Would you tell Mom and Dad?

[Boston Guy]

>It's also ironic that people who

>proclaim their support for "diversity"

>often don't want to face

>up to the practical implications

>of that notion.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that as a general case. But I certainly agree that on any notion as broad as "diversity", there will be countless different positions held by countless Americans and certainly there will be some people on each side who will be intolerant of dissent and others who will not be.

 

>One

>of those implications is that

>we are frequently going to

>find ourselves dealing with people

>whose sincere and deeply held

>beliefs are completely irreconcilable with

>ours.

 

Agreed.

 

>How do advocates

>of diversity deal with that

>problem? When they speak

>of tolerance and respect for

>the beliefs of others, do

>they really mean it, or

>is that just a lot

>of p.r.? Are they

>hoping that people whose beliefs

>are different from theirs will

>change or go away?

>What if they don't?

 

Well, I can't speak for the 'advocates of diversity.' But I do think that being in favor of diversity is different than being in favor of freedom of speech and tolerating dissent, even when that dissent is strongly (but legally) framed. I don't think those two things are incompatible and I always hope that people will be respectful of the rights of those around them, including the right of those people to hold and voice their own opinions.

 

But freedom of speech also includes the right to express dismay or disapproval or disappointment when someone says something that crosses any one of a variety of lines, depending on the context. (For example, it's okay to ask your dinner guests to refrain from certain lines of conversation or dissent, and what might be okay to say in a locker room might well not be okay in church.) But those comments turn on a sense of civility, I guess, instead of the right of someone to actually say what they want to say.

[Boston Guy]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>Amen!

>

>And let us all hope that

>Regulation does not and never

>does have children.

 

Ironically, I guess, I suspect that Regulation might well be a pretty fine father. He is generally consistent in his beliefs, he expresses them strongly but without a lot of shouting; and I think he knows what he stands for. Those are good characteristics to bring to the role of parenting.

 

And although I suspect we disagree on lots of political issues, the last time I checked even a lot of Republicans were raising some damn fine kids.

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>>Amen!

>>

>>And let us all hope that

>>Regulation does not and never

>>does have children.

>

>Ironically, I guess, I suspect that

>Regulation might well be a

>pretty fine father.

 

Boston, please don't make me blush, it clashes with my eyes.

 

AIM, people under 18 really shouldn't be visiting this site. If you are over 18, why not try to act like it? Insulting people because you don't agree with their opinions is childish.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>I'd have to say that I

>don't see a lot of

>difference between the intolerance of

>the Right and the intolerance

>of the Left.

 

Although I typed 'intolerance' toward the end of my post, I thought that it was quite clear that that was simply a pre-emptive move, and that the jist of my post spoke to your question about what the sacrafices expected of parents.

 

Again, regulation, was it not clear that that was the 'meat' of my post? I think so.(???)

 

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Guest regulation]

>Today I view religious doctrine as

>an important part of our

>history, something that can help

>us understand where we came

>from. But I also

>view it as mostly myth,

>explanations of the universe that

>early man devised in an

>attempt to try to make

>sense of the unknowable.

 

As I said, people who don't have strong religious beliefs often find it difficult to understand those who do.

 

Here's another example. About ten years ago Cardinal Aponte of San Juan gave an interview in which he stated that it would be better for a person to get AIDS rather than use contraceptive devices to prevent infection, since the Church views the latter as a grave sin.

 

When I read this I thought that the Cardinal must be quite mad to say such a thing. And many politicians and AIDS advocates rebuked him for saying it. He gave a second interview in which he explained his reasons. He reminded readers that the Church views earthly life as brief and temporary, while the life to come is a very different matter and it is the fate of the soul with which the Church must concern itself. He pointed out that it is far better to endure a bodily illness that lasts only a few years than to suffer much worse punishments for eternity.

 

When I read the Cardinal's second interview I had to admit that from his point of view -- and that of anyone who believes in the doctrines of the Church -- his statement was perfectly reasonable. It's really all a matter of what one believes. And of whether one is willing to face up to the implications of those beliefs. So many people these days -- as in every other era of history -- are not willing to do so.

