Christian arrested at Pride Event

[XMil]

You first.

Ok, you're just trying not to admit cherry picking scripture. The real irony here is the people accusing ME of missing something is that they are missing that the bible thumper was in THIER house acting a fool, and he was cast out. You support the idea, but you seem to be mad that he was on the loosing team in this one.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Ok, you're just trying not to admit cherry picking scripture. The real irony here is the people accusing ME of missing something is that they are missing that the bible thumper was in THIER house acting a fool, and he was cast out. You support the idea, but you seem to be mad that he was on the loosing team in this one.

On a sidewalk across the street is in "their" house? Really?

 

[Denny347]

Then what is there to discuss? The law matters not.

Discussion is fine. Discussions are fantastic in fact. It's as important to exercise your brain as it is your muscles. However, just know that we will debate legal situations that are colored by political motivations. Some people do a great job of neutralizing politics in their daily job activities, some are political animals. My Prosecutor is 100% political. EVERY decision is based on politics. The Penn DA may be the opposite, however, I'm skeptical of them all until proven otherwise.
What I find interesting is the fact that I'm seen as a blind supporter of these officers BECAUSE I'm not jumping on the bandwagon. All I'm doing is providing a little nuance. Much of which comes from personal experience.

 

[Rookie]

Ok, lets go another route. I 100% can arrest someone in Indiana for DOC on a public sidewalk based on HOW they are saying it, not based on the content of their speech.
IC 35-45-1-3 Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) adversely affects airport security; and

(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.

(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:

(A) the location where a burial is being performed;

(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(C) a building in which:

(i) a funeral or memorial service; or

(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;

is being conducted; and

(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

3 a 2 seems a little vague and subjective which reinforces my opinion that the police didn't care if it was a good arrest or not. They got him off the street - problem solved.

 

[blain]

3 a 2 seems a little vague and subjective. Who gets to define unreasonable?

That would be Officer Bradley McClure that made that judgement.
The same one that cuffed Mr. Atkins and led him away.
At some point, I assume someone told Officer Bradley McClure that his detainee was going to be released without any charges.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pro-LGBTQ mayor says freedom of speech doesn't apply to man arrested after trying to quote Bible at Pride rally | Blaze Media

The mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania, said freedom of speech doesn't apply in the case of a man who was arrested in the city earlier this month after trying to quote the Bible to Pride-rally attendees. Mayor Eddie Moran last Thursday issued the following statement to WFMZ-TV: First and...

www.theblaze.com

 

[BigRed]

Pro-LGBTQ mayor says freedom of speech doesn't apply to man arrested after trying to quote Bible at Pride rally | Blaze Media

The mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania, said freedom of speech doesn't apply in the case of a man who was arrested in the city earlier this month after trying to quote the Bible to Pride-rally attendees. Mayor Eddie Moran last Thursday issued the following statement to WFMZ-TV: First and...

www.theblaze.com

**** em

 

[wingrider1800]

**** em

 

[JettaKnight]

Holy crow! This is one of the only logically consistent posts I've ever seen in this sub-forum. Great job.

Denny's a pretty straight shooter, but keep it on the down low; don't want to ruin his reputation.

 

[JettaKnight]

Of course theres no freedom of religion or speech anymore

Probably the most hyperbolic statement in this thread. A thread that's literally a bunch of people talking about religion on the internet. People quoting scripture. People talking about how they openly go church. People who watch religious television, listen to religious radio and podcast, attend Christian grade schools and colleges, put religious symbols on their cars, wear crosses, tshirts, and hats, who vote for openly Christian politicians, who even have crosses on their AR lowers!

That post is an insult to all the people around the world who actually are persecuted for their faith.

 

[JettaKnight]

Since the topic is directly related to Christianity, I don't feel the need to pointing to the other thread.

If that’s true, how do we fix it?

Actually there are also those who see the sin and do nothing, those who embrace the sin in fear of alienating the sinner.

How do we fix this?

Sitting and listening and being a friend is a good start. You don't need to shy away from convictions, but you certainly don't have to lead with it. I don't know the heart of the street preacher here, I don't know if his house is open for anyone "celebrating", I don't know if he's willing to listen. But why should I expect anyone to listen to me and my beliefs if I'm not willing to listen to them?

