Pope Wants Freedom Of Speech Limited

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymos
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D

didymos

Guest
Oop, he did it again. Frankie says:

'... there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith, in comments that the Vatican later said Friday did not mean justifying the attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines on Thursday, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.
But he said there were limits...

He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected...'

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_REL_FRANCE_ATTACKS_POPE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Does this mean he wants us to show understand the motives of the terrorists? What this pope should have done is wear a 'Je suis Charlie' in public. You're either 100% in favour freedom of speech or you're not.
 
God puts strict limits on what ekklesia (His people) may speak. (and talk about).

He says that we (ekklesia) ought not to even speak openly, especially in mixed(women and children present) company ;;; that what they(rcc) do in secret is too shameful and evil and corrupt for believers to discuss.

It has long been shown how they crucify daily the Lord Jesus and trample underfoot the truth and murder those who are or seek to be Jesus' people and Jesus' followers; this is clearly revealed from martin luther on through many of the reformers,

and more recently
through keith green's 'the catholic chronicles' and charles chiniquoy's 'fifty years in the church of rome' expose' from the priests point of view and with very detailed (and EXTREMELY repugnant, gross activities of the priests and higher ups) inside information.
 
I see this as the Pope trying to spread folk wisdom without a real appreciation for the context of the event.
 
I didn't take it as saying that what we say MUST be controlled. I thought maybe what he was saying is that sometimes we might be better off shutting our yaps if we can't say something intelligent. When Paul was in Athens he didn't go in and start bashing their false gods... because he was able to reason with them some did walk away and ridicule, but some listened.

As the saying goes, "We have two ears and one mouth for a reason".
 
You know I have always hated bullies...when the bully tells you not to go out on the playground or he will beat you up...you always have to go out on the playground and face the bully. Now these guys where standing up to the bully for all of us and some can go on and on about how we should have just stayed inside...but they are just missing the point.
 
didymos said:
Oop, he did it again. Frankie says:

'... there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith, in comments that the Vatican later said Friday did not mean justifying the attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines on Thursday, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.
But he said there were limits...

He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected...'

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_REL_FRANCE_ATTACKS_POPE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Does this mean he wants us to show understand the motives of the terrorists? What this pope should have done is wear a 'Je suis Charlie' in public. You're either 100% in favour freedom of speech or you're not.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... it's not quite that black and white Didymos. I'm quite strong supporter of free speech, but consider pornography & inciting violence. If you are 100% in favour of free speech, then you will also have no problems with people making pornography public or inciting others to violence.

Both these things obviously need restriction.

Cheers.
 
Stuey said:
Hmmm... it's not quite that black and white Didymos. I'm quite strong supporter of free speech, but consider pornography & inciting violence. If you are 100% in favour of free speech, then you will also have no problems with people making pornography public or inciting others to violence.

Both these things obviously need restriction.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

But isn't THAT exactly the point of free speech? Who is to say what incitement is or not? Who will be the arbitrator? Suppose I say homosexuality is sin and should be stopped and repented of, some could interpret THAT as incitement against homosexuals. Unless you explicitly call for violence against someone then nothing should be considered incitement, and people who hear speech that supposedly incites THEM have a responsibility, and law, NOT to act violently.

In the example the pope gave of him punching someone in the face if they curse against his mother, I believe the pope should be charged with assault! Imagine, a so-called Christian, advocating punching someone in the face! Does this guy even know the Bible and Jesus' command to turn the other cheek?
 
Francis is wise.

Again, the poke the-bear analogy fits this best.

You can give yourself the fake freedom to poke bears. No one is stopping you from poking bears. No law exists to my knowledge forbidding the poking of bears.

However if you poke a bear don't act surprised when it mauls you or your children.

Then if someone warns you not to let bears into your house and poke them don't be calling them as some sort of bear sympathizer. They did warn you. The bear is nobodies friend and neither are the ones letting it into the house and poking it. Seeing as it is we cannot stop the pokers from letting bears in and poking them then let the pokers fight the bear they themselves brought in and poked.
 
GodIsSalvation said:
Francis is wise.

Again, the poke the-bear analogy fits this best.

You can give yourself the fake freedom to poke bears. No one is stopping you from poking bears. No law exists to my knowledge forbidding the poking of bears.

However if you poke a bear don't act surprised when it mauls you or your children.

Then if someone warns you not to let bears into your house and poke them don't be calling them as some sort of bear sympathizer. They did warn you. The bear is nobodies friend and neither are the ones letting it into the house and poking it. Seeing as it is we cannot stop the pokers from letting bears in and poking them then let the pokers fight the bear they themselves brought in and poked.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing muslims to animals? Cause if a bear or other animal attacks a human, the animal is then put down. That's why humans are different than animals, we can choose not to kill someone for drawing a cartoon.
 
PennEd said:
Are you comparing muslims to animals? Cause if a bear or other animal attacks a human, the animal is then put down. That's why humans are different than animals, we can choose not to kill someone for drawing a cartoon.
Click to expand...

