Hi Jesushelper!

Knowing fully that taking offense does not come from the Lord, I found myself defending myself after you did take offense, so I was rightfully confused.
The statement you made about loving others unconditionally seemed out of place for what we were referring to at the time. However, the original question actually does suggest more than people of the same Faith, so I can see YOUR point in stating love with a broad brush.
In 1Thessalonians4:9- Now about brotherly love we do not need to write you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.
In other words, I thought we were discussing the differences caused by denominations of Christianity.
If your post was related to ALL peoples, then I can see the agape love makes sense.
So, I apologize for the upset or misunderstanding.

Peace brother. Have a good day.

Hey JesusHelper, I was going to give you a rating, but the board said I need to spread it around more, as I give too many to you. Hey, when Big Brother speaks...

Anyway, I was going to say I loved you throwing the kiss to Retro, and might I say what a cute little boy you are. LOL

Oh yeah, I promised you two ice cream...

Hey retro, I am glad you made up too. Misunderstandings are easy to have when we write our answers on threads. I have done it, too.

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.

---

Paul said: "Test everything and hold fast to the truth."

The Ku Klux Klan is a real Protestant organisation dedicated to the destruction of Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. If in doubt, ask the FBI. Not all Protestants are as bloody minded as the KKK, and few mainline Protestants would use rape and murder to further their political ends. However, for Protestanmts to remain silent while some of their number commit terrible depredations against an innocent population is to tacitly condone their actions.

The supposed Oath of the Knights of Columbus is an anti-Catholic libel intended to frighten small Protestant children and others of weak intellect. In popular Protestant anti-Roman mythology the Oath of the Jesuits was said to be the foundation for the oath of the Knights of Columbus. Not only is the oath putated to the Jesuits by shameless libellers a patent falsehood that Lucifer is proud to owen, but so also is the supposed "bloody oath" of the Knights of Columbus.

Anyone who is interested in this can check this reference in any law school library. The citation is H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at pp. 3215-3220.

This unseats the vile calumnies and demonstrates that neither fictional Oath is credible, and the Congress of the United States of America accept this as the true case and is entered into the Congressional Record. Referring to the claimed bloody oath of the Knights of Columbus, the Committee on Elections declares:

"This committee cannot condemn too strongly the publication of the false and libelous article referred to in the paper of Mr. Bonniwell, and which was the spurious Knights of Columbus oath, a copy of which is appended to the paper." (H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at p. 3221)

The Roman Church has had to suffer many such calumnies. One that was once widespread and poular is the book that pretends to be "THE AWFUL DISCLOSURES OF MARIA MONK." The whole thing is a work of fiction that grew out of Protestant hatred for their Catholic brethren in the late nineteenth century.

My position is that if you disagree with a particular theological or ecclesiastical position, inventing, repeating, and perpetuating lies about it is a Plutonian business in which no one worthy of the name of 'Christian' ought to be engaged.

Jews have had massive lies and libels directed at them, and it is to a great extent the Christian dislike for Jews that gave Hitler as much licence as he had to begin his extirmination of them.

It is a cause of serious concern for all men that a certain group of like minded will publish any falshood if it suits their agendas, regardless of whether it is the truth or not. Such is not the work of God, for God does not need either lies or liars to move his work along.

Someone owes the Knights of Columbus an apology for bearing false witness agsinst them in contradiction and defiance of the divine law.

.

M:)RGANITE

<><


>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.

---

You might be uinterested to know that there has been a major shift in Catholic-Luteran-Methodist censensus over the doctrine of justification. Thus, and I quote:

Largely as a result of the changes brought about by Vatican II, ecumenical dialog has permeated much of Christendom in recent decades. This includes various Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialog groups which have tackled the justification question since the early 1970's. The 1998 Joint Declaration was largely based on the efforts of those groups.

Partial agreement was jointly reached between the Lutheran World Federation (ILWF) and the Roman Catholic Church. The Joint Declaration had been circulated among the 124 Lutheran denominations who formed the Federation; a significant majority approved the document. In 1998-JUN, the Lutheran World federation Council unanimously approved the Joint Declaration.

