Conference yukon::christian_v7

    >How long, O Lord? Maranatha
    
     Amen!

(Perhaps this string should go under "Christ versus Anti-Christ". Who knows.)

The message preached by the politically correct is tolerance, acceptence of
diversity, celebration of differences.  It is a message that is preached only
and not practiced.

In fairness, the generalized charge above has been applied to Christendom
as well.  We preach love, which too often was a message preached but not
practiced.  And because of these FAILURES of some who assumed the cloak of 
Christianity, taking the very name of Christ as their own while disgracing
it at the same time, we are left to say that "not all those who call themselves
Christian are like this, and in fact do not follow Christ despite their 
testimony."  But even this position is polarizing, because it becomes an
"unchristian" thing to "judge" another's "Christianity.'

But back to tolerance:

The politically correct and Christianity are in many ways opposed to 
each other, yet it is done in such a way as to SUBSTITUTE certain key
values so as not to appear 180� against Christianity.  One of the 
substitutions is the message.

Christianity preaches love.  PC preaches tolerance.  PC would like to define
tolerance as the "loving, Christian" thing to do; that is one is intolerant
of another view, that person is not loving.  This is a lie, folks, and one
we must combat.  TOLERANCE IS NOT LOVE.  LOVE IS NOT TOLERANCE.

Since the advent of the two Spocks (Dr. and Mr.), the family has disintegrated,
emphasis has been placed on SELF, and the world has raised a generation on 
"I, I, me, me, mine."  Benjamin Spock taught parents to be tolerant of
misbehavior to allow a child to reach his or her creative potential.  
What we have reaped is a child reaching his or her destructive potential.
Mr. Spock taught that it is illogical to believe that humans cannot overcome
any adversity in their own strength.  (Of course, look a little closer and you 
see the same message: reaching the creative potential.)

Tolerance is not love.  Tolerance of what?  The PC crowd is eminently 
hypocritical in this area because they are intolerant of those THEY perceive
to be intolerant people.  

As Christians, we will need to become MORE separate and DISTINCT.  Why?
Because of the confusion as to what is considered Christian behavior.
Tolerance is NOT the highest virtue; it is a cloak for hypocrisy.
Being MORE separate and DISTINCT, we will be called to demonstrate 
what "True Christianity" is by living out the Christ-filled, holy life
without hypocrisy and without failure!

Love is not tolerance.  We can love without tolerating a compromise of 
values, without a compromise of beliefs, without a compromise of definition.
DO NOT allow the politically correct to define Christianity, or the
true Christians will be defined out of Christianity altogether as 
radicals, cultists, and bigots for which the brave new world society has
no room.

What can you do?  Declare the definition of Christianity in Christ, despite 
the shouts of "Barabas" who also declare an "alternate" definition.  Christ
is and MUST BE the center of the definition.  Not His teachings, but the
God-Man Himself.  His teachings are not God.  Jesus is God.  We must center
our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

Also, put the mirror in the face of the politically correct.  They will hate 
you for it, by the way, because it will show some of the masses what they
really are: wolves in sheep's clothing.  It saddens me to no end to think
of how many "church-going and 'comitted' Christians" there are that have
bought into whatever the media, society, the Spocks, etc. has told them
is right and wrong rather than looking to God for direction in morality.
They have unwittingly made gods for themselves ad called it by the Only
God's name.

Do not accept everything as moral.  Tolerance is a good thing when it is
applied PROPERLY.  When it is applied hypocritically, it is an EVIL thing.
When it is applied improperly or unjudiciously, it is an evil thing.
How can we know the difference?

2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 

Acts 17:11  These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures
daily, whether those things were so.

Check it out in God's Word.

>DO NOT allow the politically correct to define Christianity, or the
>true Christians will be defined out of Christianity altogether as 
>radicals, cultists, and bigots for which the brave new world society has
>no room.


 Bingo!  This is precisely what is happening today and at a frightening pace
 it seems.