Islam is the bear in the parable indeed. However you do err in thinking islam is human or is made of flesh and blood. The poker even the poker are the pagan religions and isms.

Yea, it is true the bear will be put down eventually. However the pokers cannot put down the bear. A man who has an angry bear in his house and pokes it is in close quarters and will be defenseless against the bear. Had he time to prepare perhaps he could have defended himself, but the time of preparation is far over for him when the bear is all ready in the house.

We are another person in the house. The poker does want us to fight the bear because he surely can't. However we can't fight the bear either lest we or our children also be maulled. Therefore the best we can do is seek refuge and try to prevent the pokers from seducing our children to leave the refuge to fight and die in vain with him.

Refuse the pokers and warn them. Many of them will then mock us and taunt us trying to get us to come out. Persist anyways in warning them that maybe some of their children will hear wisdom and come into the refuge and be saved. We will wait then for the master of the house will come one day and kill the bear, save his children, and burn both the house and the bear and the carcasse of the pokers.
 
Last edited:
GodIsSalvation said:
Islam is the bear in the parable indeed. However you do err in thinking islam is human or is made of flesh and blood. The poker even the poker are the pagan religions and isms.

Yea, it is true the bear will be put down eventually. However the pokers cannot put down the bear. A man who has an angry bear in his house and pokes it is in close quarters and will be defenseless against the bear. Had he time to prepare perhaps he could have defended himself, but the time of preparation is far over for him when the bear is all ready in the house.

We are another person in the house. The poker does want us to fight the bear because he surely can't. However we can't fight the bear either lest we or our children also be maulled. Therefore the best we can do is seek refuge and try to prevent the pokers from seducing our children to leave the refuge to fight and die in vain with him.

Refuse the pokers and warn them. Many of them will then mock us and taunt us trying to get us to come out. Persist anyways in warning them that maybe some of their children will hear wisdom and come into the refuge and be saved. We will wait then for the master of the house will come one day and kill the bear, save his children, and burn both the house and the bear and the carcasse of the pokers.
Click to expand...


You assume the bear NEEDS to be poked to attack. THIS bear will find any reason or no reason to kill. It's nature compels it to kill or force assimilation.

If we gave up every single God-given right we have THAT bear will STILL kill us if it can.
 
PennEd said:
You assume the bear NEEDS to be poked to attack. THIS bear will find any reason or no reason to kill. It's nature compels it to kill or force assimilation.

If we gave up every single God-given right we have THAT bear will STILL kill us if it can.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with you! I dont understand why people cant see this.
 
Our so called peace loving friend has already admitted on another thread that he was glad this guys where killed and they got what they deserve for insulting islam...I doubt anyone should listen to his counsel on the ways of God or what is true justice.
 
How should a Christian live in a secular and deprived world? May I suggest an in depth study of the Sermon on the Mount.

Today this nation has been at war continuously for almost a century. We have won many battles, but we are still losing the war. Until we realize that we can not beat the world into submission, we will fight many more battles. Jesus gave us the solution in this sermon. I hope that every Christian will take the time find it.
 
didymos said:
Does this mean he wants us to show understand the motives of the terrorists? What this pope should have done is wear a 'Je suis Charlie' in public. You're either 100% in favour freedom of speech or you're not.
Click to expand...
It means he agrees with ol' Hill when she said we should, " ... as much as psychologically possible, empathize with our enemies ... " Yeah, right -- empathize with a guy who beheads innocent journalists, cuts five-year-old boys in half, rapes and abuses women because his demon-god tells him he can do so with impunity.
 
PennEd said:
You assume the bear NEEDS to be poked to attack. THIS bear will find any reason or no reason to kill. It's nature compels it to kill or force assimilation.

If we gave up every single God-given right we have THAT bear will STILL kill us if it can.
Click to expand...

No I am not assuming the bear needs to be poked to attack. I know a bear is a bear and will do bear things. That's why you shouldn't let a bear into your house begin with. Letting the bear into the house and expecting the bear to be some sort of pet was the first error. That's why you can't fight for the poker because they have no understanding. Then the fact they do poke the bear after letting it in testifies to exactly that.
 
There's freedom of speech and there's also freedom to be idiots. We know how some muslim's react when people ridicule and insult mohammad, yet some continually want to throw stones at the wasps nest.

I fully agree with this:
He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected...'


 
Hey, and Americans want to impose their laws on other countries. Whodathought?

We're happy in Australia with our racial vilification laws. We have no use of racist speech.
 
I am NOT charlie .... just because I am against what was done (the murders), that does not mean I am for harassment, bullying, name calling and ridiculing in the way that magazine did.

Yes they have freedom of speech. That also means freedom to choose ones words to do good and not harm.

I am free to chose NOT to make caricatures.
Consider how far you can take freedom of speech:
Would people support someone making caricatures of the killings? or would that suddenly be wrong?

In The Frame: I am not Charlie
Why I am not Charlie | a paper bird
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back