Intolerance, It should be considered a sin? [Archive]

JoeCanada76

Aug 6, 2006, 08:35 AM

Okay, on the thread of reincarnation. Another member brought up an excellent point about intolerance. I was the one that started the thread of reincarnation and it went off topic. Which is expected I guess, but instead of continuing there I think this heading from another member is an excellent way to start a new discussion.

What is your definition of intolerance? How does intolerance effect our society?
Should intolerance be considered a sin?
Have you contributed yourself personally to a intolerant society, or have you did your best to be tolerant to all beliefs, to all life styles to all peoples, all cultures?

My personal answer is the intolerance, is the belief that somebody beliefs are supperiour to somebody else's. Intolerance actually creates racism of many kinds. Intolerance I believe creates uprising, wars, fights, murders, and much more. I have done my best to show my open mindness to all beliefs, all religions, all peoples, all countries, and all lifestyles. I am not a judge, nor will I ever be. There are some people who say they are right and others are wrong. That their beliefs, because they are different do not matter. I think respect, acceptance and pure love for everybody is the true belief. LOVE, creates Peace, Acceptance, Forgiveness, and so much more. Intolerance creates HATE. What world do I want to live in. I want to live in a world with peace and love. As long as others are so intolerant, even though they are teaching about their belief in God, as long as others are doing it by they are right and you are wrong. As long as they step on other peoples toes to make a point, as long as they are not open minded to others and get hateful when others do not have the same belief. They are going to be the ones that are responsible for turning other people away from God. God will in my opinion and according to the kings James bible will hold those people accountable, the people who are responsible of turning people away from God.

So for all those out there who like to judge others, tell them that their belief is wrong, for personally attacking somebody because of differing beliefs. You are teaching everybody else that hey, we do not want to be part of your religion because of the way you put people down, the way you treat others beliefs, the hate that you spew, the nastiness that you dish out. Your god is not the god that I believe in.

Joe

RickJ

Aug 6, 2006, 10:09 AM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 6, 2006, 10:09 AM

The trouble with political or religious intolerance is the intolerant don't see it. A bigot is not a bigot to himself and doesn't understand how it cripples him and the world. The truly arrogant believe it is their privilege, verily their duty even, to see that the world is properly bullied (only they would call it something else LOL)... but I am convinced with my entire spiritual being that this is who it's directed to when it was written that "the lame shall walk and the blind shall see and the meek shall inherit the earth".

There is nothing as powerful as the God-given ability to experience profound remorse and no one is as thoroughly converted as those who finally look in the mirror, don't like what they see and utterly give it up to God. From then on its not possible to judge others without judging oneself first and that tends to shut a lot of people up. Not everyone has had that sort of experience yet. For those who have there is no debate and they quietly demonstrate it in thoughtful and consistent actions more than words.

Since I don't believe in the conventional form of sin, I can't answer to the question directly. But this topic is heating up all over the planet along with global warming and the day will come when the lovers outnumber the haters-- I see the figures growing. Finally we will get to make that conversion to recognizing it must work for everyone if its to work at all. Maybe then we'll see a planet-wide shift into a kind of radical humility which will support respect and ultimately peaceful cooperation.

And in the meantime the challenge is to lovingly tolerate the intolerant since anything less means you've joined their camp!

galveston

Aug 6, 2006, 01:18 PM

Hello, Val.
That's a nice dream there, but it ain't going to happen, no way. You know people better than that! The thing to do is to "love your enemies, etc." while at the same time giving them critical information that they need. The "politically correct" movement seems to be gaining speed, but while many in that crowd claim to be tolerant, they refuse to tolerate anyone, or anything that disagrees with them, so who is truly intolerant? One of the beauties of our society in the good old U.S.A. is that we can disagree loudly, but when push comes to shove, we will defend each others right to be wrong.
Truth has never been widely accepted, and even Jesus Christ said that He came to bring a sword, not peace. I promise not to hate you if you disagree with me, and hope you will accord me the same treatment.

Fr_Chuck

Aug 6, 2006, 03:23 PM

The trouble is if you don't draw a line on a specific issue there is no line.
There are specific rights and wrongs, but the line for those slide slowly as one does not stand firm on those beleifs.

Killing is wrong, no matter if it is in a war or it is in the death penalty or the store clerk by the robber or abortion, when we stat lowing the value of life, we start down a slope. Our nation as a government has the power to declare war, that is a right within itself. And often sadly one wrong may have to be allowed for an overall good of society.

But beyond that there is no justifiction. But when one is tolerant and allows others to kill without thought or concern, where will it stop, unborn, why not up to 1 year old, or 4 year old. We now have in some areas assisted suicide, why not merely get rid of anyone over 70, how much social security money we would save ?

Sexual rights, what when one right steps on my right, If I send my child to a public school, why must he be taught that homosexual life style is a great thing, my teachings is it is not, it is not the role of my tax supported school to take a stand, why doe they address it at all.

To me it is a sin to be over tolerant, since by doing so you destroy the society. An example is Christ, he did not allow anything to happen, in the temple even he drove out the money changers, so there is a limit for even Christ as to what he would allow. He called the priests in the temple a pit of vipers, not exactly tolerant?

It is my opinon that intolerance is just an excuse by those living in what should be unacceptable life styles to not have to answer for their ways of life.

Should the drunk be allowed to drive, since who are we to say?

Open marriage, should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry, first cousins, grandfathers and granddaughters. Where is the line to be drawn,
What about 4 people, or 5 people, where is the line drawn.
If you want to draw a line somewhere, then you are intolerant at some point, It is just your point and my point differ

JoeCanada76

Aug 6, 2006, 04:30 PM

I am not talking about that father chuck. Intolerance towards religion beliefs. One believes strongly against reincarnation. Another believes it may be possible. Who is right and who is wrong. Only God knows. God has many mysteries that are not unexplained and maybe many of them will be given to us when we pass to our next life. I am not talking about money changers, I am not talking about marriage, I am not talking about drunks, I am not talking about killing.

I am saying and stating that people have their different views and beliefs in religion. When somebody has a different belief or have different revelations. For one person to say they are wrong. That their culture is wrong that they do not have faith because they may believe something different from them. Belittle them. Bad talk them and put them down because they think their better. This is what causes unrest. Whether it be between countries, cultures, churches, religions.

I believe in reincarnation in certain circumstances. Are you saying I am not allowed to state my belief in the possibility that reincarnation does exist. Does anybody have the right to judge me because I have belief in the reincarnation, or that I have had many ESP situations. Dreams coming true premonitions. I am interested in spirits and other paranormal, because I have had those experiances Does that make me a sorcerer? Does that make me a witch. I am left handed does that mean that I am evil. All these things were excepted as truth at one time. It was okay to prosecute those innocent people, kill, hang just because they did not understand gifts. That society was scared of things that they could not control, inorder to control they went out and murdered and killed these innocent people who were once thought to be witches or sorcerers? So society does change. Peoples thoughts, actions, rules and everything else does change in time. Do respect, accept another persons belief. When you are open minded and a listener, what does that teach other people about christians. That they practise what they preach, but when you have people saying that you are wrong and that they are right. That you are immature and they are more mature in their faith then you are, that they know more then you because you have a difference in beliefs. You know what that says to me and to other people. That the person does not practise what they preach, and that they are a hyprocrite and that we or I do not want to be part of that. That kind of pushing people actually turn others that are open minded away from the belief in God because of the hyprocrisy that many christians posses, the way they act. How do you think God feels about that. We as believers need to be loving to ALL, To Everybody. Respecting everybody and yes accepting everybody for whatever they believe. There are things in society that we do not accept. That is fine but as far as religion beliefs or differing beliefs it is better to be loving and state your beliefs and let the other person decide whether it is in their spirit or not. God loves all , and created all.

Joe

orange

Aug 7, 2006, 08:39 AM

Regarding religious intolerance, I think one of the main problems is that in certain religions, people are taught that theirs is the one true belief and anyone professing anything else (or what they consider to be a "deviation" of their religion, such as believing in reincarnation) is lacking in some way, and possibly doomed. Personally this idea is very foreign to me and difficult to comprehend, as I was raised in a religion that does not think it is the only one, but embraces all. Actually there is more than one major religion in the world that does not think they are the one true faith, so religious tolerance is not an impossibility, as some might suggest!

If I really believed that my faith was the only one, of course I would want to share that with others, so that they would not be "doomed". But I would also concentrate very hard on my own personal humility, and how I came across to people. I would not assume to know what was in another person's heart, either.

I agree with you that religious intolerance causes many wars. Look at the situation in the Middle East at present. Northern Ireland is another example, and there are many more. Religious intolerance is also one of the main reasons our First Nations peoples here in Canada are having such a tough time now. When the Europeans colonized our country, they insisted that the indigenous peoples embrace their religion. They set up residential schools where First Nations children were taken from their families, forced to give up their culture and their language, and many were abused as well. A whole generation had been adversely affected. Most of these residential schools were run by religious groups.

Any time you think you are better than anyone else, even in what you believe about life, there is danger involved, in my opinion. It's a slippery slope and very easy to take the next step, to say that because you believe something superior to another, therefore you personlly are superior and deserve more or better. And after that it's not so hard to stand back and watch others being mistreated, and think nothing of it.

I commend and admire anyone who believes that theirs is the only way and yet can remain humble, kind, tolerant, etc. to those who don't agree. I can imagine it would be a very difficult thing to accomplish. I personally wouldn't be up to the task.

JoeCanada76

Aug 7, 2006, 08:55 AM

Chava, I read your response. I am so emotional just reading what is happening in the world, with people. With each other. In knowing that all of this intolerance is still happening, possibly getting worse. How many people this has effected and that is from people who think they are better or that their belief is supperiour. How can anybody take control of other people and treat them so badly. There was an very emotional Touched by an angel episode and the episode is about the fighting and killing between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. They are pitted against each other with forever fighting that does not seem to want to end. So many religious wars. If there was not so much intolerance between cultures, differences in beliefs these wars would not be happening. I pray that one day, all societys, all religions, all beliefs can be respected, accepted and in some way we all can be reunited with each other and stop the fighting. I do not understand why so many people who are so religious can cause and create so much hatred in the world when it should be love and peace that we all should be sharing with each other.

It brings me to tears, it brings me great sadness that people do not know the true meaning of life, the true meaning of our creator no matter what name, culture, belief it comes from.

orange

Aug 7, 2006, 09:50 AM

I share your pain in this, definitely! I can't bring myself to watch the news anymore. I am frightened for my children. Personally, if one considers intolerance a sin, I think it is mainly a sin of pride. People are so proud of who they are that they forget to be humble and show kindness and respect to others.

VBNomad

Aug 7, 2006, 10:17 PM

Being from a non-mainstream religion I am especially sensitive to religious intolerance. It seems more often than not based in fear of losing control. Very often couched in terms of protecting the children from evil outside influence. When in fact the only evil is to present another perspective that threatens the authority of the established order.

Though to be sure the Amish have a right to exsert control over their surroundings every bit as much as native people have the right to reject anglo culture and religions. And Islam and so many others are righteous to reject the 'religion' of American capitalism that will submerge their cultures in a flood of Madonna's pop music, Coke, Nike, and the infernal english language. After which we enslave them to the world bank, and make them take the slice of globalization that we've decided they should have. Are they being intolerant to oppose that?

talaniman

Aug 9, 2006, 06:12 PM

When I see or hear someone who thinks they are so right and your so wrong, I know that they are intolerant. It affects the way one treats others who are different, or who have ideas that don't fit what they are about. Most of the problems in the world I believe can be traced to intolerance and the actions that are guided by them like discrimination for instance, where a person can actually feel superior so making anyone that doesn't agree, inferior so its okay to use and abuse or ridicule those that are deemed inferior. Another arm of intolerance is apathy when you just don't give a damn about your fellow man that lives, acts, or believes differently than you do. It also slows the advancement of the society of man as a whole, in that as long as you have isolated thinking and refuse to at least acknowledge the ways of others you have a conflict, as we see today of, my way is right and nothing else will change my mind. Wars are started this way with this single-minded thinking and does neither side any good. Until we as people change this pattern of behavior we will always be at odds over something that is really nothing. Just my view.

galveston

Aug 10, 2006, 03:47 PM

Are we attempting to define intolerance? Of course, I assume it means to not tolerate something or someone for whatever reason. To stand firmly for what one believes may make me intolerant of those ideas that I cannot accept, BUT, it does not have to make me hate or despise the person who holds that idea. What we have seen lately is hatred toward the Christian community, even to the point of comparing us to Hitler, or the Taliban. I think this mentality is the epitome of intolerance. Certainly, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Heavenly Father, and will probably try to convince you of that. That does not mean I am your enemy. I guess that about sums up my take on intolerance.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 10, 2006, 03:50 PM

. . . and will probably try to convince you of that.
I hope not without a clear invitation to do so from me?