Jim

     And she (Delilah) said, "The Philistines are upon you, Samson!"  And
     he awoke from his sleep and said, "I will go out as at other times
     and shake myself free."  But he did not know that the Lord had
     departed from him.

                                             - Judges 16:20 (NASB)

Sampson had a problem.  He believed he was invulnerable.  He served the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  So where was the problem?  His belief
was correct - that he *was* invulnerable - as long as he remained in
the God of Abraham, Isaac,and jacob.  And particularly in Sampson's case,
it meant keeping the Nazarite vows that were made before the Lord.  The Lord
takes vows seriously.  What was tragic in Sampsons case is that "he did not
know that the Lord had departed from him."  He took God for granted and
felt that all of his feats somehow were accomplished in his own strength 
and of his own doing.  How pitiful.

Another example of pity is Solomon, wisest man that ever lived, given 
glory and favor by God.  But Solomon because so wise, he firgured he
caould handle things well on his own.  He could handle a few political
marriages, compromising and intertwining with other cultures and other
gods.  Solomon thought he was unifying the world under his kingdom but
he was underming his kingdom with the world "unity".  Solomon also took 
god for granted after receiving the gift of God, the strength of Sampson
in the brain department.  God departed from Solomon, as well.  Pitiful!

Fellow Christian.  What are we taking for granted?  That God loves us
and we are his children?  The Jews took umbrage at the thought that 
some would be left out of the kingdom.  "We are Abraham's Children!"
they protested.  The reply was that God can raise children out of 
the very rocks around them.

Shall we use our strength to court a Philistine woman?  Shall we use our
wisdom to "tolerate" the intermarriage of gods with the one we supposedly
worship and adore?

Are you satisfied with where you are at in your Christianity?  Are you 
sedated, secure in the knowledge that nothing can touch you?  Do you 
think that you are invulnerable in your Christian faith?  Think again.
Sampson and Solomon devoted themselves to the Lord, but there came 
a time, sometime, that they believed the strength they were given was
THEIRS to do with as they pleased.  And the moment we think that the
gifts that have been given to us are ours to do with as we please, we
may have found ourselves in the same dangerous spot as Sampson who 
"*did not know that the Lord had departed from him.*"

He thought God was still with him.  

Let's define Christianity, folks, according to His standards.

I prayed this prayer over a year ago (I keep a prayer journal).
I pray it again, now.

Lord,
    Keep us ever vigilant against feeling invulnerable!  Lord, Save us!
    Do not leave us, O God.  May we always keep close and humble with
    Thee!

    O God, may I never be so wise as to think I can handle it; whatever it
    is.  May I never be so spiritual that I feel that I am invulnerable to
    Satan's wiles.  May I never be satisfied with the ground you have given
    me and think that any of my efforts have gotten me there; it all comes
    from you; my wisdom - from THEE; my spirit - from THEE; my current
    relationship - because of THEE!

    I pour myself out onto the ground that I may be filled in every facet
    with Your Spirit.  I plead that You will never allow me to feel as
    though my spirituality counts for anything more than where it would
    serve You.  And if I do, my Lord, tap me on the shoulder; and if I
    still need Your prod, do what you need but never let me leave Your
    side;  do not allow me to believe the Liar.

    I love you, my God.  Draw me nearer, nearer, nearer, blessed Lord!
    In Jesus' Name.

Sampson and Solomon did not renounce their faith under duress.  In fact,
they never renounced their faith, as far as I can tell.  But the Lord departed
from them because they departed from the Lord.

Some people have told me that they are afraid of persecution, and that 
they're afraid of failing the Lord if they are placed under duress of 
pain, or other form of discomfort.  But far more people will be lost
the way of Sampson and Solomon: people who believe they have a handle
on life, strength, wisdom, and other gifts (which are to be used for
God's glory).

Do you really consider Sampson's end a success?  He prayed to God to
return one last time and God was vindicated fo His deriders, the Philistines.
Sampson died a pitiful death, even though he may be luckier than Solomon
and died in repentence.  "Of all the word of tongue or pen, these are the
worst: 'It might have been.'"  What might have been had Sampson not succumed
to being numbed?

