Conference yukon::christian_v7

    RE: .39
    
    I am not sure if what I think you said is what you really meant.
    
     
    >For those of you who don't know, that was Mark Sornson, our periodic
    >"guest" Jehovah's Witness, who do not believe in a Holy Trinity.
    
    >But this is not an argument as to whether there is or isn't (thanks, Mark),
    >but as to God's nature in the Trinity.  The JW view is contrary to this
    >discussion and the conference premise.  But it is nice to know you are
    >still alive and kicking beyond the "hellos" in the hallways and cafeteria.
    
    
    Are you saying that because Mark Sornson is a Jehovah's Witness and that 
    his opinion is contrary to this discussion or the conference premise that 
    you are forbidding him to express his opinion?  I personally don't think 
    it is right to discriminate on the basis of religion (or anything else 
    for that matter - "Judge not lest ye be judged").
    
    The Bible also teaches us that we should be tolerant of other's religions.
    
    I am not a Jehovah's Witness.  But I think that an exchange of opinions 
    is healthy and fosters a level of mutual understanding and respect.
    
    Please let me know if I mis-understood your comments.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    
    Frank
    
    
    

Hi Frank.  I don't recognize your name.  Are you (relatively) new here?  Welcome

I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you are pulling the top off of quite a large
worm-can here.  The "tolerance" of other ideas in this file has had many a long
discussion.

In a nutshell:

There are many different things that a "Christian" notesfile could be, many
possible charters.  It could be a gathering place for anyone who has some
acknowledgement of the person of Christ, but whose theology could range 
anywhere.  There is (or was, I haven't kept track) a file with this charter, 
called CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.  Or it could be purely an evangelistic effort.  Or
it could be a place where Christians could gather together, Christians who have
a common or at least reasonably common base for discussion within the Reformed 
Christian tradition, to work together at deepening their walk with Christ.  The 
latter is the charter that was chosen for this file.

This doesn't mean that people here are not willing to discuss ideas outside of
that tradition with people who come here to seek the perspective of Evangelical
Christianity.  There is a very welcoming spirit here for people seeking to
understand and to express their struggles, questions, and doubts.  But it does 
mean that people desire the freedom to conduct discussions that use that 
perspective as a basis, without continually having to sidetrack into long 
discussions about whether that basis is valid.

This attitude didn't start this way, but over the years this file has attracted
people (and I used to be one of them) who disagreed with some parts of that
basis, and who have had the need to display that disagreement in any discussion
which brought up that point. 

Given that in such situations, generally neither the person disagreeing with the
particular doctrine nor the other participants who hold to that doctrine are
particularly open to changing their minds on the issue, such discussions have
generated significantly more heat than light.

If you're interested in examples of this, and of some prior discussions about
this issue, I could probably poke around and come up with a pointer for you.

A question, though.  You say that you don't think it's right to discriminate on
the basis of religion.  Does that mean even within the church?  This *is* the
CHRISTIAN notesfile.  Do you mean to say that all opinions on all topics should
be given equal weight here?  You say that "The Bible also teaches us that we 
should be tolerant of other's religions."  If by that you meant that we 
shouldn't be hounding other people or harassing them in any way, then of course 
you'll find broad agreement here.  If you mean that other religions or other
religios perspectives should be tolerated within the church, or that all 
opinions from all perspectives should be given the same consideration in the 
context of Christianity, then I think you'll find quite a bit of disagreement.

Paul

RE:          <<< Note 219.40 by SUOSWS::WILLOUGHBY "FRANKly speaking " >>>
                                     -< ? >-

       
   . The Bible also teaches us that we should be tolerant of other's religions.
    

     Where's that?  I hardly consider myself an expert on the Bible, but I
     certainly don't recall reading that.




   Jim    
    

Some people think that tolerance for other religions is a valid interpretation
of requirements that you treat the foreigner in your midst with respect (you
can find this in Leviticus) or of the following three coherent readings:
Isaiah 56:1-7, Romans 11:13-15,29-32, Matthew 15:21-28.

But tolerance does not mean that other religions are valid, and does not
remove either our obligation to spread the Truth nor the obligation of
all people to seek the Truth.

/john

    I've been on vacation so...
    
>    The Bible also teaches us that we should be tolerant of other's religions.
    
    show me where!

			*** LENGTH ALERT ***

The following note is a little long (@178 lines), but please read this.
I think the topic is important enough to warrant the length (which is 
mostly due to quoting enough of the scriptures so that the context 
remains intact).

Sorry that I haven't responded earlier, but I was auditing a project
and am just now getting caught up on things.


RE: Note .44:

>> The Bible also teaches us that we should be tolerant of other's religions.

> Where's that?  I hardly consider myself an expert on the Bible, but I
> certainly don't recall reading that.
   
The rest of this note contains the answers.

To be honest, I think it is _morally & ethically_ wrong to put down other 
churches - particularly publicly.  I sincerely believe that no one has
the right to condemn or publicly ridicule or distribute disinformation about
other Churches.  Those who do this are NOT following the teachings of the 
bible & discredit themselves in the process).  One particular passage that 
comes to mind is ACTS 5:38,39 (29-42).

For those who don't happen their bibles handly, I'll quote ACTS 5:29-42 from
the KJV.  Verses 37,38 are particularly important. 


ACT 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey
God rather than men.

ACT 5:30  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree.

ACT 5:31  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

ACT 5:32  And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy
Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

ACT 5:33  When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to
slay them.

ACT 5:34  Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a
doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put
the apostles forth a little space;

ACT 5:35  And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye
intend to do as touching these men.

ACT 5:36  For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be
somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who
was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to
nought.

ACT 5:37  After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,
and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as
obeyed him, were dispersed.


================================================================================
ACT 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

ACT 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found
even to fight against God.
================================================================================



ACT 5:40  And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and
beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus,
and let them go.

ACT 5:41  And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that
they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

ACT 5:42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach
and preach Jesus Christ.




Let's read verses 38,39 one more time (for emphasis)..

================================================================================
ACT 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

ACT 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found
even to fight against God.
================================================================================

It would behoove ALL of us to refrain from putting down other churches.
If the church is NOT God's Church, it will never succeed (sort of a problem
which takes care of itself).  If the Church IS God's Church, then NOTHING
that you do will stop it.  Those who (unknowingly or not) put down (or 
fight against) God's Church will find themselves in opposition to God.
This is not exactly a particularly prudent position to be in. 
    
Any church or organization which puts down (particularly publicly) and 
intentionally distorts, falsifies, misrepresents other Churches is in 
direct opposition to the above verses from the Bible & discredit themselves 
in the process ("by their fruits ye shall know them").


FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that 
Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").  

Also, remember that a sign of Christ's True Church is that they will be
persecuted as illustrated in John 15:17-20 (17-25) which follows:


JOH 15:12  This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved
you.

JOH 15:13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends.

JOH 15:14  Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

JOH 15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what
his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard
of my Father I have made known unto you.

JOH 15:16  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that
ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


================================================================================
JOH 15:17  These things I command you, that ye love one another.

JOH 15:18  If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

JOH 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because
ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the
world hateth you.

JOH 15:20  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if
they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
================================================================================


JOH 15:21  But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake,
because they know not him that sent me.

JOH 15:22  If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: 
but now they have no cloak for their sin.

JOH 15:23  He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

JOH 15:24  If I had not done among them the works which none other man did,
they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my
Father.

JOH 15:25  But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that 
is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.



Again, it is my sincere hope and prayer that those who the sow seeds of 
discord in whatever form (put down other churches, propagate dis-information, 
etc) would stop this practice & get on with living the Gospel as Christ 
preached it.  Personally, I enjoy discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
with members of other Churches, & am interested in knowing what they believe 
& why.  I think this fosters tolerance and understanding.  It also gives me 
a better appreciation of His Gospel and it usually is a testimony-builder.

Best Regards,


Frank

    I have no idea how you derived a message of tolerance out of that
    passage.  Especially where an unbeliever is attempting to protect the
    believers.
    
    Mike

================================================================================
Note 219.48   SUOSWS::WILLOUGHBY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FW>ACT 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
FW>for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
FW>
FW>ACT 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found
FW>even to fight against God.

FW>It would behoove ALL of us to refrain from putting down other churches.

Peter and Paul "put down" other persons, doctrines, teachers, and false
brethren.

  Galatians 2
    4  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in
  privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
  bring us into bondage:
    5  To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth
  of the gospel might continue with you.

  2 Corinthians 11
   12  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them
  which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
   13  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
  into the apostles of Christ.


  2Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
  there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
  heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
  swift destruction.
    2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way
  of truth shall be evil spoken of.
    3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise
  of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation
  slumbereth not.

And let's not forget John:

  1 John 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
  they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

How were false prophets determined in the OT?  
What was done with a false prophet in the OT?  

FW>FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
FW>still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that 
FW>Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").  

This is what Jesus taught about tolerance of false doctrine:

  Matthew 7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
  clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
  
  Matthew 16:6  Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven
  of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
  ....
   12  Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of
  bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
  
  Mark 12:38  And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes,
  which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
  
  Luke 20:46  Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and
  love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and
  the chief rooms at feasts;

(And this is from a quick search on the word "beware."  I'm sure I can find
other places where Jesus preached anything but tolerance of false doctrine
and people who portray something other than the Truth.)

FW>Also, remember that a sign of Christ's True Church is that they will be
FW>persecuted as illustrated in John 15:17-20 (17-25) which follows:

Persecution can be a subjective state of mind.  "They disagree with me;
they reject my teaching; therefore, I have suffered persecution in the name of
the Lord."  

FW>Again, it is my sincere hope and prayer that those who the sow seeds of 
FW>discord in whatever form (put down other churches, propagate dis-information
FW>etc) would stop this practice & get on with living the Gospel as Christ 
FW>preached it.  Personally, I enjoy discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
FW>with members of other Churches, & am interested in knowing what they believe 
FW>& why.  I think this fosters tolerance and understanding.  It also gives me 
FW>a better appreciation of His Gospel and it usually is a testimony-builder.

Many Christians enjoy discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone
who will listen.  It puts a different spin on the word "discussion" if it
comes from someone who may believe they are in possession of the One True
(and exclusive) Christian gospel.

Understanding and tolerance are good things where they are appropriate, but
no religious person (Christian or otherwise) is looking to tolerate false
doctrine in the face of the Truth.

Mark 

    
    The person is advocating tolerance and you all get on them?
    
    
    
    I just don't understand,
    
    
    Mike

Hi Mike,

   The problem is where tolerance becomes compromise, and ignoring an 
   insult to self becomes ignoring an insult to the LORD.

								Andrew

>    The person is advocating tolerance and you all get on them?
>    
>    
>    
>    I just don't understand,

It's because Biblically, tolerance is not at all the virtue that our current
society paints it to be.  Tolerance and a gentle, consuming, agape love often
resemble each other, yet they are not the same.  Agape love will very often
call us to lovingly accept the differences we have with our brothers or sisters,
and in that it very much resembles tolerance.  Yet sometimes a real agape love 
requires us to NOT tolerate, but to confront sin.  Tolerance can only tolerate, 
regardless of the action, and regardless of whether the truly loving response is
to refuse to justify sin.  When 'tolerance' itself is made the virtue, instead 
of 'agape love,' we lose a major part of what real love is.

Thus you see a bit of reaction when 'tolerance' is held up as a virtue in 
itself.  Yes, the Bible declares that we must share our hope with gentleness and
respect (1 Pet 3:15), but it also condemns tolerance of sin pretty strongly
(1 Cor 5, Rev 2).

Paul

A note to the moderators:
It was not my intention to digress from the original base note, but I see
that this is where the discussion is going.  I would appreciate it if you
could move the notes pertaining to Tolerance to a new note & give it the
heading "Tolerance of other Religions".

Thank you very much for your help.


To all,

I only visit this conference once a week & have a very busy schedule
(to say the least).  As comments tend to pile up, it will be easiest
to address them in a single note  (which will try to follow the 100-line
guideline).  The next few replies are in response to the last few.
Thank you for being patient.


Frank

................................................................................

RE: .49,
> Are we to ignore false doctrine?  

No.  Just be aware that it exists.  
These people need our understanding, and love.  Under no circumstances
should they be persecuted.


>Are you talking differences in
> religion or denominations?

Both.


................................................................................

RE: .50,

>    I have no idea how you derived a message of tolerance out of that
>    passage.  Especially where an unbeliever is attempting to protect the
>    believers.


Apparently the Apostles thought it important enough to include in Acts,
so, there must be a meaning in there somewhere for us.  True, Gamaliel, 
was an unbeliever, but I think the message was rather plain.  We should 
be tolerant of other churches.  Their church just might be on the side
of God.  Persecuting that church would find oneself opposing God - 
which is not a good move.


Best Regards,


Frank

RE: .51,

>Peter and Paul "put down" other persons, doctrines, teachers, and false
>brethren.