Otherwise count on my checkmating that with a need for you to demonstrate tolerance of my views while I tolerate yours, excluding the part where you think I need convincing, of course, since that is over the line. You won't find me trying to convince you of my spiritual beliefs as I know how improper it would be. Far better to live it and answer someone when they express interest. It is arrogant to assume I need convincing without directly involving my permission. Arrogance, intolerance, belligerence, bad manners-- is that really the image anyone would want Christianity, or any religion for that matter, to have? If being aggressively passionate about one's faith wins one convert whilst losing ten, what is the sense in that?

galveston

Aug 20, 2006, 01:15 PM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 20, 2006, 02:00 PM

31pumpkin

Aug 21, 2006, 10:09 AM

If the questioner is asking about "religious intolerance" then I might add that we have a separation of church & state about such things legally. The act of discriminating against individuals because of their religion is illegal just as other acts of discrimination are. There have been hate crimes, burning down of Churches & such. Any thoughts of not passing a Mosque or Synagogue in peaceful observance only, would indicate a hateful malicious attitude on the observer's part. Here, any vindictive action would be called a SIN; namely, causing harm to one's neighbor. Loving one's neighbor means not causing them harm.

NeedKarma

Aug 21, 2006, 10:29 AM

31pumpkin

Aug 21, 2006, 11:46 AM

I agree with that NK. And one has to consider the source of one's beliefs also. Only those outsiders whose hearts are willing will be able to accept Jesus as their personal savior. There is no force, only willingness. But God said that His people are perishing for lack of knowledge. So, what religion or faith does one identify themselves with?

Call it propaganda. Call it dogma. But I believe there is only one Truth. When one examines the origin of the other faiths or so called faiths, one can see the difference. I do not believe one can love & believe in God yet reject His Son that He sent into the world to intercede for us. Rev.3:15-16 -"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold- I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Also, Christianity is one of the most tolerant of religions. We are not supposed to be yoked with unbelievers. This applies to friends also, in fact, that is the main command of that statement. We engage with unbelievers to show them the love of Christ. Accepting Christ is a personal decision that everyone has to make. And it is after all, the most important one. Some would disagree but for a Christian, they know it as a fact.

While I can understand what some people feel about their beliefs, again I couldn't disagree more sometimes because it doesn't agree with the Truth.

Have a look at the origins of some religions. They don't hold up even logically, never mind Spiritually. I am especially referring to the Holy Spirit who comes to dwell within us when we receive Christ.

http://www.itruth.org/220manypaths/dl1/001hub.htm

This viewed on internet explorer worked best. Have a blessed day!

ScottGem

Aug 21, 2006, 11:57 AM

As I've said before, my personal philosophy is everyone should be able to do whatever they want up to, but not including infringing on the rights of someone else to do what they want.

There's a perfect example in another thread. The OP's neighbor had allowed a hedge to grow that blocked the OP's view of Mt Ranier. Did the neighbor have a right to grow that hedge? Legally yes, but by my philosophy, the neighbor's right infrigned on the OP's right. But, you will say, didn't the OP's desire to a view infringe on the neighbor's desire to grow their hedge. Well yes, and that's where mediation comes into play.

Getting back to intolerance. I don't agree that intolerance is a belief that your views are superior to someone else's. Intolerance is the denial that someone else has the right to a different view. Intolerance denies that someone else can have a view different from one's own. In my world Intolerance is one of the greatest evils.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 21, 2006, 12:25 PM

I am convinced that all religions are valid for that religion's believers. There are no outsiders-- only human beings disagreeing with other human beings. When that disagreement crosses a line, it becomes intolerance. Intolerance fuels many tragic events that have plagued all of humankind from the beginning. It will only stop when the majority of us can fully recognise that while "my religion works for me (and that's really all it needs to do too), it may not be what works for the next person" so therefore there is no need to compete (my god/book/church promises me more than yours does) or make claims of superiority (my god/book/church tells the truth but who knows what yours does) or imply that a different religious belief makes a person less spiritual (only people in my faith are holy/enlightened/going to be rewarded). Many of the major religious leaders today are acknowledging the common ground of religions around the world. There is an increase in ecumenical activities everywhere. The atmosphere for all religions to practice without fear of prejudical hatred is growing. The good news is that the respectful majority is growing within conventional faiths and outside of them too and soon religious intolerance will be regulated to the spiritual sandbox where it belongs. Won't that be a day for the earth to rejoice, won't that make the Creator happy!

Starman

Aug 22, 2006, 12:55 AM

The tolerance of all beliefs regardless of their consequeuences would create a lawless society.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 22, 2006, 03:56 AM

The tolerance of all beliefs regardless of their consequeuences would create a lawless society.
That is a "baby out with the bathwater" argument and distinctly NOT what I am advocating. There is a huge difference between tolerating ALL beliefs and tolerating all religious beliefs. It is slyly suggesting that other religious beliefs (apart from the one you believe in, of course) utterly lack a moral code, which is patently and prejudiciously incorrect.

Krs

Aug 22, 2006, 04:00 AM

That is a "baby out with the bathwater" argument and distinctly NOT what I am advocating. There is a huge difference between tolerating ALL beliefs and tolerating all religious beliefs. It is slyly suggesting that other religious beliefs (apart from the one you believe in, of course) utterly lack a moral code, which is patently and prejudiciously incorrect.

Couldn't it spread it Val.. but I agree quite rightly.

talaniman

Aug 22, 2006, 05:47 AM

I honestly see nothing wrong with any religion, It's the nuts who do bad things in their Gods' name that make me mad. The funny part is that every religion on earth has gone through the holier than thou thing and persecuted somebody who would not bow to their will. Thats' why I deal with people and not their religion. And if I see they are nuts I leave them alone too.

Krs

Aug 22, 2006, 05:57 AM

Couldn't spread it Tal, but I'm with you on this one for sure!

31pumpkin

Aug 22, 2006, 10:28 AM

The Bible tells" us" that it is impossible to please God without faith. He also says that there ARE outsiders. In the Book these are the unbelievers. So how would God be pleased by people just choosing any doctrine to live by? Or by their own?
God gave us the power of the Holy Spirit, with the spiritual armor to ward off any unclean spiritual attacks. To agree with anything but is unfruitful & possibly destructive. I won't.
Even believers worship & serve the Lord differently. So, so it is with the secular population. All entitled to their opinions.

I believe there's only one true God, & one messiah. If you believe in another religion or cult, all I have to say is show me the miracles this deity or man has done in your life. That would be something worth listening to, instead of just tolerating words that don't describe any self-sacrifice, worship or service.

ScottGem

Aug 22, 2006, 10:45 AM

I believe there's only one true God, & one messiah. If you believe in another religion or cult, all I have to say is show me the miracles this deity or man has done in your life. That would be something worth listening to, instead of just tolerating words that don't describe any self-sacrifice, worship or service.

Since you put it that way, let me ask what miracles your deity has done in your life?

My view of a deity is such that he would want to be worshipped, but would recognize the fact that people are different since he made us that way. Therefore, he would provide different ways to be worshipped.

The fact that most religions have a similar set of ethics. That some are built on others and that some have similar mythologies lends credance to that viewpoint. This leads to being tolerant of others chosen methods of worship.

I look not at what god or religion a person choose to follow but at whether the person adheres to the generally accepted ethical code of behavior that transcends most religions.

talaniman

Aug 22, 2006, 11:27 AM

Scot we are on the same page and I'll add words are useless unless you listen to them and some words get lost in actions that are opposite the words. The path I try to follow is my way of using the free will that God gave me to be a good human and love my fellow man even though I don't agree with him or his actions.

K_3

Aug 22, 2006, 12:13 PM

I believe intolerance of anothers religon or spiritual belief is the cause of many hate groups, wars and negative energy that harms our world peace. We are not to judge each other, that is for God to do. Why do we feel we have the right to be intolorent of another's belief? God did not say "Judge not that ye be not judged, except for religious beliefs".
I was raised going to a Christian church, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus. I do not believe in organized religion. I believe God created everyone. I do not know why there are many religions, many beliefs, all of whom have so many spiritual leaders that are awesome. There is a reason for all of us. I have read many of their teachings and got far more from them about leading a spititual life than from my minister.
Do you think being intolerant of other religions is being ignorant of the knowledge of other religions. Not meaning you need to change religions, but to understand other religions opens your eyes to understand them. There are good people in all beliefs, to be intolerant of someone because they do not believe as you do, does not seem to be living the path God would have you live. Jesus was not intolerant of nonbelievers.
I have to say since I studied some other beliefs and read teachings of great spiritual leaders, I feel I have come to know God better and feel closer to him and feel freer than I felt going to church each Sunday. Some will judge me for that, as that is not how I was raised to believe, but it is how I FEEL, and it makes me feel good. I no longer fear God. I have no animosity in my heart for anyone. It is very hard for me to be angry with anyone. If I do have anger it leaves my quickly. I know in my heart, for me, I am on the right path or I would not feel so much peace and love.
Intolerance of others beliefs causes hate and discontent and that is not God's intent. So there it is.

31pumpkin

Aug 22, 2006, 12:20 PM

Well, ethics & morals are very important, it wouldn't be enough for me, except in the business world. I was speaking about Churchgoers anyway, how they worship or serve the Lord differently. Some belong to the music ministry. Some sing standing. Some wave banners & sing. Some clap their hands.Some raise their hands. Some speak in tongues. Some close their eyes while they sing.Some dance & sing. I have no idea what Jews do in the Temple. Or Muslims in the Mosque. I just know it would be different.

But I could not be close friends with an unbeliever. It's one thing to help someone who is poor in spirit, but it's burdensome to me when that person's personal creed is "my will be done" instead of "your will be done, Lord." We'd have to part company not just because sinners can corrupt(unbelief is a sin in itself) but I wouldn't be doing the will of God. Romans 12:2 - And do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Philippians 4:7 - And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
I could tell you about how the Lord saved my month old from choking to death on formula. How when I called on Him the miracle happened. I could tell you how the Lord saved us during hurricane Andrew(when I really thought He'd forsaken us) I could tell you how my friend & I could have been lunch for a shark as we were on a rubber raft& vulnerable. But I met the black eyes at the same time he saw me.Wasn't our time. My reaction was to take my oar & beat the heck out of it. All it took was me raising the oar & it went away! I couldn't think of reacting like that if I tried.
I could go on but I don't want to bore anyone(including myself) so someone else could speak of their deliverances too.
So basically what I'm saying is that I feel more comfortable knowing that someone else has a religion or faith that they enjoy being a part of. Especially when there are common beliefs and practices involved.

NeedKarma

Aug 22, 2006, 12:32 PM

So if God saved you from these perils please be reminded that He put you there also. My god doesn't put me in the those dangers.

ScottGem

Aug 22, 2006, 12:38 PM

But I could not be close friends with an unbeliever. And that makes you intolerant of other people's beliefs.

I could tell you about how the Lord saved my month old from choking to death on formula. How when I called on Him the miracle happened. I could tell you how the Lord saved us during hurricane Andrew(when I really thought He'd forsaken us) I could tell you how my friend & I could have been lunch for a shark as we were on a rubber raft& vulnerable. But I met the black eyes at the same time he saw me.Wasn't our time. My reaction was to take my oar & beat the heck out of it. All it took was me raising the oar & it went away! I couldn't think of reacting like that if I tried.
I could go on but I don't want to bore anyone(including myself) so someone else could speak of their deliverances too.
So basically what I'm saying is that I feel more comfortable knowing that someone else has a religion or faith that they enjoy being a part of. Especially when there are common beliefs and practices involved.

I'm sure you believe that these were interventions of a divine power. I'm sure it gives you great comfort to believe that there is a deity that you can pray to who answers those prayers. I'm happy for you that you have found such comfort in your life.

I'm also sure that nothing I could say would disabuse you of those beliefs so I won't even try. All I ask is that you understand and accept that I choose to have different beliefs. That I have found compelling (to me) arguments that have led me to different beliefs. That believing as I do does not make me a bad person, that it does not interfere with your beliefs and that I have the right to have those beliefs. However, if you do not accept those three points then you are being intolerant.

31pumpkin

Aug 22, 2006, 01:17 PM

ScottGem - I have no trouble accepting that there are others with different beliefs. However, if I don't choose an unbeliever for a friend, it doesn't make me regiously intolerant(or some other hyped up word that is still just a word) it makes me a Christian. Now that is actually in my belief system. I think you accept my beliefs as well as the next guy, since I have a right to be here too.
I exercise that right also. So peace to you too.
-----------------------------------------------
Now Needkarma - your comment is debatable. People get themselves into all sorts of danger. Even just driving a car(another miracle story there too) So maybe yes, the Lord wanted to show me a miracle, & put me there. But I hardly think going out 20yds. In the ocean to enjoy some water sports would be perilous. I mean one could be in fear to do anything but sit in a box because something might happen to them. :eek:

talaniman

Aug 22, 2006, 02:19 PM

By 31pumpkin

So basically what I'm saying is that I feel more comfortable knowing that someone else has a religion or faith that they enjoy being a part of. Especially when there are common beliefs and practices involved.

I have a faith that I believe in that I really enjoy being part of and the practice of being a good human should endear your friendship, so I wonder what our problem could be. Many of my friends are Christians, and Muslims, some Hindi, more than a few agnostics, some atheists,. seems I get along with other good humans really well no matter what they believe.

K_3

Aug 22, 2006, 02:32 PM

Pumpkin, you have every right to be here. But to say you are not intolerant of other religions, but you say you would never choose an unbeliever for a friend. Is that a contradiction in terms? By being their friend you may bring them to your beliefs without pushing it on them. I have had people ask me how I have achieved such peace in my life. I tell them and they have found God because they want an inner peace.
If you choose to be intolerant of other religions, fine, that is your right. Just be honest and say you are. God bless you.

ScottGem

Aug 22, 2006, 03:48 PM

ScottGem - I have no trouble accepting that there are others with different beliefs. However, if I don't choose an unbeliever for a friend, it doesn't make me regiously intolerant

Well that's subject to debate. If you refuse friendship with someone solely because of their religious beliefs, then, In my opinion, that is intolerance. But its not them who will be the poorer. By denying yourself fraternizing with diverse peoples, you lose out from learning new things. You tend to stagnate. You become narrow minded and insular. At least that's been my experience with such attitudes.

So if God saved you from these perils please be reminded that He put you there also. My god doesn't put me in the those dangers.

You bring out the inherent contradiction. A deity that interposes itself into a mortal's life to the extent indicated had to have at least let things go bad in the first place, if not cause them. Such a deity sounds more like a mischief maker then a benevolent guardian. But, if someone finds comfort in that, that's up to them.

galveston

Aug 22, 2006, 04:17 PM

NeedKarma

Aug 22, 2006, 04:21 PM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 22, 2006, 04:27 PM

Just wander through some of the amazing statistics in this site to see how important religious tolerance will be in the coming years in this country.

'We the people' of the United States now form the most profusely religious nation on earth." Diana Eck.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

galveston

Aug 22, 2006, 04:38 PM

NK,
In the context, just who would you assume the thief to be? If Jesus referred to the common petty thief, then His statement about Himself doesn't make sense. But if you don't think that the devil is the thief intended, that's OK, but please don't accuse the one who gave His life willingly for us of doing evil.
But, then, I guess all this has nothing to do with intolerance.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 22, 2006, 04:45 PM

Please, let's not sidetrack a perfectly good discussion about religious intolerance with other topics like who is or isn't the devil or how a passage from a holy book ought to be interpretted -- that is rightly so a whole other thread, isn't it?

We were all doing so good too!

ScottGem

Aug 22, 2006, 04:50 PM

Woah, Scot, I don't know what "deity" you have in mind, but the quote below is illuminating concerning Jesus Christ, at least, and I think this excahnge started with 31Pumpkin, so we seem to be talking about Christianity.(?)
John 10:10-11
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

It is the devil, (or ourselves, sometimes), that gets us into hot water. Let's not place the blame in the wrong place.

I was referring to ANY deity. But lets look at your quote. Who created the thief? Who allowed the thief to exist? Are we sheep that we need to be led?

How can a deity that will save a child from choking allows hundreds of children to die in hurricanes and tsunamis? How can a god that will answer the prayers of some ignore the prayers of so many?

If you want to believe in such a deity, that I am happy for you that you can find comfort in such a belief. But I ask that you respect my right to believe in concrete facts.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 22, 2006, 04:56 PM

Sees my discussion of religious tolerance and its growing significance in this country being drowned out by the old "my diety or lack thereof is better than your diety or lack thereof" argument and smiles over the irony of that! :eek:

I give up! LOL

galveston

Aug 23, 2006, 10:55 AM

You are right, Val. We need another thread on where the devil came from and why. Should generate a lot of interest.

Morganite

Aug 23, 2006, 08:49 PM

The tolerance of all beliefs regardless of their consequeuences would create a lawless society.

Based on what evidence? You are guessing, and guessing very badly. By way of contrast, look and see what INTOLERANCE has produced in the way of a lawless society.

Does your argument extend to every sphere of endeavour?

Politics?

Diet?

Entertainment?

Hair color?

Must everyone be like you or else all is lost?

M:)RGANITE

You are right, Val. We need another thread on where the devil came from and why. Should generate a lot of interest.

The Devil came down from Georgia. Didn't you know?

M:)

VBNomad

Aug 24, 2006, 07:43 AM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 24, 2006, 10:10 AM

I just watched a documentary last night about the Amish. It went into great detail about Rumspringa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa) - a period where teens are allowed to experiement with the world at large so if they choose to join the church, they do so with a complete understanding of all that is involved... talk about tolerance, religious or otherwise... WOW!

The documentary concluded with the statement that 90% of the young adults choose, at the end of Rumspringa, to return to the Amish way of life and join the church. That impressed me.

NeedKarma

Aug 24, 2006, 10:12 AM

That is impressive. I applaud them.

talaniman

Aug 24, 2006, 02:22 PM

The Amish also suffer from too much inbreeding. They have a genetic disorder that many are choosing to go against the elders to seek treatment in hospitals. Sorry to rain on the parade.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 24, 2006, 02:33 PM

The Amish also suffer from to much inbreeding. They have a genetic disorder that many are choosing to go against the elders to seek treatment in hospitals. Sorry to rain on the parade.
Well, I wasn't wholesale endorsing them Tal, lol, just pointing out one practice that I thought was pretty admirable... :p that's all! But I wasn't aware that they were opposed to seeking medical help from "english" sources?

talaniman

Aug 24, 2006, 04:06 PM

Well, I wasn't wholesale endorsing them Tal, lol, just pointing out one practice that I thought was pretty admirable.... :p that's all! But I wasn't aware that they were opposed to seeking medical help from "english" sources?

Yes I thought it was a testament to their beliefs that the young people where given that choice, truly enlightened on their behalf. But their closed society has brought them problems genetically similar to what American Indians faced. Only Indians raided other tribes for women (and men) to renew the bloodlines. Not to take away from the Amish though. Don't understand the english reference though, but they have been adverse to outsiders coming in with the necessary medicines and forbid anyone going outside for treatment either. Boy am I off thread.

Morganite

Aug 25, 2006, 08:52 AM

Yes I thought it was a testament to their beliefs that the young people where given that choice, truly enlightened on their behalf. But their closed society has brought them problems genetically similar to what American Indians faced. Only Indians raided other tribes for women (and men) to renew the bloodlines. Not to take away from the Amish though. Don't understand the english reference though, but they have been adverse to outsiders coming in with the necessary medicines and forbid anyone going outside for treatment either. Boy am I off thread.

To an Amish - who are derived from Germans/Hutterites, etc - the 'English' are ordinary non-Amish Americans. Like you, Tal.

M:)

Cassie

Aug 26, 2006, 06:38 AM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 26, 2006, 06:55 AM

In thinking it over for a while now, I also see looking back that intolerance may be somewhat tied to insecurity too. It seems to me that those who really believe have little cause to require others to, and those who stand on thinner faith ice are often the first in line trying to jam it down someone else's viewpoint -- as if it would bolster their own if someone else would just believe too, you know?

A strong personal belief in one's own faith should not be confused with a person's ability to criticize another person's faith -- they are two very different and separate things that sometimes get all tangled together. I like to try to keep the debate to the topic.

Like Tal, I have friends of all kinds of faiths. I mentally "reviewed" every strong faith person I know and almost all are like Rick-- they are quietly demonstrating their conviction without the need to ruffle one feather about anyone else's beliefs. They practice either being respectful when they speak of other religions or not saying anything at all, from what I have witnessed. The only exception I personally know is a friend who is in trouble on a lot of levels and very hypocritical, even illogical, so its easy to imagine his faith might not be the strong version he claims it to be. Its as if his excessive prostelizing is a means of denial for him -- those who are so busy looking at others don't have time to look at self --this is an action people in the recovery community are more than familiar with. LOL

So while I applaud and even admire those of strong faith, I don't care for any practice of religious intolerance-- however I would have either type of person as a friend and do, actually!

talaniman

Aug 26, 2006, 09:55 AM

31pumpkin agrees: oops,meant to put the comment here. So why are you attacking my beliefs? Good ol fashioned jealousy Mom would say!
I really don't think anyone is attacking your beliefs but you have to admit you sound so intolerant at times that people have to comment on it. Can't you love us the same way we love you without any strings attached? I really doubt if Mom would go along with the jealousy thing though.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 26, 2006, 10:07 AM

I think there is some confusion. To be certain, not believing as you do is not the same as attacking beliefs Pumpkin-- yours or anyone's -- its just disagreement of beliefs. Please quote me directly where you think I have been attacking anyone's religious belief and I will do my best to clear up any misunderstanding. Without a direct quote of mine, its honestly hard to understand where you think it went wrong. And if I have done any attacking-- I would like the opportunity to make amends for it here... to you or to anyone that I have attacked. To deal in generalities is simply not fair so please, lets get specific. I value being tactful just like it says on my profile and I think I am pretty consistent in defending everyone's right to have their own religious beliefs too-- yours included. Besides, what is there to be jealous of, I am thoroughly confused there?

K_3

Aug 26, 2006, 11:51 AM

Pumpkin, I think you have a problem reading other people's posts. For some reason you are ready to jump at the conclusion that they are against you for some reason. In my post you disagreed with me and agreed with Cassie when we said the same thing. Val in no way put your religion down. She has not put anyone's down. I have not put anyone's down. I have certainly not put your religion down. Do you even know what faith I am? Do not take it so personally that this only is a discussion. I wonder if you are not comfortable in your faith when you feel you have to defend it so. I would like you to reread my post and tell me what is so wrong with befriending an unbeliever with the possibility of that person seeing what a beautiful life you lead to want to lead one also. Therefore becoming a believer. Again, I say, why is that so wrong?

I hope I have not strayed off the tolerance intolerance too much.

talaniman

Aug 26, 2006, 04:21 PM

Starman

Aug 26, 2006, 11:00 PM

Not all refusal to comply with certain behavior or condemn it it either tacitly or overtly is wrong. Neither is intolerance per sey evil. It depends on what we are willing or unwilling to tolerate. In fact, tolerance under certain situations might be evil while intolerance might be morally correct. Amorality is not a virtue. Many people tolerated Hitler's views.
What were the results?

BTW
Being tolerant of other people's beliefs doesn't mean that we are obligated to make them our friends or to associate with them. It merely means that we grant them their right to their opinions.

Is Intolerance Of Sin Wrong Blog
... Is Intolerance Of Sin Wrong. If I refuse to condone a 45 year old man living with and... that make me intolerant? Is intolerance wrong?

http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1127831309.htm

NeedKarma

Aug 27, 2006, 02:54 AM

Being tolerant of other people's beliefs doesn't mean that we are obligated to make them our friends or to associate with them. It merely means that we grant them their right to their opinions.Of course you are correct here but that wasn't the case we were discussing. Someone mentioned that here and in another thread that christian should not associate with non-christians. They were not saying that they are not obligated to be friends with them, they are saying they they are obligated NOT to be friends with them. Big difference.

JoeCanada76

Aug 27, 2006, 03:09 AM

It is all in the approach. Somebody tries to force their religion down somebodys throat. That they are right and your wrong. That does not win anybody over. That pushes them away and keeps them farther away. You Pumpkin whether you realize that or not. You do that. So in fact you are pushing people away from God by the way you approach others. You need to be open to others beliefs, opinions, and be friend all people no matter what. That will bring you closer to God and bring others closer to God. That is what I believe.

