Someoneiknow
dio777
Someoneiknow
dio777
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
dio777
Okay, I think I can approach this on two levels, firstly my ethicial/political inclinations as a secular atheist and secondly in how Jesus suggested that you yourselves as Christians should behave.
Before that though, could you tell me why either of us should follow their rules ?
I personally believe that bad laws are there to be broken, ignored and otherwise disobeyed. Youre looking at this as a given law barring you from action, but what if a a law was specifically demanding an unchristian, even a sinful course of action ? I'd ask you to withdraw any assetion that we should follow the law simply because its the law.
I believe that my rights as a human beings are not granted by any particular govenrment. As I said earlier rights are inhrent to each and every human being, no matter their relgious beliefs or where they travel. If we accept that rights are granted by a government then we also have it accept that they can be taken away, at which points they are of course no longer rights, because rights by there own definition are inalienable. Anything else is a priveledge to be taken away, whenever a particualar government ses fit.
Now for you as a Christian Jesus does indeed teach a certain level of co-operation with mans laws, in taxes to Caeser.
Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
And indeed it would behoove you to do so, but lets first ask the question; are the immortal souls of men Caesers due ?
As for god opening up an area, yes of ocurse he will, but not in the obvious way you might expect. Wasnt Paul himself imprisoned for his beliefs ? Weren't the other early Christians murdered and persecuted for preaching their beliefs ?
I dont think any man has become a martyr, through not proclaiming the Gospel and adhering to the laws of men.
That said the laws in other countries aren't "bad". They shouldn't be broken either. Their laws have very strict punishment backed behind them if they are "bad". Many countries allow whipping using a bamboo stick.
If you wish to stay in that country and not end up in jail, beaten or worse, then it's best to follow the rules. Remember, you are a guest in a foreign country. If you misbehave not only are you dishonoring your country, but also whatever deity you worship, and your ancestors, and the people of your home country.
In democratic countries we take things like religious freedom for granted and try to impose our religion on other's because we feel it's right. When in reality, it is wrong, immoral, and in most cases....taboo.
History has shown us that "witnessing", preaching, etc can change the ideas and the morals of people and cause them to rebel against their governments. Which is why countries like Iraq, China and Russia have strict laws against religious missions. It's to keep people from rebelling and to keep dissenters out. Historical examples can include but aren't limited to the Boxer Rebellion, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, rebellions of India.
Also need I remind you that there are such missions that have ended in bloodshed and turmoil. Need I remind you how the Manifest Destiny in America became a failure?
Going to help out another country is one thing, but if they have strict laws and even stricter punishment for proselyting, then either leave your pious beliefs at home, or don't go to that country. Just don't preach to them. I don't think preaching about Jesus and trying to convert others is worth getting beaten with a bamboo stick or having them pull of your fingernails with a weird machine or even with a bamboo stick. Do you?
Yes, Early Christians were persecuted and murdered and what not. But Early Christians did the same things to the pagans, muslims, Native Americans, so forth and so on. But the question is why? The answer to this is simple, because in the areas the Christians lived in where the majority were pagan, it was because the Roman Pagans feared the Christians. They saw them as a threat. The same can be said about the Christians in Mideval Europe during the Inquisitions, Witch Trials and even the Crusades.
In short be respectful to the host countries, follow their rules and that even means don't preach to others. Help out with the countries needs but for your own safety, remember that every life is precious even your own. Throwing that away will make your beliefs worthless. Throwing your life away because of a belief in a savior will become worthless. However helping those in need is more important than a belief, helping others shows that you are a good person, versus saying you're a good person.
A more passionate argument against freedom of speech I have never seen. Who among you could balance a human beings right to air his political/religious views without fear of violence or incarceration, against some percieved duty to be courteuos and find free speech wanting ?
With regards to foreigners following the law in my own country I can think of several occasions where i would in fact appolaud them for breaking our own laws. For example, when the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to send a party to protest at the funeral of a gay man held here in Britain, I condemned in equal measure the wickedness of the WBC for proposing such a thing and the totalitarian behaviour of the British government in forbidding it. It was not only the WBC's right to picket the funeral that was infringed but also my right to wait at the airport for them and throw every last ounce of venom and abuse I could at such disgusting bigots.