Nice quotes.  Most of the quotes you mentioned however, pertain to an 
apostasy from _within_ the church that Christ set up.  In fact, almost
all of the books in the NT contain several passages which warn of an
apostasy from within - particularly those written after the crucifixation.
 

>How were false prophets determined in the OT?  
>What was done with a false prophet in the OT?  

Neither of the above questions apply in the NT.  IMHO, the laws (covenants) 
in the OT were fulfilled by Christ & no longer apply.  A case in point is 
the Law of the Sabbath, where those who broke the Sabbath laws were stoned 
to death.  Adulterers were also stoned to death.  I would venture to say 
that most Christians would consider stoning someone to death (particularly 
for breaking the Sabbath or adultery) is unnacceptable behaviour.


FW>FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
FW>still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that 
FW>Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").  

>This is what Jesus taught about tolerance of false doctrine:
        
<other scriptures deleted to conform to the 100-line guideline).
  
>  Luke 20:46  Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and
>  love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and
>  the chief rooms at feasts;

> (And this is from a quick search on the word "beware."  I'm sure I can find
> other places where Jesus preached anything but tolerance of false doctrine
> and people who portray something other than the Truth.)

"Beware" is a warning.  It implies no aggressive action nor persecution of 
the other parties concerned.  

Best Regards,


Frank

RE: .51

>Many Christians enjoy discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone
>who will listen.  It puts a different spin on the word "discussion" if it
>comes from someone who may believe they are in possession of the One True
>(and exclusive) Christian gospel.

I am not sure what you mean by the above paragraph.  It is my understanding
from conversations from people of many churches that each feels that their
church is "the One True Church".  Catholics maintain that there is a single,
unbroken line of succession from the church that Christ set up to the Roman
Catholic church.  Some other churches split off from the Roman Catholic church.
Some churches feel that their church is a restoration of the church that Christ
founded.  Other churches have different origins.  There are probably over a
thousand different Christian churches in the U.S. alone - each of which claims
that theirs is the true church.  Still others claim that there is no one true 
church.  

There are many differences in doctrines and ordinances in the various
churches.  Some baptize by immersion, others by sprinkling, etc.  Some
churches have the sacrament consisting of bread & water, or a wafer, etc.
Some believe that all who believe in Christ will be saved, others believe
that specific ordinances (like baptism) and living the commandsments are
necessary - in addition to faith.  We Christians (all of us) have different
definitions of who and what God is.  To some God, is one of three different 
forms (appearances) of the same person.  To others, God is one of three
members of the Godhead.  Yet, each of us belives that we are right.  I 
don't have a problem with this.  Because I think I am correct about what
I believe, does NOT give me the right to put down someone else's church.  
Their church means as much to them as mine does to me.  

I have a lot of admiration for members of many different churches and of 
the churches themselves.  I have a deep respect for the Jehovah's Witneses, 
the Seventh Day Adventists, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Quakers, the 
Lutherans, and the Catholics - to name a few.  As I see it, each of these 
churches is helping to bring people closer to God.  I think this is wonderful.
The doctrines of the above may differ, but the goal is the same. 

FWIW, I have found that for the most part, discussions with people from 
other faiths led me to think about things I may not have thought of before;
or to look at some things from a different perspective.  It has also helped
to foster understanding and a deeper respect for the people themselves
and for their churches.


>Understanding and tolerance are good things where they are appropriate, but
>no religious person (Christian or otherwise) is looking to tolerate false
>doctrine in the face of the Truth.

I disagree.  I believe we all are to "love our neighbor".  Part of doing
this is to respect their opinions.  History is full of the intolerance
and annihilation of people based on their beliefs alone.  I think Gamaliel
was rather clear on this - there exists a chance, however small, that 
the other person's church just might be on the side of God.  To be honest,
I would give them a benefit of a doubt.  I don't think it is my best 
interests to (inadvertently or not) oppose God or his church.  


To name a incidents of people being persecuted for their beliefs:
  The stories mentioned in the OT.
  The persection of the Jews & Christians by the Romans.
  The Crusades.
  The Inquisitions.
  The persecution of the Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, in Europe
   by the other churches.
  The 30-years war in Europe.
   (FWIW, european history is full of persecutions of one church by another).
  The annihilation of the Jews by the Nazis.
  The confrontations between the Jews & the Arabs (from the OT to today).
  The persecution in the USA of the Quakers, Hugenots, Mormons.  
    (FWIW, the Illiois Governor's order which required the extermination of 
    the Mormons in the 1800's was only rescinded in 1976.)  The religious
    persecution of individuals & churches is one reason why America has and 
    defends the concept of "Freedom of Religion".

>Mark 


To me, a religous war is a contradiction in terms.  How can a person 
love his meighbor when he is critisizing & putting down the other 
person's beliefs?  Christ set the example and we should follow it.


................................................................................
RE: .52,

> The person is advocating tolerance and you all get on them?
> I just don't understand,


Mike,  

Thank you for sticking up for me.  Tolerance & love are what Christ
taught & practiced.  I think we should follow His example.

Best Regards,


Frank

    
RE: .53,

> The problem is where tolerance becomes compromise, and ignoring an
> insult to self becomes ignoring an insult to the LORD.

Andrew,
I am advocating tolerance only - not compromise.  

As an example, I neither drink nor smoke.  When others drink or smoke in 
my presence or offer me a drink or a cigarette, I thank them for their offer 
(because they wanted to share something with me) and politely decline by 
saying "Thank you for offering me the drink/cigarette, but I don't drink/
smoke".  I do NOT proceed to give them a lecture on the morals & dangers of 
drinking and smoking.  In this case, I am tolerant without compromising my 
personal ideals or beliefs.

................................................................................
RE: .54,

Paul, I don't equate someone believing different than what I believe with
them sinning.  I don't think we will be punished for what we believe, rather
for what we do.  It is my personal opinion that we will be judged relative
to that level of truth that we know.  As an example, I don't think that a 
cannibal will suffer the same penalty as a Christian who is taught "thou 
shalt not kill".  It is also my personal opinion that _all_ will be taught
the truth.  If they were not exposed to the truth on earth, they will be
taught the truth in the hereafter.  This is my opinion & not for debate.

Again, I am advocating tolerance of each other's beliefs - not tolerance
of sin.

Each of us makes has our own beliefs and makes decisions based on those
beliefs.  Assume there are two people, A & B.  "A" happens to have been 
born in the right church or was converted.  "B" was born in the wrong
church and was never exposed to the true gospel.  

Is "B" sinning just because he believes differently than "A"?  

 I don't think so.


Should "A" persecute or knock down the beliefs of "B"?
 IMHO, no. "A" should be living right & setting an example for "B" to follow.
 If "B" shows an interest in knowing "A"'s beliefs, then a friendly discussion
 should follow.  Perhaps "B" might think of changing his ways.



................................................................................


In closing,

IMHO, I think both God & Jesus are saddened over the bickering and
persecutions that go on in the name of Christianity & of some people 
"saving others from themselves".  The end does not justify the means.  
I think "We should love our neighbor & turn the other cheek".  A simple 
sentence, but a goal we should all live by.  

Just a thought.

Best Regards,


Frank

    
    Andrew,
    
    
    how can one help another if they condemn and/or judge?
    
    
    
    
    Mike

> IMHO, I think both God & Jesus are saddened over the bickering and
> persecutions that go on in the name of Christianity & of some people 
> "saving others from themselves".

I completely agree, Frank.  I agree that very many, if not most of the issues 
denominations disagree about, and which cause people to think "We're the true 
church," are not issues that should divide us.  Forms of sacraments, forms of 
worship, doctrinal issues not essential to salvation and other issues of a
similar nature comprise the majority of the issues which divide us.  I totally
agree that love for each other in all these cases means recognizing that we 
serve the same Lord, and looking beyond our differences, as is spoken of in 
Romans 14.

However, there are other issues which cut more deeply.  You say "I am advocating
tolerance of each other's beliefs - not tolerance of sin."  What if the two are
intertwined?  What if it is someone's belief that a particular sin is not sin at
all?  For example, what if someone truly and earnestly believes that open and
indiscriminate sex is a gift from God, and, taking an example from scripture,
wishes to openly and unashamedly have sex with his father's wife?  Should that 
'belief' be tolerated?

1 Cor 5 deals specifically with that very case, and is very clear that such
'belief' should not be tolerated, even in the slightest degree.

I agree that we often err on what issues fall into the category of differences
which are not to be tolerated.  But you seem to be holding up tolerance itself 
as a virtue, rather than holding up love as the virtue, a love which often calls
us to tolerance.  The problem is that by focusing on tolerance instead of love, 
you allow no response other than tolerance, even to a 'belief' in sin.  The MOST
loving response to someone walking in sin is to try to help, in some way, to
release them from the bondage of sin.  It is NOT loving to commiserate with 
them, tolerate their sin, and encourage them to keep walking in it.  Yet if the
virtue we are seeking is 'tolerance,' that's the best we can do.

Paul writes, in 1 Cor 5:5, that the most loving thing to do for such a person is
to "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Paul

Note 254.13  SUOSWS::WILLOUGHBY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Peter and Paul "put down" other persons, doctrines, teachers, and false
>>brethren.
>
>Nice quotes.  Most of the quotes you mentioned however, pertain to an
>apostasy from _within_ the church that Christ set up.  In fact, almost
>all of the books in the NT contain several passages which warn of an
>apostasy from within - particularly those written after the crucifixation.

What is "the church" to which these verses pertain.  We are not to tolerate
apostasy from within "the church" and to put it out and spearate it from  "the
church."  That means people with false doctrines, professing Christianity, yet
possessing heresy.

>>How were false prophets determined in the OT?
>>What was done with a false prophet in the OT?
>
>Neither of the above questions apply in the NT.  IMHO, the laws (covenants)
>in the OT were fulfilled by Christ & no longer apply.  A case in point is
>the Law of the Sabbath, where those who broke the Sabbath laws were stoned
>to death.  Adulterers were also stoned to death.  I would venture to say
>that most Christians would consider stoning someone to death (particularly
>for breaking the Sabbath or adultery) is unnacceptable behaviour.

I did not take "fulfillment of the law" to be a disregarding of it, making it
non-applicable.  Rather, the movement of fulfillment is taken out of the action
(stoning, adultery, etc) into the attitude of the heart.  To say the law of the
OT does not apply denies the spirit of the law which Christ came and
fulfilled.

>FW>FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
>FW>still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that
>FW>Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").
>
>>This is what Jesus taught about tolerance of false doctrine:
>
><other scriptures deleted to conform to the 100-line guideline).
>
>>  Luke 20:46  Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and
>>  love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and
>>  the chief rooms at feasts;
>
>> (And this is from a quick search on the word "beware."  I'm sure I can find
>> other places where Jesus preached anything but tolerance of false doctrine
>> and people who portray something other than the Truth.)
>
FW>"Beware" is a warning.  It implies no aggressive action nor persecution of
FW>the other parties concerned.

Sorry, Frank.  Beware is a warning to action.  Being wary is an action of
awareness, prepared for an event.  It is indeed active and not a passive
verb.

Now, if we are to be wary of false doctrines, by Jesus own words, what does
this mean when we are confronted by them?  Should we wish people Godspeed?
That is prohibited in one of the epistles, interestingly enough.

Mark

Note 254.14  SUOSWS::WILLOUGHBY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>It is my understanding from conversations from people of many churches that
>each feels that their church is "the One True Church".  Catholics maintain that
>there is a single, unbroken line of succession from the church that Christ set
>up to the Roman Catholic church.

  The Roman Catholic church does not believe that people in other Christian
  denomination will be damned to hell by their church affiliation even
  though they believe to possess the best way not to succumb to heresy by
  their doctrine.  We're not talking about having the doctrine that is the
  best understanding of God's church (His "one true church").  We're
  talking about the churches that believe they are the "one true church" to
  the exclusion of their Christian brethren (who, by virtue of their
  doctrine of legalism, damn whole classes of people to hell who have
  believed the name of Christ unto Salvation).

>There are probably over a thousand different Christian churches in the U.S.
>alone - each of which claims that theirs is the true church.  Still others
>claim that there is no one true  church.

  Thousands of churches, each believing their doctrines provide the best
  way to know God, differing on some minor (some not-so-minor) issue but
  still recognizing the fellowship of the saints of God through Jesus
  Christ.

>Yet, each of us belives that we are right.  I  don't have a problem with
>this.  Because I think I am correct about what I believe, does NOT give me
>the right to put down someone else's church.   Their church means as much
>to them as mine does to me.

  And here lies the rub.  Where is the line between doctrinal difference
  and heresy?  A heresy being defined as a belief that leads to damnation,
  where a docrinal difference, such as dunking or dipping, is a belief that
  is good and proper but not essential to one's salvation. (You see the
  heated debates when these doctrinal differences are seen as heresies.)

