Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    What about the racism cause he was doing that too.


    The thread title is wrong because he wasn't arrested for singing and preeching or preaching of Jesus but spreading hate speech

    Should we all be racist now? What's the official line the church has taken on this?

    Only, the farm takes up most of the day, and at night I just like a cup of tea. I mightn't be able to devote myself full time to the old racism.


  • Options
    #93
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Should I be allowed stand outside a church on Sunday and call all the men entering the church pedophiles? How about calling the women slags? Would i benin my right to abuse people like that?


    I think it would be your liberty to do so even if I would find it uncivil. In the same way as I would say it would be a freedom to protest outside a church.

    Interesting that you've gone to discussing church though. The street is public. It is for us all. It isn't that the street is an entirely godless space dedicated to atheism in the same way that a church building is dedicated to Christianity.


  • Options
    #94
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Probably why he very clearly said "outside" the church then, huh? Which would be in the.... you know.... street?


  • Options
    #95
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ^ Probably why he very clearly said "outside" the church then, huh? Which would be in the.... you know.... street?

    As I said that would be fine. I was just curious as to why he mentioned church as if it was the opposite to speaking on a high street.


  • Options
    #96
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yeah, can not imagine why someone might.... when using an analogy..... choose one relevant to the forum in which the analogy is being used. I mean what could churches possibly have to do with a forum about Christianity?

    I can not speak for the user in question of course, but I am going to hazard a guess that his choice to use a religious example as one of the TWO he used in the post (the second example being a non-religious one, which I see as being a balanced choice) might be motivated by choosing an example specifically relevant to this forum. And had we been having this discussion in the soccer forum he might have instead of using a religious example, and a non-religious example..... would have used a sporting example and a non-sporting example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    If this guy set up a stall and preached at a lower volume, or handed out leaflets, he would not have been arrested. Seems he was arrested for being a pest rather than for preaching.


  • Options
    #98
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    theological wrote: »
    As I said that would be fine. I was just curious as to why he mentioned church as if it was the opposite to speaking on a high street.

    You've been destroyed here mate. Give it up, in the name of Jesus!


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Freedom of speach should be defended at all costs.....this is wrong.


    He was barred from mentioning the Name Jesus.


    Were the apostles wrong to go out into the world preeching the Gospel?


    They were arrested in their times for doing so....are we going back to these times...when it's offensive to people to hear the Gospel.


    Now I haven't heard this man preech so I don't know if he was actually abusive or just quoting from scriptures.


    However Preeching the Gospel on the streets should not be a crime.

    There is free speech, and then there are consequences of free speech


  • Options
    #100
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is free speech, and then there are consequences of free speech

    Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.

    The guy was being so loud that other people could not go about their daily business. If he was sitting on a bench using his free speech without amplification or causing a nuisance, he wouldn’t be in this predicament.

    Free speech does not mean do whatever you want to do with no consequences


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Freedom of speach should be defended at all costs.....this is wrong.

    The concept of freedom of speech should absolutely be defended. However the first step in defending any such concept should be to learn and understand what the concept is and means. It would appear to me you have not at all done this yet.
    NaFirinne wrote: »
    He was barred from mentioning the Name Jesus.

    That is simply a completely false and misleading statement from you here. That is not at all what happened, nor is it even remotely what the link you used in your OP claims has happened.
    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Were the apostles wrong to go out into the world preeching the Gospel?

    This is a separate question to the thread topic I think..... and actually I think the answer very much depends on who you ask actually.

    For example anecdotally I have met many Christian Theists who believe that rejection of the gospel and Jesus is a sin that can lead you to hell. When I asked them about people who never heard the gospels or heard of Jesus.... they told me those people are ok.

    So in THAT context I think it would be wrong to preach the gospels. Because by preaching something they might reject, you put their eternal soul in jeopardy. If you do not preach it, and therefore they have no chance to reject it.... they are safe.

