RE: Traditional Xtianity teaches

From: Don Perrett-VP GPA (
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 04:07:30 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "RE: This scientist's verse"

    >>>Thank you for the label. That means, of course, that what I write must be
    not worth reading.

    Labeling only because you label others at times. As for worthyness, yours
    are worth reading otherwise I wouldn't be replying. :)

    >>>If I had made that claim, you would be justified in citing it. I did not.
    Deciding what motives a writer has for any particular post is dangerous

    But you yourself have made the statement that the "right" sees the "left" as
    less Christian. Even if this is true, I do not recall at any time this being
    directly quoted from someone on the "right". It may be a reasonable
    assumption however and this is what I am doing. The point is that while it
    is easy to make generalizations, anyone can do it and your mention of it
    being dangerous is exactly MY point. But it's nice to know that one can be
    self correcting.

    >"One's politics and religious beliefs are between God and the individual
    >>>Horse hockey. When your political beliefs affect me, or my country, they
    necessarily become between you and me also.

    In that statement I did not say that it doesn't affect others. Anything one
    believes or does affects others. If you have been reading my various posts
    on this thread, you would have noted that I specifically state that the
    actions of one affects others, and since their actions are guided by their
    beliefs then..., well hopefully you get the point. What I was referring to,
    is that no one need answer to another. If I say that you must do and think
    as I say, would you not consider this "right wing" or "RR" behaviour? If on
    the other hand, you say that I should believe in homosexuality, abortion and
    other liberal ideas, is this not the same "oppressive" behaviour? What you
    believe will be "judged" by God alone, that is what I meant. In fact the
    whole basis of "liberalism" is the premise that people should be allowed to
    do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, correct? If so,
    then how can you believe yourself? If you feel that "your" political beliefs
    affect "me", then how can you "force" me to agree with you. I don't know if
    you have even caught up on my entire theme on this thread, but it is based
    solely on the fact that the very things you state and believe so much about
    can be applied to yourself as well. If you judge the "right" because they
    are influencing your "rights", they too can say the same about the actions
    of the "left". At some point one must realize that accepting the fact that
    the best you can do is to convince others that your position is correct,
    rather than complaining about how bad the other person's views are.
    Negativity breeds negativity. Too many people in power, both left and right,
    complain and say how bad the ideas of the opposition is, but few are capable
    of coming up with solid and reasonable arguements to support their own

    >"If one believes in homosexuality or abortion, that is for them to explain
    to God not I."
    >>>Of course. BTW, "the first is an orientation, not an action. The second
    an action.

    Yes, but the first one requires an action, either physical or emotional, to
    substantiate their claim to this orientation.

    >>>Balderdash. Being homosexual is an orientation that some people have.
    its a handicap, like weak eyes. Are weak eyes OK with God?

    Are you implying that being homosexual is genetic? As for bad eyes, science
    continues to work on ways to heal many born and aquired illnesses and
    disorders. Shouldn't we do the same for sexual disorders, whether homosexual
    or heterosexual? We look to cure a manic depressive, so that they can be
    more productive in life. Would this not also apply to those who have sexual
    problems. I know, you say it's not a problem for someone to be homosexual,
    but that is your belief.

    >>>Killing our unborn is an action I speak against. But there are times when
    killing the unborn is the better of two very poor options. I also speak
    against involving the government in the doctor-patient decisions on this
    issue. Maybe God wants a draconian law on the books for this purpose. So
    far, I think not.

    Actually, you are correct on your last statement. The Bible states that man
    will never be able to govern himself, which is why Christ will return. We
    are inadequate at anything we do, in God's eyes. We are imperfect, yet he
    loves us. Even those that kill their own child, or may be homosexual, etc.
    As for the "two options", I do agree with abortion if the life of the mother
    is in danger. If the mother dies, then no more children can be born, and the
    child may die anyway, should it become that complicated. If the unborn child
    dies, then the mother can have many more children. But, to kill for ones own
    gain is not only immoral, but illogical. If my grandmother chose to have an
    abortion, my mother would not have been born and neither I. So, if someone
    choses this option for no other reason than to avoid gaining weight or due
    to poverty, career, etc, I believe they have relinquished their right to
    live. NOW, when I say that, I say that in the spiritual sense, not physical.
    But, as I said it's up to God.

    >>>Not allowing prayer in schools which is government mandated seems like a
    decision which is reasonable and rational. There is no law against private
    prayer, of course.