>I have a lot of admiration for members of many different churches and of
>the churches themselves.  I have a deep respect for the Jehovah's Witneses,
>the Seventh Day Adventists, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Quakers, the
>Lutherans, and the Catholics - to name a few.  As I see it, each of these
>churches is helping to bring people closer to God.  I think this is wonderful.
>The doctrines of the above may differ, but the goal is the same.

  "...but the goal is the same."  You know, that may be.  But we can all
  have the goal to meet in Timbuktu, but not every road leads to it.


>>Understanding and tolerance are good things where they are appropriate, but
>>no religious person (Christian or otherwise) is looking to tolerate false
>>doctrine in the face of the Truth.
>
>I disagree.  I believe we all are to "love our neighbor".  Part of doing
>this is to respect their opinions.


  Opinions and doctrine are different.  Doctrine drives a stake into the
  ground about absolute truth.  Opinion changes withthe wind.

>To name a incidents of people being persecuted for their beliefs:
>  The stories mentioned in the OT.
>.
>.
>.
>To me, a religous war is a contradiction in terms.  How can a person
>love his meighbor when he is critisizing & putting down the other
>person's beliefs?  Christ set the example and we should follow it.

  How can Jehovah order the annihilation of people in Canaan?  I'll
  agree with you that wars have been fought for very unChristian reasons in
  the name of Christianity.  However, you cannot lump all wars and battles
  into the same category, for some are for judgment, as shown in the OT.
  Some for cleansing.

  You want to show the "love your neighbor" verse to the exclusion of
  "behold I have not come for peace but to bring a sword" verse.  Neither
  of these verse should be embraced exclusively.  They should be embraced
  together!!

  While you are right to point out that ridicule is not part of the
  Christian attitude, being wary, pointing out false doctrine amd judging
  these ARE a part of the Christian attitude.

  Mark

Note 254.15   SUOSWS::WILLOUGHBY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Assume there are two people, A & B.  "A" happens to have been  born in the
>right church or was converted.  "B" was born in the wrong church and was
>never exposed to the true gospel.
>
>Is "B" sinning just because he believes differently than "A"?
>
>I don't think so.

Your opinion in the matter won't make a spit of difference to "B" when
the One Who defines sin states what He thinks.

>Should "A" persecute or knock down the beliefs of "B"?

  Persecute? No.  Knock down?  What do you mean?  One can present truth
  that contradicts a [false] belief and if that is considered knocking
  down another's belief, then yes, one should correct error, if possible.

  You see, Frank, I can tolerate your right to think so.  And your
  cigarette analogy was appropriate enough.  But you can go on to say to
  the person who offered you tobacco to share (so that he knows *why*
  you're not compormising your ethics on the matter) that you don't smoke
  because you believe it to be morally wrong (or whatever).  He can then
  say, "I reject your assertion that it is morally wrong and I say it is
  morally right!" "Fine.  Let's believe what we will."

  Hey, I can handle that, but it doesn't mean I believe that there are
  relative truths in certain matters more important than tobacco, and
  people caught in these error could lead to their damnation.

Mark

.17 Paul Weiss

Said it better'n me.  Thanks, and sorry for taking up the space!

MM

    
    Well I am Catholic, which one of you folks are going to tell me that my
    dead son (Johnathan) is not in heaven?
    
    
    
    Mike (who is really having a BAD BAD day)

>    Well I am Catholic, which one of you folks are going to tell me that my
>    dead son (Johnathan) is not in heaven?
>    
>    Mike (who is really having a BAD BAD day)


?

I am sorry you are having a bad day, today, Mike.

>    Well I am Catholic, which one of you folks are going to tell me that my
>    dead son (Johnathan) is not in heaven?

Not I, certainly.  I have no beef with Catholicism.  I don't agree with some of
the doctrines, but I see no essential doctrines in Catholicism which compromise
a saving faith in the Lord.  May your faith lead you deeper into the knowledge
and love of Christ, and may the Lord hold your son (*HIS* son too) in the palm
of His hand.

I'll pray for the bad day you're having, too.

Paul

    
    I owe you folks an apology.   Please forgive me for the ignorance of my
    earlier note.  I am finding stregnth.
    
    
    
    Mike (who needs a bunch of work, and is getting it)

 

 Peace, Mike...






 Jim

    Hey Mike,
    
    Wannatalker? :-) :-)   YOU know my NUMBER.. :-):-)��
    
    Nancy

Re .22 Mike,
    
>    Well I am Catholic, which one of you folks are going to tell me that my
>    dead son (Johnathan) is not in heaven?

Well, I'm not Catholic, but since I believe that MY dead son (Jonathan) is in
heaven, I certainly wouldn't tell you that your son isn't.  Although you are
right, that that is a typical example of placing doctrine above speaking the
truth in love.  Many people tend to confuse the two things, but they are 
different.

Re: this note,

I may be doctrinally correct and devastate you with what I say.  But, if I 
speak the truth in love, I will always give you hope.  That doesn't mean that
what I say may not be devastating.  The difference is that I will strive to
be used by the Holy Spirit to convict and not condemn.  To knock down the
lies and to exalt the Truth.  To provoke you (generic) to love and good works
rather than just to prove my point.  Your well-being will be more important
to me than *my* doctrine.

But one thing that I have learned about this conference is that it abounds 
with misunderstandings.  We all bring in our prejudices and apply different
connotations to words.  We spend hours and expend multitudes of words, just
to find out that we've been in "violent" agreement all along.  Most of the
time it's because we apply meanings to words that another uses that may not
fit, and aren't what the other person meant to say.  It's like I sometimes
say, "I know what you mean, but I got confused by what you said."

Rob

    Rob,
    
    It's not just in this conference that words are confusing.  I see it in
    other conferences too.  It's the written word and the fact that we
    cross many geographies where the the same word has a different meaning
    or connotation.  We've had a laugh and a cry many a time with the
    differences between the Australian, England culture our American
    culture [which is vastly different from state to state].  
    
    But in the wrestling of words, we oftimes find new meaning, and new
    friendships and new Brothers and Sisters for which we can share in
    their joys, their heartaches, their prayer requests, and their God
    created uniquenesses.  For that, I'll wrestle a little, [but not too
    much] :-)
    
    Nancy

See also note 128.*, on "The Intolerance of Tolerance."

(I thought there was a note started on this a while back!)

It's sad to note that he probably wouldn't be allowed to do that today.  All the
other religious groups would be having conniptions that the US government was
'endorsing' christianity, and the ACLU would have a field day with 'separation
of church and state.'

Sigh.  Come Lord Jesus.

Paul

	.re.79

>It is interesting
>to know that the very first liquid poured on the moon, and the first
>food eaten there, were the Body and Blood of Christ.

	Rather, the symbols thereof.

ace

    
    That's not true, Paul.  Only a few years ago, a Muslim went up on the
    space shuttle and continued to pray toward Mecca 5 times a day.  A
    Hindu also went up and did some studies on the effects of yoga on
    bodies in space.  I believe both of these people were Americans too. 
                                                  
    Last month, I was in Washington, D.C., celebrating the 100th
    anniversary of Swami Vivekananda coming to the US to address the First
    Parliament of World Religions that year.  The majority of the 2000+ 
    delegates at the conference we held were decidedly Hindu.  I was a member 
    of the conference steering committee and was responsible for inviting 
    speakers from the West to participate in the celebration.  My efforts
    managed to get 17 speakers to address the delegation, and the most 
    well-known speaker was former astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to 
    walk on the moon.  Born into a southern Baptist fundamentalist family, 
    his trip to the moon changed him, and suddenly when looking back at the
    Earth, he realized the truth in all religions and the connectedness of
    the entire human race.  I had the privilege of introducing him - what a
    wonderful person he is.
    
    I also addressed the delegation for 15 minutes, and at the beginning of
    my talk, I lit the Unitarian Universalist chalice from the church I
    belong to, and everyone applauded.  I'm not a Hindu, but I was most
    readily accepted, as was the Mayan shaman Hunbatz Men, the son of a
    Sufi master, Alireza Nurbakhsh (both people I had invited), and the
    Minister Emeritus of the church I attend, as well.  
    
    Unlike some religions, Vedantic Hinduism allows for each person to follow 
    the path that is best for them, even by worshipping Christ as their Savior.
    As Swami Vivekananda spoke at the Parliament 100 years ago, "The Christian 
    is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to 
    become a Christian.  But each must assimilate the spirit of others and yet 
    preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.  
    
    With this approach to life, it is unlikely , therefore, that a Hindu would 
    protest an astronaut taking a Christian communion in space, or for that
    matter a Muslim either, given the fellow who went up only a few years
    ago and continued his own spiritual practices.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    Your summations sound *wonderful*, but reality today is that it is PC
    to stop the slave driving, witch killing Christians.  I've been
    participating in SOAPBOX over the last few months and have have seen
    this attitude very prevalent within my own co-workers.
    
    I submit to you the removal of any Christian practices in our schools
    as one example.
    
    IMHO, The same folks applauding Hinduism would persecute a Christian.
    
    Nancy

 My thoughts too, Nancy.  





 Jim

    Re.83                              
    
    Nancy,
    
    At the risk of coming back to the original point, I was speaking of
    taking the sacrament in space...
    
    SOAPBOX...well, what do you *expect*?!?!?  I can't even comment on that
    one.  Laugh, perhaps, (;^), but not comment. 
    
   
    >I submit to you the removal of any Christian practices in our schools
    >as one example.
    
    Unless the Christians also make allowances for all other religious
    practices to take place in the same schools to respect the children of 
    other religions who study along side of them, then I see nothing wrong 
    with this.
    
    My own personal feeling is that religious *practices* should take 
    place at home and in your 'insert holy place of choice dependent upon 
    the religion'.
    
    
    >IMHO, The same folks applauding Hinduism would persecute a Christian.
    
    Can you please cite some examples or back this comment up?  Since you
    are also referring to *me* in this statement (since I applaud Vedantic
    Hinduism), then can you come up with an example of my persecuting a
    Christian (except for maybe Mark Metcalfe on occasion (;^)?  I don't 
    think I have done so.
    
    Unless you are new in this file (which I know you aren't...) then
    you have no doubt witnessed much anti-Hinduism sentiments being
    expressed by your own fellow noters here.  Accusations of idol-worship,
    polytheism, and so on.  Yet in the entire crowd of several thousand
    people down in Washington, D.C., and in all the presentations by
    various swamis and gurus, not *one* disparaging remark was made against 
    Christianity.  Specific *actions* of Christians (especially violent
    ones), yes, but the religion itself, no.
    
    Cindy

>    can you come up with an example of my persecuting a
>    Christian (except for maybe Mark Metcalfe on occasion (;^)?  I don't 
>    think I have done so.

Persecuting me?  Is that what you've been doing?  If you knew it and I didn't
then you have to resolve this with yourself, Cindy, in whatever pennance-type
of relativism you choose.  Perhaps we need to define a whole lot of terms
to communicate, including the word persecute, eh?  And before you go and
say "see my winky face", I'm politely giving you a poke in fun, too. ;^)

But to your challenge, I would submit that you compare noters with noters
and crowds with crowds, instead of mixing the two.  I do recall John Leabeater
[foolishly] going into the Hindu conference to challenge them, and [not
surprizingly] getting a less than welcome reception.

Christianity does not accept hinduism as a means to salvation.  In this
rejection, you may choose to define this as "anti-Hindu sentiment" and
I would not argue.  I would not even argue over a few Christians who
take the rejection of hinduism a bit too far.  Knowing what is too far
and what is compromise of the Truth is debatable.

Mark

    Cindy,
    
    Your note makes it sound like each time our congregations get together
    that we spend time bashing other religions, i.e., Hinduism.  That is
    simply not true.  However, because we believe in an absolute authority
    in God himself, his preserved Word, and Jesus Christ, it is  not
    uncommon nor out of the ordinary to have Christians say that Hinduism
    is paganism and ungodly.
    
    IMHO you make too broad a swipe with your statement.  
    
    And btw, as the New Age culture begins to sweep across this country,
    and extremely prevalent here in California, my experience in meeting
    people [one to one] is that while they applaud the New Age Theme [based
    in mid-eastern culture], they are tolerant but not accepting of the
    fundamental Christian.
    
    Nancy

 The following replies were moved from Topic 97.





 Jim co-mod

    
    Re.39
    
    Mark,
    
    OK, I'll say 108x108 mantras on my mala beads as penance.  (;^) 
    (Equivalent to Hail Mary's, I believe.)
    
    Only that I was percecuting you in coming into the file and 'causing 
    a ruckus' on occasion.  (;^)
    
    I do not feel that anyone stating the belief that Hinduism is not a means 
    to salvation as defined by orthodox Christianity is what I was referring
    to.  That's more a statement of fact, and not an anti-Hindu sentiment.
    I don't believe any Hindus would have a problem with this either.
    
    It's when people refer to Hindus as polytheistic and idol-worshippers
    that the line is crossed.  And it *has* happened here, along with
    misquotes of Hindu scriptures which I have actually provided corrected
    text for in the past...though it was in a prior version of the
    conference.
    