    Actually one of the most wonderful, coherent, and pleasant Christian Theists I ever had discourse with was a UK 15 year old home schooled daughter of Christian Evangelists who I met on the isgodimaginary forum. Contrary to her parents teaching and efforts she had reached the conclusion that preaching was a bad thing.

    She felt her duty to Christ was to lead by example. To live a pure, honest, beautiful life. And if people asked her about her world view and motivation to live in such purity, she would THEN discuss the gospels and their influence on her with them. She was very articulate in talking about how the spread of her faith was not an activity so much as a path she walked, and how she walked it.

    One of the lines I have most respect and passion for in the Bible is the one about "By their fruit you shall know them". And I can directly and wholly trace my love of that line back to that pure heart I met on that forum. If every theist on this planet was like her, our world would be a markedly different and more wonderful place. If you want to go read her posts on that forum I can give you her username to go put into the search.
    NaFirinne wrote: »
    They were arrested in their times for doing so....are we going back to these times...when it's offensive to people to hear the Gospel.

    In for a penny in for a pound I guess. There are some people who very much do seem to want us to revert back to "earlier times" in terms of law and morality. On topics such as homosexuality for example.

    I for one do not view it as going "forward" or "backwards". I see morality and law as constantly changing and evolving things that should change with the times. And if that change sometimes entails returning to something we had in an earlier time but later abandoned... then that is ok with me if it is justifiable to do so.

    Merely accepting, or rejecting, a part of that evolution because it leads to something we had in earlier times... would be a poor approach in my view.
    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Now I haven't heard this man preech so I don't know if he was actually abusive or just quoting from scriptures. However Preeching the Gospel on the streets should not be a crime.

    Agreed entirely.


  • Options
    #103
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    theological wrote: »
    Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.

    Way to ignore absolutely EVERYTHING I wrote to you in post #91 above and then continue on doing and saying exactly what I rebutted directly in that post.


  • Options
    #104
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    theological wrote: »
    Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.

    Mate give it up! You know that he wasn't arrested for what he said. You kknow he was arrested for being a pest.

    You're embarrassing yourself!


  • Options
    #105
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,408 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    theological wrote: »
    I think it would be your liberty to do so even if I would find it uncivil. In the same way as I would say it would be a freedom to protest outside a church.

    Interesting that you've gone to discussing church though. The street is public. It is for us all. It isn't that the street is an entirely godless space dedicated to atheism in the same way that a church building is dedicated to Christianity.

    I said outside a church, as in the public street.


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nozzferrahhatoo,

    Re post 102. I remember having a similar discussion before, and the reply was that those that never heard the gospel go to purgatory. So, not hell (yay!), but not heaven (boooo!). Which only opened up a lot more questions. Poor aboriginals going around for all eternity being told, 'sucks you were born so far away ye heathen b@stards!.


  • Options
    #107
    piplip87
    Registered Users Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭piplip87


    If we tolerate this then our children will be next


  • Options
    #108
    Mysterypunter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,806 ✭✭✭Mysterypunter


    That man was in Waterford for a few months, the novelty wore off quickly, he was more of a public nuisance than a preacher, he had a worthwhile message but his method of delivery was belligerent, and he often got into petty arguments with passers-by. The area which he frequented tended to attract a strange crowd of hard up down on their luck types, he wasn't the worst of them, but he was the loudest.


  • Options
    #109
    omegaodie
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭omegaodie


    This board gone onto the errors of Christian thinking, but this really should be about freedom of expression. Crazies, wrong-thinkers, bigots and wackos are part of our society, they have a right to express themselves in it's public forums, if it's irritating then that is the price we pay for a free society.


  • Options
    #110
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nozzferrahhatoo,

    Re post 102. I remember having a similar discussion before, and the reply was that those that never heard the gospel go to purgatory. So, not hell (yay!), but not heaven (boooo!). Which only opened up a lot more questions. Poor aboriginals going around for all eternity being told, 'sucks you were born so far away ye heathen b@stards!.
    The Catholic Church teaches that such people (the genuinely ignorant) may go to heaven:


    1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P3M.HTM


    Purgatory, should one end up there, is by definition not permanent - it's a purification process.