[Rod Hagen]

>>illustrates the point that one's

>>allegiance to one's beliefs should

>>come before everything else, including

>>the lives of one's own

>>children. I don't think

>>people should be classified as

>>unloving or uncaring because they

>>remain true to their beliefs

>>in that respect.

 

No, they are not necessarily nonloving or uncaring, just irresponsible. Irresponsible for CHOOSING to have children while lacking the conviction to never forsake them.

 

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Boston Guy]

>Your post #46 describes a process

>of picking and choosing among

>the values posited by religion

>according to what seems good

>to you in light of

>your own experiences in the

>modern world. I think

>that process is the reason

>why the more liberal Christian

>denominations in this country are

>losing members while the more

>traditional are doing somewhat better.

> People aren't stupid, and

>they can figure out that

>a religion that changes what

>it tells people about the

>choices they should make so

>that it can conform to

>the positions of the New

>York Times editorial board can't

>be real. If God

>exists, He isn't a politician,

>and He can't change what

>he tells people just because

>his previous position is no

>longer popular. The whole

>point of having a relationship

>with a Deity is to

>benefit from His superior wisdom.

> If all He tells

>you is, "Just do what

>seems right to you," then

>why bother?

>

 

Perhaps. I haven't really thought of it that way before, but you may well be correct.

 

Part of my difficulty with accepting my religion, even at a young age, was a difficulty in accepting as a given 'messages from God' that seemed quite clearly to be coming from men instead, often with a very church-centric focus.

 

Ironically, it was a long series of little doubts about the church and its wealth and processes and messengers that caused me to one day wake up and realize that I really didn't much believe in any of its central teachings anymore. So the drip, drip, drip loss of faith started small and ended up compromising the whole belief structure that the church wanted me to accept.

 

It's very hard for me to accept today that other men and women have a direct line to God and that I should accept their message and obey their teachings. But I recognize that others not only do accept this, but take great comfort in their faith and rely on it for guidance.

 

In fact, there have been times when it would have been nice to have had a strong faith to fall back on. But I cannot choose to be faithful only in times of need.

 

I don't know if ethics or religion came first, but we're fortunate here in the US that the general ethical principles that we think we accept as a society are also generally in line with the teachings of the primary religions. So it's possible to be an atheist and still be in general agreement with very religious neighbors as to how to act in society and how society itself should act.

 

Of course this doesn't always hold -- the very violent disagreements over abortion being only one obvious example.

[Rod Hagen]

>doctrines of the Church --

>his statement was perfectly reasonable.

> It's really all a

>matter of what one believes.

 

And that my friends is the dangerous message of a cultural relativist: Reason is contigent on the beliefs of all the players. Frightening.

 

To paraphrase my mentor, Richard Dawkins, suppose a tribe in...wherever....believed that the moon is a large piece of bread hanging just out of reach in the night sky. I profess that it is basically a big rock 3476 km in diameter, and 384,400 km from Earth weighing in at 7.35e22 kg. Who is right? A cultural relativst would say 'both''.

 

Imagine a 747 built by college educated engineers, and conceived out of the ability of gifted scientists to put an understanding of the natural world into words and figures that others are able to understand and build upon.

 

Now put that same cultural relativist 30,000 ft. above the ground, inside that 747. He is now a hypocrite.

 

-Hagen

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Rick Munroe]

>I do

>not believe, therefore, that Rick

>Munroe is being facetious.

>An escort with his sense

>of humor, good nature, and

>bubbling joie-de-vivre, to say nothing

>of the stable, long-term relationship

>that he talks about with

>such evident joy, demonstrates that

>loving support of young gay

>men can help them achieve

>the satisfying adult life that

>men like Rick so clearly

>enjoy -- and then hand

>on to their lucky clients.

 

Wow...thanks, Will; that means a lot to me. I'm not the type to examine who I am & why, so it's really neat (sorry, my vocabulary is always 7th grade level when I first wake up) to hear it from others, especially you. Yes, I was "gettin' real" when I told Matt how lucky he is. I guess I am lucky, too!

 

I have to run; my bubbles need carbonating (carbonizing?).

[Rick Munroe]

>To paraphrase my mentor, Richard Dawkins

 

Family Feud really sucked after he left the show, and then when he returned, his belly was so big that he couldn't reach the ladies to kiss them.