And who said anything about imposing beliefs on anybody ? Were talking about the right to air your beliefs and try to convince others in liberal debate, no one least of all me suggested anybody had the right to force people to believe anything. I also dont understand why your supporting Chinas right to suppress freedom of speech on account of it being a great method of suppresing rebeliion confused
Lastly youre incorrect to say that no laws are wrong. Morality is subjective, whilst a group of Wahabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia would preach Sharia law and the righteousness of hanging homosexuals and stoning to death adulterors, I myself and I suspect you would see this as being very wrong indeed.
You also haven't addressed my argument that its perfectly accetable to ignore temporal laws, in pursuit of spreading the gospel.
As much as your argument is valid just as much as the other persons, That there makes your argument somewhat less substantial just because many people regard these individuals rude, and crossing the edge too far. They disregard other people's rights and say other people are infringing on theirs.
I dont think this argument carries any weight really, it seems to hinge on my argument being false because I support the WBC's right to free speech. Now we dont need free speech to talk about the soccer scores, or whinge about the weather, so surely if free speech does exist then it exists precisely to allow these people to air views that you feel are "rude" or "crossing the edge to far". I would certainly choose far stronger, more visceral and indeed more offensive language to denounce them then you chose...and once again its thanks to free speech that I can.
I will never espouse silencing my critics, no matter how abhorrent their views. Three reasons spring to mind:
1. To allow the state to silence them, would be to establish a political principle that would allow the state to silence myself should it feel that my own views are, to use your words again "rude" or "crossing the edge to far".
2. Because if what im advocating is as true as I believe it to be, what have I to fear from my opponent. So long as there is free and open debate, I believe the truth will attend to itself.
3. As i've asserted many times before, in particular regards to hate preachers, and fascists, sunlight has been and will always be the best disinfectant.
One, this is just to say that if you want to prove something, you prove it at the headquarters, not the outsourcing place. WBC travels for miles to go picket and what not, but they do it at the wrong areas. If you go to picket, do it at the outspoken people's place, or headquarters of the organization. Not the funeral of some little old lady who made a comment about gays. That's tacky and rude and doesn't hold any weight whatsoever, but just makes you look like a jerk.
Two, they are listed as a hate group, on par with neonazis.
Three, many of their "protests" do not remain peaceful. You through a whole bunch of passionate people into a group that is passionate on a different subject, get them fighting about it, and then you see a riot on your hands. Hence why WBC is banned from ever entering Great Britain.
One, from the perspective of exercising their right to free speech, I cant agree with you that they should have any legal obligation to demonstrate purposefully away from places where it might cause offense (so long as there not trespassing on private property).
Two, ad hominem. Beyond that, why should I care what a given government (with its own political persuasion) chooses to identify them as ? I have my own politics and a rational mind to make my own decisions about them, I dont need any government body to tell me that their hateful bigots.
Three, your being dreadfully ambigous with this one. If their antagonising them to violence and come to harm as a result then it, its a matter of a jury to decide whether the folks they were antagonising should be held guilty of a crime. Under the circumstances of them pickiting a funeral I know that I myself would refuse to return a guilty verdict against the attendes, should they retaliate violently. This is the real beauty of the common law jury system.
But this is taking us off topic. You seem to be thinking that I dont regard what the WBC do as wrong simply because its an exercise fo free speech. This is not what im saying at all. I am willing to say catagorically that what they are doing is morally wrong, tho it should be permissable under the law. The reason we ended up on this is as follows.
1) I said its not morally wrong for Christian missionaries to travel illegally into China and peacefully spread the Gospel.
2) Someone replyed that it was morally wrong because it broke the law.
3) I rebuked by saying that their argument was irrelevant because we all know that breaking the law is not always morally wrong.
Now, having refuted that argument im still waiting for another one to tell me why its morally wrong to travel into china illegally and peacefully spread the gospel.