    Cindy                               

    Re.40
    
    Nancy,
    
    Please...there's no need to get on a soapbox - first of all, having
    been raised in Christian congregations myself, I know very well what
    happens (in at least Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist churches) and 
    what you all believe in.
    
    I take issue with your comment about Hinduism being 'paganism' and
    'ungodly'.  Those are incredibly judgmental statements, and that is 
    where the line gets crossed.  How would you feel if a Hindu came to 
    you and said the same thing about your religion?  Would it make you
    eager to want to find out more about *their* religion, meet their
    friends, attend their temple?   
    
    It's fine to say what Mark wrote - that you, as an orthodox Christian 
    do not believe that Hinduism is a true path to salvation.  There's 
    nothing wrong with that at all.  Even Gandhi didn't have a problem with
    that.  But what you said - how do you expect anyone to not become 
    defensive at a statement saying their religion is 'ungodly' and
    'paganistic'???  Or do you perceive this as a viable way to win friends 
    and influence people toward Christianity?
    
    By the way, I *really was* only commenting on the reference to taking
    the sacrament in space in my original reply here...
    
    Regarding the overall NA attitude toward fundamentalist Christians -
    have you really missed the New Age-bashing/disparaging remarks that 
    occur here on almost a daily basis?  Also, there are *countless* books 
    that you can pick up in fundamentalist/orthodox bookstores that are
    incredibly anti-New Age, as well.  Yet in all of the New Age bookshops
    and stores I've been in (and I've been in a *lot* of them), I do not
    ever see anti-Christianity books on the shelves.  
    
    I do not doubt that you have encountered some anti-fundamentalist
    Christian New Age-types.  But realize that it is probably more of a
    reaction to all of the bashing and preaching they have encountered by
    Christian fundamentalists, and not because there is this central 'New 
    Age organization' that is actively targeting Christianity.  
    
    Cindy
                                             

>    Only that I was percecuting you in coming into the file and 'causing 
>    a ruckus' on occasion.  (;^)

Persecution is not how I viewed it.  I choose not to speculate on more
appropriate words.  ;^9

Misquotes happen, to be sure, as you share some guilt in that area, too.
As for line-crossing, that's a difficult one to fix an "absolute" to, 
wouldn't you say?

Mark

    
    Re.41
    
    Nancy,
    
    Btw, what swipe did I take, besides the one at SOAPBOX?
    
    I'm sure they can handle swipes...(;^)...they'd have to, to be able
    to participate there!  (oops...another swipe...(;^)
    
    (No *true* offense intended toward any 'BOX participants...)
    
    Cindy
              

Oh, and just to be clear, Cindy:  I personally like you, and
may be somewhat of a UU in my argumentative way; but let's not
take this too far with me, lest I feel compelled to distinguish and
distance myself from that statement.  I certainly have formed 
opinions about Truth and error that might offend even an opened-minded UU
member and I'd rather not.  I can see karma, fate, and reason that 
propels us together like...  well it is Friday late, and I've begun to
totter a bit, I'm afraid.  Grinning... Mark

    Cindy,
    
    Your references are quite amusing like "don't get on a soapbox". :-)
    It made me smile.  Perhaps I did.  Perhaps just coming from an
    environment where hostility is it's second name has effected my normal
    rationale.
    
    However, I won't apologize for stating a fact about how the Bible
    interprets Hinduism or any other mid-eastern religion.  I do
    apologize if that hurts you personally.  
    
    Cindy, winning friends is not what I'm called to do.  I know that the
    position of my faith puts me at a distance with many folks in this
    life.  While that may not make me very happy, and at times is very
    difficult, my faith in Christ comes first.
    
    As I've stated before and I'll state it again, you can believe whatever
    you want and I won't badger you about it... But remember this is the
    CHRISTIAN notes conference and I won't sit idle by while any person
    brings in anti-christian views. 
    
    I can't get mushy like Mark and say I like you.. I don't know you and I
    have very little experience with you, except that you jump in here now
    and then to defend your view.  Which BTW, I won't discourage, I learn
    each time you do a little more about the New Age in America.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

 Reply .37 has been set hidden pending moderator discussion.





 Jim

Sanity check.

}  Note 254.43                         Tolerance                           43 of 48
}  TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber"                  43 lines  17-SEP-1993 16:29
}      
}      Please...there's no need to get on a soapbox - first of all, having
}      been raised in Christian congregations myself, I know very well what
}      happens (in at least Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist churches) and 
}      what you all believe in.
}      
}      I take issue with your comment about Hinduism being 'paganism' and
}      'ungodly'.  Those are incredibly judgmental statements, and that is 
}      where the line gets crossed.  How would you feel if a Hindu came to 
}      you and said the same thing about your religion?  Would it make you
}      eager to want to find out more about *their* religion, meet their
}      friends, attend their temple?   
}      
}      It's fine to say what Mark wrote - that you, as an orthodox Christian 
}      do not believe that Hinduism is a true path to salvation.  There's 
}      nothing wrong with that at all.  Even Gandhi didn't have a problem with
}      that.  But what you said - how do you expect anyone to not become 
}      defensive at a statement saying their religion is 'ungodly' and
}      'paganistic'???  Or do you perceive this as a viable way to win friends 
}      and influence people toward Christianity?
}      

}      
}      Regarding the overall NA attitude toward fundamentalist Christians -
}      have you really missed the New Age-bashing/disparaging remarks that 
}      occur here on almost a daily basis?  Also, there are *countless* books 
}      that you can pick up in fundamentalist/orthodox bookstores that are
}      incredibly anti-New Age, as well.  Yet in all of the New Age bookshops
}      and stores I've been in (and I've been in a *lot* of them), I do not
}      ever see anti-Christianity books on the shelves.  
}      
}      I do not doubt that you have encountered some anti-fundamentalist
}      Christian New Age-types.  But realize that it is probably more of a
}      reaction to all of the bashing and preaching they have encountered by
}      Christian fundamentalists, and not because there is this central 'New 
}      Age organization' that is actively targeting Christianity.  
}      
}      Cindy
}                                               

Webster:

pagan ... 1. Formerly one not of a Christian people; now one who is neither a
Christian, a Mohammedan, nor a Jew; a heathen.

If you know what we believe, then you know that the above is the accepted
meaning of pagan, and that we believe that God is a jealous God who allows
not even the high places.  Therefore, to say that Christianity is acceptable
but that calling something else paganistic and ungodly is wrong is not, 
seems like a logical contradiction.


}  Note 254.34                         Tolerance                           34 of 48
}  TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber"                  40 lines  17-SEP-1993 12:04
}      

}      Unlike some religions, Vedantic Hinduism allows for each person to follow 
}      the path that is best for them, even by worshipping Christ as their Savior.
}      As Swami Vivekananda spoke at the Parliament 100 years ago, "The Christian 
}      is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to 
}      become a Christian.  But each must assimilate the spirit of others and yet 
}      preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.  
}      
}      Cindy

This is downright confusing.  Aren't these together adding to the above: "Unless
his own law of growth includes bashing what we are saying"?  Distilling it, it
all seems to be:

All religions should be accepted, except those which aren't all accepting.

Very much like the old "No generality is worth a damn."

To be a Christian is known to be in a position of asserting that other religions
are totally wrong.  It's OK to be a Christian.  It's not OK to say others are
totally wrong.

As us Cajuns say: ??!?? , which is the best way I know to spell it.

Lew

P.S. (aside explanation) Even though my last name is Gulick, this is due to
my mother marrying a foreigner (My dad's from New Jersey).  However, I grew
up with my mom's people (Dore') deep in Cajun country.

Re Note 254.48 

� Reply .37 has been set hidden pending moderator discussion.

As has 254.40, which quoted .37 verbatim.

						   Andrew
						co-moderator

Christianity makes the bold claim that Jesus Christ is so incomparable
that we meet God fully in him. ... We do not deny that in [non-Christian
faiths] there are glimpses of the divine.  But we cannot shift from the
conviction that is as old as the New Testament: that God is revealed
fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ.  We know how infuriating
and arrogant such a claim must seem to those who sincerely believe that
in their scriptures and in their worship God is found and experienced.
But we have to say with Paul as he preached to the adherents of other
faiths in Athens: "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I
unto you" (Acts 17:23).  This is the scandal of particularity with which
we must live.  Christians cannot yield this un-negotiable element in
their faith.  Only in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can God
be fully known, worshipped, and obeyed.

			    - The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. George L. Carey
			      Archbishop of Canterbury  (Michaelmas 1993)

 Reply .37 has been deleted






 Jim co mod

<<Note 254.38 TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber">>  
     
   
 NM   >I submit to you the removal of any Christian practices in our schools
 NM   >as one example.
    
>    Unless the Christians also make allowances for all other religious
>    practices to take place in the same schools to respect the children of 
>    other religions who study along side of them, then I see nothing wrong 
>    with this.
    
    This is precisely the ideology that 'separationists' would have
    everyone buy into.  The fact is, we were founded as a *Christian*
    nation, and as such, felt that promoting basic, non-denominational
    Christian morals/practices in schools was not only beneficial but necessary
    to insure that the next generation would be responsible, ethical, and
    moral (something we could use a little more of today). 
    
    
>    My own personal feeling is that religious *practices* should take 
>    place at home and in your 'insert holy place of choice dependent upon 
>    the religion'.
    
     Those who founded this country would disagree with you wholeheartedly
    on this point, as far as using this as a reason to keep God out of the
    schools.  There are many quotes from antiquated documents of our
    founding fathers that will support this statement.  Many go on record
    as stating that the schools were one of the best places to instruct
    children on morals.  In fact, they used to use the Bible in
    classrooms...long ago. (sigh)
    
    But of course, we are a much more enlightened society today.  That's
    why we have no problems with our youth.  Schools are no place for God,
    morals, the Ten Commandments, or even an in-depth look at the founding
    document that we base all our freedoms on.
    
    We have lost our identity, as our children are being cheated out of
    learning the full truth of thier herritage.  New history textbooks are
    so vague these days, that some kids think that the pilgrims gave thanks
    to the Indians!  Other texts attack certain parts of the Bill or Rights
    (one in particular stated that the 'right to bear arms' was not a
    personal right, but a right of the STATE to keep an armed militia).
    
    Perhaps this is why we struggle so hard to retain the few untouched
    sentences from the Bill of Rights.
    
    -steve 

    
    Re.49
    
    I'm not really sure how to reply, except to perhaps recommend that you 
    should probably avoid Webster's and stay with using the Bible for
    proving points in this conference.  I'm almost certain I could go to a
    dictionary that was written by someone who wasn't Christian (perhaps a
    pagan, for example) and find a totally different definition.  So I
    can't accept your quoted definition as a standard in this case.
      
    Cindy

.54  Cindy

It is within your prerogative to choose another definition than what
Webster might say, or any other purveyor of dictionaries, but the 
dictionary is often (or usually) a good basis for communication and
articulating what was meant by what was said, instead of what was meant
by what was inferred, over which the communicator has little control.

You can choose to reject his definition, but it doesn't change his definition.

MM

                                   
    Re.53
    
    I was under the impression that this nation was formed the principle of
    the separation of church and state.  Also that several of the founders
    were, in fact, Unitarian Universalists, and not specifically Christian.
    I don't recall their names offhand, however I can supply them if you
    like.  
    
    It is indeed unfortunate about the state of textbooks in our classrooms 
    today, and on that I will agree.  For example, it was only when I came 
    into contact with the Hindu organization I'm working with that I found out
    that 100 years ago, one of India's most prominent and revered swami's -
    Swami Vivekananda - came to address the First Parliament Of World
    Religions in Chicago in 1893.  And that Paramahansa Yogananda, who came
    here in the earlier part of this century, was received by a US
    president, and made such an incredible impact on the history of the US. 
    This impact can be read about in his book "Autobiography Of A Yogi". 
    He and Luther Burbank were the closest of friends, and it is he to whom
    the book is dedicated.  I'm also reading an excellent book about how
    Buddhism came to the US as well.
    
    Cindy

>    I was under the impression that this nation was formed the principle of
>    the separation of church and state.

What *is* your *impression* about the separation of church and state, Cindy?

    
    RE.55
    
    OK, Mark.
    
    I thought the Bible was the preferred basis of communication 
    in this conference.  
    
    Given the Webster's definition though, and that it is the 
    accepted one, then I really don't have any further comment. 
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.57
    
    Can we begin with your definition, Mark?  I'm kind of at a loss for
    words right now.  It's probably easier at this point if I comment on
    your frame of reference (or the other person who made the comment), 
    and then we can have some sort of basis for discussion.  
    
    My time is short for the next 2 weeks, btw - deadlines and all.
    
    Cindy

>    OK, Mark.
>    
>    I thought the Bible was the preferred basis of communication 
>    in this conference.  

You are correct in your thinking, but when further clarification in language is
necessary, is it not acceptable to refer to a book of common usage?

Incidently, what *is* the biblical definition of pagan?

