Why Can't I Own a Canadian?--A Religious Letter

reply to post by rick1


Ok, you dont have to admit that I knew what "kill" in the Bible meant.

Many of us understand, it isnt that we are ignorant of what is in the Bible, or even of how Christians have been taught to interpret it.

And in answer to your question that is intended to run us off the point, even if my address were publicly available on the internet or anywhere, (which it probably is, somewhere) there would not be crowds of people outside my home harassing me.

This is because of two things. One, I am not a public figure. No one gives a rats ass about me or my opinions. I could rattle on all day long, and no one cares.

Secondly, I dont really get "all up" in other peoples business. I state MY opinion, as MY opinion, and I dont pretend I am the be all and end all authority on what other people should do. Personally, I think many of my opinions are well reasoned, and worthy of consideration, but ultimately I dont think its any of my business what other people do in their private lives. I do believe in a Divine, maybe not the way a typical Christian does, but I have a belief system. I just think that any God worth believing in can handle his business without me butting in. In fact Jesus kind of recommended that approach with all the non-judgment and "speck in the eye" stuff he spent a lot of his time promoting.

So I doubt, even if I were a public figure, that I would raise enough ire to motivate people to spend their precious time outside my home with torches and pitchforks. Most people would rather do other things unless they are really, really hurt and angry.

reply to post by orangetom1999

They are not in favor of this kind of free speech. That is obvious to people who can think for themselves.

This is the line I was responding to, a line you typed when responding to my comments which I felt to be unnecessarily condescending. I wasn't referring to comments you made towards jfj123 and I agree that both the Nazi and enlightenment comment were in bad taste and didn't add to the conversation. However I was responding to your statements, not jfj123's so I didn't feel that was relevant. Please don't try and deflect, I didn't defend jfj123, I was speaking strictly about our conversation thus far.

As for the question, it was in fact a typo and for that I apologize. I'm aware that Perez asked it but she didn't have to answer him if she really didn't want to. Though that being said, when you sign on for a beauty competition it has to be expected that you are going to be asked questions and that people will be analyzing your statements, this is just common sense and by agreeing to take part in this competition she knew that her statements could come under scrutiny.

She was reprimanded and opposed for speaking her views, how is that taking away her right to free speech? If she suffered legal consequences as a result of her statements then THAT would be taking away free speech. All I see here is a campaign of opposition from those who disagreed with her statements. Them exercising their right to free speech by disagreeing with her and chastising her for holding such opinions doesn't infringe on her right to free speech. As I said before, if there were personal attacks involved then I don't support that because it doesn't add to meaningful debate but ultimately, a lot of name calling doesn't take away her right to free speech, not in the slightest. That's the price you pay for broadcasting your views, you leave yourself open to scrutiny.

So a large number of people disagreed with her and made their dissatisfaction public. They chastised her because they thought her views were abhorrent and were appalled by what they heard. Ultimately the only thing they did was express their own views using their own right to free speech. If there had been serious legal consequences for her statement then I would agree with you, but the only thing she suffered was social opposition and being chastised. That doesn't violate her right to free speech. By that same token, there was nothing stopping people who supported her views from holding rallies, using the media (don't tell me FOX wouldn't have picked that up in a second) or just generally enacting their own support campaign. Nothing has been violated here. She expressed her opinion, as per her right, and she was actively opposed, as is their right. Nobody lost any rights during this whole thing.

I live in Canada so up here she could've faced some legal ramifications depending on how she phrased it but I don't agree with hate speech laws because I think that it just feeds the haters victim based rhetoric. I'm a stronger supporter of free speech than most and I don't see how anybody's right to free speech was infringed upon here

"ALL THINGS BELONG TO GOD". That is why you're not going to be allowed to own a Canadian or a Mexican although you might try to. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It has no legitimacy. It must not be permitted. Obviously the "Book of Leviticus" was written by men, intent apon being that which is pleasing to men. I very much doubt the divine origin of the Bible. But I do not doubt the divine origin of every tree. Trees are holy, but books are not. To plant a tree is an act of great righteousness, where as to cut down a tree is an act of extreme evil. Remember that we are told in the Bible, that in order to build his "Temple of the LORD", King Solomon destroyed the sacred cedar forests of what is now the Lebanon. As a consequence of that act of great sin, Lebanon continues to be a desert region, even to this day. Private property has no validity in the sight of God. Private property is a form of insanity. A grave delusion, because in truth, as a matter of absolute fact, all things belong to God.

This thread gives me the opportunity to teach you about the revelation that I recieved in early 2000 AD. In that audio clairvoyant communion with the angels, I was told to write down precisely verbatim, what they required me to write. They gave to me what is, by their requirement, called PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM(tm). Which translated means, "The Celestial Precepts" or "The Law of the Angels" or "The Way of Heaven" or translated into Chinese Mandarin it is "CHIENTAO".