  • Options
    #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The Catholic Church teaches that such people (the genuinely ignorant) may go to heaven:


    1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P3M.HTM


    Purgatory, should one end up there, is by definition not permanent - it's a purification process.


    Therefore preaching puts those that have never heard the gospel in danger. How could anyone with good conscience risk teaching the gospel?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    omegaodie wrote: »
    This board gone onto the errors of Christian thinking, but this really should be about freedom of expression. Crazies, wrong-thinkers, bigots and wackos are part of our society, they have a right to express themselves in it's public forums, if it's irritating then that is the price we pay for a free society.


    Clearly not. One's right to peace of mind is a greater right than to allow some "characters" rant.


    I should add someone setting up a stall and inviting people, in a reasonable manner, to hear their views on the gospel is not ranting.


  • Options
    #113
    victor8600
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭victor8600


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    How can christians excercise there beliefs privately when they have been asked by Christ to go out and preech the Gospel?
    ?

    PREACH, not preech! Jesus, give me strength!


  • Options
    #114
    omegaodie
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭omegaodie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Clearly not. One's right to peace of mind is a greater right than to allow some "characters" rant.


    I should add someone setting up a stall and inviting people, in a reasonable manner, to hear their views on the gospel is not ranting.


    To me that sounds like "I like freedom of speech but I am not willing to make the smallest compromise of my comfort in it's defence."


  • Options
    #115
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,549 ✭✭✭dubrov


    victor8600 wrote:
    PREACH, not preech! Jesus, give me strength!


    Amazing decryption skills there


  • Options
    #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    omegaodie wrote: »
    To me that sounds like "I like freedom of speech but I am not willing to make the smallest compromise of my comfort in it's defence."


    Agreed. Being verbally assaulted is not accepted.


  • Options
    #117
    bocaman
    Registered Users Posts: 229 ✭✭bocaman


    The title of this thread is a bit misleading. This individual had previously been charged with public order offences. So he's not a totally innocent party and definitely not some Christian martyr. I can see the far right making hay on the misrepresentation of this case.

    He has a right to stand up and proclaim his religion and people have a right to walk the street without being harassed, harangued and abused by him.


  • Options
    #118
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    I reckon that if he turned off the megaphone he wouldn't be in any trouble.


  • Options
    #119
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    bocaman wrote: »
    The title of this thread is a bit misleading. This individual had previously been charged with public order offences. So he's not a totally innocent party and definitely not some Christian martyr. I can see the far right making hay on the misrepresentation of this case.

    He has a right to stand up and proclaim his religion and people have a right to walk the street without being harassed, harangued and abused by him.

    What were the public order offences for? If it was for offending someone then I would consider that a problem with the law rather than the other way around.

    More definition is required in order to come to a full opinion on this.


  • Options
    #120
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Therefore preaching puts those that have never heard the gospel in danger. How could anyone with good conscience risk teaching the gospel?
    Not at all. Those who are not Christians who are saved may be saved in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

    Christ of course instructed his disciples to spread the Gospel - it would be most dishonest of you to engage in a discussion on the basis that the Gospel is true, heaven exists etc. and ignore this commandment of Christ. You cannot honestly, for the purposes of argument, accept that the Gospels are true and can save people, but argue that the chance they will be rejected is too dangerous for people, and then at the same time rubbish Jesus command to spread the gospel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Not at all. Those who are not Christians who are saved may be saved in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

    Christ of course instructed his disciples to spread the Gospel - it would be most dishonest of you to engage in a discussion on the basis that the Gospel is true, heaven exists etc. and ignore this commandment of Christ. You cannot honestly, for the purposes of argument, accept that the Gospels are true and can save people, but argue that the chance they will be rejected is too dangerous for people, and then at the same time rubbish Jesus command to spread the gospel.


    So, it was Christ endangering people.


Advertisement