No, a relatively few number of Christians will perish because of duress
against their faith.  Most will merely compromise themselves and they won't
even know (until they are bound and led away to have their eyes gouged out,
and put into slave labor) that the Lord has departed.

Mark

    >No, a relatively few number of Christians will perish because of duress
    >against their faith.  Most will merely compromise themselves and they
    >won't even know (until they are bound and led away to have their eyes 
    >gouged out,and put into slave labor) that the Lord has departed.
    
    The sad part is that is where *most* Christians are today.  We have
    incorporated worldly things into our Holy worship.  This is a process
    here of slow, subtle, worldly infiltration via Christian Psychology
    [oxymoronic if you ask me], Music, Dress, etc.
    
    You know when I see men and women of God, sporting outrageous costumes
    to *reach* the younger generations.. I wonder while Jesus went amongst
    the people, did he change his appearance to *reach* that group of
    people?  I don't think so.  
    
    "Ye, all those who live Godly, *shall* suffer persecution."
    						II Tim 3:11 or 12 :-)
    KJV
    
    
    Nancy  ... who wonders why we tolerate the world in our churches

    
    Boy, the 'intolerance of tolerance' message really hits home.
    I remember in college where some friends or friends of friends
    would smoke pot and whatnot.  Whereas I was not hassling them
    for smoking, they typically hassled me for *not* smoking.
    I demonstrated a certain tolerance, but they could not be tolerant
    of my not wanting to indulge.  I was accused of being closed minded,
    yet their minds were already closed to there being any way other
    than their own.
    
    I usually pointed this out, but only a very few stopped to think 
    about the truth of this.
    
    Otto

    I would guess the issue with the school has to do with public funding
    for the school, if there is a legal issue.  My church requires
    custodians to be "active" members as a condition of employment.  I
    understand that this is legitimate for the church as an employer only
    because the church does not get funding from public sources.
    
    To some extent, I agree with the basic concept of "tolerance" of 
    differences.  It's similar to the idea of loving the sinner but not the
    sin.  But, I think the problem is that "tolerance" is being constantly 
    redefined.  I don't know what the current PC definition of "tolerance"
    is, but I believe it has become a banner for gaining privileges that
    are not earned or deserved.  And, for that newspeak I'm beginning to get 
    a bit PO'd ...
    
    Back to this issue.  If the school is entirely privately funded, then
    the retributions taken by the city appear to be punitive without legal
    precedent.  If so, something is horribly wrong, as others are pointing
    out.  What would happen if they took similarly punitive actions against
    more "politically correct" institutions (again, assuming no legal basis
    for such actions)?
    
    Steve

      Hi,
    
        Keeping in mind also Isaiah 4:2-4...
    
        Isaiah 4:1
        And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man,
        saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own 
        apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away
        our reproach.
    
        Mark, this scenario seems to include the 'world' forcing
        the posture that a Christian school (which hopefully represents
        the Word of God as they believe it to be) should be tolerant
        enough to welcome IN THEIR SCHOOL those who "will eat our own
        bread", that is, they will understand the Word differently.
    
        This of course is compromise at perhaps the most fundamental
        of all levels - how a group understands God to be being 'coerced'
        to be tolerant with open arms of including those who understand
        God differently.
    
        It is, in essence, the outworkings of the beast, which one day
        will try to force all to wear the mark.
    
                                                 Tony

I need to check on this but I believe the school is supported by regional
district church budgets, donations, and of course tuition.  I do not know of
government support except for grants to students for college loans,
of which I was a recipient (and of which I have paid the loan back in full).

MM

P.S.  This issue is not soley about ENC, which is only a catalyst for the
discussion of the greater issue of "tolerance" at large.  Consequently,
the focus is not on specifics of dress or conduct but the attitudes of
people who are openly politically correct, covertly PC, PC yet unaware
of it in their Christian walk, not PC in varying degrees.