Also in 1998-JUN, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, responded on behalf of the Vatican. He said: "I wish to stress that the consensus reached on the doctrine of justification, despite its limitations, virtually resolves a long disputed question at the close of the 20th century, on the eve of the new millennium."

In 2006-JUL, at its general assembly in Seoul, South Korea, the World Methodist Council added its approval. The assembly consists of representatives of 76 different Methodist communities worldwide, and is held every 5 years.

??

Nobody... EVERYONE thinks THEIR religion is the one and true religion! Yet these are the same people that say EVERYONE was created by G_d. So which is it? :)

Everyone is created by God.

In response to Morganite's post about the KC oath I went to the web. Not about to look at the 3 mil plus hits, but found enough to learn that the particular oath is likely false. Also learned that the Catholic church forbids it's members to be part of any secret society. (eg. Masonic) so this raises the question, is there actually a Jesuit society, and is it secret? Does the Knights of Columbus exist, and is it secret? If they do, then how do we know just what they stand for. Are they potentially dangerous? The organization I am affiliated with forbids (as much as possible) membership in ANY secret society. So how is it that the RC is selective in which secret societies it forbids?

As to the growing ecuminicism, I read in the Book of Revelation that there appears to be a world-wide church in the end time, so it's going to happen, but it is not portrayed as a good thing, but an evil one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

In response to Morganite's post about the KC oath I went to the web. Not about to look at the 3 mil plus hits, but found enough to learn that the particular oath is likely false. Also learned that the Catholic church forbids it's members to be part of any secret society. (eg. Masonic) so this raises the question, is there actually a Jesuit society, and is it secret? Does the Knights of Columbus exist, and is it secret? If they do, then how do we know just what they stand for. Are they potentially dangerous? The orginization I am affiliated with forbids (as much as possible) membership in ANY secret society. So how is it that the RC is selective in which secret societies it forbids?

As to the growing ecuminicism, I read in the Book of Revelation that there appears to be a world-wide church in the end time, so it's going to happen, but it is not portrayed as a good thing, but an evil one.

---

You will find answers to your questions here:

US Jesuit Conference

Knights of Columbus

As to your reading of Revelation, that is open to various interpretations. Some foolishly insist that it is the UN.


M:)RGANITE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

You will find answers to your questions here:

US Jesuit Conference

Knights of Columbus

As to your reading of Revelation, that is open to various interpretations. Some foolishly insist that it is the UN.


M:)RGANITE

---

I looked at those sites, but didn't find the answer to what I asked. "Are these oath-bound societies? and is the oath public knowledge? As to the identity of the "Great Whore" that would be another lengthy thread, no doubt. I think she represents a final world-wide religious body. Lots of unity but no righteousness. Pretty hard to prove anything at this time though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I looked at those sites, but didn't find the answer to what I asked. "Are these oath-bound societies? and is the oath public knowledge? As to the identity of the "Great Whore" that would be another lengthy thread, no doubt. I think she represents a final world-wide religious body. Lots of unity but no righteousness. Pretty hard to prove anything at this time though.

---

If the sites do not mention their secrecy or oaths, then you can be pretty sure that there are none. I have a relative who is a Jesuit and he denies any secrecy in the Society of Jesus. The Knights of Columbus are a charitable body, not a commando, uinit in the Catholic Church.

It is always foolish to accept the word of an enemy as to the character of their opponments. It is something like hearing your character described by your mother-in-law in the divorce court.

There are certain movements within Protestantism whose penchant for truth is non existent when dealing with Romanism and its institutions, and even when describing other Protestant bodies. The worst of these is the fiendish Jack Chick propaganda machine that stoops to deliberate lies to paint its victims as black as possible with no regard to truth.

Such are as poor sources of information as is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," etc, and the wise give them a wise berth.

M:)

Interesting that you bring up the "Protocols". They became public before my birth, and seem to be a plan to engineer society. I'm sure I don't know who wrote them, but the social progression, in the Western world at least, seems to be following the plan. Any idea where they came from, and how have they proven to be as accurate as they have?

