No exams on Wiccan, Pagan holidays at University of Missouri?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I fail to see how statistics fits into our dialogue at all.

If all religions are equal, then whether 25 people in a storefront church proclaim false doctrine, or 25 million proclaim it, the fact remains that in your paradigm you believe that their position of [fill in the blank with any hateful diatribe you like] has equal value to this.

Math shouldn’t factor into this. At all.

Why PR, I believe you are trying to be slippery by shifting from the question. I believe I was interested in knowing about the big ones. How in your opinion are they unequal? While we established that I personally see no connection between respecting an opinion and agreeing with it about eight or ten posts ago, I did not carry that context over to the idea that statistical outliers should carry the same weight in public recognition with regards to things such as holidays, and we established that I came to that conclusion simply as a matter of practicality - countless religions and only 365 days in a year. Now, having recapped that, can we get back to the point at hand? I was interested to know how we would sway someone other than ourselves that other religions, such as let’s say Judaism or Buddhism, are not on equal footing with our own religion. Can we talk about that? Or did I misunderstand what you said about other religions not being equal to ours? I will allow for the possibility that I may have misunderstood your meaning of course. Did I make a mistake, but if not, could you answer the question?

Thanks

 

[PRmerger]

Why PR, I believe you are trying to be slippery by shifting from the question. I believe I was interested in knowing about the big ones. How in your opinion are they unequal?

They are unequal in the same way: to the degree that they have divorced themselves from the faith given, once for all, to the saints, is the degree that they are unequal.

While we established that I personally see no connection between respecting an opinion and agreeing with it about eight or ten posts ago, I did not carry that context over to the idea that statistical outliers should carry the same weight in public recognition with regards to things such as holidays, and we established that I came to that conclusion simply as a matter of practicality - countless religions and only 365 days in a year.** Now, having recapped that, can we get back to the point at hand?**

Sure.

I was interested to know how we would sway someone other than ourselves that other religions, such as let’s say Judaism or Buddhism, are not on equal footing with our own religion.

Asked and answered, sir. I cited 1 Peter 3;15, remember?

Can we talk about that? Or did I misunderstand what you said about other religions not being equal to ours?

What you understood, I cannot say.

But I will posit that perhaps you did not see my response?

 

[PRmerger]

I think any religion that states that homosexuals are despised by God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that homosexuals are loved by God.

I think that any religion that states that Jesus is not God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that Jesus is God.

I think that any religion that states that abortion is a sacrament is greatly unequal to a religion that states that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

I love you PR, but when are you going to stop being silly with me? No religion with any statistically significant presence in any society holds those beliefs.

I find it curious that you have discarded the billions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastors, Ba ha’is, atheists, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Zains, Wiccans, Sikhs…et al

with such a dismissive sentence. Really? They have no statistically significant presence?

 

[flameburns623]

We do what we can to offer a reason for the hope we have in us, with gentleness and reverence.

We speak the truth in love.

We never keep silent and allow evil to triumph.

So when the Rev. Fred Phelps proclaims his vile message of hate, Catholics do not say, “I respect that view!” Rather, we say, “This message is odious and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

No.

What we say is,

“I disagree with your opinion but I respect your right to hold it, as well as to argue your case for it in a forum appropriate to that purpose. However, I do not believe that the funerals of deceased victims of violence or war represent an appropriate forum for you to make your case, I do not believe the Bill of Rights is designed to empower you to expropriate such events for such a forum,and I will work to try to ensure that legislators and judges who share my reading of the Bill of Rights eventually are able to impose penalties upon you if you persist in misusing your rights at times and places inappropriate for such expression”.

If Fred Phelps’ message is of God, it is by definition not “odious”, except to those who hate God. Rather than rejecting Phelps’ message out of hand–the error which is polarizing our nation on so many controversial topics–we simply need to establish that there are times and there are places where we can thrash out controversies; and other times and places where this is not appropriate.

 

[PRmerger]

No.

What we say is,

"I disagree with your opinion but I respect your right to hold it, as well as to argue your case for it in a forum appropriate to that purpose

'zactly.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

They are unequal in the same way: to the degree that they have divorced themselves from the faith given, once for all, to the saints, is the degree that they are unequal.

But that would only hold water if the Jewish person and the Buddhist person we were having a discussion with were in agreement with us that that ours is the only faith given and that only our saints are viable. I might expect an Orthodox Jew to reply that rather than being divorced from the faith given, they have held to it firmly by following the teachings of the Torah, and the Buddhist might point out that he or she is in no way divorced from the faith or teachings given in the Dhammapada. How would you and I make our position more valid?

Asked and answered, sir. I cited 1 Peter 3;15, remember?

But how would quoting Peter to someone who doesn’t subscribe to the letters and works of Peter be persuasive in convincing them that their religion is unequal to ours?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I find it curious that you have discarded the billions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastors, Ba ha’is, atheists, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Zains, Wiccans, Sikhs…et al

with such a dismissive sentence. Really? They have no statistically significant presence?

-I was replying to the idea that any statistically prevalent religion in any of the world’s populations believed that Abortion was a sacrament or that homosexuals are despised by God.

-I was unaware that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastors, Sikhs, Ba ha’is, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, and Wiccans believed that homosexuals are despised by God or that that abortion is a sacrament.

-I left out atheists, because I think by virtue of their belief system of non-belief, they would of course not have any sacraments.

-I have never heard of a Zain, but my apologies to them for not knowing about them. If you meant Jain, then they certainly do not believe that abortion is a sacrament or that homosexuals are despised by God.

 

[PRmerger]

But that would only hold water if the Jewish person and the Buddhist person we were having a discussion with were in agreement with us that that ours is the only faith given and that only our saints are viable.

I am sorry, but I cannot decipher this comment. Can you please re-phrase?

I might expect an Orthodox Jew to reply that rather than being divorced from the faith given, they have held to it firmly by following the teachings of the Torah, and the Buddhist might point out that he or she is in no way divorced from the faith or teachings given in the Dhammapada.** How would you and I make our position more valid?**

I think that question is beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that I would use faith and reason to explore the Truth of Catholicism with them. And I would point them to a Person, who is Truth.

But how would quoting Peter to someone who doesn’t subscribe to the letters and works of Peter be persuasive in convincing them that their religion is unequal to ours?

I don’t think I would quote 1 Peter 3:15 to someone who doesn’t believe in the inspiration of the NT.

But I would certainly do what 1 Peter 3:15 enjoins upon us.

 

[PRmerger]

-I was replying to the idea that any statistically prevalent religion in any of the world’s populations believed that Abortion was a sacrament or that homosexuals are despised by God.

Fair enough.

-I was unaware that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastors, Sikhs, Ba ha’is, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, and Wiccans believed that homosexuals are despised by God or that that abortion is a sacrament.

Well, since they have no central authority, it is indeed hard to say what each of these religions proclaims about the above issues.

-I left out atheists, because I think by virtue of their belief system of non-belief, they would of course not have any sacraments.

True, that.

But I don’t think that the woman I heard who says that abortion is a sacrament meant it in a literal way.

-I have never heard of a Zain, but my apologies to them for not knowing about them. If you meant Jain, then they certainly do not believe that abortion is a sacrament or that homosexuals are despised by God.

Yes, my bad.