Joe

valinors_sorrow

Aug 27, 2006, 06:19 AM

It merely means that we grant them their right to their opinions.
I understand that right is granted by the God of my understanding, its called free will. So it is simply not yours to grant, Starman. The problem with some people is how they do not respect that gift from our Creator when other people use it. The US Constitution allows for religious freedom, which was defined then and now to mean any and all beliefs or lack thereof are to be respected in all aspects of life. While it protects religious expressions of all kinds in personal and commercial life, it also wisely restricts expression of any religious views in public life (schools, governemnt, etc) since it would cause a problem selecting WHICH view (a whole other thread here too btw). It is not the atheist view being expressed there, its no view -- there is a gigantic difference.

So you see that religious intolerance is against the wishes of God and the laws of the US-- makes it kind of hard to have any compelling argument for it now, doesn't it?

If you want to make a claim that God granted free will but expected some of the overly enthusiastic people to become special-priviledged spiritual squads enforcing faith where faith is needed regardless of free will, then you haven't learned much from the lessons of Hitler. As for the people who supported him--it was because they weren't thinking it through AND they were buying into the idea of some terrible kind of "them and us" , the VERY idea overly zealous religious people often have -- by the way. Let's look closer and see how to amend that: what do you suppose counters "not thinking it through"? Free Will! And what counters that old "them and us" thinking? Understanding that all people are God's children which would require respecting all of them.

I will defend to my death your right to be Christian, Starman, even though I will likely never be. And that is because I believe in freeedom, equality, and I got the message loud and clear from my Creator about you being just like me, a human being seeking spiritual growth and I respect that. But that means I am too. And you need to afford me the same privilege.

Now if all you Christians need to start a thread to debate who you might befriend and all the other theological conflicts Christianity is rife with, feel free. But please consider acknowledging that you do so largely because you are excersizing religious tolerance within Christianity itself! LOL

K_3

Aug 27, 2006, 07:11 AM

K 3 maybe you've hit on something we should all consider. In the zeal to affirm our faiths could it be possible we are all saying the same thing. Could we be just hearing what we want and are blinded by the fact we all say the same thing over and over. I don't know but it starting to sound that way to me and its hard to even see what the controversy is all about, until some one says " no your wrong" . Just me sometimes I loose it and don't always know it.

Have to spread it around
Totally my point, in order to debate an issue, each has to listen to the words and not think they know what the person is going to say and start formulating an answer before the post has been read.

31pumpkin

Aug 27, 2006, 08:38 AM

Religious Tolerance -
Allowing people the freedom to have their own beliefs & related actions, without necessarily validating those beliefs.

"The only way one can start to reconcile the different religions is to take the god out of the religion, and reduce them to a bunch of feel good moral teachings about loving one another and "can't we all just get along" sentiments. You reconcile the religions by making them non-religious."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ephesians 2:1-7
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved. And God raises us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.
Unity in the Body of Christ-
Ephesians 4:3-7 - Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one Spirit- just as you were called to one hope when you were called-one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one(or God) God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

Thank you Lord. Anything else would be lying to myself & settling for less.

K_3

Aug 27, 2006, 09:03 AM

God is in other religions, some may not believe in Jesus, they believe in God. I am such a frim believer in my faith that I am not threatened by others who do not have the same faith, therefore I am tolerant of them. As I said before, others have come to believe as I because of my tolerance of others. Jesus walked among nonbelievers to show them the way.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 27, 2006, 09:15 AM

So much for seeing direct quotes of what I said.

And oddly enough, I agree:

Religious Tolerance -
Allowing people the freedom to have their own beliefs & related actions, without necessarily validating those beliefs.

So how did reconciling get in the mix? I only see one person proposing that and its definitely not me. I think the pendulum is being swung too far the other way now. I am not proposing a homogenized mix of all religions to be embraced by everyone! Ugh to that...

31pumpkin

Aug 27, 2006, 09:28 AM

Yes K3, I have witnessed to dozens of people. Their hearts were willing though.
Yes, that is the Great Commission also. Except, I am not hearing anyone on this forum "wanting to be shown the way" It's quite obvious. And it may be too late for certain happenings before unbelievers come to see the light.
And for those in the faith, I suggest they go back to the Bible or Church or Seminary school before they try to say some pitiful words like"pathological" to another believer. Don't be so sure that I am Morganite. Check it out thoughly about having close friends that are unbelievers. We are only "friends" to bring them to Christ. And if that is unfruitful, we are to part company. You commit a grand faux paux(and possibly a sin), Morganite, by going against the believers!

NeedKarma

Aug 27, 2006, 09:44 AM

Check it out thoughly about having close friends that are unbelievers. We are only "friends" to bring them to Christ. And if that is unfruitful, we are to part company. You commit a grand faux paux(and possibly a sin), Morganite, by going against the believers!The good thing about this is that we can be assured that your like will stay within your own self-defined small-minded boundaries. I personally would rather befriend the likes of Rickj and Tal who feels strongly about their religious beliefs and could care less about the beliefs of other good people.

Pumpkin, realize that your strict beliefs that include needing to convert non-believers put you in a minority: those who believe that those who are not like them are somewhat lost and inferior. You can't possibly begin to understand how annoying that is to those of us who are very comfortable in their life and who dislike all the preaching and conversion attempt. It would be different if I walked into your church/synagogue/temple/etc looking for answers but you shove it down people's throat's at every turn.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 27, 2006, 10:06 AM

I still contend that religion is to spirituality what regional cooking is to food --- and its all good!

And now... I'm out of here cos' I need some lunch! :p

31pumpkin

Aug 27, 2006, 10:39 AM

So Needkarma - Does your creed entail the need to feel superior by belittling others? That's your choice. A friend is measured in other ways too. So if your belief system makes you have to be politically correct all the time, then you can keep it. You're the one who believes in the "flying spaghetti monster" And good luck with praying to him/her.
One thing I noticed where you could ponder is: You said, " You've got to keep in mind your god put you there. My god would never put me in such a perilous place". Now, do you know how unrealistic that belief is? You are going to be in a dangerous place if that is what God desires. How you make it out will have a lot to do with your faith in the one true God.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, I have to go also. Driving lessons for my 2nd daughter. This is hard in a way. Anyone with a minute- All prayers will be appreciated! Help! :confused:

Curlyben

Aug 27, 2006, 02:36 PM

Religious Tolerance -
Allowing people the freedom to have their own beliefs & related actions, without necessarily validating those beliefs.

Very true, but:

Intolerance: lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

In the context of AMHD we are not asking anyone to validate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validate) anothers beliefs just respect (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect&x=0&y=0) that they differ from our own.
As this is a PRIVATE (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=private&x=0&y=0) web site, you have to register to become a member and post, we expect a certain degree of lalitude (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=latitude&x=0&y=0) from our members.
Extremist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extremist&x=0&y=0) views from any stand point are neither welcomed nor encouraged.

spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;
spreading hatred about an entire group; e.g. stating or implying that all members of a group are evil, behave immorally, commit criminal acts, etc.;
ridiculing and belittling an entire faith group for their sincerely held beliefs and practices;
attempting to force religious beliefs and practices on others against their will;
restricting human rights of members of an identifiable religious group;
devaluing other faiths as worthless or evil.

The highlighted parts I believe are the most appropriate in this context.

For further information Here's the site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol1.htm)

I hope I have made my views clear !

valinors_sorrow

Aug 27, 2006, 03:52 PM

Sin or not, religious intolerance is definitely a basis for an infraction at AMHD. Thanks for making that crystal Ben. This has been a good topic too Joe-- thanks!

ScottGem

Aug 27, 2006, 04:24 PM

So Needkarma - Does your creed entail the need to feel superior by belittling others?

I don't see any inidcation that NK belittled you. He made some factual statements cased on what you have posted. He disagreed with the actions that we have seen on your part. But he didn't belittle you.

This illustrates anothert thing I have noticed about you. You tend to take offense very quickly. In many cases where it was neither stated or implied.

One thing I noticed where you could ponder is: You said, " You've got to keep in mind your god put you there. My god would never put me in such a perilous place". Now, do you know how unrealistic that belief is? You are going to be in a dangerous place if that is what God desires.

Let me get this straight. You believe in a god who can intervene to answer your prayers. Yet this same god doesn't control the situations he puts you into? In my opinion, to believe that, requires a suspension of logic and a degree of blind faith that comes from refusing to accept facts.

31pumpkin

Aug 27, 2006, 04:51 PM

Starman

Aug 27, 2006, 10:21 PM

I understand that right is granted by the God of my understanding, its called free will. So it is simply not yours to grant, Starman. The problem with some people is how they do not respect that gift from our Creator when other people use it. The US Constitution allows for religious freedom, which was defined then and now to mean any and all beliefs or lack thereof are to be respected in all aspects of life. While it protects religious expressions of all kinds in personal and commercial life, it also wisely restricts expression of any religious views in public life (schools, government, etc) since it would cause a problem selecting WHICH view (a whole other thread here too btw). It is not the atheist view being expressed there, its no view -- there is a gigantic difference.

So you see that religious intolerance is against the wishes of God and the laws of the US-- makes it kinda hard to have any compelling argument for it now, doesn't it?

If you want to make a claim that God granted free will but expected some of the overly enthusiastic people to become special-priviledged spiritual squads enforcing faith where faith is needed regardless of free will, then you haven't learned much from the lessons of Hitler. As for the people who supported him--it was because they weren't thinking it through AND they were buying into the idea of some terrible kind of "them and us" , the VERY idea overly zealous religious people often have -- by the way. Let's look closer and see how to amend that: what do you suppose counters "not thinking it through"? Free Will! And what counters that old "them and us" thinking? Understanding that all people are God's children which would require respecting all of them.

I will defend to my death your right to be Christian, Starman, even though I will likely never be. And that is because I believe in freedom, equality, and I got the message loud and clear from my Creator about you being just like me, a human being seeking spiritual growth and I respect that. But that means I am too. And you need to afford me the same privilege.

Now if all you Christians need to start a thread to debate who you might befriend and all the other theological conflicts Christianity is rife with, feel free. But please consider acknowledging that you do so largely because you are excersizing religious tolerance within Christianity itself! LOL

I would greatly appreciate that you please stop attributing crazy ideas to me based on snap interpretations. Do you really believe that I believe human rights find their source in me? The word "grant" is used within the context and the context clearly indicates what meaning is intended.

You say respect everyone?
Sorry but I don't respect serial killers, child molesters, rapists, murderers, and people of that sort. Neither does God require that I respect these people. Neither does God require that I be their friend and associate with them on a companionship basis. I do acknowledge that they have certain rights-of course and would never try to deprive them of such rights. That would be following their example of depriving people of property, life, happiness, good health, peace of mind, and free will. An example that is not Christian.

You speak of free will. But unrestrained free will isn't granted by any government on earth and for very good reasons. Neither did God grant it. The reason he didn't is because it leads to social chaos and pandemonium. We have freedom within the parameters of his laws and regulations and it's for our own good. It helps to
Prevent, the abuse of the weaker by the stronger and courses of action leading to self injury or self destruction due to lack of wisdom.

About claiming one thing or the other, I derive my beliefs from the Bible. So they are not MY personal claims as you seem to imply. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter. But to imply that they are merely my beliefs is a misrepresentation.

About Christiians telling others about the Good News of God's kingdom
That's an assignment that Jesus gave. It isn't meant as harassment or disrespect for anyone else's beliefs. It is merely a sharing of something valuable with others.

Also, the comparison between Hitler's insane policies and those of Christians who are teaching God's Word and trying to live by biblical principles is unjustified. People within the churches are free to leave whenever they wish. Those who are members of churches who are stricter were taught what was expected of them and voluntarily agreed to abide by the rules. No one twisted their arm or otherwise forced them into membership. So it is a totally voluntary thing. A concept totally
Alien to Hitler.

BTW

Christianity has no conflicts. People do. Neither does God consider all humans his children.
Some, based on their behavior, he views as children of the devil.
Not that this is an excuse to persecute them, so please don't jump to that conclusion. Only that he doesn't quite see things in the way you are describing them.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

KJV

NeedKarma

Aug 28, 2006, 04:10 AM

ScottGem

Aug 28, 2006, 05:23 AM

ScottGem - I'm sorry but I really can't understand what you are describing. If it was offensive to you then I'm sorry even if I can't wrack my brain to figure it out. Also, I think you mistook the quote to be mine, not N.K's. Either way I'm not going to argue b/c I like quiet. Not a type A personality. Let N.Karma defend his own whatever you are referring to. Thankyou!