Why would someone who already discounts the notion of God, and thinks that Christians are bunch of hate filled bigots be swayed by his actions?

I'm not advocating misleading anyone that mainstream liberals with a low view of scripture. I'm advocating do what Christ commands of us - and it's hard. It's super easy to sit at home and condemn gays, or even yell from the across the street. It's hard to exhibit the fruits of the spirit. It's hard to open your doors and dine with sinners. It's hard to be their friend. And a good friend is also an honest friend.

Any reasonable person would have to admit the go-along-get-along, be nicer than Christ method of witnessing Christians have done over the last 50 (?) years has done so much to gain followers and grow the church.

Well, the last fifty years of evangelism has been dominated by the "fear of evangelist". From a young age at youth retreats, to a planned revival services (can you really schedule the Holy Spirit like that?), the majority of evangelist spoke from this angle.

So, let's go way back before the last fifty years. Let's go back to the beginning. Peter and Paul. How are they evangelizing in the streets and markets? It wasn't by condemning, I can tell you that. It's by showing the love and joy of Christ. It was showing that there's a better way. Providing an alternative to the sinful lifestyle. Putting off the old man and putting on the new.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus and the things of this world will go strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.
(I love old hymns with solid theology)

If you want to be offensive and honest - do it from the pulpit. There's a lot of Sundays where I walk out of church feeling like I got punched in the gut.

But there's probably just as many, or more, churches that are focused on positivity, uplifting, "What can God do for me". There's nothing wrong with sermons of hope and faith, but if that's all that's being preached, that's a serious problem. Then you're into the Joel Osteen territory phoney balloney good times me me me me false Christianity.

On the other end of spectrum is churches that focus on the sins outside. The Doug Wilson's, the Westboro Baptist, the Greg Locke's - all these that have made a name for themselves though their condemnation. One is hard pressed to see any joy, love, long suffering, mercy...

 

[JettaKnight]

John 2:13-15
"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables."

Was Jesus being intolerant?
Could Jesus have been charged with disorderly conduct and/or assault?
Does this episode harmonize with a "go along to get along" or "win them with love" mindset?

Congrats on cherry-picking the easy case of table flippin' Jesus. (someone make that into a Tshirt).

Allow me to explain how I'd study this passage with my college students (I'd have them mark up the passage with colored pencils, but we won't) - first let's look at the whole passage. What comes after this? Then let's dig in at look closely at the words - who, what, when, where? (we'll get to why).

It's in the Temple, analogous to our churches. And who? It was the greedy. Those preying on the travelers (dare I say immigrants?), those from far away that needed to buy an animal to sacrifice. When? It was after Jesus entered... Where? Jerusalem. This is Holy Week. This is near Jesus's bodily end. And that brings us to why? Well, on the surface it's to remove the wicked, but if you had included the following text:

So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

or Mark's account:

And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because gall the crowd was astonished at his teaching.

Hmm... He talks about the rebuilding, which we know now is about his death and resurection, and he did this act of defiance right squarely in front of those who have the power to condemn him to death. When we flip over tables is it really the same motivation? Be careful what you imitate.


I'm have trouble right now thinking of one passage in any of the epistles, or elsewhere in the NT advocating for Christians to behave this way. This was one situation with a defined objective in a defined place - a place of so-called believers.

Now let's go take a look at how Jesus acted in the homes of sinners...

If you're initial thought is to go to indignation and rage, are you really, fully embodying the spirit of Christ? Are they enemies that must be destroyed, or are they too children of God who are lost like you were once?


Are we like Jonah after prophesying to Nivevah? "There God, I did it. I told those wicked people your message. Now smite them!"
And speaking of, a lot of OT prophets weren't excited about what they had to say. No, they were reluctant and mournful. There lives were not happy and prosperous. Is that our attitude? One of sadness and anguish? Or is our attitude smug and haughty?

1st Corinthians 5&6 has some good framework for "judgement".

Sure does. Make no bones about, the Bible is pretty darn clear about how God feels about sexual perversion.

Are we using that to condemn those in the pews next to us or the lavish preacher in front of us? Or are we only using it against safe targets? Most everyone in this discussion (including me) have no need to worry about any homosexual temptations. It's a good sin to stand up against, I'd go so far to say repugnant. Plus, we don't have to interact with them - we stand on the other side of the street.

