“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.
“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?”
Nothing... nothing at all. In fact, it’s as common as the day is long.
“and yet you offer that it is OK to publicly demean their practice, because it is wrong, and I agree!”
I said just the opposite. You need to re-read my remarks to you.
“Standing up for what is right, against a society that tells me evil behavior is OK”
So you know what’s right, but I can’t possibly know that... correct?
“to tell other people what consists right and wrong, from your own mind, without reference to any higher power”
What higher power did you reference? And don’t say God or even Jesus, because you did neither.
“You have invented a set of rules and beliefs from your own mind.”
No I haven’t. I’ve adopted a set of personal rules for behavior from a great number of sources. The standards by which I live my life are derived from various experiences, people and literary volumes, not the least of which is the Bible itself - both old and new testaments.
I’ve invented nothing.