Free or Licentious Speech?

In response to a youtube video I wrote this:

When people insult certain prophets they then claim the high moral ground while crying "persecution" and other such bleatings when that prophet's followers seek revenge. I now understand that those who provoke such persons in the name of free speech simply do not know the difference between liberty and licentiousness. In this they are rather like the typical run of immature teenagers do not know the difference. So much for the wisdom and liberty of the West

I may likely develop this further

My Old Pastor Speaks

Years ago the pastor of my church  got up and told the congregation that they (I had long since left that church but was told of this by a witness I trust) did not love one another

What are the implications of we Christians not loving one another? They are so crystal clear and so unacceptable to the carnal mind that though I have been declaring them for years I have not really grasped them and have been accused, ignored etc for years, even to the extent of being kicked out of a house church attached to this very  church I speak about here.

I John spells out the implications of lack of love: "He who says he loves God and hates his brother is a liar" "How can you say you love God who you cannot see when you do not love your brother who you can see?" and the clincher "He who does not love (agape) does not know God for God is love."

There it is: if we do not love we do not know God. We are backslidden, walk in the flesh, and we have forsaken Him usually for the Law especially if we are devout and serious about our faith. Moreover all the resolves strategies and efforts to remedy this will not change it one iota. They are symptoms of the lovelessness not its remedies, just as legalism is the very sin it fights not the antithesis. For if we are in the flesh we cannot submit for our minds are set on the flesh. Oh, as believers we can be led to submit but this is by our seeking the Lord the Spirit for as long as it takes. The rest is dead work of the flesh we will love one another when and only when we have been convicted and cleansed of the sins of failing to do so ("He loves much who is forgiven much") and are in a relationship with the Spirit.

This relationship  is EVERYTHING ("Seek ye the kingdom - ie the personal rule of the King- and his righteousness, and all these will be added to you").

Of course my ex pastor showed his complete ignorance of the issue by offering what he did as the solution: "OK let's love, then."  As if we could simply turn it on like a tap and God would help us to do so. But because I have already pointed out what lacking love means this will never happen. That church was in the dark then and may very well still be so, And certainly I know I am in the dark, but am hearing a Voice in said darkness which is calling me to Himself.

But I know that I do not know Him.

So will the average run of church believer  acknowledge that they do not know God? I should not be surprised that they will not for my own constant resisting of conviction of sin from the Holy Spirit I now know to be nothing untypical. So though I am in the relationship  which will bring it to pass  not because I want it but know full well I need it they the average religionist is not, for all his talk to the contrary. We will not admit we do not know Him if our self definitions preclude this, if we think our sincerity is axiomatic, our faith genuine; not if we define being born again as one who does love God; and not if we ignore our fruit, our spontaneous and careless reactions and words; and certainly not if the Holy Spirit does not persuade us who are so self righteous as to think we are doing Him any favours  by our religious activities.

Love? For all our trying, because of it even, this is why the world thinks, rightly, that we are hypocrites