      Hi Mark,
    
        I appreciated your replies here.  I've been blessed.
    
        By the way, speaking of public funding...(re: .9),
        I am reminded that when Abraham won the war which 
        was a response to his nephew Lot having previously
        been taken captive, he would not take so much as 
        a shoestring for bounty.  He would have no reliance
        on the world.
    
        My feelings on public money as support ought to be
        clear!  God will provide, we need no support from
        the world.
    
                                         Tony

Clarification:  (just called the English Prof: - my mom).

ENC received public funds for student loans.  Also, the constitution guarantees
the right of a religious institution to dictate policy on hiring (to which even 
the ACLU agrees).  So public funds (such as the Bell grant - or it that Pell
grant - don't come into play with this at all.)

The Quincy Public School thing is not an actuality yet, but there will be some
who will recommend to the Superintendent of Schools (through the Teacher's
Association) that QPS "discriminate" against ENC by denying access to
"practice teachers" from a [perceived to be] discriminatory school. 
Mom said there are not a few Christian teachers in the QPS and does not
know whether this will present a serious threat, but it is a threat 
nonetheless.

As far an universities for post-graduate work, ENC has no problem with
placing people in schools in the mid-west for example, but the politically
correct northeast may look at an applicant (and she cited one example) and
determine that a person coming from this school might be "too narrow" 
in their thinking.  This is the classic theme of the politically correct
and the anti-Christian to say that if you believe in Christianity, you have
slipped your mind into neutral and shut the ignition off.  (But if you
believe in Islam, New Age, Hinduism, Satanism, or anything else, you've
made a sensient choice.)

MM

RE:2

>Christianity preaches love.  PC preaches tolerance.  PC would like to define
>tolerance as the "loving, Christian" thing to do; that is one is intolerant
>of another view, that person is not loving.  This is a lie, folks, and one
>we must combat.  TOLERANCE IS NOT LOVE.  LOVE IS NOT TOLERANCE.

     Really ? Is being tolerant not an act of a loving person ?  "Love is
     patient, love is kind." 1 Corinthians 13:1

     Should we be intolerant of other people's belief's here ? If not, than
     we would have to be the opposite, intolerant... right ?

     Just as tolerance can be an act of love, so too intolerance can be an 
     act of hate. 
     
     Jim

Re: .13

Again, Jim Richard, you do me a disservice by not reading.  I said 
that tolerance is a good thing when applied properly but that when tolerance
is applied improperly, injudiciously, and hypocritically, THEN tolerance
is EVIL.

And again I will repeat.  Tolerance is NOT love.  It is not love to tolerate
the behavior of a bratty child.  I could bring up verse after verse about
disciplining a child, and disciplining oneself for that matter, which does 
not tolerate that which is outside of the discipline (selfishness, greed,
envy, lust, etc.).

Please read more carefully.

>     Should we be intolerant of other people's belief's here ? If not, than
>     we would have to be the opposite, intolerant... right ?

Jim, should we apply tolerance to everything, or are there some things 
that are not to be tolerated?  We should not tolerate hatred, should we?
No we should not, so the politically correct should not have their disdain
for [perceived "intolerant"] Christians tolerated.  "I realize that there
are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I hate
people like that!"  See the irony, Jim?

Tolerance must be applied without hyprocrisy, which the politically
correct have failed to do with Christianity.

And by the way, love breeds tolerance, but tolerance does not breed love.
When the preached message is tolerance as the highest virtue, love 
(may, but) cannot spring forth from it.  When the preached message is
love, tolerance will spring out from those who apply the law of love
to something more than lip service.

Have I made myself clearer?

Mark

>     Really ? Is being tolerant not an act of a loving person ?  "Love is
>     patient, love is kind." 1 Corinthians 13:1

One more thing.  Patience is a quality of love and not the inverse.
Love is not a quality of patience.  There is a definite order and
these are not synonyms.  And so you can see how tolerance may be
a quality of love, but is not love itself.

