From: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: jlharris@c00562-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:32:12 GMT


In article <adams.721595322@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|
|> >>>In article <72141699814412@c00404-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
|> 
|> >>>I have no right to make decisions for mama, I can tell mama what is legal, 
|> >>>and murder (aka abortion) is illegal.
|> >>By that measure I shall have to get into state government, and see about 
|> >>banning every single religious text from this and every other public 
|> >>university.  I can tell you what is legal too.  It would take time.
|> 
|> >>BTW by what you are saying we would then have to put every single woman that 
|> >>has had an abortion, and their doctors into jail.  Seems like a waste of 
|> >>perfectly good jail space, and perfectly good people...  But I forgot people 
|> >>like you like waste.
|> >
|> >Yep, and charge them with murder just like those who kill with guns. 
|> 
|> But they have not committed murder by the current standards of our system
|> of laws.  In fact, there is no 'person' to be murdered under our
|> constitution.  The Constitution speaks of citizens as being 'born' or
|> 'naturalized'.  It does not apply to the unborn.
|> 
|> You'll have to amend the US Constitution to make abortion murder.

No but I think it should be, and it was pretty much before Roe v Wade the
constitution and how the court interprets it will be the deciding matter in 
this issue.

|> 
|> >>Jesus was BORN in 0 AD (Actually Christian scholars now argue that it might 
|> >>have been 7 AD or 14 BC [something about things that could have been the 
|> >>star over bethlehem, and some years we lost in the middle ages]).  AD is the 
|> >abbreviation for the latin which means "Year of Our Lord", NOT AFTER DEATH.

|> "Anno Domini".  Modern scholars often use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD.
|> These refer to "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" respectively, and are
|> based on the same numbering system as BC/AD, but with no reference to any
|> religious figures.

|> 
|> >>And this is from history teachers, history texts, AND the neighbors of mine 
|> >>that are ultra religious, and follow and study the bible very closely.
|> >>And your statement "And yes the new testament was written in ad" is quite
|> >>condescending, it's damn unlikely for anyone who received a basic education
|> >>by 1990 to NOT know that fact if only from having the references in some bad
|> >>literature explained in English class.
|> >
|> >I don't know where you went to high school, but no history of what is in the
|> >bible was taught where I grasuated from, only when it was translated, this is 
|> >not a historical fact, it is a religous fact where I graduated.

|> Huh?  Translation of the Bible is a historical, cultural fact.  Irrespective 
|> of its content's factual content, the Bible is a historical document and
|> its handling, translation, use, etc are all of cultural and historical
|> significance.
|> 
|> The only purely religious issues are the application and authority of the 
|> information contained in the Bible, and which canon one uses.

Yes and that is all that it treated as in some places (not as the religious
document it is.  Most people don't use the bible for anything more than a bookend.


|> 
|> [deleted indictment of Jonathan for denying rights to others]
|> 
|> >I can try to put my values on you just as you try to convice me that you have
|> >the right to put yours on mine, 

|> Nice double standard!  You get to impose, while others get to try to convince.  
|> If you decide that it is OK for you to impose your standards on others,
|> then you must be prepared for them to impose theirs on you.  Think about
|> it.  What happens if some day Islam becomes the majority religion in the
|> US?  And they vote in laws that impose their values on you.  Are you going
|> to accept it?  I doubt it.  Remember - Do unto others...
|

Well, it is sort of the other way around, they have already imposed their will on me
and I am just now trying to try to convince them to see things my way.  I would
have no choice but to obey what they say and practice my religion underground.

> 
|> >I can disagree with what you do and demonstrate, fuss, petition and yell 
|> >until I get my way, the same as you.  

|> How about we just let each person do what they want so long as they don't
|> violate another persons rights?  Remember, your rights end at your nose or
|> your property, depending.  Exactly how does acceptance and tolerance of
|> homosexuals infringe on your rights?  How are you personally harmed?

Yes, but I keep getting accused that just because I practice religion publicly
I infringe on others right to not have to.  And I can always try to make my 
environment satisfactory by changing the things that I don't like (i.e. sending
representatives to washington that will do what I want).

|> 
|> >Yes homosexual marriages do happen, I just don't think any church should 
|> >preform them as that is not right in the eyes of many churches, but you can 
|> >always find one that does, mine wouldn't.

|> Mine doesn't either, but I certainly won't make a *governmental* rule
|> preventing it.  In fact, the governemnt should be as neutral as possible in
|> such situations, giving no advantage to hetero- or homosexual couples.
|> Governemnt shouldn't be involved in condoning or discouraging what are
|> basically private relationships between two people.

Fine, leave things like they are now.

|> 
|> >>>Adultery is when you screw anyone that you are not married to (christian 
|> >>>definition).  

|> Last I checked, that's not the case.  Adultery is hacing a sexual
|> relationship where one or both partners are married, but not to each other.
|> Sexual acts completely outside of marriage are called fornication.

