[figment]

Truth is, by nature, intolerant of falsehood.

[ER]

I think this is the meat and potatoes, right here:

The whole issue of whether or not Christianity is intolerant lies in who Jesus is, what He claimed, and what He did. If what Jesus said and did is true, then Christianity isn't intolerant. It is simply true and it is the world that is intolerant of that truth.

I haven't been able to put together a good message about intolerance. Perhaps I'm not supposed to. I guess I can only reiterate what was written: If Christ was who He said He was and we are to live our lives according to His Word, then there are rules by which to live and there is right and wrong, and right is holy and wrong is sin. He never told anyone to hate anyone else for choices they've made; on the contrary, He expected His followers to "Love the Lord their God with all of their hearts, minds, and souls" and to "Love their neighbors as themselves". But love doesn't mean accepting something that is considered sin as being ok.

[Serial Thriller]

Originally Posted by ER

If Christ was who He said He was and we are to live our lives according to His Word, then there are rules by which to live and there is right and wrong, and right is holy and wrong is sin. He never told anyone to hate anyone else for choices they've made; on the contrary, He expected His followers to "Love the Lord their God with all of their hearts, minds, and souls" and to "Love their neighbors as themselves". But love doesn't mean accepting something that is considered sin as being ok.

[dB]

Originally Posted by ER

I haven't been able to put together a good message about intolerance. Perhaps I'm not supposed to.

"Intolerance" is one of those words that has been almost redefined in modern society to be a synonym for "hate". That makes it hard for many to understand that you can love a person and still be intolerant of that person's actions.

[ER]

Originally Posted by dB

"Intolerance" is one of those words that has been almost redefined in modern society to be a synonym for "hate". That makes it hard for many to understand that you can love a person and still be intolerant of that person's actions.

You're absolutely right. I think in part it's an emotional reaction that we as humans have when someone else doesn't approve of what we think or do. Touching a very combustible subject, I've been labeled a "homophobe" because I believe that sex between two men or two women is considered a sin. I've never lashed out, hated, or even publicly stood up and said how I felt, yet that has been the response because I disagreed with someone in a casual debate. Today's political lobbies have made an art-form out of the emotional response to opposition.

[figment]

Originally Posted by dB

"Intolerance" is one of those words that has been almost redefined in modern society to be a synonym for "hate". That makes it hard for many to understand that you can love a person and still be intolerant of that person's actions.

I think the world likes to ignore its own intolerance.

[dB]

Originally Posted by figment

I think the world likes to ignore its own intolerance.

Ain't that the truth.

[Serial Thriller]

While we're on the subject of tolerance:

http://www.a180.net/tolerance_rules.html

[ER]

Good article. This is pretty much what I was talking about regarding the political arena and emotional responses to opposition:

Rule #1: Understand Tolerance
First, students need to comprehend what is meant by "tolerance" in today's culture. In the past, tolerance meant people were entitled to their opinions, and while one may disagree with another's view, the person was still shown respect. Differing religious or political views were "put up with" (i.e., they were tolerated). Tolerance did not mean all views must be accepted as equally true. Unfortunately, the current view of "tolerance" includes such relativism. One should not merely "put up with" another's belief; one should embrace it and celebrate it.

This is what I see in today's politics. A political lobby for a particular movement or agenda doesn't expect everyone else to accept them, they expect celebration and they lash out vehemently when they receive opposition.

[gr0undz3r0]

You guys listen to Ravi Z.
This guy is the best Apoligist in th world in my opinion. Bar none.
http://resources.christianity.com/mi...rchItems.jhtml
God speaks through this man. Listen and see for yourself.

[figment]

Originally Posted by gr0undz3r0

You guys listen to Ravi Z.
This guy is the best Apoligist in th world in my opinion. Bar none.
http://resources.christianity.com/mi...rchItems.jhtml
God speaks through this man. Listen and see for yourself.

Welcome! Thanks for the link, I'll check it out!

[figment]

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

Tolerance \Tol"er*ance\, n.
1. (Forestry) Capability of growth in more or less shade.

2. Allowed amount of variation from the standard or from
exact conformity to the specified dimensions, weight,
etc., as in various mechanical operations; specif.:
(Coinage) The amount which coins, either singly or in
lots, are legally allowed to vary above or below the
standard of weight or fineness.

Tolerance \Tol"er*ance\, n. [L. tolerantia: cf. F.
tol['e]rance.]
1. The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring;
endurance.

Diogenes, one frosty morning, came into the market
place, shaking, to show his tolerance. --Bacon.

2. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable
persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions;
toleration.

3. (Med.) The power possessed or acquired by some persons of
bearing doses of medicine which in ordinary cases would
prove injurious or fatal.