Why are we so intent to point out sins in non-christians why allowing sin in ourselves and other Christians?

One can even argue that ignoring Christ altogether is the worst sin. So are we as vocal in one area and not others?

Between two atheist - one straight, and one gay, who is going to hell?



Look, I'm not saying we cower, or change to match social whims - we can be strong and confident in Christ - put on that belt of truth!

We just don't have to be an ***hole about it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yeah, this picture of a lily white hippie Jesus is so far from the truth.

He was a man’s man.

And if someone came into your house and started acting a fool, I would hope you wouldn’t just sit back and allow it to happen.

You’d forcibly remove them if necessary.

It’s your house. It’s the one place where you’re the king of your own castle.

That brings back memories of hearing Mark Driscoll (You can find the original interview here).

“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”

At the time I heard that, I was like, "Yeah! Jesus ain't no hippie!"



Then I read and heard all the horrible things Mark did at his Church.
If y'all haven't listened to the (long) podcast Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, you ought to. It's fascinating, saddening, and insightful (can this happen at my church?).

 

[blain]

Congrats on cherry-picking the easy case of table flippin' Jesus.

Thank you for expounding on your beliefs surrounding this episode and other passages mentioned.

 

[Creedmoor]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Since the topic is directly related to Christianity, I don't feel the need to pointing to the other thread.


Sitting and listening and being a friend is a good start. You don't need to shy away from convictions, but you certainly don't have to lead with it. I don't know the heart of the street preacher here, I don't know if his house is open for anyone "celebrating", I don't know if he's willing to listen. But why should I expect anyone to listen to me and my beliefs if I'm not willing to listen to them?

Why would someone who already discounts the notion of God, and thinks that Christians are bunch of hate filled bigots be swayed by his actions?

I'm not advocating misleading anyone that mainstream liberals with a low view of scripture. I'm advocating do what Christ commands of us - and it's hard. It's super easy to sit at home and condemn gays, or even yell from the across the street. It's hard to exhibit the fruits of the spirit. It's hard to open your doors and dine with sinners. It's hard to be their friend. And a good friend is also an honest friend.


Well, the last fifty years of evangelism has been dominated by the "fear of evangelist". From a young age at youth retreats, to a planned revival services (can you really schedule the Holy Spirit like that?), the majority of evangelist spoke from this angle.

So, let's go way back before the last fifty years. Let's go back to the beginning. Peter and Paul. How are they evangelizing in the streets and markets? It wasn't by condemning, I can tell you that. It's by showing the love and joy of Christ. It was showing that there's a better way. Providing an alternative to the sinful lifestyle. Putting off the old man and putting on the new.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus and the things of this world will go strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.
(I love old hymns with solid theology)

If you want to be offensive and honest - do it from the pulpit. There's a lot of Sundays where I walk out of church feeling like I got punched in the gut.

But there's probably just as many, or more, churches that are focused on positivity, uplifting, "What can God do for me". There's nothing wrong with sermons of hope and faith, but if that's all that's being preached, that's a serious problem. Then you're into the Joel Osteen territory phoney balloney good times me me me me false Christianity.

On the other end of spectrum is churches that focus on the sins outside. The Doug Wilson's, the Westboro Baptist, the Greg Locke's - all these that have made a name for themselves though their condemnation. One is hard pressed to see any joy, love, long suffering, mercy...

TL;DR

 

[buckwacker]

I think I must have spent yesterday in an alternate universe. Three good posts in a row from @JettaKnight (even if they were jamil long) that I nearly completely agree with.

 

[Ziggidy]

Congrats on cherry-picking the easy case of table flippin' Jesus. (someone make that into a Tshirt).

Allow me to explain how I'd study this passage with my college students (I'd have them mark up the passage with colored pencils, but we won't) - first let's look at the whole passage. What comes after this? Then let's dig in at look closely at the words - who, what, when, where? (we'll get to why).

