GIVE NOT THAT WHICH IS HOLY UNTO THE DOGS, NEITHER CAST YE YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE, LEST THEY TRAMPLE THEM UNDER THEIR FEET, AND TURN AGAIN AND REND YOU. (Matthew 7: 6)

What is the difference between those that God wishes to hear the gospel and those that he wishes do not hear the words of eternal life?
At which point do people cross the line and stop being those that should hear (if they ever were) and become swine?
There are plenty of people who profess to be Christians that would call me all sorts of things for suggesting this. But the truth is the opinions of these people don't matter if we have the backing of the word of God. The truth is that if we have God's word on our side then these people are wrong - "...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3: 4)

...WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE YOU, NOR HEAR YOU, WHEN YE DEPART THENCE, SHAKE OFF THE DUST UNDER YOUR FEET FOR A TESTIMONY AGAINST THEM. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY. (Mark 6: 11)

God is a God of love but he is also a God of judgement. We may not like that, but that's our problem, not God's. The lives of many professing Christians today consist of continually praying that all and sundry would be saved. But I would ask - is this God's will? I mean the texts above make it quite clear that there are many who simply place themselves outside of God's mercy. If God commands us - as he does above - not to attempt to preach to certain ones and to cease from preaching to others - can it then be right or logical for us to pray for the salvation of these people?

I think not.

It is clear in scripture that we are to pray for certain people. It is also clear that there are certain people that we are not to pray for.

...SUPPLICATIONS, PRAYERS, INTERCESSIONS, AND GIVING OF THANKS, BE MADE FOR ALL MEN; FOR KINGS, AND FOR ALL THAT ARE IN AUTHORITY; THAT WE MAY LEAD A QUITE AND PEACEABLE LIFE IN ALL GODLINESS AND HONESTY. (1 Timothy 2: 2)

But what are we to pray for for these people? Well, the reason given for praying for those in authority is, "that we may lead a quite and peaceable life..." My understanding of this is that we are to pray that God would give them wisdom to rule in a right and fair manner. If it means (as many think) that we are to pray for their salvation - then why are we nowhere told to pray for the salvation of any common people? Why only rulers? Especially as 1 Corinthians tells us: "...not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." If it comes to that why don't we just pray that the whole world would be saved and be done with it. But we know that that is not God's will. Where it says that we are to pray for "all men", I think this means all manner of men.

No. The emphasis is clearly on preaching the word.

My understanding of scripture is that it is God's will that we preach the word in and out of season. But I find neither precept nor example of prayer being used for the conversion sinners.

I think God wants us to leave election to him. He will choose whom he will convert and whom he will condemn. He has in fact already chosen them.

THEREFORE HATH HE MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL HAVE MERCY, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENETH. (Romans 9: 18)

I think the following verse answers the question about why some are not to be preached to (or prayed for).

...BECAUSE IT IS GIVEN UNTO YOU TO KNOW THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT TO THEM IT IS NOT GIVEN. (Matthew 13: 11)

MAN SENTENCED FOR POSSESSING INDECENT PICTURES OF CHILDREN - DEPRAVED YES - BUT IS THIS THE THOUGHT POLICE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22530150

Yes it's sick. Yes, it's depraved. The man deserves to be utterly shunned and left in no doubt about his depravity. But punished by the the law? I'm not so sure.

I mean where is all of this thought-police stuff going? All very Orwellian isn't it?

Where do we draw the line? Who says what should be prosecuted under law and what should not? What do this man's actions prove?
I'll tell you what they prove - they prove he's a sicko - that's what they prove - a poor, sad sicko.

It's obvious that he's a risk to kids - but has he actually done anything to any? Is dreaming about committing a crime a crime? By having sick images of kids in his possession has he actually harmed anyone bar himself?

The things that are beyond man's ken God will judge. Let's not play God - there are things we should leave to him.

Do you know what the cause of this confusion is? I'll tell you the cause. It's Atheism. If society wasn't so stubbornly and stupidly God-hating things would be a lot better.

Because of this state of affairs the approach is always to think that we must pull out all the stops to create a perfect society - a Utopia - a heaven on earth. If people weren't so stupid they would look at the Bible where they would find that God informs us that because of the depravity of man's heart perfection is impossible in this world. Understanding this basic fact would help us get things into perspective to say the least.
The purpose of the law is not to create a perfect world. The purpose of the law is to educate. To teach the difference between right and wrong. Punishment is the deterrent. But man's law must have a point at which it stops. That point must be where reason and logic dictate (if we're wise these will be guided by God's word).

To make it a crime in law to privately possess sick pictures is ludicrous. This effectively means that we have crossed the line from actually having to physically commit a crime before we are guilty under law to now being guilty for just thinking about it.

Because, after all, in reality, regardless of how distasteful it might be - that is all that he is guilty of - thinking about it. There is a world of difference between thinking about a crime and actually committing it. As soon as we start down the road of making thinking something a crime under law immediately we have become dangerous bigots.
Remember the Nazis? They did that.

It's the same as the hate-crime thing. To beat someone up is a crime. But to beat someone up because you don't like his race or beliefs is a worse crime. Who says? Where did this logic come from? I thought a crime was a crime irrespective of what was going on in the chump's head at the time. So a broken head is worse if it's broken by a racist than by someone who just wants to steal your phone is it? Who says we're to analyse the nuances of the depraved thoughts of every screwball we catch.

Are we also going to send out undercover officers to listen in to conversations in pubs, streets and smoke-filled rooms and arrest anyone heard talking about anything anti-social? If we're going to go down that road - maybe we could start with the Muslims raging about cutting people's heads off over cartoons.

It reminds me of the Woody Allen film Bananas: after the revolution the rebel leader becomes president and in his maiden speech he orders everyone to speak Swedish and change their underwear every half hour ordering them to wear them over their clothes so that the police could check that they were clean.
Only they can't make people wear their thoughts on the outside - but wouldn't they just love it if they could?
Imagine how overcrowded the prisons would be then.