Tolerance of the mint. (Coinage) Same as Remedy of the
mint. See under Remedy.

Remedy \Rem"e*dy\ (r?m"?-d?), n.; pl. Remedies (-d?z). [L.
remedium; pref. re- re- + mederi to heal, to cure: cf. F.
rem[`e]de remedy, rem['e]dier to remedy. See Medical.]
1. That which relieves or cures a disease; any medicine or
application which puts an end to disease and restores
health; -- with for; as, a remedy for the gout.

2. That which corrects or counteracts an evil of any kind; a
corrective; a counteractive; reparation; cure; -- followed
by for or against, formerly by to.

What may else be remedy or cure To evils which our
own misdeeds have wrought, He will instruct us.
--Milton.

3. (Law) The legal means to recover a right, or to obtain
redress for a wrong.

Civil remedy. See under Civil.

Remedy of the mint (Coinage), a small allowed deviation
from the legal standard of weight and fineness; -- called
also tolerance.

Syn: Cure; restorative; counteraction; reparation; redress;
relief; aid; help; assistance.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"

tolerance
n 1: the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable
environmental conditions
2: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior [syn:
permissiveness] [ant: unpermissiveness]
3: the act of tolerating something
4: willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or
practices of others [ant: intolerance]
5: a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move
within limits [syn: allowance, leeway, margin]

Religious Tolerance in America

[ER]

Originally Posted by gr0undz3r0

You guys listen to Ravi Z.
This guy is the best Apoligist in th world in my opinion. Bar none.
http://resources.christianity.com/mi...rchItems.jhtml
God speaks through this man. Listen and see for yourself.

He's been on Hank Hannagram's (sp?) radio talk-show quite a bit and I've enjoyed what he has had to say.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

You're absolutely right. I think in part it's an emotional reaction that we as humans have when someone else doesn't approve of what we think or do. Touching a very combustible subject, I've been labeled a "homophobe" because I believe that sex between two men or two women is considered a sin. I've never lashed out, hated, or even publicly stood up and said how I felt, yet that has been the response because I disagreed with someone in a casual debate. Today's political lobbies have made an art-form out of the emotional response to opposition.

Too many people are now practicing political, social and theological bigotry. Bigotry. If you don't agree with me you are inferior. If you don't know my God you will burn. If you don't vote this way you are a moron, etc, etc. This is the reality of our social environment right now and it is very dangerous. Because if you see people as inferior to you, you no longer respect their rights, even their lives. We are living in very dangerous times.

[zenblader]

[quote=ER]I think this is the meat and potatoes, right here:

The whole issue of whether or not Christianity is intolerant lies in who Jesus is, what He claimed, and what He did. If what Jesus said and did is true, then Christianity isn't intolerant. It is simply true and it is the world that is intolerant of that truth.

I haven't been able to put together a good message about intolerance. Perhaps I'm not supposed to. I guess I can only reiterate what was written: If Christ was who He said He was and we are to live our lives according to His Word, QUOTE]

ER,

You keep sayin that if we accept what Jesus said as truth. IMO your continually skippin over the concept that you are relying on those who wrote the Gospels to have related Jesus words exactly as he spoke them. Not to mention, relying on those who transcribed these words into Latin, then English. Everytime I hear someone say Jesus said this and Jesus said that. It makes me want to...well, not hear that anymore. What Jesus is reported to have said... What Jesus is believed to have said... Even--The Bible says Jesus said... These qualifiers are truth. When I read about the buddha and what he is supposed to have said 500 years before Christ, I take it with a grain of salt. IMO, he may or may not have said these things. I have to weigh the words with others that have been written and attributed to him. If I read a book written by the Dalai Lama, and it has his picture on the coverleaf and his name as author on the cover, I can safely say that the Dalai Lama said this...or that. If the Bible was written by Jesus and this could be somehow verified, then we could all run around with smiles on our faces and say, this is what Jesus said.

[gr0undz3r0]

There is alot of evidence supporting accuracy of both the bible and what Jesus said. Have you read it? The Bible I mean? It blows my mind how many people argue about the bible and have never even read it.

[ER]

[quote=zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

I think this is the meat and potatoes, right here:

The whole issue of whether or not Christianity is intolerant lies in who Jesus is, what He claimed, and what He did. If what Jesus said and did is true, then Christianity isn't intolerant. It is simply true and it is the world that is intolerant of that truth.