"(1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One God there be no other God. Her names are many but she be the one true God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La deus nostra, notre dame, our lady, The holy spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving her above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to her above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous". Copyright NGL 2000.

As clarification the word "christae" is an adjective, not a noun, meaning pure or in this case girls being virginity. Obviously the God who communicated this to me is a feminine God equivalent to the Taoist Chinese GUANYIN. Indeed my personal belief is that God is feminine.

He who trusts in violence to be his security cannot speak that he trusts in God to be his security. Obviously the problem of violence is universal. Muslims are not unique in this regard. Everyone of us is every bit as violent. Violence is a primitive chemistry of the oldest part of the brain, the Reptilian Cortex. It is out of control because people are not using their higher brain to control the reptilian predatory urges. We need to find ways by which to get the higher brain to function. Unfortunately abusing drugs and alcohol weaken the ability of the higher brain to control the violent urges of the reptilian cortex. So in my opinion the violence is drugs related. They are fighting over who is to be in control of the Opium Trade. Islam has always been about the Opium Trade. It is very fundamental to their religion. The Prophet Mohammed used it all his life. The Koran does not hide this fact. It gives them the courage to do their acts of violence. They call it "hasheesh" [heroin] which is root of the word "Hashashin" [heroin addict] which becomes the English word "assassin" [murderer]. So you see violence is their religion. Sex and Drugs and Violence are the Trinity of Evil. The three prime attributes of the LORD. "The LORD is a man of war. The LORD is his name" Exodus 15:3. So in my opinion it can be clearly seen that the Islamic religion is coming to us straight out of the Pit of Hell itself. It is the Nightmare of Hell and the Anti-Christ Apostasy foretold and prophesied in the Bible scriptures. It is the Armageddon predicted in the Book of Revelation. It will destroy the world. It is the "Way of Man" and is thus murderously opposed to the "Way of Heaven". Muslims are as they call it in their language, "moohareb" which means "they who make war against God" for they have no faith in God, they only have faith in violence. Remember the words of Jesus, "You shall know a tree by its fruit. For the mouth speaks what the heart is filled with". By the process of Multidimensionality Physics, I teach that, Peace is a gift of God to whom so ever She please to give it, or not as the case may be. I advise that you try to read a book called THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by author MICHAEL TALBOT published in 1991 by Harper Collins. ISBN 0-586-09171-8. It will help you to understand how everything is in the Hand of God.
[url=http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/shimono/id309926637]>SHIMONO

I am of the opinion that the OP has been watching to many west wing reruns. The simple facts are rather undeniable. homsexuality is abnormal to the species at large. many religions condemn the act. homosexuals represent less than .001% of the population. Muslim nations treat them far more harshly than we ever thought of.

reply to post by Phedreus


And why is abnormality a problem? What two consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn't affect the rest of the population in any way. Many religions have condemned homosexuality? Many religions have also condemned the eating of certain foods, pork being condemned in two major world religions (Judaism and Islam) what's your point? Abnormality in the species and condemnation by religions means nothing regarding whether or not it's ok to be gay or not. Unless that's not what you're saying. Your post is kind of vague so I'm curious to understand what you meant

reply to post by tothetenthpower


the leviticus laws are outdated.

the bible says so.

GOD says so.

this is the reason why we should rejoice in christ, because now there is a new covenant.


don't take my word for it, here is the scripture

HEBREWS 7

excerpts are as follows


11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


the 'another priest' in verse 11 refers to Christ.
verse 12 clearly states a need for a change in the law.


moving onwards,


18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

..

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.




hebrews 8 takes this point even further, by stating


7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt, (leviticus laws)
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.


10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.



--
don't be drawn back by wicked and their logic,
perhaps if the writer of the e-mail had read his scripture, he may have discovered the good news earlier

and be happy, because now we don't have to grow out our sideburns : )

Sexuality is never made public display in the manner in which this group tries to force acceptance on an unwilling public.

reply to post by orangetom1999


Really? I must not be seeing the same things you are because every day I see people displaying their sexuality. Walk into a park, see a couple kissing? walk down the street, see that Husband and Wife holding hands...

As to that "unwilling public", well that doesn't hold any water because at one time that "unwilling public" didn't want women to vote or lets Blacks sit in the front of the bus.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Helmkat]

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by grahag

 

When people assassinate the character of someone simply because they disagree with them that is not free speech. When large groups of people people go to someones home and taught them day and night that is not free speech. Free speech does have limits. I know you don't understand this because your post just proved it.

Our disagreement seems to stem from you thinking that her right of free speech is being suppressed, when in fact, it's just more organized than hers is. How does them expressing their opinions prevent her from expressing hers? The audience isn't the key, it's the ability to express your opinion that you have the right to.

Not sure if anyone has noticed (probably not) but this "letter" is actually mostly ripped off of a "West Wing" episode (Season 2, titled: "In this White House"

It is not an original piece of work.

9 pages of comments and not one sophisticate picked up on this?

Brutal, fellas.