Posted on 02/17/2011 2:33:25 PM PST by DARCPRYNCE
Those arguments are among many I believe support my faith in Judaism.
Good Christians do NOT demean people for disagreeing with them (or at least they shouldn’t do). Unfortunately people often take criticism, particularly negative criticism, to be demeaning. But that’s not the fault of the critic. Homosexuals believe they are being “demeaned” by Christian organisations that refuse to sanction their practices by “marrying” them. They think they are being forced to be “second class citizens”. I think they are doing that to themselves.
“It depends whether you are restricting your statement to worldly physical attacks...”
My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.
“Please define demeaning, degrading or defaming.”
I define them as the dictionary defines them.
“They are, for example, used to bring Mark Steyn before a kangaroo court, or to prevent Christians from evangelizing.”
And wrongly so, because it is not the government’s business whether a person decides to demean, degrade or defame another, unless it can be shown that the offenses of libel or slander had been committed.
Moreover, what Steyn did was simply report the truth - as he understands it - about Islam. If what he wrote or said was not essentially truthful and supportable by facts, he would be subject to libel and/or slander laws like anyone else.
The same applies to those who denounce homosexuality. Simply holding an opinion against a particular activity is not a crime - at least it shouldn’t be. So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust and fascistic. No one has a right to not be offended.
But all that aside, what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being, and I never said that my opinions should be codified in law.
“Something is either true, or it is not true.”
Yes, and something is true when the evidence supports it, and not necessarily so when the evidence is unclear.
“I dont know what will happen to people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard of Jesus...”
Neither do I, yet it was you who brought up the subject of free will. I merely asked a pertinent question.
“The people I really worry about are those who HAVE heard of Jesus and have not chosen to follow Him. I mean, what excuse do they have?”
They have no “excuse”, but, like myself, they do have reasons for not embracing Christianity.
Thanks for the links.
I can dig it.
“Unfortunately people often take criticism, particularly negative criticism, to be demeaning. But that’s not the fault of the critic.”
I agree.
“Homosexuals believe they are being “demeaned” by Christian organisations that refuse to sanction their practices by “marrying” them.”
That’s because many homosexuals are leftists who like to misuse words to garner sympathy for their cause.
“No one knows the mind of God, but plenty are more than ready to speak for Him.”
As a deist, I have chosen not to speak for God. I merely speak for myself and leave God to sort everything else out.
Now I would certainly agree with a lot of what you say - but the principle remains. I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a "god", in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad. And like I say, I think your judgement is very sound - but it isn't perfect. No Human discernment is.
This is the faultline with deism. By definition, a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind. But there are lots of things that cannot be. Human Beings for example. We are creatures of emotion as well as logic. Or love. That is neither logical or rational, and nobody denies that exists.
The reverse does not hold true. All true Christians will have had that personal revelation experience (the exact nature of which varies quite considerably from person to person) - but that doesn't mean that many Christians don't think logically and rationally about their faith as well. I personally had to be intellectually convinced, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
Can you see what I am getting at? I think you have thought very deeply on these things (and that's very good) but I don't think you are addressing all aspects of it.
“My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.”
That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.
“the truth - as he understands it”
There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.
“The same applies to those who denounce homosexuality. Simply holding an opinion against a particular activity is not a crime - at least it shouldn’t be.”
But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?
“So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust”
Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.
“what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being”
But what right do you have to do that? You awake one day, and find yourself on Earth. You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?
I didn't bring up the subject of free will. That was another poster. I merely gave a pertinent answer :)
They have no “excuse”, but, like myself, they do have reasons for not embracing Christianity.
Care to share them?
“But what criteria are you judging those people and religious organisations on?”
On the criteria of basic decency and fairness, at least as I understand those concepts. Those concepts I define thusly:
Decency - behaving in a polite and respectful manner, until a valid reason not to - such as being confronted with impolite and/or disrespectful behavior - presents itself.
Fairness - conforming to a standard in which all parties involved are treated equally and with equitable intent, until such a time as it is shown that one of the parties involved should not be, due to their own untoward actions.
“I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a “god”, in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad.”
Nonsense. Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me. That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.
“a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind.”