Mark

    
    Re.60
    
    Mark,
    
    You tell me, or ask the other person.  I wasn't the one who brought it up.
    
    Cindy

    
    Nancy,
    
    No offense taken. 
    
    You would probably be interested in note 686 in the VAXWRK::INDIA
    conference.
    
    Cindy

>    Can we begin with your definition, Mark?  I'm kind of at a loss for
>    words right now.  It's probably easier at this point if I comment on
>    your frame of reference (or the other person who made the comment), 
>    and then we can have some sort of basis for discussion.  

My definition?  The other person who made the comment, rather.
(I would have looked pagan up in the dictionary, too).  The problem arose
when you asigned a different definition, and "all things being relative",
we can see how you took offense because you understood the same word
to mean something different from what another person understood it to be.

We Christians do that a lot in here, too, so you are in good company.  :-)

    
    Re.46
    
    Mark,
    
    *Hey*!  You're taking this far too seriously!  I was really just
    making light of everything, and meant nothing serious at all with 
    my original comment.  
    
    Cindy

    To clarify "the wall of separation" issue brought up a few notes ago...
    
    
    First, 'separation of church and state' is not in the constitution. 
    This phrase was from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury
    Baptists on Jan. 1, 1802 (during his presidency...BTW, he was not one
    of the Constitutional framers).  This phrase taken out of
    context from the letter, in the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson vs. the
    Board of Education- the ruling that declared a 'separation of church
    and state' (they also used the 14th ammendment *against* the states
    somehow...it was an unprecedented legal maneuver).  The purpose of
    this letter was to assure these Baptists that the Federal government
    would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the
    national denomination.  
    
    Other statements by Jefferson that were not mentioned (for some reason)
    in that court decision in 1947...
    
    Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "No power over the freedom of religion
    [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
    
    Second Inaugural Address, 1805: "In matters of religion I have
    considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution
    independent of the powers of the Feneral [federal] Government."
    
    The "wall of separation" mentioned in the letter was originally
    understood to be a one-way wall protecting the church from the
    government.  Not the other way around.  Funny how things get twisted
    over time.
    
    We have been so impressed upon with the term 'separation of church and
    state' that most folks think it's written in the Constitution.  It just
    goes to show you that if you hear something enough times, you may just
    start believing it (it doesn't help any that the school books do not
    reveal the truth of the matter, either).
    
    -steve  

>Incidently, what *is* the biblical definition of pagan?

It's not used much.  The KJV doesn't use the word at all, the NIV uses it only
8 times.

It appears to be used much the way that the word "Gentiles" is used.  Two of the
three NT references are from the same word that is generally translated as 
"Gentiles" (and all "gentiles" means, is people who are not Jews.)

In the OT, it is sometimes a translation of the word "Goy", which again refers
to people who are not Jews.  In a couple of places it is a translation of a word
that means "idolatrous priest," and once, when refering to a "pagan country," it
is a translation of a word that means "impure" or "unclean."

Paul

    
    Re.65
    
    OK, Steve.  You seem well convinced in your view, so we can just leave
    it at that.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.all
    
    I really only was here to point out what I said in .81, now .34, about
    the sacrament being taken in space, along with the Muslim going up and
    praying to Mecca, along with a Hindu studying the effects of yoga in
    space.
    
    At this point though, I'm not even sure where the original note string
    is, who's note I was replying to (Paul ?), or anything, so I'm going to
    drop out of this discussion.
    
    Cindy

    Okay Cindy...we can agree to disagree.  I would be interested in
    hearing why you hold your current views on this issue (not to 'attack'
    them...just curious).
    
    My statements are documented facts, not personal opinion (my opinion
    was changed after discovering these facts).
    
    -steve

    Re.69
    
    Steve,
    
    Many years ago I read a book entitled, "Fundamentalism and American
    Culture", by George Marsden.  It's been so long that I can no longer
    cite the details that you are looking for, however it might be a source
    you may be interested in taking a look at.  
    
    Let us say you are correct for a moment...even in this case then, my view 
    is if the US was formed to be a 'Christian nation', I do not feel 
    that in our multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religious society, that 
    things like Christian prayers should take place in a public school (just 
    for an example.)  These are the kinds of things that the parents of the 
    children should be doing.  Similarly I would say the same for the 
    children of other religions as well, so I'm not objecting to Christianity 
    per se.   I personally join in when any person or any religious group
    is praying, anytime and anywhere, so I don't even object from that angle.
    
    Hope this helps somewhat.
    
    Jai Bhagawan,
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.71
    
    Steve,
    
    I'm very familiar with other religions, especially Hinduism, and in
    Hinduism there is a practice called 'brahmacharya' which has to do 
    with celibacy except within the bounds of marriage.  So there are
    actually many Hindu parents as well who would agree wholeheartedly
    with you on all of the things you have mentioned.  These concepts,
    practices, and general ideals exist in all of the major religions,
    not just Christianity.
    
    In fact, interestingly enough, it is the first generation Hindu parents 
    who are just as equally - if not more - concerned about their youth 
    being born and raised the *West* and getting involved with drugs, 
    pre-marital sex, and so on.  They're not saying anything differently 
    than you about the concerns they have for their *own* children about
    the society we currently live in!  Right down to the exact same words.
    
    I really don't think that saying Christian prayers in schools is going
    to do anything to solve these problems.  
    
    But perhaps bringing the core ideals (celibacy outside of marriage,
    keeping pure in mind, body, spirit, treating each other as you wish to
    be treated, and so on) of *all* religions back into the schools is by
    far the best way to go.  You can call them Christian values, and that's
    fine, but from what I've experienced, these values are present in all 
    religions.                                                      
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cindy,
    
    Putting a nation back to prayer instead of MEDITATION would very much
    help this country.
    
    What we have done is excluded God's "Moment of Silence" and "Prayer"
    in the school and now teach VISUALIZATION to our kindergartners [in
    some public schools]... Meditation, Visualization can all be
    administered without a dilemma [and they are RELIGIOUS practices]... 
    
    Can you tell me why?
    
    Nancy

    "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,
    and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then
    will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal 
    their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 

 Thanks, Markel...I deleted my butcherin of the verse :-)





Jim

    
    Never mind.  I'm leaving this topic.  Enough.
    
    Cindy

	Bummer Cindy...... :-(




Glen

    Cindy,
    
    Sorry to see you go, I'm really interested in your point of view.
    
    Nancy

    Re.80
    
    Nancy,
    
    From the majority of your notes, it really didn't appear to be
    the case.  Or, perhaps more correctly said, about the only reason
    it seems you're interested in my point of view is to give you fuel 
    to continue your crusade against things you deem New Age, etc.  
    
    So that's the main reason why I'm choosing to depart...or at least 
    not get actively involved in any further online discussions.  It's 
    not worth my time, nor yours, and it's time better spent in other 
    areas.     
    
    With respect,
    
    Cindy

    Sorry to see you go, Cindy...I've enjoyed the discussion.  I have very
    strong views on this subject, and my notes reflect that.  I hope
    nothing in my notes was taken personally as an attack on you (they
    certainly weren't meant that way).
    
    We really aren't too far apart on some points.
    
    -steve 
    
    P.S.  There are probably several Christians in here that don't totally
    agree with everything I entered.  I tend to take a subject, fill it with
    facts, and try to make a black & white issue out of it.  Doesn't always
    work, but it does show the view at a different angle.

                                                
    Re.82
    
    Steve,
    
    No, I don't take anything personally, generally do not take offense, 
    and didn't take your replies or any others as attacks.
    
    In the end, it comes down to my time and energy, and where these two
    precious resources can be best put to use.  Given the majority of
    replies and comments I've been experiencing recently, I didn't not see 
    that there was much use in continuing.  However...
    
    I'm very glad to see you write that we aren't so far apart on some
    points.  I know that we will probably never agree totally, and that's
    fine.  I'm not looking to convince you to adopt my view.  Finding common 
    ground, standing on it together and continuing the sharing of views from 
    there - that is what is most needed in this world today.  
    
    If you'd like to continue this particular discussion, I'm happy to do 
    so offline.  Perhaps we can find even more common ground, and those are
    the kinds of discussions I will gladly make time for.  
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    I've sent mail to you offline in response to your mail to me.
    
    But I think you must know that I'm not one to waste words or lie,
    therefore, when I say I'm interested you can believe that I am.  Now,
    what I choose to do with that information is another story, but I
    believe that is between me and my God.
    
    Also, I'd like to understand from *anyone* who wishes to take up the
    gauntlet, "Just how do you reconcile New Age practices in Public
    Schools as NON-RELIGIOUS?"
    
    Nancy

New Age is "You are god" Christanity is "God in you". There can never be
reconcillation between those statments.

Dave

    So Dave,
    
    Are you saying because New Age says "YOU are god", that makes it
    non-religious?
    
    Nancy

I am saying that any belief system that does not proclame that Jesus Christ
is the one and only way to gain Salvation and reconciliation unto God is a Cult
and leads to everlasting damnation in Hell therefor is ultimatly non-religious
using the defination of religious as a befief that brings you to an everlasting
relationship with Christ. Other than that, New Age is OK if you are into losing
salvation.

Dave

    Okay,
    
    So by your definition a "cult's" practice is okay in our public school
    system because it is not a religion?
    
    Nancy

    New Age is considered a religion by the latest Webster's Dictionary, though
    it wouldn't make the cut from the definition used by this country's
    founders (the difference is unbelieveable...I'll try to post both
    definitions tomorrow, so you can see how the Bill or Rights can be
    changed without actually rewriting it).
    
    But I digress...
    
    -steve

                 
    Re.84
    
    Nancy,
    
    I don't know what you're talking about when you say 'New Age
    practices'.  So I really just don't know how to reply to you.
    
    If you want to talk of Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other 
    religious practices, then I'm far more qualified to speak on 
    these.  Typically children come from parents who are practicing
    a major world religion (including Christianity), and I can 
    address these issues.  
    
    But to my knowledge, there is no 'New Age' language (like Latin 
    is to Christianity, or Sanskrit is to Hinduism), prayer (the Lord's 
    Prayer of Christianity, or prayers in Hinduism), set of rituals 
    (lighting the candles and sacrament in Christianity or arati in
    Hinduism), religious celebrations (Christmas in Christianity, or Diwali
    in Hinduism) or anything else that would characterize the New Age as a
    religion.  Therefore I cannot respond reasonably to your question.
    
    Cindy

================================================================================
Note 254.71                         Tolerance                           71 of 90
CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy"                54 lines  21-SEP-1993 11:30
                          -< more on the subject... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .70 (Cindy)
    
    I fully understand your stance, as it was similar to what mine used to
    be (I feel God has prompted me to further learn of this country's past,
    in order to help me in my faith....long story).  And I do not think you
    are being anti-Christian, either.  
    
    I find it hard to get past a
    cultural belief that most people in my generation share (not that you
    and I are of the same age...though we could be) that because there are
    so many different religions now a days, that to have even
    non-denominational Christian prayer allowed in schools is unfair,
    unless you give equal time to everyone.  We have been ingrained with
    this train of thought from society from day one (unless you are lucky
    enough to have informed Christian parents...I did not).  It is nearly
    impossible to shake off this yoke.  I didn't until a few years after
    accepting Christ.
    
    First, you have to realize that this basic notion of "equal time" for
    all religions is rediculous.  Why should a nation founded upon
    Christianity have to allow other religious prayer *in schools*, due to
    the fact that non-denominational Christian prayers are allowed?  This
    does not mean that others are not free to persue their religions in
    private schools or churches or at home.  
    
    However, the equal time argument was used effectively to keep prayer
    out of school.
    
    The diversity of religions (most of which don't fit the definition of
    the word "religion" as the Constitutional framers knew it and used it)
    is of no consequence.  The very freedom that Christianity gave this
    country is the reason for having so many different religions/cultures
    to start with.  Why should we compromise our national religion (please
    note the difference between 'national religion' and 'national denomination'
    of Christianity, which is what the First Ammendment was written to
    protect this country from) that made us strong, for other religions?
    To do so, would be to undermine the very freedom that allows such a
    diversity in one country (anyone notice the
    attacks on the BoR over the last 40+ years?).
    
    That is exactly what has happened here.  Christianity is taking a
    back seat today.  In fact, how much flack do we receive today for
    standing against things like pre-marital sex  and
    abortion.  Do you think such things would have happened 100 years
    ago?...50 years ago?  
    
    Popular or not, I will fight for putting Christinity back in the
    driver's seat of this country.  If this does not happen, this country
    will continue on its downward spiral.  This includes prayer in schools
    (note that there never was *mandatory* prayer or Bible reading, and
    there shouldn't be).  
    