It's in the Temple, analogous to our churches. And who? It was the greedy. Those preying on the travelers (dare I say immigrants?), those from far away that needed to buy an animal to sacrifice. When? It was after Jesus entered... Where? Jerusalem. This is Holy Week. This is near Jesus's bodily end. And that brings us to why? Well, on the surface it's to remove the wicked, but if you had included the following text:

or Mark's account:

Hmm... He talks about the rebuilding, which we know now is about his death and resurection, and he did this act of defiance right squarely in front of those who have the power to condemn him to death. When we flip over tables is it really the same motivation? Be careful what you imitate.


I'm have trouble right now thinking of one passage in any of the epistles, or elsewhere in the NT advocating for Christians to behave this way. This was one situation with a defined objective in a defined place - a place of so-called believers.

Now let's go take a look at how Jesus acted in the homes of sinners...

If you're initial thought is to go to indignation and rage, are you really, fully embodying the spirit of Christ? Are they enemies that must be destroyed, or are they too children of God who are lost like you were once?


Are we like Jonah after prophesying to Nivevah? "There God, I did it. I told those wicked people your message. Now smite them!"
And speaking of, a lot of OT prophets weren't excited about what they had to say. No, they were reluctant and mournful. There lives were not happy and prosperous. Is that our attitude? One of sadness and anguish? Or is our attitude smug and haughty?


Sure does. Make no bones about, the Bible is pretty darn clear about how God feels about sexual perversion.

Are we using that to condemn those in the pews next to us or the lavish preacher in front of us? Or are we only using it against safe targets? Most everyone in this discussion (including me) have no need to worry about any homosexual temptations. It's a good sin to stand up against, I'd go so far to say repugnant. Plus, we don't have to interact with them - we stand on the other side of the street.

Why are we so intent to point out sins in non-christians why allowing sin in ourselves and other Christians?

One can even argue that ignoring Christ altogether is the worst sin. So are we as vocal in one area and not others?

Between two atheist - one straight, and one gay, who is going to hell?



Look, I'm not saying we cower, or change to match social whims - we can be strong and confident in Christ - put on that belt of truth!

We just don't have to be an ***hole about it.

I don’t disagree but I also know there is not one method of reaching the lost. One thing I know for certain is we do not embrace sin in effort to reach the lost. We need to be careful how we are observed and received. I think it needs to be clear that we do embrace the sinner and not the sin. However delicate we try to present that, people will often consider it an attack on them personally.

We need to be praying more, without ceasing, for God’s guidance and His Holy Spirit for when (not if) we encounter the enemy’s stronghold on another human being.

We need to remember, we are all fighting the same enemy. It’s not the person we fight, it’s the enemy that has a stronghold on them.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I don’t disagree but I also know there is not one method of reaching the lost. One thing I know for certain is we do not embrace sin in effort to reach the lost. We need to be careful how we are observed and received. I think it needs to be clear that we do embrace the sinner and not the sin. However delicate we try to present that, people will often consider it an attack on them personally.

We need to be praying more, without ceasing, for God’s guidance and His Holy Spirit for when (not if) we encounter the enemy’s stronghold on another human being.

We need to remember, we are all fighting the same enemy. It’s not the person we fight, it’s the enemy that has a stronghold on them.

This is where the concept of the "Spiritual War" comes in. "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities". There is a dimension to this battle that our physical minds cannot fully comprehend, and is where we must let Jesus's power flow through us. In other words, It is very unlikely we will change minds, even if everything was civil unless the other party was already at the precipice of changing their mind anyways. With a few exceptions, people don't change their ways unless they either experience something very profound, or through general reflection and "meditation" on the desire to change. The Father can work through us to change others beyond what we can do, but only if we are "tuned to the right frequency".

Because of this, shouting from the street corner is rarely going to be effective as you often do more damage than good. We have street preachers around the city I work in, and I can tell you after watching them day after day, week after week - I haven't seen one person that hasn't given them a wide birth. I've listened to them a few times (from a distance while I walk to lunch), and it's always "you're all fornicators" type of talk. People view them as religious loonies, even though I do believe they are right that debauchery is at an all time high in this country.

That being said, I do believe there are some that may be beyond reaching with some even showing an acceptance to violence. To those, "kick the dirt off your feet and move on", unless self-defense is the only option.

 

[Ingomike]

The first amendment should be used in a courteous manner.

I do not see that in my constitution can you point it out for everyone?