I presuppose no such thing. I actually do believe that many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth. I simply admit that I have yet to experience such myself. Please do not assume that because I’m not, say, a Christian, that I don’t understand or appreciate that such spiritual revelations as you’ve remarked upon exist.
“I didn’t bring up the subject of free will. That was another poster. I merely gave a pertinent answer :)”
Sorry for confusing you with another poster. I’m currently carrying on several conversation on this thread.
“Care to share them?”
I’m afraid that would take more time than I’m willing to devote to this thread right now. Perhaps another time and another thread... one more specific to Christianity.
***If that were true, what need is there for free will?***
The road to hell is paved with fallen man’s free will.
I wasn’t talking about you. ;)
“That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.”
Hmmm... perhaps you should ask it again in a slightly different way.
“There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.”
Can a person not be wrong, due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the facts, yet still be truthful in his heart? that is to say, if you believe something to be true, you’re not lying or trying to deceive anyone just because you’re wrong.
“But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?”
In the first place, please don’t insult me by insinuating something that isn’t true. I’ve sought to command no one with my opinions, and I’m pretty sure you know that.
Secondly, as I wrote in my opening article, no practitioner of a good religion would seek to openly demean, degrade or defame the good religion embraced by another, even though one may strongly disagree with the latter’s method of worship.
Tell me, what good does it do you, your religion, or anyone else, for you to openly condemn a religion - assuming that 3 people can actually compose a religion - which means no harm to you or anyone else?
“Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.”
So? The democrat party is based on slogans like “party of the working class” and “party of civil rights”, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Just because some people misuse words to advance their own, selfish agendas, doesn’t mean that people of more noble intent shouldn’t use them.
“But what right do you have to do that?”
The same exact right as anyone else.
“You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?”
I’m simply sharing my opinion of what good behavior entails in this particular context. Is that forbidden in your religion?
I wasn’t sure, but by any means, I’m just saying. ;o)
“Can a person not be wrong, due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the facts, yet still be truthful in his heart?”
A clearer way to express what I _think_ you mean is that you can be honest in your wrongness; you can be well-intentioned and wrong. But to be “truthful in heart” has no meaning outside of an emotional plea for self-righteousness. And yes, I would say there is more merit in that than being intentionally wrong. But most people think they are right, so what is so special about that?
“as I wrote in my opening article, no practitioner of a good religion would seek to openly demean, degrade or defame the good religion embraced by another, even though one may strongly disagree with the latter’s method of worship”
And as I said, then your position is logically incongruent. I give the example of the homosexual religion, and yet you offer that it is OK to publicly demean their practice, because it is wrong, and I agree!
“Tell me, what good does it do you, your religion, or anyone else, for you to openly condemn a religion - assuming that 3 people can actually compose a religion - which means no harm to you or anyone else?”
Standing up for what is right, against a society that tells me evil behavior is OK.
“The same exact right [to tell other people what consists right and wrong, from your own mind, without reference to any higher power] as anyone else.”
i.e. none.
“I’m simply sharing my opinion of what good behavior entails in this particular context. Is that forbidden in your religion?”
Don’t set up a straw man please. You have invented a set of rules and beliefs from your own mind (which, like Western liberalism, are based on a passing glance at Christianity, without real understanding of the depth). I am trying to explain the logical inadequecies of that.
“Tell me, what good does it do you, your religion, or anyone else, for you to openly condemn a religion - assuming that 3 people can actually compose a religion - which means no harm to you or anyone else?”
I should have added to my response to that point that what consists harm to me or anyone else is an extremely interesting point. People who are pushing an evil way of life (let us take homosexuals as the example) are capable of much harm to me and everyone else, without lifting a finger towards them.
“The road to hell is paved with fallen man’s free will.”
If that’s true, then do we blame free will itself for the smooth pavement which comprises said road, or do we blame the judgment of those who exercise such will?
Should we blame God for bestowing free will upon us in the first place, and if we do, isn’t that tantamount to wishing that we were robots?
Is it better to be damned to hell than never to have been afforded the choice to go or not go there in the first place?
I kinda like choices, so I’ll blame myself if I end up in hell. Whatever happens though, I thank God every day for my Earthly life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.