    
    -steve (babbling before lunch...) 

of the futhhest reach of my imagination. I believe that we should go back to the
reason schools were founded in the United States and that is for the furtherance
of the Gospel and Biblical based morals. To remove God and the Bible from School
is to remove God and the Bible from our daily life. Without the presence of the
God in school we cripple the next generation of adults to make sound decissions
based on the values of God. The arguement will come that we should be teaching
this in the home and well we should. But another 6-8 hours of reinforcment would
not hurt. Truth is that most Christian homes do not spend the required time
to ground their children in the word. It's a shame but a fact.

Dave

 .73 which announced that .71 was set-hidden has been deleted, and .71
 has been reposted as .something or other.





 Jim co-mod

    Fair question Cindy.
    
    New Age is a culmination of all those religions that you have mentioned
    that purports a UNIVERSALIST belief that god is God no matter who god
    is defined to be or by what belief system.
    
    Therefore, things like visualization and meditation come from numerous
    mid-eastern belief systems but are currently being practiced in our
    public school system where prayer is not allowed.  
    
    I use the term New Age as it represents the conglomeration of
    mid-eastern beliefs.
    
    Nancy

    re: .92
    
    You are absolutely correct.
    
    Do you think it will be long before 'home schooling' is under fire by
    liberal agendas?  
    
    -steve

    re: my .91
    
    The last line should have been changed to :
    
    -steve (reposting his edited note after hours)  ;^)

re .95

	There is legislation being lobbied by none other than the NEA to
stop home schooling. It amazes me that the NEA supports Planned Parenthood
ie Abortion when every 45 abortions done removes the need for one teacher but
gripes when a meger percentage of the students are taught at home. Dosn't make
sence to me.

Dave

 And now with the "Fairness Doctrine" (assuming it passes) radio 
stations will have to balance their talk shows with equal conservative
and liberal viewpoints, which ought to prove interesting for Christian
stations..



To quote John Prine, a non Christian folksinger.."Its a big ol' goofy
world."




Jim

    Is that what Clinton signed today?  I saw him on the news at lunch, but
    couldn't hear what was going on (it was at a deli...lots of noise
    there).
    
    If he hadn't already signed the tax bill, I would say that this is the
    most rediculous thing he has signed to date.  Of course, it will take a
    close 3rd when the health care plan is pushed through.
    
    I would deem this bill UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  
    
    I'm aggrivated now...
    
    -steve

It was claimed that there are no New Age rituals.

This is not true.  There are circle worship rituals used by New Age and
Wiccan practitioners in which prayers are said to the four directions and
to Mother Earth, and in which the New Agers dance and gyrate.

I just read a good discussion of New Age practices in "Ungodly Rage -- the
Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism" by Donna Steichen.

/john

    
    Re.94
    
    Nancy,
    
    But then again, if you talk of Unitarian UNIVERSALISM (my religion of
    choice), then there are people belonging to that religion that don't 
    even believe in God at all, much less the idea that they are God.  
    Therefore, by your definition, New Age doesn't encompass this universal 
    religion either.  
    
    True though, it appears that 'New Age' doesn't encompass fundamentalist/
    orthodox Christianity as you define it.
    
    Cindy

    Re.100
    
    John,
    
    Those are very ancient Native American rituals.  You know, those people
    who were here before the US was supposedly founded as a Christian nation.
    
    Cindy

RE:          <<< Note 254.99 by CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
               -< 1st step in controlling "free speech"! <sigh> >-

   > Is that what Clinton signed today?  I saw him on the news at lunch, but
   > couldn't hear what was going on (it was at a deli...lots of noise
   > there).
    
    
    No.  It hasn't got through Congress yet.  Its a move to counter the
    conservative voice of the Rush Limbaugh types.   

     I think today Mr Clinton was speaking to a bunch of folks about the
     health care program that he and the Mrs are foisting on us (though they
     haven't quite figured out how they are going to get us to pay for it
     yet).    



        
    >I would deem this bill UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  
    
        
    
      Ah, but its politically correct!



 Jim

    Lately the world has an air of intolerance to Christianity.  While I
    don't believe we will experience Satan's persecution in the
    tribulation, I do feel we will experience man's persecution as the time
    draws near.  Get yourself prayed up, bear down, and get used to it
    before our redemption draws nigh.
    
    Mike

    RE: .104 
    
    I agree with you.
    
    Things can only get worse as the world views our stands no longer as
    'old fashioned', but 'stifling' to thier way of life.  We are an
    uncompromising lot, as we must follow God's Word, and most people not
    only don't understand our views, but find them threatening.  
    
    There is no doubt that the intolerance to Christianity will take a few
    interesting turns in the near future.  After all, unbelievers cannot
    let us stand in the way of "progress" and social "reforms".
    
    All we can do is try to bring these people to Jesus.  Nothing short of
    them accepting Christ will change thier ways...or mind.
    
    -steve

254.87

	Cindy, 
		Unitarian UNIVERSALISM by the Bible's definition of
	religion does not make the cut.

>I am saying that any belief system that does not proclame that Jesus Christ
>is the one and only way to gain Salvation and reconciliation unto God is a cult
>and leads to everlasting damnation in Hell therefor is ultimatly non-religious.

	Again this is what the Bible states. I think you need to take this
	matter up with God and ask His opinion on the subject. A simple search
	of the Scriptures will uphold my statments, However paraphrased I have
	made them.

Dave

	I've never noted in here before, and I hope you don't mind my
	butting in, but I would like to comment on the last few notes.

	In my opinion, people aren't intolerant of christians. It's the
	intolerance that christians demonstrate towards people who have
	a hard time understanding christianity or towards people that have
	decided to live their lifes in a different way or have decided that God
	means something different to them.

	Christians place themselves 'out of reach', it's not the other way 
	round.

	Sorry again for butting in, just wanted to say that. Thankyou.

	- Paul.

    
    Paul,
    
     Don't be sorry. ;-) input like that is always welcomed!
    
    Yak

    Paul,
    
    You aren't 'butting in', you input is welcome.
    
    What I think we have is a difference of perception.  Perhaps we could
    discuss this further, as I think discussing different perceptions would
    benefit us all.
    
    [mods...does this subject qualify to be put under this topic?]
    
    -steve

re .107 / .109

Sounds most pertinent to the topic to me.  And taking a useful direction too. 

								Andrew 
								co-mod

    Paul,
    
    I agree I think that your input is important.  Let's reason together.
    
    Nancy

	Thankyou for the welcome.

	Truth is a product of ones perception. I agree. My perception
	is that those Christians who are able to discuss, openly, their
	views and beliefs and are tolerant (that means listen) to others
	are fun to be with. I have some very good friends who are Christians,
	people who I like to be with, we respect each others views and
	circumstances, we have had some very interesting discussions, and we 
	get along fine.

	I have also been preached at and lectured to by other Christians,
	intolerant of questions or thoughts other than their own. Needless
	to say they are impossible people to make friends with. It is their
	intolerance which has decided the depth of our relationship.

	- Paul.

.112
>	Truth is a product of ones perception.

Paul, 
  Your use of the term truth is like the use of the word love.
I love ice cream.

  There are more than one kind of truth.  What you speak of is relative
truth, such as "peanuts are good to eat."  While this may be true for
you, I know some people who can have an allergic reaction to peanuts 
that is life-threatening.

  But there is an absolute Truth, also.  And it is beyond what we perceive.
Reality exists, whether or not our percpective perceive it clearly.
Perceiving reality as clearly as possible is a task many undertake,
and many don't give two shakes of a lmab's tail about.

  In the realm of correct perception of the Truth, you can stand in the road
viewing an oncoming truck and perceive it to be a parked ice cream truck.  
Others perceive that the truck is not an ice cream truck, but a delivery truck
on a collision course.  If the truck does not collide with you, you may
continue to believe it to be an immobile ice cream truck - the product of your 
perception - and therefore your truth.  However, if the truck collides with
you, your perception will meet with reality (actual Truth).

Mark

Re.113, Mark.

	You didn't quite understand me.  Perception is cognitive and involves
	selectivity and interpretation, we agree on this; it's also emotional. 
	Christians believe they perceive reality, the ultimate truth. The word 
	of God is a powerful force but, and Christians tend to forget this, not 
	everybody has had this experience. What were you before you became
	a Christian ? Can you go back and remember this period in your life ?
	Then look at how many denominations and interpretations exist within the 
	world of Christianity. That's selectivity and interpretation at work.
	How tolerant are Christians of differing interpretations ? How tolerant 
	are Christians of non-Christians ?

	God has never spoken to me - at least not that I know of. I haven't had 
	this experience. I've tried to read the Bible and I've read a nice story;
	I didn't understand the half of what I read. I'm critical of the church 
	since I see the incumbent power structure serving the interests of men.
	I see buildings built by men, for men, and filled with riches, by men. 
	I'm tolerant, but critical, of the establishment and Christianity
	since I believe in the freedom to choose.

	- Paul.

    Paul,
    
    I happen to agree with you.  As a Christian, I too, have become
    somewhat disenchanted with all the different denominations.  In steps
    the lead for Mormonism :-)... after all that's exactly the question
    Joseph Smith asked when God told him to forsake all religions and begin
    the Mormon church.
    
    The *one* thing that has kept my faith going is I STOPPED LOOKING AT
    MEN to find God.  Once I took personal responsibility for my
    relationship with Him, life began anew.
    
    Nancy

    Our minister said exactly the same thing yesterday evening. She was
    preaching about the commandment "You shall have no other God but Me"
    and said that sometimes the way we worship can get between us and the
    One we worship. In other words, our procedures become more important to
    us than God.

>        You didn't quite understand me.  Perception is cognitive and involves
>        selectivity and interpretation, we agree on this; it's also emotional.
>        Christians believe they perceive reality, the ultimate truth.

Perhaps not, but I disagree with your broad brush.  Everyone believes
they perceive reality - not the ultimate truth, mind you.

It is an interesting paradox, don't you think, that Christian or not, the 
more one knows the more one knows that he doesn't know?

>and Christians tend to forget this, not everybody has had this experience.

While some Christian have the tendency to forget, or sometimes it is a matter
of audience definition, experience is something that may change perception
of reality.  You say that you have not had this experience; and to be fair,
there are some experiences I have not had, either.  All this means to me is 
that your (and my) understanding of reality is not complete; but because
neither of us has the complete picture of ultimate truth, it does not
correspond that our pictures are equally mystified.

>I've tried to read the Bible and I've read a nice story.
>I didn't understand the half of what I read.

My grandfather has read the Bible more than 100 times.  He understands more
each time he reads it.  He gets *NEW* things from it each time he reads it.
Does this mean he didn't understand the half of it when he first read it?
Yes, and no.  Yes, when you add the number of new things from subsequent
readings.  No, because he understood it where it meant something to him.

Kohlberg stated that man operates on 6 levels of moral behavior.  In each
stage, a person does exactly the same thing, but for different reasons.
(This is not unlike how you can read the same words as me and we get something
different from them, and like my grandfather who still picks up new
discoveries of the depth in the Bible.)  As an example of Kohlberg's
stages, a person chooses not to throw a gum wrapper on the street.

1. The punishment and obedience orientation:  The physical consequences
of action determine its goodness or badness.  I do not throw the gum wrapper
on the street because someone might hurt me for doing so.

2. The instrumental-relativist orientation.  Right action consists
of that which instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the
needs of others.  "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours,"  or "I won't
mess up your street if you won't mess up mine."

3. The interpersonal concordance or "good boy - nice girl" orientation:
Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved of by them.
I don't throw the trash because my environmentalist friend will like me for it.

4.  The "law and order" orientation.  There is orientation toward
authority, fixed rules and the maintenance of the social order. 
I don't do it because it is illegal to do so.

5.  The social-contract, legalistic orientation, generally with
utilitarian overtones.  Right action tends to be defined in terms of general
individual rights and standards which have been critically examined and
agreed upon by the whole society.  "We all know it is morally wrong to
trash the street, therefore I won't."

6.  The universal ethical-principle orientation.  Right is defined
by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen *ethical principles*
appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality and consistency.
"I don't throw this gum wrapper in the street because if everyone did so,
the street would be buried in trash."

In this example, throwing a gum wrapper on the street is defined as a wrong,
and even though people at all stages of development resist trashing the
street, they do so for very different perceptions.  The question is 
whether the person at level 6 has a clearer perception of reality, and 
Kohlberg would likely agree, for he says that all levels are layered on
each other.  In other words, someone at level 5 doesn't trash the street
for all the reasons (in varying degrees) of levels 1 through 5. But a 
person at level 3 cannot act for reasons that someone at level 5 does
(except in very sporadic cases, I would guess, leading toward growth of
the individual).

>        I'm critical of the church 
>	since I see the incumbent power structure serving the interests of men.
>	I see buildings built by men, for men, and filled with riches, by men. 
>	I'm tolerant, but critical, of the establishment and Christianity
>	since I believe in the freedom to choose.

What have you been looking for, Paul?  You will find these things you mention.
I'm not sure whether you're talking generically or specifically when you
refer to "men."

I would also like to hear more of your view as to how you are tolerant
of the establishment and Christianity.