What was offensive to me was your accusation that NK was belittling you when I saw no evidence of it.

As for the quote, it was from your note. The first part (in quotes) was your quoting NK. But the second part was your response to what he said. That's what I was responding to.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 28, 2006, 06:19 AM

We may be more in agreement than not here Starman.

I would greatly appreciate that you please stop attributing crazy ideas to me based on snap interpretations. Do you really believe that I believe human rights find their source in me? The word "grant" is used within the context and the context clearly indicates what meaning is intended.I thought I detected a tone of superiority or even arrogance in the use of that word and addressed it by speaking of principles instead of personalities-- as so not to make it personal. Forgive me if I was incorrect but I may not be the only one who was. So this may also be a hint to you to use more gentle words in some places too? Just a thought...

You say respect everyone? Sorry but I don't respect serial killers, child molesters, rapists, murderers, and people of that sort. Neither does God require that I respect these people. Neither does God require that I be their friend and associate with them on a companionship basis. I do acknowledge that they have certain rights-of course and would never try to deprive them of such rights. That would be following their example of depriving people of property, life, happiness, good health, peace of mind, and free will. An example that is not Christian.Honoring their rights is a form of respect. So we agree here.

You speak of free will. But unrestrained free will isn't granted by any government on earth and for very good reasons. Neither did God grant it. The reason he didn't is because it leads to social chaos and pandemonium. We have freedom within the parameters of his laws and regulations and it's for our own good. It helps to prevent, the abuse of the weaker by the stronger and courses of action leading to self injury or self destruction due to lack of wisdom.I agree here too only I wouldn't call it "restrained" as much as "affected". We all indeed have total free will, we can do anything we please at anytime with anyone for any reason-- but what it comes with is a consequence. All actions have consequences, that is inescapable. Laws impose negative consequences for certain actions. And I believe (contrary to some beliefs) that God set this all up so that there are both negative and positive consequences to every single action we take and expects us to pay attention to that. But that does not diminish free will one atom's worth-- it only encourages us to learn and obey spiritual and secular laws. Each of us makes the decisions which to obey and which not to -- we are responsible for that just as the Creator intended. We each modify our own free will as we see fit just as the Creator intended. It's a marvelous plan, frankly. We agree, Starman, that gaining wisdom is good; we just have minor differences as to the details of that wisdom.

About claiming one thing or the other, I derive my beliefs from the Bible. So they are not MY personal claims as you seem to imply. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter. But to imply that they are merely my beliefs is a misrepresentation.Factually they are your beliefs based on what you have learned from one of the holy books found on earth. They are still just your beliefs regardless of the significance of that book in particular. As are all our beliefs. No one is able to express more than that, which is kind of cool as it levels the playing field - another marvelous design by our Creator. Each of us has a belief. Please bear in mind that only Chistians believe the bible to be the word of God. Your deriving your beliefs from it is good for you and significant to me only in that its one of several holy books I like to consider. You may claim your source is greater than mine but I can do the very same thing back atcha-- another mexican stand off there! How can you express anything more than your personal belief when no one else can either?

About Christiians telling others about the Good News of God's kingdom that's an assignment that Jesus gave. It isn't meant as harrassment or disrespect for anyone else's beliefs. It is merely a sharing of something valuable with others.Trust me, its harassment if its uninvited. Its disrespectful if it contains a cloaked put-down of another's religion. I am not alone in supporting those definitions either-- as you can plainly see on this thread. There is a way to talk about it that does neither and those folks who has mastered that could be easily modelled. Fortunately, there have been many examples of it posted on this thread too.

Also, the comparison between Hitler's insane policies and those of Christians who are teaching God's Word and trying to live by biblical principles is unjustified. People within the churches are free to leave whenever they wish. Those who are members of churches who are stricter were taught what was expected of them and voluntarily agreed to abide by the rules. No one twisted their arm or otherwise forced them into membership. So it is a totally voluntary thing. A concept totally alien to Hitler.Tsk tsk--You are changing the comparison! It certainly was not "those of Christians who are teaching God's Word and trying to live by biblical principles" that I was referencing in my comparison and you know it too. I realise it was subtle so let me make it plain who I was comparing -- the overly zealous Christians (or any other religious extremists) who do some really ungodly things in the name of God. I agree with you here about its unjustified but you are the one who made this comparison so get a better argument Starman, this one doesn't behoove you! LOL And I should like to add that support of Hitler started completely voluntary in a besotted Germany desperate for answers. (and I am not sticking up for him or those times either here, okay? LOL)

Christianity has no conflicts. People do. Neither does God consider all humans his children. Some, based on their behavior, he views as children of the devil. Not that this is an excuse to persecute them, so please don't jump to that conclusion. Only that he doesn't quite see things in the way you are describing them.Again we don't disagree. I know that Christians believe this and its one of two basic reasons I won't ever be a Christian. Where we do disagree is what God considers and I understand from a source I trust (just as much as you trust your bible, btw) that God made us all and therefore we are all God's children, albeit some are more sick than others.

I enjoy discussions with you Starman, thank you.

NeedKarma

Aug 28, 2006, 07:22 AM

Val,
In all fairness to christians I truly believe that Starman and Pumpkin represent a very small minority of christians in their very specific views. The vast majority of christians do indeed believe that we are all God children and 'love the sinner but not the sin'. I'd hate to see you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

valinors_sorrow

Aug 28, 2006, 07:27 AM

LUNAGODDESS

Aug 28, 2006, 09:54 AM

I went to the site that was suggested by our master and found this:

The Wiccan Rede
The Wiccan Rede is the rule governing Wiccan behavior. It permits Wiccans to engage in any carefully considered action, as long as it harms nobody, including themselves. The Rede is reinforced by the Threefold Law. This is the belief that any harm or good that a Wiccan does to someone else comes back to hurt or benefit them -- magnified three times over. Both are mentioned in the Wiccan Credo, a poem about Wicca whose origin is unclear.

The Wiccan Credo:
The Wiccan Credo is a Wiccan poem. Some Wiccans believe that it was written circa 1910 CE by Adriana Porter. Others suggest that it was created during the very early years of Gardnerian Witchcraft, during the 1940s and 1950s. It includes the text of the main Wiccan rule of behavior, the Wiccan Rede, and a reference to the Threefold Law.

The third last stanza refers to the Threefold Law. It states, in part:

"Mind the Threefold Law you should,
Three times bad and three times good."

The end of the Credo contains one version of the Wiccan Rede. It reads:

"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
An' it harm none,
Do what ye will.
Blessed Be to thee."

There was a time that I would have considered everything Wicca to be close to the unclean one... I found out different... there are spites in all religions... it is up to you follow that faith that improves on your life and your surroundings... I was introduced to a Wiccan in colleges... some were confused in there ways and others were clean in the faith... this was my next steps towards tolerance...

JoeCanada76

Aug 28, 2006, 10:26 AM

Val,

That was a good point from NK. Majority of Christians believe that all are children of God. We all have our own paths to take and beliefs to form. It is too bad that a couple of misguided apples in Christianity ruin it for others who are sincere in believing that God loves all his children.

Joe

Morganite

Aug 28, 2006, 11:01 AM

You know what weird? My circle of friends, family and acquaintances are mainly christians and amongst those hundreds of people there is not one who has the belief that 31Pumpkin and Starman have that christians shouldn't associate with non-christians. I have no idea where they get that idea but they must be a very small minority. I thank the stars for that.

There are a couple or three sects that take Paul's counsel not to company with unbelievers to its literal extreme. One that comes to mind is the Christadelphian Ecclesia, a small and fading sect of believers who are not only sola scriptura but they sola understand them, so that it is easy to be an unbeliever. They are the inheritors of the teachings of John Thomas, and regard their articles with such revereance that a Christadelphian will not sit at table and eat with a non-Christadelphian. Others I recall are, Exclusive Brethren, and Plymouth Brethren. Both these Protestant sects are fossilised and almost defunct. There might be others who have the same extreme view. This view seems at best to carry with it the seeds of the demise of any group that holds to them. Good job that Jesus sat and dined with unbelieving sinners or there would have been no Christians left after the end of century one.

M:)organeats with anyone and will be all things to all men to convert them to the gospel of Christ

Val,

That was a good point from NK. Majority of Christians believe that all are children of God. We all have our own paths to take and beliefs to form. It is too bad that a couple of misguided apples in Christianity ruin it for others who are sincere in believing that God loves all his children. I do believe that this does and can cause a lot of damage to somebody who would love to believe.

Joe

Whom do the other Christians say that we, the children of God, are?

M:)

Morganite

Aug 28, 2006, 11:15 AM

The Wiccan Credo is a Wiccan poem. Some Wiccans believe that it was written circa 1910 CE by Adriana Porter. Others suggest that it was created during the very early years of Gardnerian Witchcraft, during the 1940s and 1950s.

An it harm none, do as thou wilt
Do what you will, so long as it harms none
An it harm none, do what thou will
That it harm none, do as thou wilt
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, / An it harm none do what ye will.[1]

The combination of Wicca with no harm to others and do what thou wilt made its first known appearance in The Old Laws by Gerald Gardner, 1953. A similar phrase, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, appears in Aleister Crowley's works by 1904, in The Book of the Law (though as used by Crowley it is half of a statement and response, the response being "Love is the Law, love under Will").

The rede in its best known form was used by Doreen Valiente in several writings. In the form of the "eight words" couplet it was first recorded in a speech she delivered in 1964. In 1974 a complete poem entitled "The Wiccan Rede" was published in the neo-Pagan magazine Earth Religion News. It was shortly followed by another, slightly different, version, entitled the "Rede Of The Wiccae", which was published in Green Egg magazine by Lady Gwen Thompson. She ascribed it to her grandmother Adriana Porter, and claimed that the earlier published text was distorted from "its original form". The full poem as published by Thompson is as follows:

Rede Of The Wiccae

Being known as the counsel of the Wise Ones:

Bide the Wiccan Laws ye must In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
Live an’ let live - Fairly take an’ fairly give.
Cast the Circle thrice about To keep all evil spirits out.
To bind the spell every time - Let the spell be spake in rhyme.
Soft of eye an’ light of touch - Speak little, listen much.
Deosil go by the waxing Moon - Sing and dance the Wiccan rune.
Widdershins go when the Moon doth wane, An’ the Werewolf howls by the dread Wolfsbane.
When the Lady’s Moon is new, Kiss thy hand to Her times two.
When the Moon rides at Her peak Then your heart’s desire seek.
Heed the Northwind’s mighty gale - Lock the door and drop the sail.
When the wind comes from the South, Love will kiss thee on the mouth.
When the wind blows from the East, Expect the new and set the feast.
When the West wind blows o’er thee, Departed spirits restless be.
Nine woods in the Cauldron go - Burn them quick an’ burn them slow.
Elder be ye Lady’s tree - Burn it not or cursed ye’ll be.
When the Wheel begins to turn - Let the Beltane fires burn.
When the Wheel has turned a Yule, Light the Log an’ let Pan rule.
Heed ye flower bush an’ tree - By the Lady Blessèd Be.
Where the rippling waters go Cast a stone an’ truth ye’ll know.
When ye have need, Hearken not to others greed.
With the fool no season spend Or be counted as his friend.
Merry meet an’ merry part - Bright the cheeks an’ warm the heart.
Mind the Threefold Law ye should - Three times bad an’ three times good.
When misfortune is enow, Wear the Blue Star on thy brow.
True in love ever be Unless thy lover’s false to thee.
Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill - An’ it harm none, Do what ye will.