[Guest regulation]

>>doctrines of the Church --

>>his statement was perfectly reasonable.

>> It's really all a

>>matter of what one believes.

>

>And that my friends is the

>dangerous message of a cultural

>relativist: Reason is contigent

>on the beliefs of all

>the players. Frightening.

>

 

Sorry, that's not correct at all. Reason does not depend on anything, does not change. But the conclusions one reaches through the process of reasoning change when one's assumptions change. If you don't believe there is a life after this one in which God visits terrible punishments on people who commit sins like using condoms, then the Cardinal's conclusion that it's better to get AIDS than risk damnation doesn't make any sense. If you DO believe what the Church teaches, then his conclusion makes perfect sense.

[Guest regulation]

>I agree. The president of

>a Jesuit college once told

>me that faith was something

>you either had or didn't

>have. He said he

>had tried many times to

>describe it and felt he

>had never really succeeded.

>When talking to people who

>had it, his descriptions were

>unnecessary; when talking to others,

>his descriptions didn't really help.

>

 

 

Your post #46 describes a process of picking and choosing among the values posited by religion according to what seems good to you in light of your own experiences in the modern world. I think that process is the reason why the more liberal Christian denominations in this country are losing members while the more traditional are doing somewhat better. People aren't stupid, and they can figure out that a religion that changes what it tells people about the choices they should make so that it can conform to the positions of the New York Times editorial board can't be real. If God exists, He isn't a politician, and He can't change what he tells people just because his previous position is no longer popular. The whole point of having a relationship with a Deity is to benefit from His superior wisdom. If all He tells you is, "Just do what seems right to you," then why bother?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>When I read the Cardinal's second

>>interview I had to admit

>>that from his point of

>>view -- and that of

>>anyone who believes in the

>>doctrines of the Church --

>>his statement was perfectly reasonable.

>> It's really all a

>>matter of what one believes.

>> And of whether one

>>is willing to face up

>>to the implications of those

>>beliefs. So many people

>>these days -- as in

>>every other era of history

>>-- are not willing to

>>do so.

>

>Yes, that's true. And it

>seems like the challenges of

>todays fast-paced world often present

>a sort of constant challenge

>to people's beliefs, with one

>ethical quandary after another, often

>as a result of another

>technical, medical or scientific advance.

>

>

>Without intending any criticism, I have

>a suspicion that George Bush's

>faith -- which seems honestly

>and deeply felt -- is

>going to be stressed often

>over the next four years.

> As president, he's going

>to be confronted with issues

>that are complex and challenging

>and that might conflict with

>his faith but nevertheless require

>a decision. In some

>cases, the right decision for

>him to make as president

>-- where 'right' is the

>one he thinks is the

>right thing for the nation

>-- might well be in

>conflict with his personal beliefs.

>

>

>I don't agree with his politics

>much, but my guess is

>that he'll do a pretty

>good job of staying centered

>because it doesn't seem like

>he takes himself too seriously.

> Being able to laugh

>at yourself is a help

>in trying to put things

>into perspective.

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>Again, regulation, was it not clear

>that that was the 'meat'

>of my post? I

>think so.(???)

>

>

 

I think your post was pretty clear. You think that anyone who doesn't agree with your view of the relationship between parents and children shouldn't have children. Oddly enough, that's exactly what my evangelical Christian friend thinks. When it comes to tolerating beliefs that are different from yours, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two of you.

[Rod Hagen]

>Family Feud really sucked after he

>left the show, and then

>when he returned, his belly

>was so big that he

>couldn't reach the ladies to

>kiss them.

 

I tasted those lips (he is my mentor after all) and found them sweet; despite what the 'survey said!'.

 

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Rod Hagen]

The unfortunate put-upon Left and Right

 

>>>doctrines of the Church --

>>>his statement was perfectly reasonable.

>>> It's really all a

>>>matter of what one believes.

>>

>

>Sorry, that's not correct at all.

> Reason does not depend

>on anything, does not change.