As for the freedom to choose, God is recorded in Scripture as having said,
"I have set before you both life and death; but I would have you choose life."
Yes, we have freedom to choose.

Mark

Note 254.117       

I'll answer your questions but I think you're side tracking the topic, which
is tolerance.

>	It is an interesting paradox, don't you think, that Christian or not, 
>	the more one knows the more one knows that he doesn't know?

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I could ever know everything about
anything but there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are.

>	All this means to me is that your (and my) understanding of reality 
>	is not complete; but because neither of us has the complete picture 
>	of ultimate truth, it does not correspond that our pictures are 
>	equally mystified.

You're leading to an adversarial argument since, if either of us claimed to
hold a clearer understanding or picture of reality, a simple counter attack 
is to say "prove it". Neither of us could which doesn't help the discussion.
My selectivity process (subconcious filters) and interpretation will always
be different to yours.

I'm always prepared to learn something new, I hope that when I'm old and grey 
I'm still learning because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I know it 
all, but learning means questioning, criticising, pushing back, and not 
blindly accepting.

>	My grandfather has read the Bible more than 100 times.  He understands 
>	more each time he reads it.  He gets *NEW* things from it each time he 
>	reads it.

I'm sure he does but you only read the bible 100 times or more if you're 
motivated to read it - I'm not. However, I'm open to learning something new.

>	Kohlberg etc.

Ok. What your saying is that the Bible guides the way to the ultimate truth;
the ultimate reality. It's layer 6. How would you feel if somebody said "no 
it isn't".

>	What have you been looking for, Paul?  

Like most people - answers, comfort, understanding, warmth and a big chunk
of I don't know.

>	I would also like to hear more of your view as to how you are tolerant
>	of the establishment and Christianity.

I respect their right to have a different and perhaps counter opinion to mine
and I try to understand their views. What more would you want to know ?

- Paul.

>>	All this means to me is that your (and my) understanding of reality 
>>	is not complete; but because neither of us has the complete picture 
>>	of ultimate truth, it does not correspond that our pictures are 
>>	equally mystified.
>
>You're leading to an adversarial argument since, if either of us claimed to
>hold a clearer understanding or picture of reality, a simple counter attack 
>is to say "prove it". Neither of us could which doesn't help the discussion.
>My selectivity process (subconcious filters) and interpretation will always
>be different to yours.

Proof doesn't always have to be fully explored.  Preponderance of evidences
is all that is necessary in many courts of law to convict.  It is the human
condition that demand to see, touch, taste and *then* it will make up its
mind.

One might do well to explore just what a subconscious filter is and how
it works and why it works the way it does.  These discoveried might make
us a whole lot less different than you think at present.

>>	My grandfather has read the Bible more than 100 times.  He understands 
>>	more each time he reads it.  He gets *NEW* things from it each time he 
>>	reads it.
>
>I'm sure he does but you only read the bible 100 times or more if you're 
>motivated to read it - I'm not. However, I'm open to learning something new.

Ah, yes, motivation, sometimes also referred to as hunger or thirst.  The
Bible is not much of a document for the unsaved, but for the saved.  It tells
us the Who and why and wherefore of salvation, but by and large, people come
to Christ by invitation more than reading.  Once the invitation is sincerely
accepted, the hunger begins.

>>	Kohlberg etc.
>
>Ok. What your saying is that the Bible guides the way to the ultimate truth;
>the ultimate reality. It's layer 6. How would you feel if somebody said "no 
>it isn't".

Actually, I would say that ultimate truth goes beyond level 6, and not 
obtainable (this side of judgment).  Kohlberg's levels of cognizance was
brought up only to show that perception is limited by cognizance, or freed
by it.  One can see better than another; and one does see more poorly
than another. 

>>	What have you been looking for, Paul?  
>
>Like most people - answers, comfort, understanding, warmth and a big chunk
>of I don't know.

I can dig that.  I am sorry that some of the churches (populated by failing 
individuals) have not been able to provide those for you.  Perhaps, if you
try to be a little more tolerant of people who are also looking for
answers, comfort, understanding, and warmth who fail to give it while they
look for it, you might find more of it.

I have found a lot of answers, but your answers must be revealed to you,
as they were to me.

Mark

Note 254.119

Mark, slow down, back up, and let's go over that again.

You said;

>	It is the human condition that demand to see, touch, taste and *then* 
>	it will make up its mind.

and at the end;

>	I have found a lot of answers, but your answers must be revealed to 
>	you, as they were to me.

So I'm not allowed the luxury of touching and tasting but you are ? Rather
unfair I'd say.

>	people come to Christ by invitation more than reading.  

He's invited, he just hasn't come yet :-) What do you suggest, shall I do put 
out cookies and milk ?

>	Perhaps, if you try to be a little more tolerant of people who are 
>	also looking for answers, comfort, understanding, and warmth who fail 
>	to give it while they look for it, you might find more of it.

huh ! you want to explain this ?

- Paul.
 

>So I'm not allowed the luxury of touching and tasting but you are ? Rather
>unfair I'd say.

I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the situation, Paul.
I think you are allowed the luxuries.  But not everything is dropped in
your lap like an unrolled scroll from the clouds.  Hebrews 11:6b says that
God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.  I have wondered why 
one must be diligent?  Doesn't God want to be found?

>>	people come to Christ by invitation more than reading.  
>
>He's invited, he just hasn't come yet :-) What do you suggest, shall I do put 
>out cookies and milk ?

Is he invited?  Have you asked Him to forgive your sins, repent of (turn from) 
them with the intent not to sin asgainst God, allow God rule your life's
decisions and actions?  Or can it be that you're inviting Jesus to tea time,
to discuss the mysteries of the universe?  

Also, people *come to* Christ by invitation.  Your response indicates that 
you misread that by stating that you invited Christ to come to you.  Examining
the teachings of Christ will show that Jesus often said, "Follow Me."
Yes, he did go to the house of "sinners" and went to where people were, but
the call was always out of those places, ways of life, and sinfulness.

All are invited to come.  Not all come.

>>	Perhaps, if you try to be a little more tolerant of people who are 
>>	also looking for answers, comfort, understanding, and warmth who fail 
>>	to give it while they look for it, you might find more of it.
>
>huh ! you want to explain this ?

Yes, thanks.  Do not take this as ascerbic.  I am simply trying to show you
that the people you criticize are people with needs just like yourself.
And that if we went into a situation understanding this, we would all be
more tolerant of other people's failings rather than being as critical
about them.  

You see, so many people, so many Christians look to other Christians as their
example of what Christianity should be.  A lot of people can't seem to help
that, and you'll find them wherever you go.  Then you'll find a few people
who are a bit different in that they use Christ as the only example of what
a Christian should be like.  No doubt, these people will fail, so you cannot
look to THEM yourself.  I've seen "big" Christians fail and if my faith 
was in them, I would not be a Christian (follower of Christ) today, and
have the self-same criticisms you have expressed.  Those criticisms are not
inaccurate; shamefully, they are all too accurate.  But! reality beyond this
accurate perception encompasses other facets that you cannot see.  And
the criticisms are often the direct result of looking to people for the
definition of Christianity.  Christ is the only example by which any
form of Christianity is measured.  And we will all fall short of that
in varying degrees of maturity, wouldn't you agree?  Many Christians
rue their failings and endeavor to continue following Christ, having
repented of their errors.  (Some do not; these head into a tail-spin,
unless God can reach them.)

Now another friend who came into the conference (remember Conan the Librarian
anyone) said that he was not bound by the Christian ethic of being understanding
of others' failings, so I do not fault you for it.  I was merely suggesting
that tolerance begins somewhere, and it can begin with those we perceive to
be out of touch with what the example of Christ teaches us.

Again, I am sorry that some of the churches (populated by failing 
individuals) have not been able to demonstrate a better example of
who Christ is, to you.

Mark

Note 254.121

Mark, I thought we were talking about tolerance. Why do you have to 
start all this ? You're not confusing me with a Christian are you ?

>	Have you asked Him to forgive your sins, repent of (turn from) 
>	them with the intent not to sin asgainst God, allow God rule your 
>	life's decisions and actions?  Or can it be that you're inviting 
>	Jesus to tea time, to discuss the mysteries of the universe?  

I don't believe this. First up is the question of sin and repentance; what
and when ? Second is that if their is a God there's no way he's got his hand 
in all our affairs. It's your life, take responsibility for it. Nobody will
dig you out unless you do it for yourself.

>	Again, I am sorry that some of the churches (populated by failing 
>	individuals) have not been able to demonstrate a better example of
>	who Christ is, to you.

Then there's no hope for me, huh ?

The rest I'll pass on. Notes can be an exhaustive means of communicating
and work is pressing.

- Paul.

Hello Paul,

I'm glad you've been participating here.  I haven't followed this whole 
discussion though I did go back and review a few notes here and there.

What I would like to add to this discussion is that my understanding of
God has not stayed the same throughout my life.  As I've studied the Bible,
prayed, discussed issues with other people, read books, lived and experienced
things, and pondered on all of these things, my perceptions have changed.
Maybe not dramatically, or even much in substance, but the more I've learned -
the more my appreciation for and awe of God have grown.  And also the
confidence I have in His rulership - that He is able to achieve His purposes -
has increased.  Furthermore, I've become ever more convinced of His goodness, 
love, grace and mercy.  (here's a couple of definitions I like: 
Grace - receiving what you don't deserve, mercy - not receiving what you do 
deserve)

However, the basic thing that has kept me turned towards God is not any of 
these things, or even the issues (or dilemmas) that I listed in, I think, 
note 275.X.  The basic thing that has kept me seeking after God is my awareness
of my _need_ for Him.  Some people might think this a sign of weakness; that
somehow I cannot face life on my own.  But I rather think it is a simply an
acknowledgment of the truth.  I haven't met anyone who could do for themselves
any of the things that God can do for them.  I haven't met anyone who is 
sufficient in all areas of their existence in and of themselves alone, 
or even in conjunction with another human being.  Only God is able to meet my 
needs completely.  And I think that the people that God tends to reveal Himself
to are people who acknowledge their need.  In a way, this is another way of
saying people who repent.  What is being repented ?  Our turning away from God
and not acknowledging that we need Him is what is repented.

As far as tolerence goes, I can no longer accept that those who deny God, or 
who make Him to be something far different than what He has revealed himself
to be through the Bible may be right.  I have come to reject that their 
philosophy or religion may be true, but and this is a big but ... I still 
accept that they themselves have value, relevance, and significance.  They are
human beings like me, just as deserving of being treated with dignity, 
kindness, compassion, honesty, etc.  Not because of their ideas, physical or 
mental prowess, beautiful features, money or anything else including "political
correctness", but because of who their Creator is.

Finally, I'll close with some mention of Ruth.  A beautiful love story about
a woman named Ruth, and a man named Boaz.  Its also a story of God's sovereignty
and provision for those who place their trust in Him.  And it is also a preview 
of what Jesus does for us.  In the story, this is represented by Boaz taking the
role of kinsman-redeemer.  The role of kinsman-redeemer is something that is
possible because of Israel's laws regarding inheritance rights.  Its a way
to restore the lands a family has lost through poverty or whatever, and a way
to perpetuate a family's name.  We've been studying this story in our Bible 
study, by re-looking at the whole book each week with regards to a different 
theme - ie hospitality and generosity, love and kindness, kinsman-redeemer, 
obedience, hope and despair, and symbols in the book.  My appreciation for the
depth of this story has grown over the weeks and I now understand a lot more 
than I did on first reading.

Maybe you'd like to read this story, and we could start a discussion on it,
and try and relate that to our experience of God ?   Yes ?  No ?

Leslie

    Good note Leslie.  I too, love the story of Boaz and Ruth for my
    romantic side and for the symbolism. :-)
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    You and could be looking at the same situation and see entirely
    different things based on our personal biases or personal experience. 
    I submit to you that *tolerance* is subject to that perception.  From
    who's looking glass are you peering as you tolerate others behaviors,
    beliefs, or lifestyles?
    
    What I see Mark trying to do, is find out and substantiate the looking
    glass you represent.  Christians are not known for tolerance of
    ANTI-Christian or Biblical beliefs, lifestyles or behaviors... tho'
    behaviors are subjective.  Our looking glass is through God's Word.
    
    And I'll admit that even that is subjective.. because again our biases,
    our experiences can cloud perceptions as we read scripture.  Therefore,
    one must choose a counselor in this area... which is why you have
    Pastors leading the sheep.
    
    You see some things are VERY CLEAR in the Bible, and some things require
    study [which is why God's word says we are to individually take
    responsibility for knowing the scriptures].  We are to study and show
    ourselves unashamed for what we believe because we can back it up in
    God's word.  
    
    You see God's word says in the MULTITUDE of COUNSELORS there is wisdom. 
    In other words, oftimes we need to set aside our own biases,
    experiences and learn to LISTEN to a counselor.
    