Personally, I think that prodisant's are. Or even neither. Those whom aren't of any ''christian'' religion. I've been dealing with this issue on my other post's. I feel one of the only truly tolerant religion's is wiccan/pagan. Out of all the different religious types that I personally know wiccan's are most tolerant.

Being tolerant, in and of itself, will never impart everlasting life to those who are tolerant. Or intolerant either, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Interesting that you bring up the "Protocols". They became public before my birth, and seem to be a plan to engineer society. I'm sure I don't know who wrote them, but the social progression, in the Western world at least, seems to be following the plan. Any idea where they came from, and how have they proven to be as accurate as they have?

---

They have not proven to be accurate, buit are a tussue of lies frombeginning to end. Anyone who believes there is any truth to be found wihtin their oages is in serious intellectual social and spiritual trouble. The Protocols are not a Jewish production. They have a long history. You will find many salient references to them here:

http://derson.igc.org/protocols.html

The Protocols are an excellent example of how a document originally manufactured as an engine of hate against one group of people can be forged into an equally dangerous and deadly weapon in the hands of ignorant fanatics to use against their enemies.

It is also a blot on the noble escutcheon of Christianity that some of their number do not shrink to employ the same practice against those whom they deem to be their religious enemies.


M:)RGANITE


,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Being tolerant, in and of itself, will never impart everlasting life to those who are tolerant. Or intolerant either, for that matter.

---

Who suggests that tolerance imparts everlasting life? That is surely not the question. What seems very evident from the scriptures is that iontrolerance leads to death, spiritually and physically. Consider, if you will, the unquestionable fact that during the time Jesus was in Jerusalem he was surrounded by Roman temples to a variety of pagan gods, yet what do we find Jesus saying against them? He is not recorded as having expressed any intolerance towards them, nor of encouraging his disciples to fight against them.

That is not to say that he condoned them, only that he had other work to do and that he pursued his divine mission with an eye single to the glory of God.

It is an awful spectacle to witness those who claim to walk in the footsteps of the Master treading where he did not tread, saying things he did not say, and pretending in a most gravemanner that they are somehow serving Jesus Christ and God, when there is no call anywhere in scripture for Christians to persecute those who hold different opinions from them.

What is evident, is for those who believe in Christ to set their own houses in order and to not be consumed with what others might believe, nor to take upon their own shoulders a self-appointed ministry under the guise of saving the souls of men. To his apostles Jesus said, Ye have not chosen me: I have chosen you and ordained you. It is a far reach for a man to appoint himself when Christ has not called and ordained him, and an even further reach for a man to exercise intolerance towards othyers as if it were a Christian principle.

Tolerance is not to be equated with acceptance or condonement, but a man who follows Jesus does not make another man an enemy because the other man finds the supposed Christian to be harsh and abrasive in his denunciation of his beliefs.

Let all remember that the only and ulitmate judges will be God and Jesus Christ and those appointed by them to sit in judgement. As to the rest of us, we are to be tolerant, kind, loving, forgiving, and benign, and when we feel we cannot bless others, we are to pray for cleansing of our souls so that we can show the pleasant face of Christ and God to all men. This is never done with a scowl or mean words.

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raynefreak

Personally, i think that prodisant's are. Or even neither. Those whom aren't of any ''christian'' religion. I've been dealing with this issue on my other post's. I feel one of the only truely tolerant religion's is wiccan/pagan. Out of all the different religous types that i personally know wiccan's are most tolerant.

---

It is not a person's denomination or faith group that makes them tolerant or intolerant, but rather their personalities. Like most people I have dealings with those of every and no religion and find a fair sprinkling of both ends of the tolerant/intolerant spectrum among all of them.

Merry meet.

M:)

1 JOHN 4:
"7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. "

JOHN 13:
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."


Protestants and Catholics have the same New Testament ? Right , believe in the same
God?

Then intolerance is dependent on the individual and not the denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Who suggests that tolerance imparts everlasting life? That is surely not the question. What seems very evident from the scriptures is that iontrolerance leads to death, spiritually and physically. Consider, if you will, the unquestionable fact that during the time Jesus was in Jerusalem he was surrounded by Roman temples to a variety of pagan gods, yet what do we find Jesus saying against them? He is not recorded as having expressed any intolerance towards them, nor of encouraging his disciples to fight against them.

That is not to say that he condoned them, only that he had other work to do and that he pursued his divine mission with an eye single to the glory of God.

It is an awful spectacle to witness those who claim to walk in the footsteps of the Master treading where he did not tread, saying things he did not say, and pretending in a most gravemanner that they are somehow serving Jesus Christ and God, when there is no call anywhere in scripture for Christians to persecute those who hold different opinions from them.

What is evident, is for those who believe in Christ to set their own houses in order and to not be consumed with what others might believe, nor to take upon their own shoulders a self-appointed ministry under the guise of saving the souls of men. To his apostles Jesus said, Ye have not chosen me: I have chosen you and ordained you. It is a far reach for a man to appoint himself when Christ has not called and ordained him, and an even further reach for a man to exercise intolerance towards othyers as if it were a Christian principle.

Tolerance is not to be equated with acceptence or condonement, but a man who follows Jesus does not make another man an enemy because the other man finds the supposed Christian to be harsh and abrasive in his denunciation of his beliefs.

Let all remember that the only and ulitmate judges will be God and Jesus Christ and those appointed by them to sit in judgement. As to the rest of us, we are to be tolerant, kind, loving, forgiving, and benign, and when we feel we cannot bless others, we are to pray for cleansing of our souls so that we can show the pleasant face of Christ and God to all men. This is never done with a scowl or mean words.

M:)

---

To your first paragraph above: I agree that Jesus said nothing about Roman religion or customs. I disagree with your conclusion as to why. Jesus plainly said that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Israel had not yet rejected Him, and hence, He was not at that time dealing with Gentiles. Secondly, if He had made any remarks against anything Roman, the Romans would have aborted the Church. We would not have even heard of it! Jesus did, however, severely criticize the Publicans, who were probably the most numerous religious order in that day. He called them snakes, and said their father was the devil. Not much toleraance there!

Re. paragraph 4: Am I wrong in feeling that this is directed at me? How do you know that I have not been called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel? Does God only call priests of the Roman church?

Finally, if we feel that we cannot bless others, we are obligated to pray that God will grant repentance to them, and stand ready to provide guidance if they want it.

Ps. I don't scowl a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

To your first paragraph above: I agree that Jesus said nothing about Roman religion or customs. I disagree with your conclusion as to why. Jesus plainly said that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Israel had not yet rejected Him, and hence, He was not at that time dealing with Gentiles.

Secondly, if He had made any remarks against anything Roman, the Romans would have aborted the Church. We would not have even heard of it! Jesus did, however, severely criticize the Publicans, who were probably the most numerous religious order in that day. He called them snakes, and said their father was the devil. Not much toleraance there!

Re. paragraph 4: Am I wrong in feeling that this is directed at me? How do you know that I have not been called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel? Does God only call priests of the Roman church?

Finally, if we feel that we cannot bless others, we are obligated to pray that God will grant repentance to them, and stand ready to provide guidance if they want it.

Ps. I don't scowl a lot.

---

GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)

I did indeed intend to write Pharisee. As to the Samaritan woman, Jesus did correct her. He told her that salvation was of the Jews, but went further and explained that those places of worship were no longer of any importance. God must be worshpped in spirit and in truth. She apparentlly accepted the corrections. More than can be said for many today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)

---

I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

---

Roman persecution of Christians was unknown at the time of Jesus' ministry. Remember we are speaking of Jesus' teaching during his mortal ministry. The persecutions began at a much later date. The following are the ten major persecutions of Christians during the Roman Empire:

#Nero (64 A.D.)
# Domitian (c.90-96)
# Trajan (98-117)
# Hadrian (117-138)
# Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
# Septimus Severus (202-211)
# Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
# Decius (249-251)
# Valerian (257-260)
# Diocletian / Galerius (303-311)

The death of Jesus is around 33 AD, so there was no persecution, and the Romans did not favour one religion over another uless they suspected it of being seditious, in which case it was barred and iots members treated as enemy insurgents and locked up wihtout due oprocess.