  4  Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
  5  Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil;
  6  Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
  7  Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
all things.
  8  Charity never faileth:

    >Really ? Is being tolerant not an act of a loving person ?  "Love is
    >patient, love is kind." 1 Corinthians 13:1
    
    >Should we be intolerant of other people's belief's here ? If not,
    >than we would have to be the opposite, intolerant... right ?
    
    >Just as tolerance can be an act of love, so too intolerance can be
    >an act of hate.
    
    Actually intolerance of *false doctrine* is an ACT of Love, even if it
    hurts to receive it..... for it is that intolerance that could help a
    person find eternal life through Christ.
    
    Perspective comes into mind here.
    
    Nancy

    re: .12
    
    So, it sounds to me like a case could be made for a discrimination suit
    against the town!  Perhaps even damages could be collected. With
    respect in general to PC and its pervasiveness, it would appear that 
    the people who fought so hard against "discrimination" are as guilty or 
    more guilty of it themselves once they attain positions of power.  Grrr ...
    
    Steve

Re: .14

Mark,

>Again, Jim Richard, you do me a disservice by not reading.  I said 
>that tolerance is a good thing when applied properly but that when tolerance
>is applied improperly, injudiciously, and hypocritically, THEN tolerance
>is EVIL.

     I only read what you wrote. I did not see your statement that it is
    good when applied properly. Perhaps I just  missed it, but I went back
    to look and still couldn't find this statement in your writing. I'll
    accept that it is what you are saying however.

>And again I will repeat.  Tolerance is NOT love.  It is not love to tolerate
>the behavior of a bratty child.  I could bring up verse after verse about
>disciplining a child, and disciplining oneself for that matter, which does 
>not tolerate that which is outside of the discipline (selfishness, greed,
>envy, lust, etc.).

     Neither did I say tolerance is love. I stated that tolerance can be an
     act of love. 

>Please read more carefully.

>>     Should we be intolerant of other people's belief's here ? If not, than
>>     we would have to be the opposite, intolerant... right ?

>Jim, should we apply tolerance to everything, or are there some things 
>that are not to be tolerated?  We should not tolerate hatred, should we?
>No we should not, so the politically correct should not have their disdain
>for [perceived "intolerant"] Christians tolerated.  "I realize that there
>are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I hate
>people like that!"  See the irony, Jim?

    Your mixing apples and oranges. There is an appropriate reason for
    being tolerant and an appropriate time for intolerance. Your notes
    didn't seem to make a distinction.


>Tolerance must be applied without hyprocrisy, which the politically
>correct have failed to do with Christianity.

     The "Politically Correct" label is starting to  get overused lately. 
     Seems that any statement that doesn't agree with someone else's gets put
     into the political correct category. I agree that there is an agenda of a 
     pagan society that attempts to bring justice into the world without
     God, but as Christians living in this society,  we just have to take up 
     our cross and bear it, or in-other-words, tolerate it.;)

>And by the way, love breeds tolerance, but tolerance does not breed love.
>When the preached message is tolerance as the highest virtue, love 
>(may, but) cannot spring forth from it.  When the preached message is
>love, tolerance will spring out from those who apply the law of love
>to something more than lip service.

    Agreed ! 

>Have I made myself clearer?

     A little clearer !

    
    Jim

re:13

>     Really ? Is being tolerant not an act of a loving person ?  "Love is
>     patient, love is kind." 1 Corinthians 13:1
>
>     Should we be intolerant of other people's belief's here ? If not, than
>     we would have to be the opposite, intolerant... right ?
>
>     Just as tolerance can be an act of love, so too intolerance can be an 
>     act of hate. 

[Part of this is excerpted from a note I wrote last year]

I used to be the head of the 'tolerance' brigade.  I was always the first to
trot out Romans 14 and claim that we shouldn't judge each other on any issue at
any time.

I know now that I was simply displaying my Biblical ignorance.  Yes, we are
called to be loving and gentle to all, and gentle love does resemble tolerance
in many instances.  Being tolerant *may* be the act of a loving person.  If the 
issue at hand is not crucial, gentle love does not make an issue out of it, and 
this is very much the response that tolerance would have.  In such a case,
intolerance may be an act of hate.