 

 

Regulation, earlier you wrote that the cardinal's arguments were reasonable because they stemmed from his beliefs. Then I pointed out that is exactly what silly cultural relativists say (I'm summarizing what I said). But now you say that reason does not depend on anything and is unchangeable!!!! Which is it? Are arguments reasonable just because they are tied to somebody's-like the Cardinal-belief, or is reason what it is and nothing else? Given that 'reasonable' comes from 'reason' I think you must choose one opinio or the other, else risk talking out of both sides of your mouth (sorry about THAT cliche).

 

Also, we all get the point about how the right wing is very put-upon by the left wingers who talk so loudly about "tolerance", but then do not grant it uniformly. Thanks so very very much for pointing that out 10 or 11 times. Thank you.

 

HOWEVER, tolerance is, to me, largely a Politically Correct academic smokescreen. Because if one wants to tolerate everyone else's beliefs, he then loses the right to disagree. Why? Because if he makes the perilous mistake of not accepting and/or respecting every group's belief system, he is branded by people like you, or more likely by people on the left, as intolerant.

 

You know what I tolerate? Intelligence. You know what I don't tolerate? Ignorance, regardless of wether the person is left OR right. The only thing more unforgivable then ignorance is arrogant ignorance. Above all I respect people's RIGHT to beliefs (like assholes, everyone probably has them) but I do not respect the people who hold faulty and/or dangerous beliefs. This makes me a very very bad man. I can live with that.

 

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I will seek out these androids, and I

will break them with my bare hands!"

[Guest regulation]

RE: The unfortunate put-upon Left and Right

 

>Regulation, earlier you wrote that the

>cardinal's arguments were reasonable because

>they stemmed from his beliefs.

> Then I pointed out

>that is exactly what silly

>cultural relativists say (I'm summarizing

>what I said). But

>now you say that reason

>does not depend on anything

>and is unchangeable!!!! Which is

>it? Are arguments reasonable

>just because they are tied

>to somebody's-like the Cardinal-belief, or

>is reason what it is

>and nothing else? Given

>that 'reasonable' comes from 'reason'

>I think you must choose

>one opinio or the other,

>else risk talking out of

>both sides of your mouth

>(sorry about THAT cliche).

>

 

Rod, I said that the Cardinal's statement was reasonable -- meaning that it was derived from a process of reasoning -- based on his beliefs. Had he said that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals, I would call that statement unreasonable. The Church, as you know, teaches that God's rewards and punishments do not come in this life but in the next, so that statement would not be a reasonable one for the Cardinal (or any Catholic) to make.

 

>Also, we all get the point

>about how the right wing

>is very put-upon by the

>left wingers who talk so

>loudly about "tolerance", but then

>do not grant it uniformly.

> Thanks so very very

>much for pointing that out

>10 or 11 times.

>Thank you.

>

 

You're quite welcome. You can count on me to keep making that point whenever it seems relevant. No need to thank me. I'm happy to help.

 

>HOWEVER, tolerance is, to me,

>largely a Politically Correct

>academic smokescreen. Because

>if one wants to tolerate

>everyone else's beliefs, he then

>loses the right to disagree.

>Why? Because if he

>makes the perilous mistake of

>not accepting and/or respecting every

>group's belief system, he is

>branded by people like you,

>or more likely by people

>on the left, as intolerant.

>

 

No. What tolerance actually requires is not that one accepts another's beliefs as true but that one is willing to consider the possibility that another's beliefs are true -- in other words, it requires that you be willing to look at an issue from a different point of view than your own. I don't agree with what Cardinal Aponte said, but I can acknowledge that it is a perfectly reasonable statement from the point of view of a Roman Catholic prelate. If he's right about the afterlife, then it IS much better to get AIDS than to risk damnation.

 

 

>You know what I tolerate?

>Intelligence. You know what

>I don't tolerate? Ignorance,

>regardless of wether the person

>is left OR right.

>The only thing more unforgivable

>then ignorance is arrogant ignorance.

> Above all I respect

>people's RIGHT to beliefs (like

>assholes, everyone probably has them)

>but I do not respect

>the people who hold faulty

>and/or dangerous beliefs. This

>makes me a very very

>bad man. I can

>live with that.