The attribution to Porter has been disputed, since Porter died in 1946, well before Gardner published The Old Laws, and no evidence for Porter's authorship exists other than Thompson's word. The language of the poem refers to Wiccan concepts that are not known to have existed in her grandmother's lifetime. Its attribution to Porter may have formed part of Thompson's claim to be an hereditary witch. Its precise origin has yet to be determined.[2]

Adrian Bott, in an article written in White Dragon magazine, 2003, argues that its creation can be placed somewhere between 1964 and 1975. Bott bases his argument on the alleged misuse of archaic English in the poem, in particular of "an'" as an abbreviation of "and", and of "ye" instead of "the". Bott states that the author of the poem was evidently unaware that this contraction of "and" is not an archaic, but a modern convention. According to Bott, in the "eight words" couplet originally cited by Valiente, "an" is used correctly, in the Middle English sense of "'in the event that', or simply 'if'" (as in the Shakespearan "an hadst thou not come to my bed") and thus has no apostrophe. In the poem, this has been transformed into an abbreviated "and" and given an apostrophe, with every "and" in the poem's additional lines then being written "an'" as if to match. Accordingly, Bott concludes that the poem was an attempt to expand Valiente's couplet into a full Wiccan credo, written by someone who misunderstood the archaic language they attempted to imitate.[3]

However Bott ignores the fact that printing "an'" in the archaic sense with an apostrophe was a publishing convention from the late 19th century and that "an" as a straight abbreviation of "and" is also to be found in Shakespeare.[4]

In contrast to Bott, Robert Mathiesen repeats the objection to "ye", but argues that most of the archaisms are used correctly. However, he states that they all derive from late 19th century revivalist usages.[5]

Based on this fact Mathiesen concludes that early twentieth century authorship of at least part of the poem is probable. He argues that its references to English folklore are consistent with Porter's family history. His provisional conclusion is that a folkloric form of the poem may have been written by Porter, but that it was supplemented and altered by Thompson to add specifically Wiccan material. Mathiessen also takes the view that the last line was probably a Thompson addition derived from Valiente. According to this account, the 1974 variant of the text, which was published by one of Thompson's former initiates, may represent one of the earlier drafts. Its publication prompted Thompson to publish what she - falsely - claimed was Porter's "original" poem.

The Rede is seen by both Wiccans and outside observers as very similar to the Golden Rule, a belief that is found in nearly every religion. While the Golden Rule forbids harm subjectively, the Wiccan Rede does not forbid anything.

There is some debate in the neo-Pagan and Wiccan communities as to the meaning of the rede. The debate centers on the concept of the rede being advice (from the meaning of rede) not a commandment, as well as the fact that actions which do harm are not discussed in the rede. An expansion on this theme can be found in Wiccan Ethics and the Wiccan Rede by David Piper. The concept of ethical reciprocity is not explicitly stated, but most Wiccans interpret the Rede to imply the Golden Rule in the belief that the spirit of the Rede is to actively do good for one's fellow humans as well as oneself. Different sects of Wiccans read "none" differently: some include the self, others include animals or plants, and so forth.

It is also noted by some as similar to the Harm principle set by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in the 19th Century.

In the second part of the Wiccan Rede the word "wilt" is understood to mean "will". The meaning of "will" in this case is understood to mean one's true will as opposed to a want. This means that the rede can be fully understood as being that one should always follow your true will instead of trying to obtain simple wants and to ensure that in doing one's will you do not harm anyone or anything. The rede can be seen as encouraging a Wiccan to take personal responsibility for his or her actions.

In addition to the concept of ethical reciprocity expressed by most versions of the Golden Rule, however, the Rede also expressly rejects the concept of sin outside of harm to oneself or to another.

The rejection of specific exhortations and prohibitions of conduct such as those given in the Ten Commandments in Christianity makes its character somewhat different. The Rede is only a guideline which the individual must interpret to fit each particular situation.

Interestingly, the ethics espoused in the Rede have gained quite a bit of modern currency among anarchists and some libertarians, and have become widely used in debates over, e.g. drug legalization and euthanasia.

It must be noted, however, that not all traditional Wiccans follow the Rede itself; some Gardnerians in particular espouse the Charge of the Goddess as a guide for morality. Its line "Keep pure your highest ideal, strive ever towards it; let naught stop you or turn you aside, for mine is the secret door which opens upon the door of youth" is used as a maxim for ethical dilemmas.

Notes

1. ^ This is the first published form of the couplet, quoted from Doreen Valiente in 1964. Later published versions include "ye" instead of either "the" or "it": "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill — an ye harm none, do what ye will" (Earth Religion News, 1974); "Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill - An’ it harm none, Do what ye will" (Green Egg, 1975)

2. ^ http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede3.shtml.

3. ^ Adrian Bott, 2003. "The Wiccan Rede" in White Dragon magazine, Lughnasadh 2003

4. ^ Such as '"And why, Sir," quoth I, "an' it liketh you?", from D.L. Purves (ed) The Canterbury Tales and Faery Queen, with other poems of Chaucer, Edinburgh, 1870. In Love's Labours Lost, 5:2. the phrase "an if you grow so nice" appears to involve a straight abbreviation of "and".

5. ^ Robert Mathiesen and Theitic, The Rede of the Wiccae: Adriana Porter, Gwen Thompson and the Birth of a Tradition of Witchcraft, Olympian press, Rhode Island, 2005, pp.68-70.

Wicca, like masonry, is a modern 'revival' of what is mistakebly believed to be an ancient and continuously practiced society.

M:)

K_3

Aug 28, 2006, 11:43 AM

Being tolerant of anothers religion does not mean one has to believe in that persons religion. It is being respectful of anothers spiritual path in life. I can not be intolerant of a Hindu who has only known that religion and follows it. I have friends of different religions, we all want the earth to heal, and to have peace and love and compassion for others. If that could be accomplished it would be heaven on earth. One religion can not accomplish that. All humans have to strive to show compassion towards one another to make the wars stop and the greed to stop and the raping of our minerals and forests. Compassion. Yes, I believe God wants each of us to be tolerant of each of his children.

Starman

Aug 28, 2006, 06:00 PM

Starman,

That bible quote implies some strange stuff. If one's father was an alcoholic or a wife-beater then that bible quote seems to imply that the children of this man are doomed to be branded as such regardless of how they really are as people. This doesn't seem to have any basis in real life. It would be horrible to imagine a world where children of defective parents cannot break the cycle and become better people.

That's not what the Bible is saying nor implying.
Please read the verses very carefully.
The ones considered children of Satan are those who choose to IMITATE him.
It is that imitation that makes them his spiritual children.
Genetics has nothing to do with it.

Val,

That was a good point from NK. Majority of Christians believe that all are children of God. We all have our own paths to take and beliefs to form. It is too bad that a couple of misguided apples in Christianity ruin it for others who are sincere in believing that God loves all his children.

Joe

The majority is very often wrong.
Jesus himself tells us clearly that there are some who are children of Satan.
You say they are not? To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar. Unless of course you are saying that one can be both a child of Satan and a child of God. But in that case you would be ignoring a host of other scriptures which state otherwise.

1 John 3:7

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Morganite

Aug 29, 2006, 10:23 AM

I thought it was "the devil went down to Georgia" which would mean he was from the Carolina's (one of Jesse's or Strom's folk). Unless the reference is to Yankees... but I can't imagine that. (unless it's the team)

Poetic licence!

Just my faulty memory and my <img src=http://www.familycorner.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif>

:)

even Jesus Christ said that He came to bring a sword, not peace.

Galveston, you know you are telling only half the story. Jesus also said, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

I like those who build their Christian faith on that rather than on the more difficult statements. You will understand what Jesus meant by his 'sword' saying, so I need not elaborate. But anyone who takes either that or Jesus' cleansing the temple as their licence to bet up on others has missed the central message of the teaching of Jesus and are settled in some other campground.

M:)

NeedKarma

Aug 29, 2006, 10:52 AM

That's not what the Bible is saying nor implying.
Please read the verses very carefully.

I suggest that YOU re-read it. And understand that parables and much of the Bible is open to interpretation. Understand that YOU are not the final say of what vague passages in the Bible are meant to convey.

31pumpkin

Aug 29, 2006, 03:01 PM

valinors_sorrow

Aug 29, 2006, 03:56 PM

A large part of the reason I am so willing to claim everyone* on the planet as a child of God is that I got a firsthand account from whomever or whatever** created me that anything any person ever does here that is wrong or considered a sin is simply a mistake. To be sure, some of them are grave mistakes, but they are mistakes none the less. I also got to see that there is a process of accountability and atonement for it coming to every person, guaranteed. I got a very brief but potent view of how once a person realises what a colossal mistake they made, if that is indeed the case, they will be utterly broken hearted with remorse. And out of that remorse will come their opportunity for total redemption.

It requires nothing from anyone to receive this. And it has made all the religions (and I have pursued a few too) that state otherwise out of reach for me, like it or not, because this experience was and remains so undeniable to me and the belief formed from it one of the few in me that is 100% unshakable. It is simply not spiritually appropriate for anyone to label anyone else as unworthy of this kind of love and forgiveness. It has made it possible for me to forgive the impossible too. And the real kicker to it is this "vision" (or whatever you want to call it) occurred in the last few minutes of when I thought I was dying at the hands of an unbelievably rageful stranger who was strangling me. It takes a certain amount of trust to state this here so I would appreciate people not tearing me up too much too, as this was my experience. There is nothing that says you have to believe it, but you don't need to be calling anyone a liar either.

So with that said, do you think I can tactfully tolerate any religions that state otherwise and their followers? You betcha!

* = Yes Starman that includes all your murderers, tyrants, abusers, the man who raped and very nearly killed me, etc.

** = And yes, I know just how cracked that sounds, can you imagine it happened when I was still atheist too so for a long time I tried to make it anything except what is was. And there isn't any angle of looking at it that I haven't already considered, i.e. it was my oxygen-deprived brain wigging out, etc.

Starman

Aug 29, 2006, 09:50 PM

Needkarma -
I do think you did interpret that verse or passage incorrectly. Nobody's HUMAN father is really referred to there. The father of all lies is the Devil.
The Bible doesn't have just an open interpretation. Someone not of the Faith would have much difficulty understanding maybe even the parables, since the whole Faith & the whole Bible has to be considered.
Also, if we have Jesus, we do not believe in any sins of the father(human) being passed on. That fact was even settled in the Old Testament.

You are right, the Bible does have a clear theme which is repeated from Genesis all the way to Revelation. Mankind's salvation via a seed or Ransom sacrifice and the establishment of God's Kingdom.

Here is an interesting article.

By Graeme Goldsworthy,
The theme of the Bible is the kingdom of God. That is where the biblical account both starts and finishes. Salvation is the means by which the sovereign God brings sinful people into that kingdom as its willing and acceptable subjects. When Jesus began His preaching, He declared that the kingdom of God was "at hand." The term "kingdom of God" is not an Old Testament one, but the concept is. Clearly, Jesus' hearers had some concept of "kingdom" which rested on their Old Testament upbringing, and they would have recognized Jesus' words as a claim that the hope or expectation of Israel was to find its fulfillment in Him.

http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/golds1.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem arises in reference to intolerance because the Bible tells us clearly that God requires certain appreciation for the Ransom Sacrifice and a willingness to abide by God's righteous decrees. We are clearly told that if not then we will not be blessed by being admitted into that kingdom. It also clearly tells us that many will not abide and will lose their lives as a consequence. It also clearly tells us that not all beliefs are approved by God and tells us clearly which beliefs God wants us to consider sacred. Those who read this and are offended by it tag those who do believe it as intolerant and as spreading intolerance. So in order to be tolerant, from their standpoint we have to ignore scripture and rewrite the whole Bible. In short, we have to stop being a Christians and believe what they tell us instead.

BTW

The very ones who claim to be against intolerance are the very ones who will attack others personally via insults when others don't share their views. That's called hypocrisy

So for all those out there who like to judge others, tell them that their belief is wrong, for personally attacking somebody because of differing beliefs. You are teaching everybody else that hey, we do not want to be part of your religion because of the way you put people down, the way you treat others beliefs, the hate that you spew, the nastiness that you dish out. Your god is not the god that I believe in.

Joe

Hey Jesus Helper, didn't Jesus tell those who were worshipping the wrong way that they were wrong? So from your standpoint he was being nasty by spewing hatred and turning others against God? And that's the reason you don't want to be part of his religion?

NeedKarma

Aug 30, 2006, 10:52 AM

It also clearly tells us that many will not abide and will lose their lives as a consequence. Oddly enough we are all still here having fun and leading good lives.

I really do not know where you are coming from probably because I haven’t really met anyone of your type before that is so vocal. Around my work and home I have tons of Roman Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Pentacost, Agnostic and Atheist friends. Here’s the weird thing: it makes no difference whatsoever to our relationship. Most of us do charity work, have great families that we cherish, etc. Not sure where you thin we are losing out by being like you.

