Ask Me Help Desk - Intolerance, It should be considered a sin?

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...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

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:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUNAGODDESS

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:)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBNomad

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>

:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

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:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starman

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 31pumpkin

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starman

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.

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!

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

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:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

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:)

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 31pumpkin

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

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?