´óÏó´«Ã½

I'm sure we can all agree on how lucky the UK public are to have the ASA to protect them from offensive opinions.

I'm afraid the asa has no legal power in itself. They only can warn you and Sandown Free P church could print that again if they wanted and they would only receive a letter asking them not too. Similar but different situation with our church where we said God heals and put a flyer out to our community to come and get prayer for healing. Someone complained and asa sent us a few letters asking us not to say God heals incase we discourage people seeking medical advise which we didn't and wouldn't. How free should free speech be?

I agree with the ASA's ruling.
1) Unless there is a referral to OFCOM, this is censure and not censorship
2) Sandown Road Free Presbyterian Church remains free to talk about Sodomy and Abomination at it's meetings.
3) The ASA did not see an invitation to a public "gospel witness against Sodomy" as an invitation to violence. So the ASA is actually upholding SFP's right to Free Speech as best as they are able.
4) As William has pointed out what we say and how we say it are to very different things. And I believe that civility is essential to healthy free speech, and that "Sodomy" and "Abomination" are terms that cause unnecessary offence. They were not appropriate terms for an Newspaper advertisement.
5) If I was told to stop calling homosexual acts "sinful", then I'd be concerned. I don't think free-speech can operate when individuals cannot tolerate any disagreement with their fundamental beliefs and practices. So, as an analogy, if Richard Dawkins took out an advert calling my beliefs the "root of all evil", I'd have no grounds to feel oppressed. However, if he were to suggest that every Christian was a "gay-bashing Jew hater", then I would hope that the ASA would issue some sort of reprimand.

GV

Yep I agree with you, I don't think SFP's method and language were helpful. I personally don't think it was done with love and grace, the cornerstones of Christianity. How would Jesus deal with Homosexuals, certainly not through the SFP's method. It's sad that the churches always seems to be the last ones in society to discuss and adapt to major cultural shifts where indeed they should be at the forefront of a changing society. Tradiational churches are becoming more and more irrelevant. As Bono said religion is the enemy of God and many churches have made Christianity a religion. Churches are God's main vehicle for changing the world but once man gets his hands on it we give it our own agenda.

Given my definition of Religion, which I give on the "Does Belief in God Lead to Peace?" thread, I would count Christianity as a Religion. It is popular to deny this in evangelical circles, but I don't think that this denial his helpful.
I think that it might be better to say that participation in the Christian religion does not lead to salvation. A person can enjoy the emotional aspects of an evangelical service, and the social aspects of the evangelical lifestyle, or even benefit from following an evangelical tradition without ever trusting in Christ for salvation.
In fact I think that Evangelicals need to remind themselves that a person can have a profound religious experience (say of God's love) without trusting Christ. It's total trust in Christ that God demands. That's an act of the will.

GV

I absolutely endorse Sandown's right to advertise their views in whatever language they see fit.

Bearing in mind of course that the more they do so, the more people are repulsed by their offensive and extremist views.

The actions of Sandown and Iris Robinson have been more effective in promoting LGBT rights within this country than anyone, or anything else.

Just to be clear, GVeale, I detest the message (I believe gay people should have all the rights I have including marriage and to describe them the way the church did is asinine). But I'm opposed to governmental bodies having the role of censoring OR censuring: I don't need controls upon the speech of others, what I need is protections of ALL speech so that a full discourse is possible including the stuff I find offensive.

Ad lacked grace but no type of critique of homosexuality is tolerated now!

Seems to be no critique of fundamentalism is tolerated here as posts disappear. It would dreadful hypocrisy to express outrage about the seeming intoleration of opinions yet at the same time censoring others simply for expressing an opposing view.

Does anyone think there is any significance in the adjudication of the ASA which quoted the word 'abomination' in the context of SFPCU's phrase ".. declaring it to be an abomination ...", rather than in the context of the KJV Leviticus reference?

This blog has previously thought that debate was necessary on taboos on incest and orgies. We have become neo pagan where all must be tolerated.

OT
Wow! What thread did I miss?

John
Don't worry. I know you're a strong libertarian (your blog sort of gives the game away), and that's the basis of your argument here.

GV

PeterM
Didn't notice that, but yep, I think it's significant.
GV

DD
Re.9
LOL
GV

I largely agree with antisyzygy (6).
In a liberal society, there should be as much freedom of speech as possible. That implies that the media perform its job properly and ensure that the contrary view to the Sandown intolerance is well aired.

I would maintain that in the past, the media have NOT properly performed this function and have allowed bigotry, tolerance and sectarianism to prevail through lack of moral courage. Hopefully, this is changing as the society itself changes.

It might be too much to expect that some of the media, like the Newsletter, would take a lead in a more liberal and tolerant direction, but there is, thankfully, the dear old ´óÏó´«Ã½ Ìý– which is improving! Iris got half an hour on Nolan, which worried me at the time, but her critics had a fair crack of the whip too.

Illiberal and intolerant view will be defeated if liberal and tolerant voices are properly heard.

GV

You must have an interesting stream of theology which finds incest and group sex amusing?!?


;-)



Anyway, you raised a number of points on theological navel gazing which I have only had a chance to respond to, if you are still interested.

OT

OT
Cheers, I'll take a look.
GV

OT
You asked me about my faith on "Theological Navel Gazing". I'm an Evangelical Christian. I''l be as precise as I can to avoid misunderstanding. One or other posters might be curious to know if we're singing from the same hymn sheet.
I believe that there are "gaps" between God and me. I underachieve morally for a start. Not everything about me is evil, but part of me is deeply attracted to selfishness, power, pride and chaos. (The personality theorists recognised this, but mistook it's nature and origin).
Beyond this, the holiness of God creates a huge problem. I could not bear *you* to see my inner life, or what I have done in secret. So how could I bear to be "near" a purely good being who knew my inner thoughts. I could not stand near an angel, nevermind the almighty.
I have a strong tendency to use my free-will for my own ends, not his. Sometimes I want autonomy at any cost. So, in part, I would not choose to be with God.
At other times I want to absolve myself of all responsibility. I want to be less than I was called to be.

This, in part, describes what I mean by sin. The Cross "covers the gap" between God and me. I can enter into a relationship with God because Christ identifies himself with me the way a mother does with a child. He takes the punishment and shame for me. But for this to make any sense morally the realtionship need to be voluntary on both parts. It takes two parties to reconcile, and fairness demands the guilty party acknowledge their responsibility, even if they cannot pay the price themselves.
So total trust in God because of his Son's sacrifice leads to reconciliation with God (which necessarily leads to transformation, acceptance of God as Saviour and Lord). It also gives me hope that I can share in the Resurrection in the future. That's what I mean by salvation.
I have a very high view of Scripture. However I would be content to work with any Christian who holds to literal understanding the "Big Four Creeds", the central and common moral teachings of Scripture, and what I said about Salvation above.
Perhaps that's more intellectual than personal (although my points about the "gaps" need to be felt to be understood.) A more personal expression can be found on the thread
/blogs/ni/2008/09/malachi_odohertys_empty_pulpit.html

point 7 of post 92.


The scary thing is, my posts are getting shorter.

GV

"We have become neo pagan where all must be tolerated."

With the exception of criticising you OT.

Btw still waiting on a response to all those missed posts that other posters brought up and...the many unanswered questions.

The recent judgement of the Advertising Standards Authority, against Sandown Free Presbyterian Church in Belfast who ran a Biblically written ad in the News Letter, has the ant-Christian lobby jumping with foolish glee. The dwelling of the fool is cursed.

In the Belfast Telegraph, we have one of their regular columnists trying to be cynical and sardonic about the ASA’s ruling without much success.

Lindy McDowell’s cynicism is typical of the biased anti-Christian media and the pro-gay lobby, where is their moral code formed and how was their reason formed, to be succinct it is formed by man, and not by God our maker and creator, if we ultimately follow their man made, self-centred reason to its fulfilment then all things are permissible leading to chaos.

Over time mans reason has been formed by infidels who have conditioned the susceptibility of the human heart into false belief, replacing God with man at the centre of the human heart, one can look to the likes of Hitler, Voltaire, Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud to mention a few as the formulator’s of mans self-centred reason. Though one may detest these infidels, their thoughts have infiltrated the mind of man without question.

Lindy, writing in Saturdays Belfast Telegraph, 6/12/08, tries to use the Bible against Christians and their sincerely held beliefs, she points to what she wrongly perceives as inconsistency when Christians expound Scripture as it should be interpreted, she erroneously quotes ceremonial food laws, in regards to pork and shell fish, she fails to look to Jesus the Son of God who fulfilled these ceremonial food laws and removed the curse of death by stoning for the sin of sodomy and the other sins which were also punishable by stoning, by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— the crux of the matter is that ceremonial distinctions are at an end through faith in the atoning sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.

All those who detract and hinder the Word of God or render it fruitless by their calumnies and lies by falsifying the true meaning of Scripture, or who judge it as offensive, their punishment, our Lord intimates, shall be greater than that inflicted on the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah! Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the Day of Judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah………….. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts.

One thing is certain the words of the ASA are only chaff in the wind, blown away by the Word of God which has stood the test of time against all those that have tried to make the Word of God subservient to man’s word, but the truth is that man is subservient to God. Many hammers have been smashed on God’s Anvil; the hammer of the ASA is just another smashed hammer for the rust heap.

Puritan
Ms McDowell wrote in Ms Robinson's defence. I don't see her as part of a pro-gay conspiracy.
Also, whilst I find a lot to disagree with in Nietzshe, Freud and Marx I wouldn't equate them with Hitler. Or Lindy McDowell.

G Veale

Puritan, that was top-notch stuff. Just a wee thing to point out - the Bible is a human creation, not a divine one. These are the words of people, not the words of the gods. Other than that, very entertaining. Please continue.

-H