>

 

But when it comes to a discussion of the existence of God and the fate of the soul, no one can be well-informed, because no one has any facts. So your statement about ignorance is irrelevant to this discussion. On this subject, EVERYONE is ignorant.

 

I don't know if failing to respect beliefs that seem "faulty" makes you a bad man, but if you are going to be intolerant you certainly ought not to complain when others treat you in an intolerant manner. They're only doing the same thing that you are, after all.

[Rick Munroe]

I was hoping you wouldn't get that! Oh well...foiled again by the great Mr. Hagen. :-)

[bluenix]

I think of diversity as taking action rather than a spirit or idea. By 2050, or thereabouts, there will be no majority race in America. A group that does not include minorities in its deliberations and decision-making risks irrelevance.

 

I'd say the common ground is simple enough. People want to better their economic position, send their kids to good schools, live in a decent neighborhood. You can accomplish a lot by building on such things. And people don't have to give up their beliefs in order to achieve them.

 

I think we often suppose that if we've "embraced diversity" at the very least we should have more friends of color. I don't think that's what it's about at all. Diversity is allowing people space while preserving your own.

 

Interesting thread. Thanks.

[Paul Revere]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

Reg;

 

I am very glad that I have a job and a life, because I didn't have to deal with this thread all day today. I think that many other folks made the points that I would have made to you.

 

I understand people having strong religious beliefs, and living by them, but I get very suspicious of extreme fundamentalists of any ilk. They do not think for themselves, but rather defer most of their decisions to some religious authority, be it a book, or a person. They do this not really for religious reasons, or for closer contact with a god, but more for social reasons. The example that you give about Hassidic (sp?) Jews is more about acceptance by their peer group, than about faith in thier god (IMHO).

 

I never, ever, ever, understood the story of Abraham and Isaac, and even as a child I never understood why we were taught it as an example of a way to live. For me, and I'm only speaking for myself here, I have a very strong belief that god (or God if you wish) would not put a faithful person (or any person) in the position of choosing between a child and thier god. I just don't beleive it. Your god may do that kind of stunt, but mine does not!

 

You began your post by charging that some us do not understand folks who have deep faith. I don't think that is true, and I don't beleiv that extreme fundamentalists of any beleif system are necessarily people of deep faith.

 

I don't really understand your posts on this board. I don't know if you post your positions just to generate controversy, or because you really hold the positions that you express. Controversy certainly make the dialogue here more intersting and entertaining, while at the same time I find most of your posts exasperating. Usually I ignore your posts, but the Abraham and Isaac one today, trying to justify abandoning of a child just set me off.

 

I don't know if you will burn in hell, I don't even think that I believe in hell, but I know that folks that are constantly as smug as you are will have thier smug little world cave in on them sooner or later.

 

I did intend to insult you in my previous post. Your welcome.

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>I don't know if you will

>burn in hell, I don't

>even think that I believe

>in hell, but I know

>that folks that are constantly

>as smug as you are

>will have thier smug little

>world cave in on them

>sooner or later.

>

>I did intend to insult you

>in my previous post.

>Your welcome.

>

 

 

Paul, you've used a lot of words to say nothing more than what I said in the two or three lines of my original post: You don't have strong religious beliefs yourself and you don't really understand or sympathize with people who do. So what else is new?

 

If you don't have the emotional maturity to talk about controversial issues without making the sort of nasty, insulting remarks that you've made in this thread, then you really ought to confine yourself to talking about escorts' dicks and asses, don't you think? Leave the difficult stuff to us grownups.

[Guest AIM]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>AIM, people under 18 really shouldn't

>be visiting this site.

>If you are over 18,

>why not try to act

>like it? Insulting people

>because you don't agree with

>their opinions is childish.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blow me.

 

Now THAT was intended as an insult and should be taken as such. However, the post you responded to was not meant to be an insult but an expression of my opinion. And that opinion still stands: I think you would be a pathetic excuse for a Father. And that's all I have and will say about it.

[Guest AIM]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

What does being a Republican have to do with disowning one's children? The Republicans I know cherish family values and put their children above all else. It is the fanatics that use specific and conveniently selective excerpts from the bible to justify their own ignorance and biases.

 

And don't get me wrong; I'm not against religion. Matter of fact, I think it's a lot like drinking. It can actually have positive benefits when done in moderation!

[Guest Zach DC]

Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

>It's always hard for people who

>don't have strong religious beliefs

>themselves to appreciate the strength

>of others' beliefs. For

>many Christians and Jews, the

>story of Abraham and Isaac

>illustrates the point that one's

>allegiance to one's beliefs should

>come before everything else, including

>the lives of one's own

>children. I don't think

>people should be classified as

>unloving or uncaring because they

>remain true to their beliefs

>in that respect.

 

Here we had a community of people openly discussing a sensitive topic--to whom do we reveal our "escort secret" and our decisions for doing so. The topic was going well--intelligent discussion and some heartfelt self disclosures. Revelations about the bonds between friends and the bonds between children and parents.

 

Regulation tosses in the story of Abraham and Isaac, a tale about human sacrifice, a father promising to slay his son as proof of faith to his God. As unfitting as your post seems in this topic, I don't need to tell you that. Others already have.

 

You criticized those others who clearly expressed their opinions about you and your controversial post. Your words--

>>Insulting someone just because you don't

>agree with an opinion he's

>expressed on an issue under

>discussion is a rotten thing

>to do, Paul. Can't

>you disagree with others without

>getting personal?

They've expressed their opinions, mostly about your choice of words in this otherwise peaceful and insightful topic. They spoke their minds and signed their names to it. The odd thing is that you have not. You bring up a tale of a man agreeing to murder his son. You feign surprise when others take offense to your words. But that's right, it's not your words, it's the words of the bible.

 

You quote scripture, interpret the beliefs of several religions. But having read your posts, you avoid assigning your name to any of these beliefs. All are written in the third person, "many Christians and Jews...beliefs," "Cardinal Aponte of San Juan...stated," etc. None are in the first person. None of your posts says, "Here's my thoughts, I believe..."

 

Rather slippery of you, Regulation.

 

So for the record, and since you brought it up, what is your opinion on human sacrifice in the name of religion? Do you agree with those who bomb abortion clinics in the name of God? Would you murder anyone if your god commanded you? Would you take your son, your pride and joy, tie him to an altar with a knife to his heart, awaiting further instructions from God?

 

I really not trying to be flippant here. I'd like to hear you voice your own opinion. Quote the bible if you need to reinforce or explain your beliefs. And please, anyone quoting the bible as often as you have should at least get the words right. The meaning is open to interpretation, but the words are spelled out in black in white. In another post you say,

>Check out the Sermon on the

>Mount (it's in the Book

>of Matthew). In it,

>Jesus stated that "not one

>iota" of Biblical law should

>be changed. He also

>said that people who encourage

>others to disregard the law

>will occupy "the least place"

>in the Kingdom of God.

Here you've quoted only 6 words from Jesus. But even those few words you quote aren't right. Regulation, have you even read The Bible?

 

"...not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

"...shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19 KJV)

"...one jot or one tittle shall in ..." (Matthew 5:18 RSV)

"...shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19 RSV)

 

You've (poorly) quoted six words of Jesus and placed then with a heap of your own words. It's easy to take biblical text out of context to construct a meaning that fits your purpose.(by the way, what is your purpose?) Ironically though, this sort of eisegesis is in part what Jesus was preaching against on his Sermon on the Mount. He was addressing the Scribes and Pharisees on their manipulation of the laws of God.

 

I'm curious to hear more on your viewpoint on The Sermon on the Mount. If you have not yet read it, please do. You spoke of "biblical law." To what are you referring?

 

If you are implying that Jesus meant that every word of The Bible be held as law, that is wrong. The Bible (as a whole) was written long after Jesus died.

 

 

Here are the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 (the verse right before your misquotes of verses 18 and 19). "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and your prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. (KJV)

 

Jesus was preaching to the Hebrews (and anyone else that would listen). He was saying, I'm not here to change your religious beliefs, I'm here "to fulfill them." He was teaching them that God was not an angry god, a god to be feared, a god that requests human sacrifices, no, no, no. Our God is a merciful, loving god.

