“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?
“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.