The lady across the hall from me at work is a Jehovah’s Witness and we are friends – I help her with her computer problems, we talk about her nephew, etc. Also I was a Big Brother to a great little guy for 7 years and guess what? His mom is a JW. I was even invited to a weekend softball game with their Kingdom Hall group.

Clearly their all work from the same Bible. You have personally chosen a different path. I do agree with JesusHelper that if part of your mission is to convey your message to others in order to ‘save’ them then I do believe that the result you are achieving is the opposite.

galveston

Aug 30, 2006, 07:08 PM

Morganite said:

Galveston, you know you are telling only half the story. Jesus also said, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Ok. Here is the rest of the story from Jesus Himself.

Matt 10:34-37
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
(KJV)

Jesus is both the most tolerant and the most intolerant of all.

He dined with sinners, went out of His way to give life to sinners, forgave all manner of sin, patiently taught His disciples when it looked like they would never learn, and even promised a dying thief on the next cross a place in Paradise.

He was totally intolerant with liars, hypocrites, and rotten religion. He made it plain that He is exclusive, but invited everyone to share his inheritance with Him.

Tolerance is indeed a tricky subject!

valinors_sorrow

Aug 31, 2006, 05:41 PM

See, for a non-christian, its easy to see that Jesus isn't here to correct any of us on what he was really about. And to the non-christian, the bible is a book written by people, some of which undoubtedly had agendas as people often do, so the information from it is skewed at best. Its not what I would call a solidly reliable source, especially when I see how wide the interpretation is. But there are sources that are reliable, none of which is "tainted" by any human running an agenda to be found in nature. And if books are to be considered, its behooves one to look at many sources rather than one, to gain as broad an understanding as possible in the hope of rising above any one or two agendas.

Having read a number of books on Jesus, some from christian authors, some not -- I don't think I can easily accept the idea that he would be intolerant of other religions. And quoting the bible won't help in this understanding either because we're back to the agenda issue then. I tend to picture him as the epitome of tolerance and understanding in all things without exception. I see him being respectful of everyone and, while very very self confident, ever mindful that each of us is free to choose. I also came to believe that he understood better than almost anyone in his time that love will clear the path to our understanding better than anything. As a highly evolved human, he personified what is possible for all of us, as have quite a few other spiritually developed people, historical and contemporary. I want to be like him, and I strive to, and yet I would still not be inclined to call myself Christian... and I have this funny feeling, if he were here to see that... it may even draw a smile from him.

So you see that tolerance is not the only tricky subject, Jesus is too.

Morganite

Aug 31, 2006, 06:48 PM

I hope not without a clear invitation to do so from me?

Sorry Val. I have a command from my Boss to tell everyone about Him, and to make disciples. If you do not want to be included, that is your choice, but to censure me for being obedient to Jesus Christ is intolerant.

I'll bet you don't have it in writing addressed to you, and that you are using someone else's great commission and using it as yours.

:)

M:)

Morganite said:

Galveston, you know you are telling only half the story. Jesus also said, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Ok. Here is the rest of the story from Jesus Himself.

Matt 10:34-37
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
(KJV)

Jesus is both the most tolerant and the most intolerant of all.

He dined with sinners, went out of His way to give life to sinners, forgave all manner of sin, patiently taught His disciples when it looked like they would never learn, and even promised a dying thief on the next cross a place in Paradise.

He was totally intolerant with liars, hypocrites, and rotten religion. He made it plain that He is exclusive, but invited everyone to share his inheritance with Him.

Tolerance is indeed a tricky subject!

Galveston,

You err in placing emphasis in the wrong places. Jesus said many things, but none of them is a licence to be intolerant. The Gospel of Jesus is not the sword of destruction. In using that metaphor Jesus was foretelling what would happen to those who chose the path of his discipleship, and saying that it would produce societal and familial disruption. However, That was not then and is not now the intention of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The purpose of the gospel of Christ is to unify people, not to separate them. Jesus prayed to his Father in Gethsemane on this wise:

"Neither pray I for these (apostles and disciples) alone, but for them also who will come to me through their preaching, that they may all be one as we are one, that they may be one in us."

This plea for unity is expressed in his commandment to his followers to love one another, and that this love should extend to all is shown clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus does not expect his followers to compromise their bleifs, but neither does he require them to shove their beliefs down the throats of those not choosing to follow him. Jesus enjoined tolerance to those who spoke in him name but who were not numbered with his group. To his feisty disicples who wanted them stopping, Jesus aaid "Leave them alone. He who is not against me is for me."

That Christian who takes licence from anything Jesus did in the way of getting in the faces of non-Christians - and sometimes in the faces of other Christians - do not understand the scriptures, nor do they understand the gospel, and least of all do they understand Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Christians should be prepared to give a ready answer as to what they do believe, but God did not commission Ferrovius to terrorise people into submission, because that is not his way.

M:)

Starman

Aug 31, 2006, 11:54 PM

Indiscriminate tolerance of everything regardless of consequences is a sin. There is such a thing as righteous intolerance. God's separation of people based on their behavior doesn't constitute sinful intolerance. There is a good consequential reason why it is done.

Matthew 25:31-33 (King James Version)

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

BTW
Do we invariably accuse a government of unjustifiable intolerance whenever it punishes crime by separating the lawless from the ones who are law-abiding citizens via incarceration or imprisonment and even execution?

valinors_sorrow

Sep 1, 2006, 05:57 AM

Starman disagrees: I disagree with your Bible is flawed because it is interpreted in different ways conclusion.
Yes. I knew that already Starman since you've been very clear about that in several posts, but thanks for the added emphasis. And for the record, I wasn't suggesting anyone, including Jesus, was or is tolerant of everything. This thread is about religious intolerance only and adding the topic of tolerance about anything else just sidetracks the discussion -- we talked about that already several posts back. I can go find it for you, if you like?

But like you, I see there is a consequence for actions, both good and bad. I just happen to believe that the consequence for stepping on another child of God by way of lack of respect is greater than you do. In my understanding of things, not much trumps that sin or mistake. My life is a journey into spiritual enlightenment and I have discovered it is possible to respect every single person on this planet and still not be at risk for anything except pleasing my Creator.

Morganite

Sep 1, 2006, 09:37 AM

The Bible doesn't have just an open interpretation. Someone not of the Faith would have much difficulty understanding maybe even the parables, since the whole Faith & the whole Bible has to be considered.

There is no single interpretation of the Bible, because the Bible is not a single book but a collection of discrete books. The actual number of books in the Bible depends on which version you use. Although it is not popular, the real way to interpret the books is to consider them against their own background, the situation in the lives of the people from whom the books sprang, and consider how the original writer addressed their situation and what he was intent on persuading them to do.

Although Jews (and other descendants of the ancient Israelites) are entitled to declare what they believe the book meant in the salvation history of their own people, Christians take a completely different view of the same scriptures, and read them as portents and prophecies of the coming of Jesus Christ - something that Jews determinedly reject..

Neither the Old nor New Testaments contain one single identifiable system of theology, and this is what has given rise to multiplying scts and denominations within Judaism as within Christianity, although Protestantism leads all religions (with the exception of Hunduism where each man decides for himself and chooses his own Gods) in splintering and disagreement as to what the texts actually say and mean.

It is, therefore, largely a matter of personal choice what one reads into the documents of the Bible, and it would be much more fruitful if those who disagreed with the way others interpret the Bible would engage them in reasoned discussions setting out their own views and trying to appreciate the discrete views of others.

M:)RGANITE

galveston

Sep 1, 2006, 05:12 PM

Apparently Morganite et al feel like I, and others, are trying to "force our belief down (someone's) throat". I deny the charge categorically. I have always said that everyone has a right to be wrong.

I would like for Morganite to explain this comment, as I am not sure what he means.

"Neither the Old nor New Testaments contain one single identifiable system of theology,"

Yaweh time after time brought judgments on Israel when they followed the wrong theology. It looks like He knows that there can only be one that is right. Was He being intolerant? (Old Testament)

There are many places in the New Testament making it plain that there is no everlasting life outside of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Is this an identifiable system of theology? Is this intolerance?

I am certainly in agreement with several points that Morganite makes, but would add that anyone with more than a passing understanding of Jesus' teaching would realize that all of the attempts to force "christianity" on any person or society to be in opposition to everything that the Master taught. For example, the inquisition that was carried out by the largest "christian" church was anything but Christian. It was positively evil.

I am not intolerant of you good folks, I just basically disagree with some of you.

valinors_sorrow

Sep 1, 2006, 05:24 PM

I am not intolerant of you good folks, I just basically disagree with some of you.
Disagreement is good. Diverse points of view are good. I have not known you to ever use a tone that would make me question if there is a lack of respect or to come away feeling stepped on. You clearly can hear someone say "please don't attempt to convert me - I am not in the market for a new religion". For the record, I have enjoyed discussion with you and have said so too. While we may have strongly opposing ideas, I recognise a tolerant one when I see one on "it takes one to know one" basis and hope you do too. LOL. So please don't et al with me, okay?

galveston

Sep 1, 2006, 05:45 PM

Thank you, Val.

Morganite

Sep 1, 2006, 05:59 PM

Apparently Morganite et al feel like I, and others, are trying to "force our belief down (someone's) throat". I deny the charge categorically. I have always said that everyone has a right to be wrong.

I would like for Morganite to explain this comment, as I am not sure what he means.

"Neither the Old nor New Testaments contain one single identifiable system of theology,"

Simply put, it means that all the Christian theologies in the world claim their foundations to be from the Old and New Testaments, and the reason they can do so with relative ease is because there is no overall system of theology, belief, practice, liturgy, or ritual that can be lifted out of the Bible and laid out on the table, and have all Christians agree to it.

There are some overarching biblical themes that most will subscribe to, and yet disagree robustly with the details. I am sure you have come across a great many of them in your time. The Bible is not a catechism. If it were, it would be possible to identify exactly what believers are expected to believe and all would subscribe to the same set of articles of faith, creed, ritual, liturgy, and the thousand and one other things that divide Christianity even as it strives towards the pauline ideal of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism."

M:)

31pumpkin

Sep 1, 2006, 06:11 PM

Morganite -

That was an OK explanation. Not that it's so important, but sometimes people are way off with their interpretation of scripture. I'm not trying to pick on Needkarma but I know if you're going to even comment on a verse, one should have some understanding or wisdom regarding the Bible. Or else simply say they don't know or would you explain it.
Consider NK's post #76 in response to #75.
I think without some understanding of the Bible, it can read frightening/& or confusing.

But I kid you not. I think I deserve an apology from:
1) Needkarma
2) Jesushelper

For being so derogatory towards me personally. Beliefs or not, you both were rude. That's as much as I can say within the scope of this forum.

NeedKarma

Sep 1, 2006, 06:41 PM

Nope, no apology. The Bible should be accessible for the common man, not just for your sect/cult.

valinors_sorrow

Sep 1, 2006, 06:43 PM

For being so derogatory towards me personally. Beliefs or not, you both were rude. That's as much as I can say within the scope of this forum.
And what of your rudeness toward others? Perhaps if you start the apologising process with me, it may actually go somewhere Pumpkin.

Our history is short and so its fairly easy to recall post #48 in this thread:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member-discussions/psychics-12524-5.html#post120405

May I respectfully remind for the record that at the point of post #48, I was here by barely a month with only dozens of posts. Most of them were not in the religious threads as I was being slow and careful to wade in that pool, knowing how volatile they are at the other sites. It stands to reason that no one here had a very clear idea what spiritual beliefs I held then. How I managed to anger you to the point of you risking reprisals for disparaging is still not clear to me but the rudeness you expressed is clear enough, isn't it?

I have managed to turn something like a Christian cheek all this time about it, but if you are going to insist on apologies for rudeness, this can hardly be excluded from the discussion, to be fair about it.

31pumpkin

Sep 1, 2006, 09:29 PM

Val, I thought you forgot about any grudges you had against me. I wasn't referring to you in my post but I guess you really wanted to challenge me at something?

N.Karma - I was checking to see if you had some nice in you, OR something else.
As you would put it,"looks like you achieved just the opposite"

JoeCanada76

Sep 1, 2006, 11:06 PM

Pumpkin 31,

Why do I need to apologize to you? I was not rude at all towards you. I was speaking the truth. I was saying what happens to people who force their beliefs on others. For some reason you feel the need to ask us to apologize to you. I am with NK. I am not apologizing to you because I did nothing to you except for tell the truth.