I haven't been able to put together a good message about intolerance. Perhaps I'm not supposed to. I guess I can only reiterate what was written: If Christ was who He said He was and we are to live our lives according to His Word, QUOTE]

ER,

You keep sayin that if we accept what Jesus said as truth. IMO your continually skippin over the concept that you are relying on those who wrote the Gospels to have related Jesus words exactly as he spoke them. Not to mention, relying on those who transcribed these words into Latin, then English. Everytime I hear someone say Jesus said this and Jesus said that. It makes me want to...well, not hear that anymore. What Jesus is reported to have said... What Jesus is believed to have said... Even--The Bible says Jesus said... These qualifiers are truth. When I read about the buddha and what he is supposed to have said 500 years before Christ, I take it with a grain of salt. IMO, he may or may not have said these things. I have to weigh the words with others that have been written and attributed to him. If I read a book written by the Dalai Lama, and it has his picture on the coverleaf and his name as author on the cover, I can safely say that the Dalai Lama said this...or that. If the Bible was written by Jesus and this could be somehow verified, then we could all run around with smiles on our faces and say, this is what Jesus said.

I'm not sure this discussion is productive anymore and I can't discern your "tone". I caught your "I don't care much for those who march to 'Onward Christian Soldiers'" in Bubba's thread, too. We've discussed the authenticity of the Gospels before. Either you believe that they were preserved accurately or you don't. If you do, it's logical to assume you'll accept what Christ said as His words. If you don't, you won't. I'm going to do my best to love someone as myself regardless and I'm never going to have all the answers to life's questions.

In response to your previous post, yes, there is too much bigotry in our society today. I won't respond for Buddhism, Islam, or any other religion, but the Bible never teaches a believer to look down upon anyone else because they don't believe. It does give a right and wrong path, though, and someone's not a bigot if they choose to believe that.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

It does give a right and wrong path, though, and someone's not a bigot if they choose to believe that.

All religions set forth a right or wrong path. No, you're not a bigot should you choose to believe one or another. However, making a judgement regarding someone else's belief or path can be very dangerous and IMO is the first step toward bigotry. Buddhists are to guard themselves from this tendency as well. No one can know another's heart or spirit. And we are called on to love our enemies. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," If these are some of the last words of Jesus, then they are not words of judgement, but of forgiveness and a plea for universal forgiveness.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by gr0undz3r0

There is alot of evidence supporting accuracy of both the bible and what Jesus said. Have you read it? The Bible I mean? It blows my mind how many people argue about the bible and have never even read it.

I've read and studied the Bible extensively. I attended a Christian school from first grade through High School graduation. The Bible is a book. It doesn't glow or speak. The ink fades and the pages tear. It is subject to all the dynamics, good or bad, that go into an "interpretation" of a life or time. It was written by men. They may have been inspired, and I believe they were, but that inspiration does not make them infallible, or keep them from writing the "truth" in the light that they see it. We can always be inspired by the Holy Spirit, right? But does that make us perfect in our judgement or interpretations of events and times?

I challenge you to find one, ONE, source outside the Gospels themselves that verifies Jesus' exact wording. Did the dead sea scrolls come with a companion DVD that bears the bar code of God and the voice of Jesus?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but if your gonna keep citing third person recitation (written years after Jesus life experience and by guys who continuously got it wrong even when Jesus was alive) as infallible then ya gotta expect some hits.

[zenblader]

[quote=ER]I'm not sure this discussion is productive anymore and I can't discern your "tone". QUOTE]

I do not have a problem with anyone believing anything they want, as long as it doesn't hurt or inhibit the rights of those who choose to follow a different path. If you are going to give one book out of millions attributes of infallibilty and perfection that you are not likely to give to anything else on or of this planet, then yes, the discussion grinds to a logical halt. Fine. However, when that faith spills over into the environment with "We're right, you are wrong," or "We're saved you are not," then it all sounds very much like the voice of men...not God. That is the crux of my irritation. If you think you are saved, good for you. I honestly hope you are. Personally, I don't know cuz I can't judge. I'm not up to it. Just be aware that if your using your "faith" as a litmus test for others it ain't gonna work and it just pisses people off.

[ER]

[quote=zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

I'm not sure this discussion is productive anymore and I can't discern your "tone". QUOTE]

I do not have a problem with anyone believing anything they want, as long as it doesn't hurt or inhibit the rights of those who choose to follow a different path. If you are going to give one book out of millions attributes of infallibilty and perfection that you are not likely to give to anything else on or of this planet, then yes, the discussion grinds to a logical halt. Fine. However, when that faith spills over into the environment with "We're right, you are wrong," or "We're saved you are not," then it all sounds very much like the voice of men...not God. That is the crux of my irritation. If you think you are saved, good for you. I honestly hope you are. Personally, I don't know cuz I can't judge. I'm not up to it.

