<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
That same Old Testament law is where the anti-homosexual
pronouncements come from, so I just assumed it was fair game. Or are
there some New Testament laws against that? I'm not a biblical expert.<br>
<br>
So what are you trying to argue? I'm trying to argue that anybody can
practice their religion as they see fit provided it doesn't infringe
on another person's rights and that they can absolutely believe
whatever they wish no matter what it is. Isn't that what the First
Amendment is all about? Or did I misread it? Are you trying to say
that anyone should be able to practice their religion even when it
infringes on another person's rights? What do you do when some other
religion tries to infringe on your rights? Or are you trying to say
that it's ok for *your* religion *only* to be able to be practiced?
How do you argue that one in a free society?<br>
<br>
Why does it bother you that I may believe differently than yourself? I
have reasons for my beliefs, backed up by personal observations and
experiences. Presumably so do you. The state of my soul is upon my
shoulders, not yours. It's between me, Christ, Buddha, Allah, and Odin
and whomever else. Why not try to live in a society where we each
respect that the other should be able to believe as they wish, instead
of trying to assert one religion over the other? This includes the
practices of the religion, except where they infringe on the others
rights. My veneer may be running thin, but that seems both wise and
agreeable to me. What objections do you have with it?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Dick Sherwin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001e01c6be35$191c3160$63050d40@sherwin" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Paul R. writes: "we wouldn't let christians stone me to death for having
dabbled with the occult or for wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics
either."
___________________________________________
Paul misses the whole point of respecting the right of any religious group
to actually "practice" their religion. He also continues to assert Old
Testament teachings of the law into New Testament Christianity.
I don't think Paul is as spiteful toward Christianity as Nick Gier, who
attempts to hide his true feelings behind his intellect, but he still finds
contempt with it.
I believe the Princess has pretty much summed up all of this in previous
posts. It is easy to understand but Paul and Nick, two people who
admittedly do not believe in Christianity continue to assert their dominance
over the conversation, believing their intelluctual status makes them
experts over that which they have rejected.
While I respect their right to believe as they wish, their thin veneer layer
of "we respect everyone's right to worship as they please" is wearing even
thinner. They will still be waiting for the video proof of Christianity, in
deference of believing through faith, when Christ returns for the final
judgment. Hell will be filled with intelluctuals.
God bless,
Dick S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rumelhart" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] True Muslims and True Americans
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What I wrote in point number 3 was poorly written. I was talking about
those actions which are illegal, not all actions associated with a
religion. If the society that wanted to build pyramids and sacrifice
people with obsidian knives opened up a chapter here in Moscow, we
couldn't let them kill people. That's not singling them out; we
wouldn't let christians stone me to death for having dabbled with the
occult or for wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics either.
Is the act of stopping a particular religion's members from breaking the
law disrespecting that religion? I'd say that it isn't as long as the
law itself was not designed specifically to counter that religion and
had society's best interests in mind. Laws against murder are already
on the books so the above scenario would not be singling out that
religion. If there was a law against the Jesus Fish or something, then
that would be disrespect for that religion. It's basically "do what you
like until you affect other's rights".
Society should only step in when the rights of others are being
affected. Such as the right to continued life. Otherwise it should
leave well enough alone. In my opinion, anyway.
Paul
Taro Tanaka wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:
[[ 3. Respecting actions taken that derive from a particular belief.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Here
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is where the line really is. If a Satanist sacrifices someone, they've
crossed the line and should be punished. If a Satanist is known to be
about to sacrifice someone, they should be stopped and tried in a court
of law. That goes for Muslims who interpret the Qu'ran to say that they
should kill Americans as well as Christians who think God has told them
to kill an abortion doctor. If you cross this line in the other
direction, you are into the realm of Thought Crimes. If there is one
inalienable right, it's the right to think what you want to think. The
inside of your head is sacrosanct. It's when thoughts become actions
that society has the right to intervene. ]]
Paul, that's not called respecting someone's religious beliefs; that's
called goring someone's ox, and I'm all for it. "Freedom of religion"
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->means
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">freedom to PRACTICE one's religion. Obviously, it is not possible for a
society to allow religious freedom for all religions. If some Mexican
immigrants want to build a big pyramid in New Mexico and use obsidian
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->knives
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to cut out people's beating hearts at the apex, that will obviously
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->conflict
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">with the religious beliefs of all modern Americans. "But our gods command
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->us
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to sacrifice to them," they will protest. "Even the people we sacrifice
agree that their deaths are necessary." To that any reasonable person --
even Nick Gier, I presume -- would reply, "Your so-called gods are full
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->of
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">sh*t and you're under arrest." But even as we say that, we have to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->recognize
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that entire societies based on such practices existed for many centuries.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->It
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is possible to build a society based on a religion that cuts out people's
beating hearts with an obsidian knife. But it is not possible for such a
society to continue to exist once certain other religions -- especially
Christianity -- start to permeate that society. Because certain other
religions, expecially Christianity, would declare war on such practices.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->It
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is a war to the death -- the death of one religious system or the other.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->The
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">two religious systems cannot coexist. And that is precisely why there are
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->no
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">longer any societies based on cutting out people's beating hearts with
obsidian knives.
That was a pretty extreme example, but it illustrates the point. Freedom
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->of
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">religion is the freedom to PRACTICE one's religion, and no society can
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->grant
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">full freedom to all religions. So anyone who says he respects all
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->religious
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">beliefs is, for one reaon or another, not telling the truth. It is simply
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->a
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">fact that nobody respects all religious beliefs.
I think this is as good a time as any to point out one of the faulty
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->hidden
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">assumptions at work when people try to distinguish between intellectual
assent to a certain set of propositions on the one hand, and actually
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->living
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">in terms of one's beliefs on the other. I bring this up because both Paul
and Nick have spoken along the lines that anyone is free to believe
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->anything
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">they want, and that is what "respecting religious beliefs" is all about;
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->but
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">people might be stepping over the line into forbidden territory if they
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->try
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to actually put those beliefs into practice.
This is called gnosticism. It is the view that limits religion to the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->realm
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of ideas and concepts. But the Bible rejects that view vehemently. The
epistle of James says:
'. . . faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, a man will say,
"You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one. You do
well. The demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to know,
vain man, that faith apart from works is dead? Wasn't Abraham our father
justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You
see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected;
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him as righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->You
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.'
Here James is saying very clearly that if mere intellectual assent to
certain propositions is all that is called for, the demons know all those
things very well. They are able to pay intellectuall assent to the
truthfulness of the creedal statements of Christendom, but their
intellectual assent is not accompanied by obedience, and it is obedience
that is demanded. Why are Christians obedient? Because they have faith
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->that
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">God demands and shall reward their obedience. In other words, part of the
Christian's intellectual assent is that mere intellectual assent is not
enough. This is a religious belief that is bound to put someone on a
collision course with folks like Nick Gier. Whenever Nick Gier lives out
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->his
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">religious beliefs, my ox is getting gored, at least potentially. And
whenever I live out my religious beliefs, Nick Gier's ox is getting
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->gored,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">at least potentially. I don't see any reason to apologize for this state
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->of
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">affairs or to pretend that it doesn't exist. I believe in calling a spade
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->a
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">spade. It simply is not possible to equally respect all religious
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->beliefs.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-- Princess Sushitushi
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/">http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/</a>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>