corrected when I read that result I guess! Live and learn.

As your own link says "In defense of liberal churches, one might venture that it is the strength of belief, not the specifics of belief, that is the real cause of growth."

Summary: So it seems the news paper article opinion piece does not really track with your claims. Rather it is an observation that, independent of what the churches are teaching, decline is happening in many areas. And decline is a predictor of trying to shift to more appealing and liberal views rather than appealing or liberal views being a predictor of the decline. You have, in essence, interpreted the data exactly backwards.

one world order

theological wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

Why? Well if you water down Christianity to be whatever the world says then it offers nothing different to anybody. Sunday mornings would be better spent off on bed. Uncompromising Christianity which proclaims a distinctive radical life giving Saviour is the only one that will survive into the long term for two reasons.

Firstly because it is distinctive, secondly because God will preserve His word and His people.

That's exactly it. The bible is from God and it's truth will always stand. When people try to modify the bible to make it more appealing to a sinful world, the church loses it's credibility as time goes on. Satan is not interested in spiritual warfare against a lukewarm church as he knows they have rejected the truth and so are not a threat to him. It's those churches that preach the truth is where the holy spirit resides and you can actually see it in the people who have taken up their cross and are walking in their faith with Christ.

one world order

one world order wrote: »

actually see it in the people who have taken up their cross and are walking in their faith with Christ.

I've never seen it. And I've met 1000's of people. Have does it manifest, and would you consider this ability of yours supernatural, a super power?