Replies

So, to combine your last two posts, having not checked her out in advance, the legislature should not have allowed her to speak under any circumstances even though they had faith in their legislator's words about what she would do?

It's just not sinking in. THE LEGISLATURE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING, ANYTHING THIS WOMAN DID. It was the "postlude" that sent them into a tailspin.

Does your church have an ideological truth scanner in the vestibule where you can tell what people are going to say? Or is it a "members only" club.

I'm really interested to find out exactly what type of church you go to, because these questions are somewhat odd. Our "free form" worship tends to take place in smaller groups; our larger congregational meetings don't really lend itself well to random people running up to the pulpit on a whim. So, yes, if you're going to speak to the congregation at large, we pretty much like to know in advance what your message is, and why. Once again, I will note that the woman in question DID NOT DEVIATE FROM THE PROMISED PERFORMANCE TO THE LEGISLATURE. You're still not using a correct analogy.

In my book, holding back information and willfully and knowingly allowing someone to misunderstand your meaning and intentions is every bit the same as a direct lie.

In my Book, Jesus pretty much avoided calling Himself the Son of God unless He was directly asked (at least until very late in the game). He rode into Jerusalem knowing full well that most of the people celebrating His entry expected a rebellion against the Romans, not a willing crucifixion - and He let them wave the palm branches anyway. I guess you find Him guilty, also.