Just for my clarification: who's "you" in your response? Are you referring to Christians in general that you've experienced or is "you" me? Because Christians as a whole are human just like anyone else, and there are plenty out there who will give you a brimestone and fire message of judgement and "I'm right, you're wrong". I can't think of a time during all of our discussions that I've judged or determined who is and isn't saved, though. I've voiced what I believe to be the path of salvation, but I've never once on this site written to anyone telling them what the condition of their heart is. No one knows that but that person and God. Where does this "We're right - you're wrong" come from? Because we choose to believe the Bible and have had an open discussion in the "Religion" forum about it?

If you believe with all of your heart that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected for the sins of all mankind, and that salvation is through Him only, then you can't also believe that if someone else chooses not to accept that, it's no big deal. You can't have it both ways. To say that it's an optional choice is to say that Christ died for nothing, since there's another way into Heaven. That belief doesn't hurt or inhibit the rights of anyone else. It sometimes offends people, which is why I rarely have this deep of a theological discussion with people I meet, but it doesn't inhibit their rights because they can choose not to believe it. What I get from you is that it's not alright to believe in any particular religion that excludes any other belief -- or at least don't talk about it if you do. You can never be a Christian (or a Muslim or a follower of many other religions, for that matter) if you have the mindset that it's not alright to exclude certain beliefs.

I've gotten to the point to where I think this is no longer an encouraging debate, but rather an argument. If we were sitting together at a table we would most likely be able to clear up any miscommunications and would have a much easier time explaining our opinions and beliefs. I love the discussion and debate, which is why I've spent so much time in here. But my purpose was never to push anyone away, which is why I should probably tone it down.

Just be aware that if your using your "faith" as a litmus test for others it ain't gonna work and it just pisses people off. :idunno

Again, this discussion is occuring in the "Religion" forum on an Internet board, where you would think that voicing your beliefs is encouraged. We're not in anyone's church, temple, mosk, or anywhere else telling them what they should or shouldn't believe. If you and I met in person, you'd never know that I felt that Christ was the only way to salvation unless you asked. I'd say that's being pretty sensitive of other people's feelings and beliefs.

--

Back to work time!

[figment]

[quote=zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

I'm not sure this discussion is productive anymore and I can't discern your "tone". QUOTE]

I do not have a problem with anyone believing anything they want, as long as it doesn't hurt or inhibit the rights of those who choose to follow a different path. If you are going to give one book out of millions attributes of infallibilty and perfection that you are not likely to give to anything else on or of this planet, then yes, the discussion grinds to a logical halt. Fine. However, when that faith spills over into the environment with "We're right, you are wrong," or "We're saved you are not," then it all sounds very much like the voice of men...not God. That is the crux of my irritation. If you think you are saved, good for you. I honestly hope you are. Personally, I don't know cuz I can't judge. I'm not up to it. Just be aware that if your using your "faith" as a litmus test for others it ain't gonna work and it just pisses people off.

How many times must we re-hash this? Either you accept the Bible (which is distinct from any other work) or you dont.

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.
"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0.

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."

__________________
This information was taken from the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

Just for my clarification: who's "you" in your response?



Again, this discussion is occuring in the "Religion" forum on an Internet board, where you would think that voicing your beliefs is encouraged. We're not in anyone's church, temple, mosk, or anywhere else telling them what they should or shouldn't believe. If you and I met in person, you'd never know that I felt that Christ was the only way to salvation unless you asked. I'd say that's being pretty sensitive of other people's feelings and beliefs.

--

Back to work time!

ER,

I don't get it. What is the disconnect here? When I say you I'm using it in a general, you, they, me way. As in "If you run a red light you may get in an accident."
Yes, this is an internet board for "discussion". How does that relate to anything I've said? I've already stated for the nth time that it is fine to believe anything you want. But if anyone (You, me, we, them, etc), makes black and white statements regarding someone elses fate based on a "faith" (whether you are in public, on a board, thru email, whatever) they could and should expect those who disagree to point out that the "faith" is based on a supposition. That supposition in this discussion is that the Bible is infallible. It's a supposition because you can't prove it. So...Faith is great because you can't always prove spiritual influence, but it is still a supposition in the eyes of everyone else. Christians saying the Bible is infallible, and so you will burn if you do not accept Christ, reminds me of Islamic fundamentalism, or any theology that supposes an exclusive right to sell tickets to God. Clearly you have a right to make any claim you want and should not be restricted in any way. I never meant to say or imply you personally shouldn't do this or that. I have been trying to communicate and justify a different point of view to someone who's already closed to any other path. I should have known better. If any Christian wants to discuss theology or religious philosophy with me at any time that's great but what's the point of discussion if the Christian enters into it "supposing" I'm already wrong if I don't accept the Bible as infallible. Doesn't exactly make it a two way discussion does it?