    If you mean that schools should allow one to "privately" pray before a test
    or at anytime they chose, so long as it does not infringe on another
    student's rights, nor disrupts the class, then OK. But, many schools do not
    allow it at all. If a student is seen praying or prays allowed, even if it
    is not in the classroom, but let's say outside during lunch, they can be
    disiplined. Still others mandate a moment of silence before test, etc. If
    this is what you refer to as mandated prayer, your lost. How does it force
    the other students to actual pray, or even hear the prayer of others. If you
    know of a school, besides religious ones, that force students to pray, let
    me know.

    >>>I know, W says this all the time. It is an easy answer. I think it is
    an incomplete one.

    OK. Complete it then. Your answer alone was incomplete. How can one
    criticize without justification. There are many reasons that other
    nationalities may dislike us. Some for politics, some for religion, some for
    our wealth, etc. But I was speaking specifically to the radical Islamics.
    They may say that they hate our wealth and influence in the world, but in
    fact they hate our morals and religion, or sometimes lack thereof.

    >>>Interesting claim. Can you defend it. The First amendment is an early
    example of liberal thought. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it should be

    Let me first say that I am a person with a great memory for specific events
    and statements, but not good on dates. OK. Both Greece and Rome had some of
    the same social problems we do, they also had for example problems with
    disease, specifically within the "gay/bisexual" community. The greatly
    accepted behaviour of husbands having a "male", usually young, concubine
    lead to tragic outbreaks of disease, which back then usually meant death.
    How does it serve society for this to be allowed.

    On abortion, since you are the expert on it, can you give the number of
    abortions performed since Rowe v Wade? The following is not an actual
    calculation. It is only to express a point. The end number would in fact be
    higher, if this were an actual equation.
    1)Take the number that would have been born from that point until 1990,
    multiply that by 1.3.
    2)Take the number from 1990 to 2010, assuming projections, plus the number
    from item 1, and multiply that by 1.3.
    3)Continue this for periods 2010 to 2030 and 2030 to 2050.

    Now with your number, compare this to the number of worker aged persons
    projected to be required to support the Social Security program, that the
    "left" loves so much. You may be surprised but if abortion had not been
    legalized, their might be alot more people working to keep the lame program

    >>>I had not heard of that. I would observe that I'd be on her side on that
    one. If the story is true, of course.

    That's nice to hear. And, yes, the story is true. In fact it was on just
    about every news channel, except the "left leaning" CNN. Ever watch the
    "right/center leaning Fox"?

    >>>Most liberals I know are fiercely protective of the first amendment.
    you can cite where they approve of violating it? As for the obscenity case,
    that is a tough one. The amendment has to protect speech we don't personally
    approve of, and that's how that one seems to be going. Very much like the
    case of the neo-Nazi march in the Jewish town of Skokie.

    Well, as I stated, I don't see the ACLU suing the pageant officials for
    cutting the girl for her "right-winged" views. And you are correct that
    there are those that allow "right-winged" obscenities. What is often the
    case however, the "right" does something that the "left" dislikes, it goes
    to a "right" court and is allowed, then the "left" goes out saying how
    "right" the court was. That is why we have both sides vying to get people
    from their side into the higher courts. Correct? I'm not saying that the
    "right" is right, I'm saying that both can be wrong. But it seems that no
    matter how much I try to explain this to some, they just don't have the
    courage to say that they too can be wrong.

    >>>I read last year a 903 page tome by Ariens & Destro on the single subject
    Religion and First Amendment Rights. It was part of the required reading for
    a course on ethics here at Iliff. A much more complex subject than most
    people realize.

    Again, you're right. It is complex and for an obvious reason. Having the
    right to both "free speech" and "religious beliefs" makes it complicated to
    avoid taking the rights of one to give rights to another. I see it this way.
    If someone must lose a right in order for a greater number of people to keep
    theirs then it should be done. If a few sexual deviates can't look at nude
    children, that's fine, if it is done in order to keep the right of others to
    religious freedom. This is no different than those in the service giving up
    many of their rights, including free speech at times, in order to protect
    and defend the rights of the rest of the nation. I guess many of those with
    no military background would not understand this. But service to country is
    a selfless one and that is something many cannot do. Many are self centered
    and only what gratification at any cost to another ones feelings. If for
    example a guy draws his own pictures of children nude and "never" shows them
    to someone else and keeps them displayed in private away from children
    within his home, then perhaps one could make the arguement that this is his

    Don Perrett
    Thank for the parlet

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 19 2002 - 16:35:41 EDT