But crucial issues do exist, and this is where love and tolerance part ways.
Tolerance has no response to anything other than acceptance.  Whether good or
evil, tolerance accepts anything.  Love cannot be love and yet accept that which
is evil.  It is *not* the act of a loving person to tolerate evil.  In fact, in
this case, *tolerance* may be an act of hatred.

Yes, First Corinthians 13:4 says "Love is patient, Love is kind."  But if you 
read two verses further you discover that it also says "Love does not rejoice at
wrong, but rejoices in the right."

I agree that we should not be questioning each other's salvation - I think that
*IS* what Paul is talking about in Romans 14: "It is before his own master that 
he stands or falls."  And I agree that we should not be telling anyone who does 
not agree with us completely that they are not Christians.

But blind intolerance is not the only end of the spectrum that the Bible 
condemns.  Acceptance of immorality or wrong is condemned just as strongly, in 
fact quite a bit more strongly.  Romans 14 is not the only book in the Bible.  
There's other scripture to be dealt with, for example ICOR 5.  A few samples of 
that chapter:

   "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you..."

   "Let him who has done this be removed from among you."

   "I have already pronounced judgement in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man
    who has done such a thing."

   "[Do not] associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is 
    guilty of immorality or greed... not even to eat with such a one."

   "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"

   "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

Does this sound like "tolerance" is viewed in any sort of positive light?
The PC faction in today's church views tolerance as the greatest good, and
"division" as the greatest evil.  When we were discussing this issue last year,
someone in the notesfile said:

   "We are all students, seeking to learn as best we can.  But sometimes some
    students get the idea that they know the teacher and the teachings better 
    than others.  That attitude divides us, don't you think?"

If a math teacher tells his students that 2+2=4, and one of the students gets
it right, and another thinks that it is 2+2=5, then one of them is WRONG.
There is an absolute standard by which they are judged.  I agree that neither
of the students is in a position of authority to tell the other with absolute
assurance that they are wrong.  And this disagreement may divide them.  **But
division among them is not the worst thing that can happen.**  The person who 
has the right answer has *nothing* to gain by accepting 2+2=5 as a possible 
correct answer.  It will make all his sums wrong, and it will prevent him from 
going on to more advanced math.  It will do him good to examine his own 
conviction that 2+2=4, but once he's convinced there is no validity to 2+2=5, 
then his best avenue is to dismiss it as wrong.  If he can not convince the 
other person that 2+2=4, he should say "I'm sure you're wrong, but you go ahead 
and try to continue in your math with 2+2=5.  In the meantime, I hope you'll 
forgive me if I decline to do any joint projects with you."  Yes, the division
is very sad, it would be far better if they could go on together.  But for the
one faced with the choice of either becoming divided, or accepting the wrong,
acceptance of wrong is the worst choice.

In the book of Revelation, John writes letters to several churches.  (Rev 2-3)
In the first letter, to the church at Ephesus, he writes: (all RSV)

   "I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot 
   bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not,
   and found them to be false; I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up 
   for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.  But I have this against 
   you, that you have abandoned the love that you had at first..."
   "...Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolations, which I also
    hate"  

 [The Nicolaitans were a group that taught that since we are saved by grace and 
  released from the Law; anything goes: go ahead and participate in any form of
  debauchery you like]

This is a clear condemnation of intolerance and legalism without love, and this
is definitely something that we need to be aware of.  But note that Christ
includes "not bearing evil men," testing and rejecting false apostles, and
*hating* the practices of the Nicolations among the things he is PLEASED with.
Not only does Christ approve of and commend them for their intolerance, but He
claims that He Himself is "intolerant:"  "Which I also hate..."

Christ goes on, in the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira, to say:

   "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the 
   teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons
   of Israel, that they might eat the food sacrificed to idols and practice 
   immorality.  So you also have some who hold the teachings of the 
   Nicolaitans." 

