Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Some people wouldn't know what respect for the rights of others is.....
Hmmmm, I can hardly wait.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 15, 2005 at 6:43 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - From where I sit I'm really having trouble figuring out what
color the sky is in your little make believe world. When you wrote this, as follows:
"['"I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" ..yeah right, sure you will, or maybe you are merely parroting these words because they sound nice.'] OK, speaking of respect, perhaps you could accept these words (in quotes -- whoever you quoted) at face value as actually meaning what the author intended them to mean? Speaking of respect, perhaps YOU could respect the person who wrote those words without judging their intent!"
You aren't actually suggesting that there are people in this world willing to die for the rights of others to have freedom of speech? No, you couldn't be that naieve could you? There is no accepting facetious words such as this at face value. Human nature precludes any individual actually following through on this lofty and extremely grandiose promise. It is nothing more than a feel good statement that insults most intelligent people because the reality is much different. People will only die to have themselves and their own ideals heard. In the real world where I live, (you know the one, it has blue skies) an individual's freedom of speech is only guaranteed if they are saying something popular. As the message get's further from mainstream "group think", more obstacles are thrown up impeding actual freedom of expression. It then becomes simply "everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, as long as you are saying something I agree with"
"So how many times do I have to say that I don't hate these people (or others with whom I disagree)?"
Are you on the wrong blog? I can't find anything in this post or my last several posts that would make you ask me this question.
"Furthermore, why cannot people who disagree with the other's beliefs/lifestyle not respect one another?"
Now this is a valid question. You certainly can disagree with the lifestyle choices and beliefs of others and still respect them, but for most people it isn't easy. It is all too common for human nature to begin blurring the lines between holding a disagreeing opinion and becoming proactive in denying others equal access based on one's own beliefs. In other words it takes a lot of self examination and maturity to actually implement the ideal. Speaking it is easy.
The rest of your comment will be addressed in a post tonight.
posted by
gomedome
on October 15, 2005 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
['"I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" ..yeah right, sure you will, or maybe you are merely parroting these words because they sound nice.'] OK, speaking of respect, perhaps you could accept these words (in quotes -- whoever you quoted) at face value as actually meaning what the author intended them to mean? Speaking of respect, perhaps YOU could respect the person who wrote those words without judging their intent!
I for one have said over and over that I have respect for people no matter what they believe or their lifestyle. And speaking of the whole homosexuality issue, one of my fav nurses is blatantly lesbian, yet she and I get along great. I respect her for who she is, I support her and frequently encourage her in the work she's doing. Do I agree with her lifestyle? No, nor is it right for me to judge her. Yet you and others have assumed that because we Christians don't approve, that we are hateful, stupid Bible thumping idiots (or something along that line).
So how many times do I have to say that I don't hate these people (or others with whom I disagree)? Furthermore, why cannot people who disagree with the other's beliefs/lifestyle not respect one another?
Tell me, what's the difference between disagreeing with the lifestyle or choices of someone (for example, a homosexual) vs having absolutely NO RESPECT for a Christian? It's NOT OK to disagree with a gay person, but it's OK to have absolutely NO RESPECT for everything a Christian stands for? Could you please explain this seeming double standard? Because it seems, from your writing, that you're really good at this very lack of respect yourself.
Inquiring minds wish to know. . . .
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 15, 2005 at 11:14 AM
| link to this | reply
NOPEACE -- language is clear in the bible?
There are two problems with that statement as grounds for deriving societal directives. First off it's bullshit. There are 35,000 different Christian denominations in this world primarly because they cannot agree what the bible actually says. Secondly, clear to whom? The words in the bible are clearly outdated mumbo jumbo to me but have clear and specific meaning to you? Does that mean the rest of us have to do what you think is best? How about you take your bible home, get it out of public domain, go believe whatever the hell you want and stop trying to justify why we should all live the way you want us to?
posted by
gomedome
on October 14, 2005 at 4:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
It's not my interpretation of what's good and what's not, the language is clear in the bible if you are willing to accept it. I am not expressing my views, I am expressing the views as given in the bible although I do agree with them. I haven't created any scripture myself I simply quote it. The choice to believe it is up to you and clearly, you don't believe those words. Understand, I have no quarrels if someone chooses not to believe because that's free will. One day it will be proven whether or not there is a God and he will tell us all what his position is (if he does exist) if he does not exist, then those who don't believe have nothing to worry about and those who do believe will have lived their life believing a lie and again, they have nothing to worry about.
posted by
NOPEACE
on October 14, 2005 at 2:19 PM
| link to this | reply
NOPEACE - One more time you give us all the impression that reality is not
one of your strong suits.
When you say: "Many Americans have believed the lie that we should not allow those who practice Christian religious morals to impose those good principles on the public. What is wrong with influencing the public with good?"
On the surface there is nothing wrong at all with influencing the public with good. What is wrong is when "good" is narrowly defined by someone such as yourself and imposed on others. Jesus Christ was just a man like you and I, you happen to believe that he was much more than that. I do not believe this but by your logic I am now forced to live by standards he has set interpreted by you. Lousy deal, I have to say no thanks. I have a better idea: let's derive the good from the bible that is applicable to everyone (we actually already have to a great extent) and govern ourselves according to our needs as a society. Not according to your interpretation, nor mine for that matter.
Where I do appreciate you sharing the definition of "freedom" with us, your religion is also a major constricting factor for all who do not believe as you do.
posted by
gomedome
on October 14, 2005 at 12:08 PM
| link to this | reply
The very concept of freedom finds its roots in the Bible in one of the most famous quotes of Jesus: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). According to this scripture, we can only be free by knowing the truth. In order to arrive at the true definition of "freedom of speech," we need to define the terms "freedom" and "truth." The basic definition of "freedom" according to Webster’s dictionary is as follows: (1.) The quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.1 Freedom involves a choice.
Many Americans have believed the lie that we should not allow those who practice Christian religious morals to impose those good principles on the public. What is wrong with influencing the public with good? True Biblical standards will always create an environment for the good of all, while wicked standards will allow evil to overcome good. If Christian and Biblical moral practices are not incorporated into our national life, evil men will impose upon us their wicked interpretation of "freedom" i.e., the right to do evil in the name of freedom.
If our definition of freedom is not based on the Biblical definition, then it is not true freedom. Jesus said that the truth would set us free. Since Jesus Himself is The Truth, His words to us will free us. Bondage is the alternative to freedom. The devil brings men into bondage by tempting them to sin, being careful not to tell them that the wages of sin is death. Bondage from sin comes in many forms–addictions, stress, fear, unforgiveness, torment, etc. The only way to escape from bondage is to come to Jesus and repent of our sins and find His love and forgiveness. He then will disciple us and teach us His Word and His ways so that we will be set free from every bondage that sin brings.
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:31-36).
posted by
NOPEACE
on October 14, 2005 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply