Is it right to preach to people?

It seems this issue is basically an extension of the first amendment argument. Please correct me if I am wrong, but was not the original intent of the first amendment to provide freedom for citizens of this country to express views and ideas without fear of persecution? If this is true then preaching must be included.Now to be technical, talking to someone at their door is not preaching. It is conversing on a pre-determined subject matter. Preaching is delivering a theological discourse which usually includes a call to make a decision based on the truths presented. This is my own definition, by the way. My point is that the topic at hand is concerning "preaching" and not, as many have called it, "visitation".What preaching does include is everything from preaching at an established meeting site to preaching in a randomly selected open air or public forum. Someone brought up the point about trespassing on private property. This is valid to the legal discussion. It is not legal to "preach" on private property without permission.However, preaching may be done on public property without a request for permission. This is unless of course the city in question has established laws about getting permission to hold gatherings in public places. I will not attempt to speak for every situation, but I do know from some experience that most cities in North Carolina only require an approved permit stating where it will take place (to verify it is public property) and what kind of meeting it is.In response to this statement, let me state (with a request for correction if any is needed) that the issue being raised is one of morality, not legality. Certainly it is the right of any person or group to gather in public to make an expression of beliefs in a peaceable way (again assuming conditions set by the local government have been met). Therefore, such activity can not reasonably denied unless sufficient legal cause can be provided.Now at this point any person ascribing to moral relativity must agree. This is because if all of morality is relative, then there is no place for castigation of one groups' interpretation of morality. If, however, there is an absolute standard of morality, then in order to invalidate an attempt to preach publicly a sufficient display of the evidence of some moral transgression is required.(please note that I am not attempting to change the topic, I am merely stating my position. A discussion of this already underway here.)If all of this is true, and I am willing to discuss any related point, then the real issue is preaching being right or wrong morally, not legally. I have considered this over the past couple of days and these are my thoughts on the matter thus far. I hope they will be some clarification on the perspective I am attempting to represent.Russ{edited to insert link}[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-20-2003]

Ha Ha! Good Point. Fortunately I live in the snooty rich part of town where we are only exposed to it on the 6 oclock news.So then, we say to ourselves, "We are privileged to earn megabucks, so we can live away from the rednecks. Humph! Please pass the Polaner All-Fruit!"[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-20-2003]

I quote our old member,now inactive, because he articulated his position quite well. Personally, I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but I can understand why many parents want to protect what their children are exposed to.The believers whom I know want to protect their children from what they see as a hostile and compromising world of secular agendas which, in their minds..are evil.The atheists and secular humanists whom I know also want to protect their children..from believers. Key Phrase: The student is perfectly entitled to question what is being taught Perhaps a question to bring up--in general---is whether there should be a law protecting kids from their parents. Comments? Lets pick this one up where it left off......Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

---

There's a fine line between training and abuse, whether physical or psychological.

Which brings up the question of what is best taught to our young people.Personally I can think of several useful teachings from the Bible. This does not mean that I would discourage my kids (or anyone elses) from learning critical thinking skills.

So can I, but are any of them exclusive to the Bible? Most of the useful things can be taught in a non-partisan way.

I disagree. I believe that there are essentially two flows in life. Critics would accuse me of black/white thinking, but My take on it is this:
Being In The Flow

I'm not going to log in to Facebook to find out what your take is.

Sorry, Ringo---my bad. The Bible tells us that there is a spirit of the antichrist.

quote:

---

1 John 2:18-19(NIV)-- Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

---

Many people think that the antichrist is some evil leader who arises in the east somewhere and causes havoc. While this may be true, there is another important thing that we might learn from this. Pop culture tells us to simply "go with the flow." Did anyone ever stop to think about what the flow actually is? We know and believe that there is One God and One Holy Spirit. We know this because we know the Son--Jesus Christ--

quote:

---

2 John 7-11-- Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

---

Many people get angry at this and claim that christians are being arrogant and exclusive...unloving towards multicultural individualism. They ask how we can possibly know that there is only One Way. To be honest, many christians are not the best examples of whom they claim to represent. I have been guilty of this many times, and my excuse was always that I was simply being human. The actual problem was that I was walking in the flesh and not the Spirit. There are basically two flows. One of them is the Holy Spirit. The other one is a false spirit. a vain imagination rather than being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Basically there are two possible imaginations---Gods and our own. One Flow is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit.

quote:

---

Gal 5:22-24-- But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

---

The other flow manifests a variety of different ways, but basically is characterized by the lusts of the flesh.

quote:

---

Gal 5:16-21--So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

​

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

---

I guess this means that you could either explain this in a non partisan way or that you disagree with the basic premise. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I have no problem with that. My problem is that professing Christians are often the ones with the false spirit, the vain imagining. Bingo. I would say it manifests as not showing the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.In other words, it isn't just about sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. It's about not practicing what you preach.The best sermon is setting an example.