Doesn't matter what you call it it is wrong.

|> 
|> >>>And no, there is nothing wrong with recreational sex in marriage. 

|> Nor is there anything fundamentally wrong with recreation sex outside of
|> marriage from a purely secular viewpoint.  Noone will force you to have sex
|> outside of marriage.  You can chose that option yourself.  But society has
|> no business interfering with the sexual relationship between consenting
|> partners, so long as both partners are 'adult' (*not* 18, but mature enough 
|> to make such a decision).

Yes from a secular standpoint it is ok, and that is the world's perogative, not
mine.  You have the option to have sex if you wish just as I choose not to.  And
if you are 'adult' enough to have sex you are 'adult' enough to raise a child.

|> 
|> >>>But abortion and religion are two different issues, and man and woman have 
|> >>>the right to say that it should be illegal, THAT gives me the right to say 
|> >>>abortion is wrong.

|> You absolutely have the right to *SAY* that abortion is wrong.  But you do
|> NOT have the right to enforce that view on others.  You want to impose your
|> religious values by law - that is totally unacceptable.

Yes and others want to take those values away... by law.

|> 
|> >You try to use the biblical quote "do unto others as you would have them do 
|> >unto you" against me, while this is a good try, as others are ALREADY doing 
|> >it to me, I can try to do it to them (not very nice or holy I know, but if you
|> >corner something it will fight)  many are in government doing just that, and
|> >you protest when I want to tell you that you can't marry unless it is a woman.


|> Doing what to you, personally?  Exactly what are they doing to *YOU*
|> personally?


Let's see, can't have prayer in public schools (my family=me), can't demonstrat
in front of abortion clinics while people can strike companies all day.

|> 
|> Why shouldn't he be able to marry anyone he wants?  How does his marrying a
|> man infringe your rights?  Hmm?  How does it hurt you?
|> 
|> >You obviously haven't read that part of the bible very well

|> "Et tu, Brute."  You seemed to have missed the part about love and
|> tolerance, and that laws were not the way to gain salvation, nor should we
|> bring the Word by the sword, but by the word.  In other words, preach,
|> evangelize, teach, but do not coerce.  A coerced person is no more saved
|> than the one who coerced him.  "You hypocrites...you convert a man and make
|> him twice as much a child of hell as you."..."You hypocrites, you slam the
|> gates of heaven on others when you yourselves will not enter there".
|> 
|> Remember, remove the log from your eye so that you can see clearly to
|> remove the speck of sawdust from your neighbors eye.  You cannot possibly
|> survive judgement by the same LEVEL of standards as you are applying to
|> others.  Remember, all sin is equal in God's eyes.  When you lie, you sin
|> as much as any person who fornicates, commits adultery, etc.

Very good!  I can, by this do what I want religously, as you do what you want, as long
as one makes no restrictions on the other by a law.  I do not attempt to judge 
others, it is not my place to do so.   

|> 
|> >>>Yep, I would and would be outraged, but if he panders to christians, I like 
|> >>>it It's a double standard, but then again, politics is always unfair.

|> You shouldn't like it.  Because one day you might just be in the group that
|> is NOT pandered to, and get the short end of the stick.  I don't think
|> you'll like that very much.

Well, lets see I should get my chance when Clinton panders to abortion and homo-
sexual rights activists, so we'll see.

|> 
|> >of our mail discussions when we do something wrong, it is a fact of life,
|> >if you are human, then you sin, if you are a christian, you ask for and get 
|> >forgiven for it, it isn't a license to sin, it's acknowledging that you have
|> >done something wrong, which I don't ususally do on purpose or even if I did, 
|> >and having the penalty for that sin removed. 


|> It is nowhere near this simple!  There must be true sorrow for the sin, and
|> a forthright attempt to avoid the sin in the future.  You can't just go out
|> and sin expecting forgiveness.  It doesn't work that way.  Do you think God
|> is that simple-minded?  If I say "hey, I'd like to have sex with that woman
|> over there, and I knwo it's a sin, but all I gotta do is ask for
|> forgiveness" do you really think that clears you?  Not a chance.

Yes, but I have a hard enough time selling the get forgiven part without having
to explain the rest.

|> 
|> >>>To put it blountly, homosexuality is explicitly outlawed by the bible, and 
|> >>>therfore I disaprove of rights for them above normal individual rights.

|> The Bible is NOT the law of the land, nor should it be.  This country was
|> founded on principles of freedom and liberty.  NOT on the Bible.

Yes and we lose our freedoms every day, including the right to practice religion.

|> 
|> >To put it bluntly, it is the benefit of being "normal"

|> Define normal.

If you read the posts in order today you should already get the answer to this.

|> 
|> >KIll the politicians is a mean but good idea, but then who do we blame
|> >when the economy hits the skids?
|> 
|> The market....and failure of businesses and people to make adequate plans
|> and take steps to keep in touch with the fluid situation presented by the
|> complexities of the world trade situation.  Politicians just make it worse.
|
-Johnathan
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,alt.politics.kibo,talk.abortion