Chas wrote:

"Mark Goldberg" wrote


I don't follow you. He abuses the privilege of civil discourse- how it
that consistent with his sect?


'civil discourse' isn't a privilege; free practice of religion is a right.

But civil discourse really does apply. I've met tons of proselytes, and
it involves them discussing their beliefs. It's very much themselves on
the line. That's the part I'd describe as 'civil'.
It's not out of context with their proselyte's belief; and I accept that
as part of the belief... put yourself on line.
Here we have someone spamming, which has no corollary self commitment to
engage or commit to the words... it's as if they turn on a loudspeaker
outside your door that demands you wake up and shut your window, or turn
off the TV because it's been coopted by advertising.
That is not the context of proselytizing- it is the context of spamming,
selfishness, etc, and the christian message has no connection to the
action, since he leaves a recorded message that has no personal
involvement, except he he has to ignore it, or turn it off, is forced to
do so.
There are a number of missionary/proselyte denominations- some of them get
very forward about it, considering it a virtue and expression of piety.
One is welcome to tune it out in the same manner as
commercial/political/activist speech. The Internet is open to the free
exchange of ideas, and if you don't like the idea being promulgated, think
of it as your 'dues' to do the same.
And it it was ten times more prevalent you'd then scream and realize
that it was essentially removing your right to listen to ideas, because
there'd be nothing but antispamming actions in your surfing, which is
neither pleasant, nor hospitable, and nothing of christian charity.

It's the same thing done by the Harry Kirchner people, the Nichiren
Shoshu, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, astrologers/psychics,
pagans and shamanists.

I don't see any of them around here. I don't any of the proselytizing
christians around here. Maybe once in a blue moon, and if I did, I
wouldn't even be offended. Once or twice a year is fine. It is
'proselytizing'... and as such, it is consistent with their modus
operandi- but not out of any bounds.


Do you live in an ethnic/gated/exclusive enclave of some sort?

Here Chas, here on this newsgroup.

It is not proselytizing he is doing, but hiding behind that concept, it
seems to me. And he's destroying the good name of others who do share his
beliefs but who wouldn't self aggrandizingly perform as Grossi does.


He's not soliciting donations, or selling you anything
He's just another street-corner preacher. I imagine he considers it a
'mission'.
The other alternative is that he's anti-Christian and looking to provoke
animus.

And I, who hate conspiracy nods, have to admit... this would be one way
to get people to genuinely resent Christian religion, which is why I
think it's absurd to connect his spamming, his uncharitable sharing, his
lack of any personal fighting for those beliefs, mano a mano, which is
what makes the proselyte put his commitment on the line, with this
blowhards 'spamming,' as excusable under that rubric of genuine
proselytizing- which is entirely different that what he is engaging here.

Hence my concern for Christians who's beliefs and efforts are besmirched
by his actions.

Mark