Here is my post:

It is all in the approach. Somebody tries to force their religion down somebodys throat. That they are right and your wrong. That does not win anybody over. That pushes them away and keeps them farther away. You Pumpkin whether you realize that or not. You do that. So infact you are pushing people away from God by the way you approach others. You need to be open to others beliefs, opinions, and be friend all people no matter what. That will bring you closer to God and bring others closer to God. That is what I believe.

Joe

valinors_sorrow

Sep 2, 2006, 05:01 AM

Val, I thought you forgot about any grudges you had against me. I wasn't referring to you in my post but I guess you really wanted to challenge me at something?
While my initial hurt from what you did is long gone (those tend to be shortlived with me) and I don't ever turn things into grudges having learned how not to, I am capable of talking to the principle of things. The principle here struck me as odd that you would bring up the mechanism of apology when you don't seem to subscribe to it yourself. It seemed hypocritical to request one from others when you haven't filled a request to fill one yourself. And I also thought that if you didn't get one, you would then perhaps understand why, having refused to give one yourself. Its all on the same continuum as a principle.

31pumpkin

Sep 2, 2006, 08:39 AM

Pumpkin

Here is my post:

It is all in the approach. Somebody tries to force their religion down somebodys throat. That they are right and your wrong. That does not win anybody over. That pushes them away and keeps them farther away. You Pumpkin whether you realize that or not. You do that. So infact you are pushing people away from God by the way you approach others. You need to be open to others beliefs, opinions, and be friend all people no matter what. That will bring you closer to God and bring others closer to God. That is what I believe.
Joe

It's all in the approach? Well, consider what you are saying to me there. You are being critical of me without knowing (and therefore assuming) "whether or not I realize it or not". Therefore, judging me based on your own feelings. Attributing to me something you don't know if it's true or not.
Since you are reckless with your personal opinions of others, I thought I'd bring attention to your statements so you can see that you were quite intolerant yourself by projecting a negative attitude towards me when it is coming from your own personal agenda and not mine.

Val - Well, it isn't all about you. You should realize that you say some inflammatory things and expect kid glove treatment. Why do you keep remembering the bad things? Do people owe you forever? Why can't you look at the present & go forward? Are we accomplishing anything by trying to fan the flames? I told you that I accept your beliefs whether I agreed with them. It's unrealistic to think ANYONE else sees things the same way anyway. I'm going to say peace be with you one more time. :o

JoeCanada76

Sep 2, 2006, 09:21 AM

Its your agenda 31 pumpkin that isolates your behaviour. I am not making judgements just giving the facts. You may not like hearing or reading the truth, but that is what it is. I am not going to sit here going back and forth with you because quite honestly God wants me to do better things with my time.

Joe

Curlyben

Sep 2, 2006, 09:29 AM

This is a potential thread closure warning !!

Pumpkin, and everyone else to a degree. Please refer to This post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religion/intolerance-should-considered-sin-30999-8.html#post158786), especially the quote from Dictionary.com.

K_3

Sep 2, 2006, 09:37 AM

How can one be intolerant of anothers religion when they know nothing about that religion? You may know a few facts, true knowledge needs more than a few facts. One might find out the basis to most religions are very similar.

It is difficult understanding where someone is coming from when they have no tolerance for others. Whether it is their actions or opinions. When someone speaks of their religion, faith or spirituality and they come across sounding negative, brash, narrowminded and/or angry it turns others off. It makes their religion sound like a place no one wants to go.

How many places in the Bible does it say "God is Love"? To me God is pure love, a light so bright it is blinding. He wants us to show love, understanding, kindness and compassion to others. Does that not all add up to tolerance of others whether it be their religion or their race?

galveston

Sep 5, 2006, 07:04 PM

A thought: Religious intolerance is of little consequense (to others) as long as it is at the personal level. It becomes deadly when it becomes official policy. There are places in the would today where evangelism, particularly the Christian variety, is a capital offense. In Australia and Canada, a preacher can be punished for preaching against certain sins. In the U.S.A. a Navy chaplain is facing or has already faced court-martial for conducting a funeral service for a Christian and reading a scripture pointing out that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, and then closing a prayer in the name "Jesus". He faces the loss of 2 years salary and discharge. It is just this kind of intolerance that so many of the first immigrants to this country were fleeing. It does seem that official religious intolerance (in the U.S.A.) is usually directed against Christians. Hope I am still on the subject!

Morganite

Sep 5, 2006, 07:29 PM

So if God saved you from these perils please be reminded that He put you there also.

How do you figure that out? Do you see any oddity in determining what a God in whom you do not believe will or will not do?

M:)

A thought: Religious intolerance is of little consequense (to others) as long as it is at the personal level. It becomes deadly when it becomes official policy.

What a remarkable thing to say! Religious intolerance at the personal level is what causes most of the hostile action against the people of the religion towards which individuals are intolerant. A single idiot with an intolerance issue can do untold harm to those he esteeems to be his enemies. Still remarkable is the fact that of intolerance is institutionalised, it still relies on individuals moved by the Satanic spirit of intolerance to kill the 'enemy.' Intolerance has no place in any religion unless it is a totally evil religion. Religious practitioners in all countries and in all positions will not get into trouble of they observe the laws of the country in which they reside.

As to your US Navy chaplin being disciplined for conducting a Christian burial service, I would appreciate the provision of a web-reference to the case that I can see its details for myself.

Historically, Christians have been and still are among the least tolerant and most intolerant of all religions, as history, profane and ecclesiastical attests. Intolerance is neither desired nor desirable simply because some are intolerant to your faith. The intolerance of another does not grant a licence to others to be intolerant. Any argument that gives intolerance a place in religion is evil and ill-founded, and no disciple of Jesus Christ would even think of claiming it. The teaching of Jesus that he is the sole way to salvation is not intolerant. It is, for Christians, a statement of fact. Acceptance of that does not grant licence to damn all other religions and non-Christians to Hell. Not according to the Bible.

Jesus was surrounded by paganism during his life, but where will you find his condemnation of paganism? Nowhere! He knew about it, but his sole intent was to establish his gospel, settle his believers, and have others come to know him through the example of the blameless lives of Christians. Christian intolerance towards other faiths is un-Christlike (it could be said to be anti-Christ) because it steps outside of his own life, teaching, and example. Christians need to follow Jesus not some ranting preacher who is strong on hate but weak on love. God does not need these self-appointed wild men to accomplish his work. Condider the Bible.

M:)RGANITE

"Love one another .... "

galveston

Sep 8, 2006, 05:32 PM

The comment I made about personal intolerance simply meant that I am not going to get bent out of shape because of some individual's intolerance of my religious beliefs.
You can find several articles about chaplains at "Agape Press" and search "chaplain". I think the particular article that I mentioned may have been archived or deleted, but there are several others.

Morganite

Sep 8, 2006, 05:45 PM

31pumpkin

Sep 8, 2006, 06:18 PM

Well I'm close to finding out if I have a new friend or neh. They just completed a new house on the lot next to me.(boy that was noisy!) Anyway, I have a Catholic friend like 3 lots down so this will be interesting. Did I mention I hope she's a Christian? Lol

talaniman

Sep 9, 2006, 05:14 AM

talaniman

Sep 9, 2006, 03:10 PM

Why are you so thin-skinned, and do you really think you can insult me and call me names without me replying in kind? What I posted in reply was a very witty statement of FACT, sorry you took it badly but my comment was fairly mild compared to the things you throw at me. So get over it already.

NeedKarma

Sep 9, 2006, 04:37 PM

How do you figure that out? Do you see any oddity in determining what a God in whom you do not believe will or will not do?

I'd like to offer you an answer but I honestly cannot figure out what your sentence means.

31pumpkin

Sep 9, 2006, 05:33 PM

See, the moral of the topic is to discuss problems and work out your differences so they don't come down to two bullets for one another. Do that & you've got a picture of reality.

galveston

Sep 10, 2006, 07:30 PM

talaniman

Sep 10, 2006, 07:40 PM

Hey! Are Y'all intolerant of 31 Pumpkin? Shame, shame, shame!

Should intolerance be considered a sin? In this country it is against the law, officially. You know, that part about congress not making any law either for or against any religion. You can quote it, i'm sure.

I love pumpkin we just clash at times, and yes there is a separation of church and state, so the zealots can't go around hanging the gays in gods name.

Morganite

Sep 12, 2006, 09:29 AM

My personal opinion/angle/view...

I don't believe intolerance has anything to do with what we think or believe. I think it's about how we act.

If I love my neighbor as myself - and I do unto others as I would have them to unto me - then it does not matter what I think or believe about that persons lifestyle or beliefs.

Of course we are not speaking of cheating, lying, murder, etc... Of those thinks intoleration is right. I am intolerable of those things.

If I am intolerable of someone who disagrees with me on religious or philosophical grounds ...that is, if I treat them or speak of them poorly...then I am being intolerable - and sinning.

I have to disagree - strongly - with your first statement, because we do not act independently of our thinking. First we have to make a judgement that a person's beliefs are so far removed from our version of orthodoxy that we feel motivated to act against the person. So far, all the activity in our intolerance/bigotry is mental, yet it is the mental determination to act that leads us to act.

Without that mental determination, formulated by thinking, weighing evidence, making judgement on the strength of the evidence contrasted with our personl canon of orthodoxy, and finally determining that 'something' must be done to correct the other person's heretical notions, or to curtail the 'dangers' we believe will accrue as a result of their heterodoxy influencing others, no action on our part would take place.

It is possible to be rigidly intolerant to the point of pathological bigotry without taking any action except making our blood pressure reach dangerous levels by fretting and fuming about them internally. I would hazard a guess that the majority of those who disagree - strongly - with the views/beliefs/etc of others, actually take no external action.

Conversely, one hundred percent of those who take action against those they nomnate as heretics have already submitted the matter to their thought processes, and have run matters through their own set of 'right' and 'wrong' filters, and become convinced that the 'evil' theology must be counteracted by real action. There is no act of intolerance that is independent of prejudiced thinking.

What bigots consistently fail to comprehend is that it is possible to disagree with them without being the spawn of Satan, and also that bigots who spend their lives setting right - as they suppose - those who hold contrary views, are pathologically and sociologically disabled. Bigiotry, prejudice, and its child intolerance, are impossible without the bigot being certain to the nth degree that his or her perspective is the only viable one. It is with this certainty fixed in their minds that they proceed to trample over the sacred beliefs of others. They lack sensitivity, information, compassion, humanity, and many other characteristics that we recognise as being qualities of the God whose winged avenger they claim to be.

I have never met a bigot who was not as unshakeably deluded as a gentleman of my acquaintance who was convinced that he was Oliver Cromwell. That is the nature of intolerance, but it starts in the mind, in thinking, in opinions, in self-assurance that it is impossible for the 'self' to be wrong, and that being so, for anyone else to be right, unless they match you point for point.

The history of bigotry is marked by those who insult, mock, deride, abuse, beat, murder, torture, maim, and even execute heretics. The most alarming thing about the whole process is that they feel completely justified in doing all or any of these things because they are convinced that they are doing it for the benefit of the heretic, and in the name of God.

My answer to their delusion is: "Yeah, right!"

Their answer is to point out some passage from the Bible and insist that the passage gives them, personally, licence to do whatever they think fit to address the heresy and crush the heretic into silence.

It should not take a genius to understand that every man's faith is valuable to him, and that he does not need our permission to hold vierws that are different to ours. Control freaks cannot accept that. They HAVE to be right 100% of the time, and that not only makes them intolerant, but intolerable.

M:)RGANITE

Hello, Val.
That's a nice dream there, but it ain't gonna happen, no way. You know people better than that! The thing to do is to "love your enemies, etc." while at the same time giving them critical information that they need. The "politically correct" movement seems to be gaining speed, but while many in that crowd claim to be tolerant, they refuse to tolerate anyone, or anything that disagrees with them, so who is truly intolerant? One of the beauties of our society in the good old U.S.A. is that we can disagree loudly, but when push comes to shove, we will defend each others right to be wrong.
Truth has never been widely accepted, and even Jesus Christ said that He came to bring a sword, not peace. I promise not to hate you if you disagree with me, and hope you will accord me the same treatment.

It will 'happen' if YOU do it yourself. Waiting for the whole world to turn the same way is a fool's errand. Be the leaven. Don't wait for the crowd. Other nationalities are represented besideds USAians, many are from countries whose citizens enjoy greater freedoms. I say this without prejudice or bigotry!

(This is critical information!)

M:)