   "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls
   herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice
   immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols.  I gave her time to repent, but
   she refuses to repent of her immorality."

Here Christ singles out two churches and condemns them specifically for their
tolerance.  It's clear that the risen Christ that appeared to John did NOT value
"tolerance" the way our culture today values it.  The tolerance that the PC
crowd claims is "Christian Love" has *nothing* to do with Christ Himself.

And finally, if we were to accept all these different teachings and refuse to
take a stand on anything, there's the letter to Laodicea:

   "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.  Would that you were cold 
    or hot!  So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew
    you out of my mouth."

No fence-sitting, folks.  Tolerance of anything eventually leads to apathy about
everything.  And Christ doesn't have very "tolerant" words to say about apathy
either.

Paul

    RE;19
    Paul,
         tolerance doesn't mean the acceptance of things other than what you 
    believe, but to have respect for the people, opinions and practices of
    others, who's beliefs are different. Again there is a time and a place for 
    tolerance and a time and a place for intolerance. I must be tolerant of 
    Christians who's doctrines aren't the same as my own in this conferences. 
    I would not be tolerant if they came into my Church Sunday morning and 
    interrupted the mass to preach their version of salvation to the people in 
    attendance. By being tolerant here doesn't mean I've accepted their beliefs.


     Jim

.14>Again, Jim Richard, you do me a disservice by not reading.  I said
.14>that tolerance is a good thing when applied properly but that when tolerance
.14>is applied improperly, injudiciously, and hypocritically, THEN tolerance
.14>is EVIL.

.18>     I only read what you wrote. I did not see your statement that it is
.18>    good when applied properly. Perhaps I just  missed it, but I went back
.18>    to look and still couldn't find this statement in your writing. I'll
.18>    accept that it is what you are saying however.

.18>    Your mixing apples and oranges. There is an appropriate reason for
.18>    being tolerant and an appropriate time for intolerance. Your notes
.18>    didn't seem to make a distinction.

Witness for the defense:

.2>Do not accept everything as moral.  Tolerance is a good thing when it is
.2>applied PROPERLY.  When it is applied hypocritically, it is an EVIL thing.
.2>When it is applied improperly or unjudiciously, it is an evil thing.
.2>How can we know the difference?

>         The "Politically Correct" label is starting to  get overused lately.
>     Seems that any statement that doesn't agree with someone else's gets put
>     into the political correct category. I agree that there is an agenda of a
>     pagan society that attempts to bring justice into the world without
>     God, but as Christians living in this society,  we just have to take up
>     our cross and bear it, or in-other-words, tolerate it.;)

I don't buy this, Jim.  Neither will I tolerate it.  Our jobs as Christians
is to proclaim the Absolute Authority (God) Who defines the Absolute Morality.
We can "tolerate" a person who chooses to believe otherwise, but it doesn't
mean we embrace their belief (which you're not saying we do), nor does it
mean allowing "them" (whoever "they" are) to define a moraility outside 
the context of the Absolute and ask us ot tolerate it, while their morality
places itself in opposition to ours and they do not tolerate ours.

MM

re:21

>Witness for the defense:

.2>>Do not accept everything as moral.  Tolerance is a good thing when it is
.2>applied PROPERLY.  When it is applied hypocritically, it is an EVIL thing.
.2>When it is applied improperly or unjudiciously, it is an evil thing.
.2>How can we know the difference?

     My apology ! I really looked for it ! Really !

    Jim( who needs new glasses)

Apology accepted.

I cannot say that I am never wrong, but I do make an effort to cover the 
bases.

MM

    Hello everyone,
    
    Can anyone please answer how this school determines whether or not a
    potential student is sincere in his beliefs or not?  God only knows our
    hearts, right???
    
    E. Bontonovinchi
    
    

Note 128.24  (E. Bontonovinchi)

>    Can anyone please answer how this school determines whether or not a
>    potential student is sincere in his beliefs or not?  God only knows our
>    hearts, right???