Although this might not be the only, or even primary, reason for toleration, it should be remembered that not all Roman soldiers were actually Italianate Romans. Men from many countries within the Roman Empire served in the ranks of its armies.

Roman tolerance did not extend to religions perceived as threats to public order within the empire. Cults such as Isis-worship were banned from time to time when their practice caused unrest.

Judaism was widespread throughout the empire, but its exclusive monotheism combined with a strong nationalist ideology in Judaea itself led to conflicts with, and ferocious revolts against, Roman authority - although these were bloodily repressed.

Christianity was sporadically persecuted throughout Roman history, primarily to maintain public order. Groups that met privately (whether religious sects, trade guilds or even local fire brigades!) were viewed with suspicion by Roman authorities, who suspected such groups of plotting subversion.

In those days, it was imperial policy to remove troops as far as possible from their country of origin in order to prevent local uprisings. A Roman soldier who, after several years of service in his native country had been promoted to the rank of centurion, was transferred to a foreign station where he was later assigned to a new garrison.

This way, the entire body of centurions of any one legion constituted a microcosm of the empire. The vast extent of the Roman colonies formed links between Persia and the Mediterranean and caused the diffusion of the Mithraic and other pagan religions into the Roman world, including Canaanite opaganism, etc.

The point of this is that in remarking the wickedness of religious people, Jesus confined his attention to those who were Jews, and those who came to be his disciples, but is never found to be castigating those practising any other religion.

This should provide us with an excellent example of how to set our own houses in order, look to our own hearts, and refrain from persecuting those who do not walk alongside us. I thoight I had made that plain in an earlier post.


M:)

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

---

G, I have no problem tolerating you, but that does not mean that I agree with you on all points. I believe in the present disagreement that it hinges on whether Rome was persecuting Christians at the time that Jesus was alive and preaching. The Bible show that it was not.

I am in favour of delicacy an dkindness, and trust that you will not feel that I have been lacjking in those virtues when I have addressed what I believe are errors in your thinking and grasp of history etc. It is not personal, merely a rabbinical discussion by two rabbis [you and me] who do not share the same perspective on all issues - not uncommon in Christianity, as it is not in all faiths.

I understand your take on Christian responsibility and I do not argue with that in principle, but I also believe that every Christian has a divine responsibility to ensure that what they witness and challenge is true in the first place, and accurate in the second place, and, of even greater importance is that witnessing and challenging is done with the same broad generous love that Jesus had in him when he looked on the rich young man. Although the RYM rejected Jesus counsel, Jesus' response was not vituperative, but a sad andcontemplative observation to his disciples, equivalent to,

"Oh, dear. It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom because they love their wealth more than they desire eternalife. Oh, dear me, alas and lack-a-day!"

It is essential that if we believe that we are speaking for Christ, that we speak as he spoke, and it is well if we do not invoke his example when he cleansed the temple. That is something he effected by himself, and there is no record in the scriptures that he gave his ministers authority to do the same.

What did he tell them to do when men rejected their proclamations? He told them to wipe off the dust of their feet, and that God would take care of what needed taking care of in God's time. God's ministers are not sent out to be the instruments of either his judgement or vengeance.

If we can't do what we do in Christ's way, then we should get ourselves some other employment or hobby.



M:)RGANITE

Well, I can agree with most of that, Morganite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

---

Tolerant? As a christian I believe the bible uncomprimized my catholic brother in law thinks it's a cult.

Excuse the spelling I'm tired

Personally, I don't think that it is FAIR to classify between catholics and protestants. I believe in absolute truth. I also believe in wisdom and being nice about absolute truth. I think you win people to Christ through love NOT condemnation. But hey, that is just me.

Being tolerant and religious differ from person to person and not from religion to religion, yet these to things doesn't mean much at the end if you are not saved, Cain was a religious man yet he killed his brother, anyone in the world can be tolerant which won't count much at the end