 

Many people misunderstood the words of Jesus; they had been taught for so long that God damned those that did not strictly obey. Those in power often used "The Fear of God" to keep their people enslaved. These men in power feared and hated Jesus for he preached of a God that loves. These new beliefs would mean losing a stranglehold on the people. And so they killed Jesus.

 

 

>[Jesus] said that people who encourage

>others to disregard the law

>will occupy "the least place"

>in the Kingdom of God.

 

Once again, Regulation, I'm not sure what you are implying. Would you please explain? Are you suggesting that Jesus is damning all to hell that "disregard the law" or even suggesting a place less than Heaven? Jesus was crucified. Are we not all washed of our sins by his sacrifice?

 

So Regulation, what do you think Jesus meant in his Sermon on the Mount? What do any of your Biblical quotes mean in this forum? How do any of these scriptures reflect your personal beliefs? What's your point?

 

Please, tell us your own thoughts. Quote The Bible if you need emphasis. I'm not sure of your religious beliefs. Do you hold The Bible as sacred? I'm even less certain of your educational background. One who spouts scripture should at least quote the words right. Reading is fundamental. A much greater task is understanding what you've read. I will gladly help you in the future. (Once again, not being flippant.)

 

Thanks to all for enduring this lengthy post. I really was compelled to address Regulation's posts. Part of me thinks Regulation sets traps to intimidate or anger others. I'm neither angered nor intimidated. (maybe a little saddened by the loss of a great topic. People were opening up. Sharing and caring.) But I am definitely confused as to what Regulation is trying to say. Mainly because he is saying very little original thought. He's merely quoting from a book I doubt he understands or has even read.

 

Zach

[Paul Revere]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

Actualy you have no iidea about my religious beleifs or how strongly that I hold them.

 

My point is simple, you surmize that if we don't agree with someone, then we are simply not smart enough or mature enough to not understand people of deep faith.

 

In my experience people of deep faith strugle with issues in which theior natural instincts (say love of and care of a child) conflict with the teachings of their religion (say, have a funeral for a child if that child does something the fomral religion does not approve of). My point is that folks who rely soleyon the authority of their religion for every decision in their lives, are probably not folks of deep faith, but rather people who are more sheep-like, who have turned their faith decisons and moral decisions over to some other authority. You call that deep faith, I call it something else.

 

The folks that I know of deep faith, are doing the work that supports their faith, say feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, builing housing for the homeless, etc. I don't have mmy Biblical quotes handy, but folks who preach a higher authority, but use that religios "faith" against people, for me don't have much faith, but are probably working some other social or political agenda. These things blend and crossover in many cases, so you need to be careful in your analysis.

 

Your example about the Cardinal who preached against condoms, saying that AIDS was better than damnation, only points out consistent logic, based on his assumptions, it does not necessarily indicate deep faith.

 

I get exasperated with your posts, because you use twisted logic to make twistd points, and I still guess that it is for controversy and affect. Otherwise, you are a sad uptight man.

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>Actualy you have no iidea about

>my religious beleifs or how

>strongly that I hold them.

>

 

I know what you said in your post #67, which is that you're not sure what you believe. So what are we supposed to conclude from that statement?

 

>My point is simple, you surmize

>that if we don't agree

>with someone, then we are

>simply not smart enough or

>mature enough to not understand

>people of deep faith.

>

 

No, I said no such thing. Some us have the ability to understand and even respect the point of view of those who don't agree with us. We don't get angry at people and denigrate them simply because their beliefs are different from ours. It's a pity that you can't relate to other people in that way.

 

>My

>point is that folks who

>rely soleyon the authority of

>their religion for every decision

>in their lives, are probably

>not folks of deep faith,

>but rather people who are

>more sheep-like, who have turned

>their faith decisons and moral

>decisions over to some other

>authority. You call that

>deep faith, I call it

>something else.

>

 

When you question the honesty and the motives of others because they disagree with you, it becomes impossible to communicate with them and learn about them. I think that's pretty sad.

 

>I get exasperated with your posts,

>because you use twisted logic

>to make twistd points, and

>I still guess that it

>is for controversy and affect.

> Otherwise, you are a

>sad uptight man.

 

I think it's sad that you will never really be able to get to know people who don't accept your worldview. Your hostility toward them will prevent that. Too bad.