To my mind, tattling to Daddy is more than a little inappropriate in this case.
I have been perfectly polite to you, and to the extent of my ability to everybody else I’ve ever spoken to on this forum.
I believe that American Christians who believe their own religion to be true do not have a moral right to be offended by people of other religions who believe the same about their own faiths and express that belief politely. To my mind, this smacks waaaay to much of the whole Muslim blasphemy thing.
Personally, I believe Christ could have had a rational and polite conversation with a Hindu or Buddhist monk, or with a pagan Greek priest. Possibly he did. He would not have budged from his position that they were in error, but he wouldn’t have tried to silence them.
The Apostle Paul in Athens calmly discussed Greek religion with his listeners, and even drew analogies from it to illustrate the truth of Christianity. He recognized there were truths even in pagan religion, though obscured by a whole bunch of lies.
Point #1, it is common to ping another FReeper when they are mentioned in a post, but perhaps you aren't aware of that courtesy.
Point #2, IMO JR may very well wish to disagree with the statements that you have made on this thread....which HE may find as "inappropriate" such as the following:
"I believe that American Christians who believe their own religion to be true do not have a moral right to be offended by people of other religions who believe the same about their own faiths and express that belief politely. To my mind, this smacks waaaay to much of the whole Muslim blasphemy thing.
Side note: The mormon religion began with blasphemy and its leaders believed THEY had a "moral right" to castigate and slander "all other creeds" from the beginning...except for Islam, which they have made common cause with.
Some examples from mormon sources:
When Paul preached in Athens, the people rioted.......they were so offended. He had to flee for his life on more than one occasion.
Calmly.......hahah, what Paul are you talking about.
I have to say I actually agree with BOTH of you...and when I say that, I'm referencing in particular GF's comment (#30) and Sherm's comment in #51: I believe that American Christians who believe their own religion to be true do not have a moral right to be offended by people of other religions who believe the same about their own faiths and express that belief politely. [Sherman Logan]
...Here's GF's comments in post #30:
Sherman states: I've had many conversations with Mormon missionaries and they have always been polite to a fault. Nana states I dont like being attacked verbally by Mormons at my own door because I am a Christian...Perhaps it doesn't occur to some that the very fact that the message mormon missionaries bring to the doors of Christians is an attack on their faith. Their message is that the mormon church is "the only true church on the face of the earth" and "the only way to salvation is through taking part in arcane rituals in mormon temples." You ask, "Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is thereby attacking you verbally?"...."disagree" is a false description of the mormon message...that message is a frontal attack on the belief of a Christian, comparable with someone knocking on your door and saying, "Sherman, your child is the ugliest thing I have ever seen." That has been the message sent out by the mormon church to the world for 180 years.
So...allow me first to reinforce what GF is saying with a parallel consideration.
I don't particularly like a number of facets about the Westboro picketer folks...yet some people forget what provoked them into their initial protests.
The "father" of the clan had been at that time actually quite "progressive" -- filing legal briefs (if I recall correctly) in opposing discrimination vs. blacks. What he didn't like was the open public (often anonymous) homosexual acts taking place in a nearby park that his kids walked to & fro in front of...with the kids sometimes being exposed to these vile acts.
The family began picketing these acts at the park to bring attention to it so that the locals would enforce already existent laws. Some of the homosexuals "fought back" by becoming hostile in their confrontations with the picketers. Thus, it became the the "let's keep-sex-out-of-the-bedroom-in-yo-face homosexual park perverts" vs. "the-eventual-let's-keep-placard-condemnations-in-yo-face Westboroites."
Hardly anybody likes what this picketing family has become. Yet, the initial spark of what provoked them was provocative enough for them to publicly respond.
Do we have a Biblical right to be provoked by some public things? (Ya better believe it!) On what basis do I make that claim? (On the basis of St. Peter's description of Lot, who lived near Sodom & Gomorrah):
2 Peter: 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
I know there are many Americans -- oft' "moral libertarians" - who somehow think, "you don't like abortion? Don't have one." "You don't like homosexuality, be heterosexual then." ("Otherwise, shut up"). But they forget that rampant immorality doesn't respect any bounds!!!
We see lifestyles that are indeed provocative to us! That ranges from the porn industry today going back to Sodomites who wanted to rape three visiting angels...indeed, the Sodomitic cultural impact was so negative it horribly impacted Lot's two daughters, who couldn't even find worthy husbands in that culture.
Now I don't think that we can come along and lecture people that you can't be offended by the homosexual culture and sub-cultures; or that we can't be offended by Muslim "you're-an-infidel" & Mormon "you're-an-apostate" messaging.
Yet I do agree with Sherm that one cultural trend in our midst is that EVERYBODY is trying to keep their given pet conviction or lifestyle free from critique...which is what has led the homosexual activist movement to clamp down on free speech during corporate diversity training sessions ...and has even led to interpretations that somebody promoting Chick-Fil-A is offending their personal (lesbian) lifestyle -- and must be punished in the workplace for doing so!
So, I think it's "OK" to be provoked by lawless deeds we see & hear...AND when we are trashed by Mormon missionaries who often use the phrase "universal apostasy" -- thereby accusing us, our spiritual forefathers, and even the Christian forefathers of this country of being apostates!! We Christians need to start recognizing an accusation when it's proffered up!
And yet, we can't do what the homosexual activists do -- who wind up attempting to censor any and all who publicly disagree with that lifestyle and the band-wagon of things it pulls around in our society.
Bottom-line: As GF makes the case for, when Biblically provoked, respond! When responding, don't go to the extremes of homosexual activists who attempt to pre-empt public discussion. (And by saying this latter part, I'm not saying, GF that you are doing that; I'm simply agreeing with one principle uttered by S.L.)
It appears to me it was a polite, "Hey Jim; I referred to one of your quotes in this reply."
(Just like I am doing now...)