Erich (?),
  (1) It is not the student we're talking about but staff that is hired
      at a religious liberal arts college.

  (2) An applicant can lie, but I am sure the potential hiring interviewers
      will be asking about the applicants relationship with Jesus Christ
      and certain foundational beliefs.  You can lie about things on your
      application for DEC, or perhaps an insurance policy, too.  And you
      can get hired by DEC and get insurance.  Some liars go undetected.

      I am sure that the intent of the school for its applicants are to
      somehow come up with a sure-fire iron-clad way of telling what or
      how "committed" an applicant is to Christianity.  The intent of the
      school is to hire people in line with the religious teachings of
      [mainline - as I understand the term] Christianity.  (The school does
      not hire only Nazarenes, for example.)

  (3) You are right about the last part: only God sees the heart, and those
      at the school aren't foolish enough to presume to see into the heart
      of one who would lie to gain employment.  But they can make an effort
      and intent to hire committed Christians.  

Do these answer your questions?

Mark

    re: .25
    
    Yes this does answer my question. I misunderstood the article you wrote
    in .0.  In my opinion I do agree that hiring christians will definately
    lead to a somewhat more honest work environment as well as spiritually
    uplifting.  I think the school is running into a fine line with
    tolerance and setting a bad example.  I like the idea about having
    every worker in the school being a believer, but what about the
    opportunities with non-believers in the work setting that the lord may
    set up for their benefit.  The tolerance part I am comfortable with, we
    need to hate the sin and love the sinner.  But for this reason I think
    the school's upcoming policy might be (saying for the sake of their
    benefit) taken as very discriminatory which might not bode well either.
    (I'm speaking hypothetically with the last comment).
    

    Notes 128.26 - 128.38 has been moved to a new topic entitled
     "I and My Father are One"
    
    Please continue that discussion there and let's put this one back on
    topic.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

This seems related to this topic...

Someone I know wrote in another forum about his sister who teaches high school
English in Pennsylvania.  In a recent class she was teaching about literary
allusions.  In one of the books the class had been reading, there happened to
be several such allusions to Scripture.  One character was called a "Judas"
and and someone else was said to have the "patience of Job."

The teacher administered an "open-book" test to the class, listing these and
other allusions which appeared in the book, and asked them to explain the
meaning.  The students were permitted to consult a dictionary for those items
they didn't know, and the teacher was sure to check that the answers could
indeed be found there.  Later, a Jewish student complained that the test
reflected "religious intolerance" because of the New Testament reference
which she could not be expected to know.  The teacher responded that she
hadn't expected non-Christian students to know it off the top of their
heads, and that's why they were permitted to consult the dictionary during
the test.

The teacher tried to explain that literature is chock full of allusions to
scripture and that if one is to be literate one must understand to what
those allusions refer.

Now, the thing to remember is that the student *did* answer the question
correctly, because she consulted the dictionary.  The teacher asked the
student:  "When you read the book, did you understand what was meant when
the character was called 'a Judas?'"  The student said that she had not
understood it.  "Do you know now?" the teacher asked.  "Yes."

But it didn't end there.  The student complained to her mother, who then
lodged a complaint of religious intolerance with the school administration.
The matter was ultimately settled by forcing the teacher to remove questions
about any New Testament allusions from future tests or quizzes in her class.

The students -- all of them -- are the losers.

/john

Duh.  Benedict Arnold could have been used, too, I suppose, but good grief!
Judas was a historical figure as much as Benedict Arnold!

As for Job, why was it allowed to remain?  Were there no atheists offended
by its reference?  Sheesh.

    Can you spell C-E-N-S-O-R children?
    
    My wife got her english degree here in Mass.  Biblical references, 
    both direct and indirect, were commonplace in nearly all the famous 
    literary works from ~50 years ago on back.  Nearly every class 
    was filled with the basic questions.  "Who is Job".  Censoring 
    Biblical references renders these literary works meaningless and 
    denies us our past and our heritage.

    ....which is the general idea.