Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ArrogantBustard; colorcountry; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; svcw; Zakeet; SkyPilot; ...

Some people assume or claim the MESSENGER is offensive, when it is the MESSAGE that offends people.

Now, are you claiming *I* am offensive? Do tell.

And, no not everyone who CLAIMS to be ‘preaching the gospel’ does so, some (like Mormons) preach ANOTHER (false) Gospel and as a Christian I find that offensive.

Do you subscribe to the view that all roads lead to Heaven?


261 posted on 07/06/2010 12:16:16 PM PDT by reaganaut (ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]


To: reaganaut
Some people assume or claim the MESSENGER is offensive, when it is the MESSAGE that offends people.

Some offensive messengers refuse to believe that they themselves are offensive. Some people are convinced that offensiveness in a message is a measure of its truth. I find the message of the mohammedans offensive ... is that an indicator of its truth?

Now, are you claiming *I* am offensive?

I have made no personal remarks about anyone on this thread. I will continue that policy.

I CANNOT control what you or anyone else will choose to take personally, nor am I interested in trying.

And, no not everyone who CLAIMS to be ‘preaching the gospel’ does so

Certainly not everyone who claims to be 'preaching the gospel' is preaching what I think is the Gospel. In fact, what many folks preach who claim to be 'preaching the gospel' is contrary to what I think is the Gospel. A third party, trying to discern who is preaching the correct Gospel might have many criteria by which to judge. I suggest that offensiveness, whether of the preacher or the message, is a poor criterion for such judgment.

276 posted on 07/06/2010 12:30:05 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut; ArrogantBustard

IMO, the term “offense” and all of its psuedonyms is purely relative. It’s an emotional response to a comment, not a rational or analytical one.

It’s all in how the receiver perceives the message and the messenger.

There will be those who read something seeking to find offense instead of reading to gain knowledge. And there are those who enter into the fray with preconceived notions about the intentions or motives of the poster based on posting history or reputation. Some are well deserved, but it can be used to taint others who give the appearance of or directly support the claim/information of the poster.

No benefit of the doubt is given to the poster, they’re considered a “hater, bigot, lout, etc., etc” because they’ve posted something contrary to what the receiver expects or is accustomed to.

I don’t believe there is any “safe” ground or position from which to posit or opine.

Someone is going to find a way to be “offended”.


311 posted on 07/06/2010 1:25:32 PM PDT by SZonian (We began as a REPUBLIC, a nation of laws. We became a DEMOCRACY, majority rules. Next step is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson