[noguru]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

God's word is the objective source of truth (Dan 10:21, Ps 119:160).

See:

Barbarian

[The Authoritative Nature of Truth by John MacArthur] "...When we say something is objective, we mean it is outside of ourselves. When we say something is subjective, we mean it is inside ourselves. We say something is subjective, it means that it has come up from within us. When we say it’s objective, it means that we can only observe it outside of us.

We start then with the reality that the source of truth is objective. Luther called it “the external Word.” This is critically important if you are to have a true Christian world view. You must understand that the truth of God is completely outside of us. It’s outside of all of us. It’s outside of each us individually, and it’s outside all of us collectively. It is fixed.

In fact, it is unassailable and it is eternal. You can’t change it. You can accept it or you can reject it. You cannot alter it. It is unalterable. This is profoundly essential. So ministers and preachers and Christians, we are brokers, if you will, of the truth transmitted by God in one book. And this is it. We may discover the truth....We must learn the truth. We must understand the truth. We must love the truth, guard the truth and proclaim the truth and live the truth. But the truth itself is outside of us. We are not its source. We make no contribution to the truth. Authentic Christianity understands that the Scripture and the Bible is objective. It is absolute divine truth. No person has ever had in himself any idea or any experience or any thought or any intuition that determines the truth. The truth is already determined by God and revealed in Scripture. No human individually, no humans collectively are sources for establishing the truth. Neither is any angelic being a source for establishing the truth. That’s why Paul says, “If anyone..anyone, even an angel from heaven teaches you anything other than this truth, let him be cursed.” What someone thinks is true does not make it true. And there’s so much of that folly floating around that you can by your own ideas and by your own will and even by your words create reality. That is not true. There is no such thing as personal truth, individual truth. Scripture is God’s revealed truth. If you never lived and I never lived, it would have no bearing on the truth.

...Scripture is [true]. It is perspicuous, meaning it is clear. The meaning is evident on the face of it. There are no puzzles hidden in Scripture. There are no secret codes in Scripture. It is not truth concealed, it is truth revealed. Sure there are some things hard to understand. Sure you’ve got to dig a little to get to those things. But it is revelation not obfuscation. The message of Scripture is clear and unambiguous and it is not existential. You don’t create it by your own ideas and your own intuition. None of it comes by the will of man.

..Peter 1, “Scripture comes not by the will of man but men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write it down.” All Scripture, 2 Timothy 3, as we saw in our last little series, all Scripture is given by inspiration from God. Scripture is God’s truth whether it affects anybody or nobody. It is God’s truth whether you agree with it or disagree with it, like it or don’t like it. And the worse possible statement, like fingernails down a blackboard for me to hear is, “Well, this is what the Bible means to me.” And I want to say kindly, “Really, I couldn’t care less what the Bible means to you since you are not the determiner of its truth.”

Again and again Scripture makes claims for itself, as we just read. It endures forever. It is trustworthy in every jot and tittle. It is unchanging and eternal, Isaiah 40 verse 8. Heaven and earth will pass away, My words will by no means pass away, Matthew 24:35, said Jesus. Authentic, genuine, true Christianity has always held that Scripture is absolute, objective truth. It is true for one person. It is true for another person. It is true for all people and it is the same truth. Our opinions, our spiritual experiences and our feelings have no bearing on its true meaning. It is not a clay model to be shaped into any form by anyone who wants to shape it." Full text: The Authoritative Nature of Truth

You are not clearly understanding the distinction between objective and subjective. I use more descriptive nouns after each word to make this distinction clear.

There is an objective reality that exists independent of any individuals subjective perspective of that reality. It is irrational to not see the value in trying to get one's subjective perspective as close to the objective reality as possible. Hence we have things like empirical evidence and logical analysis to help align the two. In regard to claims of a metaphysical source which are not visible in the material world, those texts are categorized as religious. In this regard the metaphysical source of truth is ultimately irrelevant in regard to determining how it is manifested in the material world.

Here is a good example that illustrates the distinction based on your previous example of gravity. One does not have to know the source of gravity to be able to understands its effects in the material world. Now if people reject the effects of gravity then they probably won't live very long and/or their irrationality becomes crystal clear to those around them who do accept gravity. Now any Muslim or Christian who accepts gravity could still agree on its effects in the material world, despite their distinct beliefs regarding the metaphysical source of gravity. But when we try to open our scope to the source of that law, we are confronted with the reality that beliefs about the source of truth become more subjective. This does not mean all subjective perspectives are equally as inaccurate regarding the objective reality. In fact some are obviously less accurate. However, when such claims cannot be analyzed under the light of empirical evidence and sound logic based on those evidences, then we have agreed as a society to allow those differing subjective perspectives.

St Thomas Aquinas developed a good model to explain this and how it applies here to all types of law.

Aquinas on law

As long as Muslims accept the application of human law as it applies to US society they can live in our society without conflict. But US law recognizes that in a pluralistic society we can not force ideas regarding the metaphysical source of these laws on other people. I suggest you look at that article I included and sincerely try to understand this subject matter.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

From this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, ...
The founders made sure that both freedom from religion and freedom of religion were in the Constitution. That's why they put both clauses in.

But it's a moot point here. The fact is, McDonald's was perfectly willing to allow a faith-based charity to operate in their store, until those people began offending customers by making comments about the customers' religion.

Why is that surprising? No business would want that. And they aren't in the least required to permit it on their premises. It's not "censorship" when people don't agree to let you use their resources to spread your ideas.

But there does seem to be a point to be drawn:

(1) Even Congress cannot make a law regarding religion, especially prohibiting or abridging freedom of religion, and this prohibition is not qualified or limited. That is, they didn't add, "unless some religious or other group is offended" ...
Thus the 'offence' or insult to some group is not a valid reason to abrogate or limit the absolute instruction here.


(2) if even Congress must obey the Constitution here, surely so must all other citizens. That is, no American has the 'right' to prohibit or impose upon freedom of religion. Not a muslim, and not a McDonald's employee, or even a CEO.

(3) Although in America the McDonald's 'premises' are indeed 'private property' in some sense, this is severely limited and restricted by commercial use, and set hours in which parts of it are "open to the public".
To be meaningful, "open to the public" is in effect a temporary declaration that the property is in fact "public", being put to that use. Thus, as a temporary public area for purposes of access and business, the owners forfeit many 'rights' in regard to that property, including the barring of the public, or discrimination of certain members based on race or religion etc.

It could be strongly argued that McDonald's, in handing over the premises to "open public use", it is now obligated to allow fair use of that property in a non-discriminatory manner. Thus anyone of any race or creed should be allowed to 'loiter' for a sensible time, and express their views, even if those views offend others.

The right to free access by those of any race or creed implies that access must be granted regardless of offended parties or in spite of objections of other groups. Just as a muslim would be allowed to pray openly there, so should a Christian be allowed to pray openly there, regardless of who is offended. It is ipso facto a public area.

Nothing in the Constitution obliges McDonald's to protect all patrons from being offended at the presence or lawful activities (including free speech) of others.

[The Barbarian]

But there does seem to be a point to be drawn:

(1) Even Congress cannot make a law regarding religion, especially prohibiting or abridging freedom of religion, and this prohibition is not qualified or limited. That is, they didn't add, "unless some religious or other group is offended" ...
Thus the 'offence' or insult to some group is not a valid reason to abrogate or limit the absolute instruction here.

If it were public property, that applies. You do not have a right to insist that private business give you facilities to insult their customers.

(2) if even Congress must obey the Constitution here, surely so must all other citizens. That is, no American has the 'right' to prohibit or impose upon freedom of religion. Not a muslim, and not a McDonald's employee, or even a CEO.

If it's their property, they can set limits on how it's used. Like it or don't like it; the fact remains. You have no right to demand that they give you facilities to do anything.

(3) Although in America the McDonald's 'premises' are indeed 'private property' in some sense, this is severely limited and restricted by commercial use, and set hours in which parts of it are "open to the public".

Doesn't matter. They still have the right to determine what they will allow on their premises, within the law.

To be meaningful, "open to the public" is in effect a temporary declaration that the property is in fact "public", being put to that use.

No. They can chose to deny a request to use their facilities for religious or any other purposes.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

If it were public property, that applies. You do not have a right to insist that private business give you facilities to insult their customers.



If it's their property, they can set limits on how it's used. Like it or don't like it; the fact remains. You have no right to demand that they give you facilities to do anything.



Doesn't matter. They still have the right to determine what they will allow on their premises, within the law.



No. They can chose to deny a request to use their facilities for religious or any other purposes.

You have got it right. I am sure that if that same McDonald's had let Muslims in for a Quran meeting, and those Muslims offended other customers, they would also discontinue use of their premises for that meeting as well. I certainly would. A McDonald's is in business to make money, not to be some religious platform that offends other people's religious sensibilities. If your Bible group can't make that connection then there is really no sense in trying to explain it to those idiots.

I like Middle Eastern food. So I go into a lot of places owned by Muslims. Not once has one of these Muslim's tried to convert me or attempt to insult my religion.

[The Barbarian]

I like Middle Eastern food. So I go into a lot of places owned by Muslims. Not once has one of these Muslim's tried to convert me or attempt to insult my religion.

Of course. "Muslim" isn't synonymous with "stupid."

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

So no, you got that wrong. Do you suppose if Jesus was in that McDonald's,
He'd be telling people the Good News or do you think He'd be talking about Muslims?

The answer isn't in hating Muslims, it's in being a better Christian.
If these folks focused on the Gospel instead of talking about the religion
of their host's customers, they'd still have that ministry.

Your problem is you think that the "Gospel" doesn't include telling off those who follow the wrong religion,
or who teach false teachings while claiming to follow the right one.

But the real Jesus had no hesitation calling out false teachers (Matt. 23:13,15), whole professions (Luke 11:46,52) and even whole religious groups and humiliating them in public.

... - the real Jesus had no hesitation calling out even those who thought they were His loyal followers. (Luke 6:46)

Your 'gospel' is a modern invention, modelled after "Jesus the Pacifist/cool philosopher-dude".

The real Jesus would tear you a new one for your timidity and confusion. (Matt. 23:27)

What would Jesus say to Muslims standing around McDonalds,
criticizing Christians?

PLENTY.

Woe to you...

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Of course. "Muslim" isn't synonymous with "stupid."

Not as often as "Catholic" is.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Your problem is you think that the "Gospel" doesn't include telling off those who follow the wrong religion,
or who teach false teachings while claiming to follow the right one.

But the real Jesus had no hesitation calling out false teachers (Matt. 23:13,15), whole professions (Luke 11:46,52) and even whole religious groups and humiliating them in public.

... - the real Jesus had no hesitation calling out even those who thought they were His loyal followers. (Luke 6:46)

Your 'gospel' is a modern invention, modelled after "Jesus the Pacifist/cool philosopher-dude".

The real Jesus would tear you a new one for your timidity and confusion. (Matt. 23:27)

What would Jesus say to Muslims standing around McDonalds,
criticizing Christians?

PLENTY.

It has nothing to do with pacifism, nor timidity, nor confusion, nor any of the other ridiculous claims in your post. It has to with wisdom and not throwing your pearls to the swine. Most people doing some sort of business to support their family would focus on their profession.

Let's say you are an independent contractor and you go over to a person's house and start selling your religion instead of your products and skills as a contractor. Most people would become irritated with that and think that you might be incompetent based on how inappropriate that would be. They did not ask you over for a religious conversion, they asked you over so you could give them a quote. How about if you are an employee and not the owner given the same situation? Do you think that is a wise way to do business?

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by noguru

Let's say you are an independent contractor and you go over to a person's house
and start selling your religion instead of your products and skills as a contractor.
Do you think that is a wise way to do business?

Its the way I have ALWAYS DONE BUSINESS,
ever since I became a committed Christian.
I lose a lot of jobs and contracts, but my integrity holds up fine.

Take your jobs and shove them.
I'm already employed fulltime by the Almighty.

But if I were to starve,
I'd say the same:
"God is able to save us:
But whether He saves us or not,
I'm not bowing down to your idol-worshipping whoredom!" (Daniel 3:16-18)

"Whatever; - our God is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He can deliver from your hand if He so wills. But if He does not, let it be known to you, that regardless, we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up." (Daniel 3:16-18)

Paraphrase:

"Whether God saves us or not,
we aren't going to listen to your weak B.S."

Thanks for playing.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Its the way I have ALWAYS DONE BUSINESS,
ever since I became a committed Christian.
I lose a lot of jobs and contracts, but my integrity holds up fine.

Take your jobs and shove them.
I'm already employed fulltime by the Almighty.

But if I were to starve,
I'd say the same:
"God is able to save us:
But whether He saves us or not,
I'm not bowing down to your idol-worshipping whoredom!" (Daniel 3:16-18)

"Whatever; - our God is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He can deliver from your hand if He so wills. But if He does not, let it be known to you, that regardless, we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up." (Daniel 3:16-18)

Paraphrase:

"Whether God saves us or not,
we aren't going to listen to your weak B.S."

Thanks for playing.

If you went to McDonalds as a customer, would you start trying to convert everyone in there who was not part of your group?

How about if you were an employee or representative for a business, would you risk losing their business because you want to convert your customers to your religion?

Do you think the franchise owner informed McDonalds that he was going to allow his restaurant to offend Muslims? Do you think the Franchise owner wanted to offend Muslims?

Do you even think you need to offend another persons religious sensibilities in order to convert them to yours?

I think you have got Jesus all wrong. He did not offend people in an attempt to convert them. Those that he offended had hardened hearts, those that he did not offend were already His because of his choice. We do not have to offend people in order to convert them. Jesus offended those that were hypocrites in His own religion, not outsiders. He did not offend people with his resurrection, but through confronting their hypocrisy. He did not come to the door selling one thing and pull a switcharoo. He made it clear that his only purpose was to be their redeemer.

Regardless of how much you would like to, you cannot replace Jesus.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by noguru

How about if you were an employee or representative for a business, would you risk losing their business because you want to convert your customers to your religion?

Sure. Hands down, dump those jokers,
I'm loyal to Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Do you think the franchise owner informed McDonalds that he was going to allow his restaurant to offend Muslims? Do you think the Franchise owner wanted to offend Muslims?

A more relevant question:
Do I think the Franchise owner was a committed Christian,
or a creepy fat businessman who worships money?
You know my answer.

Do you even think you need to offend another persons religious sensibilities in order to convert them to yours?

I'm absolutely certain that if you follow Jesus Christ,
you are going to offend many, many people, very, very often,
and that to follow Jesus Christ, at times you must offend them.

Pretending that you can 'clean up' Christianity
to make it into a squeeky-clean "offend nobody" happyface franchise,
where you can also be the most popular guy on the block,
and run a bar where everybody is welcome (as long as they don't talk religion),
is the most popular urban myth of the 20th/21st century.
Good luck with your fantasy.

I think you have got Jesus all wrong. He did not offend people in an attempt to convert them. Those that he offended had hardened hearts, those that he did not offend were already His because of his choice. Our harsh words about another person's religion is no way to convert them.

Your attempt at an apology for the obvious offence
and divisive nature of Jesus' public ministry
is laughable.

Your weak B.S. will convert no one to anything.

Jesus offended those that were hypocrites in His own religion, not outsiders.

your attempt to compartmentalize Jesus
to make him safe for modern Western secular consumption is a cruel joke.

Jesus didn't endure crucifixion so that you could bottle him like Coca Cola
and sell him as an after-dinner mint to fat people.

Why don't you switch to being a Bob Marley CD salesman?
You'd be more convincing, and it wouldn't matter as much.
I don't like you tampering with my religion.

I don't like you laughing...

He did not offend people with his resurrection, but through confronting their hypocrisy. He did not come to the door selling one thing and pull a switcharoo. He made it clear that his only purpose was to be their redeemer.

He also made it clear that the people He ministered to were sick, sick people,
who needed 'tough love' and many threats,
in order to wake the hell up and avoid being destroyed.

Your happy-go-lucky soft-pillow "Christianity for fags" will never save a single sinner from destruction.

Jesus did not choose to rebuke or mock the 2nd robber who was crucified beside Him:
but he didn't SAVE him either.
One man was saved (the repentant one who feared Judgment),
and the other was left to be crucified and cast into the Lake of Fire.
He did not have the right to sin against others,
but he did have the right to choose the Lake of Fire rather than repent.

[The Barbarian]

Your problem is you think that the "Gospel" doesn't include telling off those who follow the wrong religion,

Jesus had a lot of opportunities to tell off Roman pagans and Samaritans. But He didn't seem to do that. Why do you think He didn't consider that important?

or who teach false teachings while claiming to follow the right one.

As you see, if those people had stayed with the Gospel, they'd still have the ministry.

But the real Jesus had no hesitation calling out false teachers (Matt. 23:13,15), whole professions (Luke 11:46,52) and even whole religious groups and humiliating them in public.

He did it to other Jewish people, but not to people of other religions. Isn't that a revelation for you?

Your 'gospel' is a modern invention, modelled after "Jesus the Pacifist/cool philosopher-dude".

If you really think so, and aren't just trying to toss out a red herring, you're a lot dumber than previously suspected.

The real Jesus would tear you a new one for your timidity and confusion. (Matt. 23:27)

As you see, you're confused about the difference between calling out other Christians for their errors, and attacking other religions.

What would Jesus say to Muslims standing around McDonalds, criticizing Christians?

Most likely pretty much the same thing as He'd tell Christians standing around McDonald criticizing Muslims; he'd tell them a story.

[b]Luke 10:27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers...

PLENTY.

For those who would listen. Maybe not for everyone.

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

You think you can start doing that? If so, you've got it.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Sure. Hands down, dump those jokers,
I'm loyal to Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Good for you. I do not see anything in the Bible where Jesus requires us to do business with only other Christians. You might want to add this to the Gospel. But it is not there.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

A more relevant question:
Do I think the Franchise owner was a committed Christian,
or a creepy fat businessman who worships money?
You know my answer.

I do not care what a disgusting perverted and delusional person such as yourself imagines about any business owner. I don't think Jesus cares either.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

I'm absolutely certain that if you follow Jesus Christ,
you are going to offend many, many people, very, very often,
and that to follow Jesus Christ, at times you must offend them.

Yes, some people will be offended. But that is from their own doing. You don't have to find ways to offend people. They will be offended by Jesus' authority in a Christian's life. Much the way that you are offended that I place Jesus' authority over yours.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Pretending that you can 'clean up' Christianity
to make it into a squeeky-clean "offend nobody" happyface franchise,
where you can also be the most popular guy on the block,
and run a bar where everybody is welcome (as long as they don't talk religion),
is the most popular urban myth of the 20th/21st century.
Good luck with your fantasy.

No need to clean anything up. It is what it is and you have got it all wrong. This has nothing to do with everybody being welcome in one of your businesses this is another person's business. I never said anything about "not talking religion". Those are your words. I manage to talk religion in many places I go. But not while I am in the middle of changing out an Arneson drive.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Your attempt at an apology for the obvious offence
and divisive nature of Jesus' public ministry
is laughable.

I made no attempt to apologize for anything of the sort. Where do you see that? That is another false statement on your part. You are a liar as well.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Your weak B.S. will convert no one to anything.

The only B.S. I see is your claim to competence of any kind.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

your attempt to compartmentalize Jesus
to make him safe for modern Western secular consumption is a cruel joke.

"Safe" as opposed to what?

I do no such thing. He is safe for Western secular consumption. Do you think He is "dangerous" or "unsafe". You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are not even making sense. But this is a real interesting facade you have there.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Jesus didn't endure crucifixion so that you could bottle him like Coca Cola
and sell him as an after-dinner mint to fat people.

Who said anything about bottling him like a Coke or selling him like an after dinner mint to fat people? Dude, did you lose your meds again?

Jesus did die so that people could own McDonalds and rest in his finished work without having to complete his job as you think you need to do.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Why don't you switch to being a Bob Marley CD salesman?
You'd be more convincing, and it wouldn't matter as much.
I don't like you tampering with my religion.

What? I am not tampering with your religion. You can keep your whacked out view of reality, Jesus and religious conversation. It will not change reality.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

He also made it clear that the people He ministered to were sick, sick people,
who needed 'tough love' and many threats,
in order to wake the hell up and avoid being destroyed.

I did not say he did not minister to people who needed tough love. He also said "Do not cast your pearls to the swine." Apparently someone missed that lesson when they tried to teach you the Gospel.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Your happy-go-lucky soft-pillow "Christianity for fags" will never save a single sinner from destruction.

Again you are completely inaccurate. Anyone who knows me knows I am not into "happy-go-lucky pillow talk" or "Christianity for fags". You need to stop letting your fantasies run wild. Again you are being deceitful.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Jesus did not rebuke or mock the 2nd robber who was crucified beside Him:
but he didn't SAVE him either. One man was saved (the repentant one who feared Judgment), and the other left to be crucified and cast into the Lake of Fire.

What does this have to do with anything? The first robber that was saved was never rebuked, He recognized Jesus for what He was. Unlike you, the first robber did not have a hardened heart, and that is why he was saved.

[Nazaroo]

Open Letter to "noguru", 'TOL legend' in his own mind...

Lets cut to the quick, the essential point of disagreement between us
at the moment, in regard to the gospel. (I'm sure there'll be others).

Post #31:

"US law recognizes... a pluralistic society [where] we can not force ideas ... on other people."

As a Christian, US Law is only relevant insofar as it follows Biblical Law.
I have no respect for the law of any country where it breaks God's Law.
That is the required Biblical priority regarding Law.
Live peacefully as far as possible with others in any country,
but have no loyalty to any country when it is in conflict with God Almighty.

If you defer to US Law or any law or give it priority over God's law,
you are a traitor to Christ and God.

When God's word and conscience conflict with local or state or religious law,
the Christian follows conscience and God, even unto imprisonment and death.
The faggot destined for the Lake of Fire prefers to follow state law, and worship the state in place of God.

Post #34:

"I like Middle Eastern food.
So I go into a lot of places owned by Muslims.
Not once has one of these Muslim's tried to convert me
or attempt to insult my religion."

And not once have you bothered to loudly preach that they should repent
and receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Messiah, Saviour and Redeemer of the World.
You prefer Middle Eastern food to preaching to Muslims.

Most committed Christians who risk their lives daily
to preach the Gospel where it is illegal and sometimes lethal,
would call you a worthless servant of your own belly.

Post #38: (a)

"Most people doing some sort of business to support their family would focus on their profession. "

And that would obviously make them completely unrecognizable as actual committed Christians. Its fair to recognise that most people don't measure up to being messengers of the Gospel. Its pathetic that you would accept and excuse it, and call those failures "Christians".
The martyrs of yesteryear and even of today elsewhere in the world
would see through your rationalization and self-serving, mammon-serving greed and hypocrisy.

Post #38: (b)

"you go over to a person's house and start selling your religion...
Most people would become irritated with that and think that
you might be incompetent based on how inappropriate that would be. "

Jesus, in contradistinction to you,
would certainly advise IGNORING the opinions and respect of other people,
and instead advise focussing on the opinion and respect of God Almighty. (Jn. 5:44)
Your modern "wisdom" stands in direct contradiction to Jesus
the Lord of Lords, and my Leader (but not, apparently, your leader). (Matt. 16:24-25)

Paul's idea of "appropriateness" was to be able and willing to preach "in and out of season". (2nd Tim. 4:2)

Jesus' demand was to follow Him, even against family, friends,
the friendship of the world, and one's own job/career,
in "this shameful and adulterous generation" (Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26, Matt. 10:33)

Post #40:

"Jesus offended those that were hypocrites in His own religion, not outsiders."

Another doctrine invented by you alone, but not found in the Gospels or N.T.

The Herodians, derived their authority from ROME, not God or "Judaism".
They were not even Jews, but actually Edumeans (Edomites), favored by Rome,
and who in the time of Jesus actually controlled and appointed the priests,
and especially the High Priest.
John the Baptist obviously spoke out publicly against this Edomite "king" (ruler),
who was not a Jew.
He offended both Herod and Herodias (both foreigners) so much, that he got himself imprisoned and beheaded.

The ruling priest parties, including the Sadduces ("Sons of Zadok") who claimed a hereditary lineage but were complete UNBELIEVERS (i.e., NOT followers of the true faith at all...) were also publicly rebuked and ridiculed by Jesus. They cannot by any means be classified as "insiders", followers of the religion of Jesus, or even believers of any credible kind. They worshipped money, as Jesus openly proclaimed, and they were fakes not followers.

The Pharisees, an ancient KKK-like party of racists, who rejected even other Israelites and 'mamzers' (half-breeds) as untouchables (like the caste system of India). The very word "Pharisee" from the Hebrew/Aramaic "pharsin", "to divide, separate" means "Separatist".
Jesus rightfully utterly rejected them also and humiliated them in public, denying that they followed either Him or God, and He characterized them as "blind" fools leading the blind into hell. These sectarians also cannot be considered "Jews", "followers of Moses", or representative of Jesus' own religion.
When the gospel of John refers to "His own, who rejected Him" (cf. Jn 1:18), he was referring to racial and tribal relations, not religion.

These various sectarian and divisive parties (like the Muslims)
must be considered apostate, unrepentant, non-followers of Jesus or the O.T. faith,
and therefore far outside the religious tradition of Jesus.

When God "commands men everywhere to repent, and receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ", (Acts 17:30)
he makes NO DISTINCTION WHATEVER between Jews and/or Israelites,
and/or Christians, versus non-Jews, or non-followers, or Muslims.

Jesus and the Apostles do NOT say,
"Leave the Muslims alone! Preach only to the converted,
or rebuke only those inside your church."

This is the purest anti-Christian B.S. ever forged by Satan in the bung-hole of liberal Mordor.

So far, I've stuck to your bad doctrine, and your weak "Christianity".

But in post #43 you really take the cake,
and expose how poorly you follow your own doctrine of 'polite' Christianity:

what a disgusting perverted and delusional person such as yourself ...

- Apparently invoked because I characterized McDonald owners as apostate.

You are a liar as well.

All because I pointed out the divisive nature of Jesus' public ministry,
hardly something to be denied, given it caused His public crucifixion.

...you think [jesus] is "dangerous" or "unsafe".
...You are not even making sense.

The greatest political leader in history was 'safe' and 'non-dangerous'? Please.

Dude, did you lose your meds again?

The personal attacks continue, when all I did was attack your doctrine.
Maybe you should just stick to attacking the points you disagree with,
rather than switch to personal attacks.

your whacked out view of reality, ...stop letting your fantasies run wild.

More personal attacks, when the arguments continue to fail.

Again you are being deceitful.

The charges pile up, but the evidence is lacking.

[The Barbarian]

As a Christian, US Law is only relevant insofar as it follows Biblical Law.

Unless a law contradicts God's laws, we are obligated to follow it. Nothing in God's law says that a business is obligated to give you a place to preach, much less attack other religions.

"Jesus offended those that were hypocrites in His own religion, not outsiders."
Another doctrine invented by you alone, but not found in the Gospels or N.T.

You're wrong. As you admit, He attacked those falsely claiming to be followers Judaism, but He spent no time attacking pagan gods or Samaritans.

You've backed yourself into a corner. There's no way out. Blustering won't help you. Let it go.