Two australian pastors convicted

Again, this is abject fatuity, nothing more.
Perhaps you are having difficulty much the same as my new friend Bunyan. I didn't say ANYTHING about either subject in this discussion, and you know it. As a matter of fact, I asked two questions, didn't I? To claim that this is somehow contradictory is not only foolish, it is not true. I asked two questions to Bunyan.

This too is abject fatuity, nothing more. I asked two questions to Bunyan. Your questions are irrelevant as my opinions regarding free speech have absolutely nothing to do with either my questions for Bunyan, or the topic in this particular discussion.

Thanks for your comments anyway................

BiR

 

Whatever I say?
Did I or did I not ask you two questions? Did you go back and read that reply to you?

Oh well......

BiR

 

Hey, I think the context of what you answered caused it to be read the way it was. If that is not what you ment, then OK.

 

You mean "context" in the sense that I asked you two specific questions?

Come on, Bunyon, did I or did I not ask you questions? I never said anything about government censorship - I asked you for your opinion. That was the "context," Bunyon: two specific questions.

Oh well........

BiR

 

No, that is not what I meant, but if you are against the governments interference in the religious activities of the two pastors, I am glad. But you seemed to think for the government to not interfere would mean no accountability. But if that is not what you meant, I am not the only one who misunderstood you.

 

My opinion is irrelevant to your answers to those questions, Bunyon.

Oh well....

BiR

 

Ok, if it will make you happy. But me thinks thou dost protest to much. What were you two questions again?

 

Oh, I see: you can blatantly misrepresent what I wrote and I have no right to take issue with you on it. How convenient for you......

You're kidding, right?
Page one, my post from December 16th @ 9:06 AM.
This really isn't that difficult. Oh well......

BiR

 

I think we all know where you are coming from, but I think you must have wanted to remain incognito. The only question I see that you might have been asking me was where you said you "might be misunderstanding" me??? You asked if there is no accountability based on what I had said. I guess you were assuming that is what I meant? There is your context by the way. I don't think pastors need the state to be holding them accountable for what they say, you seem to think they should. I find no fault in what they said, but even if it was questionable, I don't see that the government should be butting in. Now are you Happy? Your other question was not based on my comments. You quoted someone else, but perhaps you did not realize that.

 

Bunyon,

Here are BIR's two questions.

1. So, unless I am misunderstanding you, there is no accountability for what was said?

Bunyon, you are right in asking BIR to clarify. He is either implying in his first question that someone should hold these pastors accountable for what was said or he is just asking for a yes or no answer which in this context would make absolutely no sense.

Now there are four possibilities that arise out of the accountability question that could be going through his mind.
1. He believes The Government should do it
2. He believes the Church should do it
3. He believes Muslims should do it.
4. He believes the Media should do it.

or Maybe he would like to see all four involved.

Regardless of his position he is advocating some kind of censorship or some kind of "PC" speech control.

Now his motives may be pure.

Churches should hold members accountable for public statements that are out of line with scripture and Church policy.

Muslims and other religious groups have a right to be offended by what Christians sometimes say about them and a right to call into question those offenses.

The Media has a responsibility to report the news of such occurences in an objective manner.

The least responsible party in this whole matter at least from a US perspective and certainly from a Baptist perspective is the government. The government has no right or responbility to be a speech police force when it comes to religion, unless, as may well be the case in Australia, there are laws on the books which may have been broken.

Since BIR is on record on this board as a strong advocate of free speech and privacy, it's time he sets the record straight on this particular case and cases like this.

His Second Question is more straightforward.

2. Would it be fair to assess our faith by the actions of the extreme positions of some people claiming to be Christian?

In the second question he seems to be implying that to take all Muslims to task for the small radical minority of extremists who are causing all the trouble in the world would be like condemning all Christians for the actions and words of the White Supremists in Idaho.

No problems with this question.

 

Also, my understanding of the case is it was a Christian meeting and the Mulims attended for the express purpose of finding fault. This was not Public in the fullest sence of the word. My understanding is also that they did not call muslims to task for anyones actions, but that they were teaching that the Koran promoted militancy. Alot of folks think that. No one should tell anyone else how they can or cannot interpret the Bible or the Koran.

 

Hardsheller, your abject fatuity grows more obvious with every post.
You don't know me, and you have never met me. As a result, it is sheer folly for you to even theorize what I am "implying." I didn't imply anything, and you know it. This is a fact whether or not you acknowledge this. This is not the first time you have simply deduced that I have "implied" something. Once again, you are wrong.

Again, you don't know me, and it is sheer foolishness for you to theorize what is going through my mind.

Perhaps you missed something in my previous posts, so I will enlighten you once more. My posts do not contain hidden meanings. I do not write in implications. I have said this before and I have said this in numerous discussion threads. This too is a fact regardless of whether you acknowledge this.

This is false witness, pure and simple. I wrote absolutely NOTHING with respect to this subject that YOU have introduced. Unless you can show me anywhere in this discussion where I have introduced the topic of "'PC speech control," stop making foolish statements that are not true. I certainly would hope that you are better than this.

More foolishness. I asked Bunyon a question. I have also been on the record as saying that I do not wish to correspond with you, and have made attempts to be congenial. As you have very clearly exhibited in this discussion, you insist upon making claims about my positions on subjects when I have said absolutely nothing about them. Is it any wonder that I do not wish to discuss anything with you?

To recap: this is an anonymous forum. I don't know you and you don't know me. As a result, you have absolutely no idea what I am thinking, and I have made it abundantly clear that I do not speak in implications. I asked two questions to Bunyon to get a better idea of what he was saying. Why did I do this? Because I don't know Bunyon, and was curious as to Bunyon's thought process. I was gracious in my initial post to Bunyon, and I didn't jump to any conclusions as to what was being said. As a matter of fact, I asked for clarification, didn't I?

So, to ask nicely yet again: please refrain from stating that I am speaking in implications. Stop introducing comments I have made in unrelated forums that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from jumping into a discussion where I have asked specific questions to someone about comments they have made. Lastly, stop claiming to either theorize or know what I am thinking.

Notice that I asked you nicely.......

BiR

 

No, you are wrong. I am not sure why you insist that I have am speaking in implications, when I have stated very clearly that I am not.

That is precisely why I asked you questions. Did you notice that I did not simply assume what you were saying?

No, that is not the case. I was asking for your thoughts regarding accountability. There is no "context" as I was asking you a question.

So, would you feel the same if the roles were reversed?

No, and I was VERY CLEARLY reproducing a quote from the article. Here is what I said again:

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for your reply. That was all I wanted: clarification.

Regards,
BiR

 

BIR said-"So, unless I am misunderstanding you, there is no accountability for what was said?"

So what is this???

OK, BIR, you are complaining that we deduced something from your question based on the context in which you asked it. But then, explain to me what this is. Are you not assuming or deducing something that I never said?
I never said there should be NO accountability. But unlike you I am not getting all excited about it. In political debates you have got to give some leeway. I have no problems with you assuming things I never said, based on what you thought I meant. But I have noticed that you will not say that the government was wrong to drag two pastors before a tribunal because of there interpretation of the Bible and Koran.

 

3-page warning This thread will be closed no sooner than 5:00 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

BIR,

Are you really happy? Yes or No?

Thanks.

 

Closed.