    Now, here's the rub, CHOOSING the counselors.  That is *our*
    responsibility, just as much as is studying God's word. And this is
    where *trust* becomes THE KEY factor in choosing your counselor.  I
    picked a Pastor [who isn't perfect], but am convinced that his sole
    motivation for being in the ministry is to lead people down *right*
    path to Christ and for the restoration of the individual.  I am
    responsible for my choice.
    
    I hope this has made sense to you, Paul.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

	Hello Leslie, Nancy,

	You both proved my point; Christians are not tolerant of anything 
	other than the acceptance of the Holy Trinity and that the Bible is 
	the word of God (we could go on but I'll leave it at that). 100% or
	nothing.

	I accept your stance but what I'm also saying is that because non-
	Christians have not experienced God or Jesus or whatever, Christians
	actually need to show greater tolerance. It's non-Christians who are 
	tolerant of Christians but then, since Christians dedicate 100%, it's
	impossible for them/you to be tolerant of other views. 

>	A beautiful love story about a woman named Ruth, and a man named Boaz.
>	And it is also a preview of what Jesus does for us..

	I'll read it tonight - the book of Ruth, right ? - with that in mind;
	not to placate you, it's sincerely meant. Maybe I'll learn something 
	new, but don't expect too much :-)

	- Paul.

>>	You both proved my point; Christians are not tolerant of anything 
>>	other than the acceptance of the Holy Trinity and that the Bible is 
>>	the word of God (we could go on but I'll leave it at that). 100% or
>>	nothing.

	
	Gee Paul, a sample size of two proved your point about all
	Christians ?  Just how broad is that brush you're painting with ?

	Karen

>Mark, I thought we were talking about tolerance. Why do you have to 
>start all this ? You're not confusing me with a Christian are you ?
>
>>	Have you asked Him to forgive your sins, repent of (turn from) 
>>	them with the intent not to sin asgainst God, allow God rule your 
>>	life's decisions and actions?  Or can it be that you're inviting 
>>	Jesus to tea time, to discuss the mysteries of the universe?  

Not at all.  I was asking for clarification of your words that you 
invited Jesus.  I wonder what you meant by that.  Certainly, I would mean
something different as indicated by my clarifying questions.

>I don't believe this. First up is the question of sin and repentance; what
>and when ? Second is that if their is a God there's no way he's got his hand 
>in all our affairs. It's your life, take responsibility for it. Nobody will
>dig you out unless you do it for yourself.

This is one opinion, to be sure.  My father was in Scotland not long ago
and needed some cash.  He put his ATM card in an ATM over there and
the computer gave him cash in an instant.  If a machine can keep track 
of my father's financial state anywhere in the world, how is it you cannot
believe that an Omnipotent God could be initmately involved in all our affairs.
It might be a good idea to check out 31.* as for the question of sin and
repentence.  If there is an omipotenent, interested God, the what and if
are defined for you.  if you are looking for answers, you may find some
there.

As for it being my life, I agree.  We all will take responsibility for our
actions.  God says, "I put before you both life and death, but I would have
you choose life."  He won't dig you out unless you choose life.

>>	Again, I am sorry that some of the churches (populated by failing 
>>	individuals) have not been able to demonstrate a better example of
>>	who Christ is, to you.
>
>Then there's no hope for me, huh ?

How did you make this interpretation?   I would warrant that there are some
churches that would indeed reflect a pretty good image of Christ and make
you feel warm, etc., unless you really repelled such an effort, which would
call into question whether you were seeking it in the first place.

In human life, there are people at all ages and developmental levels, and
growth takes time for some.  Some are stunted and stop growing.  But when
you focus on others' failings, you will never find the answers.  Jesus
does not fail, and never has.  You don't believe this now, but perhaps
someday you will.

Mark

    What point was proven Paul?  That Christians are intolerant of other
    RELIGOUS points of view?  If you're saying that we are intolerant of
    unbelievers in general that is a BROAD swipe.
    
    Nancy

Hi Paul,

:-(
Perhaps there is a slight communications snafu --- easy to do in notes...
and I guess in any conversation or exchange of ideas. :-(

I was trying to make a distinction between people and ideas.  I want to
be _more than_ just tolerant of people - I want to regard them as valuable,
significant, relevant, deserving of being treated honestly, respectably,
with justice, mercy, and love.  People deserve more that tolerance from
me.  But that does not mean that I need to "value" their religious beliefs 
or philosophies and regard these as just as much true as the one true living 
God.  I do think and respect that people have the right to choose their own 
belief system, but I cannot always validate the belief system they have chosen.
Do you see the distinction that I am trying (probably a little lamely) to 
describe ?  

God is the one thing I am sure about ....  I don't know how many times I've 
let someone else convince me that I was wrong about how to get somewhere, 
or some other unimportant issue (in the relative scheme of things) only to 
find out that I had been right, and had I insisted harder, or perhaps said 
something in the beginning I could have saved us much time and trouble and 
backtracking.  On other occasions, I have been humbled to find that someone
else was right, and I was wrong.  I am content for things to remain that way, 
and to tolerate a great heap of things, but not in all facets of life, and 
especially not in compromising in areas of eternal significance.  About
God, I am sure, and though at one time, I might have been persuaded otherwise,
it is way too late for that now that I _know_ God.  Just you'd like you'd
have a hard time, no - impossible time, of convincing me that my Mom never
existed because I have personally known her.

I am learning not to trade what I know to be the truth out of some need to 
placate other people or out of some feeling of inadequacy (ie. thinking that 
they have some special powers of perception that I do not.)  Oh, its okay on 
the little things, but not in regards to the ultimate question of "what's it
all about - who are we, how did we get here, what will be our destiny ?"
There are a lot of things that our society as a whole finds difficult to be
tolerant of as well - such as child abuse, rape, and murder.  In these cases,
I would think that it would be incredibly wrong for us to be tolerant of these
things.  That's the kind of wrong it would be for me now to put God on a par
with any other object of worship. 

For the most part, you won't find me contributing heavily to debates in topics
like baptism, the Last Supper, end-times etcetera.  Though I do have opinions 
on most of these things, they fall into the catagory one or both of these 
things apply:

1) I am not positive that I have a corner on the truth about them

2) They don't matter in the ultimate significance of our lives or determine our
   destiny - I think they make some sizeable differences, but I believe that 
   faith in God, and acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah is what really impor-
   tant and God will cover the rest even if our thoughts about them are not
   100 % correct.

I'm not going bash you for not believing that God is the Creator of you, me, 
and the universe, and that He loves both of us and wants us to choose Him, 
and by doing so, choose life, but if you want to ask questions about Him, I'd 
be more than happy to share what I have learned.

Leslie

RE: .124
    
>    What I see Mark trying to do, is find out and substantiate the looking
>    glass you represent.  Christians are not known for tolerance of
>    ANTI-Christian or Biblical beliefs, lifestyles or behaviors... tho'
>    behaviors are subjective.  Our looking glass is through God's Word.
    
Nancy, the rest of your text in this note is pretty good, but I think
the second sentence in the above paragraph hits the nail on the head
(which brings us back to the original subject).

FWIW, the "you" in the rest of this note are generic - not directed 
toward Nancy or anyone in particular.  Interestingly enough, the 254.*
Notes have exhibited more tolerance than other notes in this conference.
It would be nice if we could continue the trend & other noters might 
get the hint.
    
    
I have been impressed with Paul's comments and his sincere questions.
I respect his opinions and agree with almost all of what he has said.
I particularly like the way he said it - non-confrontational and sincere.
To be honest, I think we all could use a healthy dose of his kind of
attitude regarding tolerance of other people's beliefs.

As I mentioned @100 notes ago, I think that Christians (particularly)
and those of all religions should be tolerant of each other's religions.
We as Christians should follow Christ's example and love one another
- not just fellow Christians, but ALL people.  This means that we 
respect each other's beliefs - even though they may be contrary to 
our own.  This is what understanding, tolerance, and true brotherly 
love are all about.  Acts 5:35-42 also  mentions that we should be
tolerant of each other's religions.  Sadly, it doesn't happen often
enough.  Also, shouldn't we follow the examples mentioned in the 
Bible regarding loving our fellow man and being tolerant of him?
The Jews & the Arabs are trying to learn to get along with each 
other and are making pretty good progress.  It would be nice if 
we Christians could do the same.
    
I submit that there is one truth and that each of us perceives that 
we have this truth (or have more of it than others do).  I also submit 
that one man's gospel might very well be another man's heresy.  Even 
though we believe that our church/gospel/whatever is the true/only 
church/gospel/whatever, it does NOT give us the right to criticize 
other religions.

In addition to this, we should not apply labels to other people
or their religions.  Some intolerant people claim that because a 
person's beliefs don't exactly match what they personally believe 
that the other people are not Christians - even though the other
people believe in Christ and in the Bible and follow the teachings 
of the Bible.  
    
If your beliefs differ than mine, I don't have the right to say
that you are not a Christian (and besides, it would be rude).
Also, if my beliefs differ than yours, you don't have the right
to say that I am not a Christian.

I believe that almost all people are searching for something that 
they feel is missing in their lives.  I have found it in my church 
and I would venture to guess that other Christians, Muslims, Hindus, 
etc, are satisfied that they too have found what they were looking  
for and are content with what they have.  IMHO, it would be wrong  
for me to criticize a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or other Christian,  
etc about their religion or to push my religion on them.  If someone
honestly wants to know what I believe, I will be more than happy 
to answer their questions.  I have a core belief that no one has 
the right to force their religion on somebody else or to criticize
them for doing what they feel is right - even if they think they
have that one truth/church/gospel/whatever.

Just a thought.

Best Regards,


Frank

>Acts 5:35-42 also  mentions that we should be tolerant of each other's religions.

I think this is a pretty b i g stretch.

Acts 5:35  And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what
ye intend to do as touching these men.
 36  For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody;
to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain;
and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
 37  After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and
drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as
obeyed him, were dispersed.
 38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for
if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
 39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even
to fight against God.
 40  And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and
beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus,
and let them go.
 41  And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they
were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
 42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach
and preach Jesus Christ.

To say that the apostles were preaching another religion is not so, for they
were only expressing what Judaism has ALWAYS looked for: the Messiah.
This is not saying "if any religion be of God, ye cannot overthrow it."
This is saying "if 'Jesus is the Messiah' be of God, ye cannot overthrow
it."  It was not a different religion at all; they were all [Messianic]
Jews - in fact the gentiles didn't come into the Christian religion
until later.

> I submit that there is one truth and that each of us perceives that 
>we have this truth (or have more of it than others do).  I also submit 
>that one man's gospel might very well be another man's heresy.  Even 
>though we believe that our church/gospel/whatever is the true/only 
>church/gospel/whatever, it does NOT give us the right to criticize 
>other religions.

I agree and disagree. Within the Christian community there is debate over
what the Bible has to say, and so men intepret it.  But within the Christian
community, the Bible is still the standard for Truth, regardless of what
anyone preceives to be the truth, agreeing or otherwise.  Therefore, based
on a standard of definition for Truth, one DOES have the right and duty
to distinguish truth from heresy (I'll shy away from an often misunderstood
word, criticize).

>IMHO, it would be wrong for me to criticize a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, 
>or other Christian,  etc about their religion or to push my religion on them.

Thsi depends on what you mean by "push."  The Bible says to "go and teach"
all nations.  I don't see teaching as pushing, but presenting.  If you see
going and teaching as pushing one's religion, then you would stand against
what the Bible says is right to do, or perhaps I didn't read your intent
correctly.  Paul went and debated on Mars Hill, and spoke to them about
alltheir gods, and even a monument to the unknown god.  He proclaimed 
who that unknown God is.  Was he being critical of the other people's gods?
Well, yes, he was; but he was not being beligerant (as I would define pushing).

I think we define tolerance differently, Frank.  You want to believe what
you believe and that's fine with me that you believe it.  We each present
what we understand to be the truth.  Tolerance is not sharing in those
divergent truths, but respecting the person, even while rejecting what is
perceived as not the truth.

Mark

    Frank,
    
    Gamaliel was the person speaking the text you have referenced.  He was
    Paul the Apostles teacher before Paul converted.  Gamaliel was speaking
    from the attitude of agnoticism towards who Christ really was.
    
    This is *not* an example of our Christianity being tolerant of *other
    religions*, but of *other religions being tolerant of Christianity*. 
    
    However, I do believe that ONCE the gospel has been shared in its
    entirety with someone from another religion, while tolerance may not be
    the right word, I do believe that we need to step back and allow those
    their GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CHOOSE, even if in our hearts it hurts.
    
    Nancy

	Well, it's been an interesting chat, thankyou. To refocus the
	discussion, I was responding to the comment made in .105;
    
>    There is no doubt that the intolerance to Christianity will take a few
>    interesting turns in the near future.  After all, unbelievers cannot
>    let us stand in the way of "progress" and social "reforms".

	my feeling was, and still is, that it's the Christian intolerance 
	towards other religions and non-christians which lies at the root 
	of this statement. This, of course, is an nomothetic appraisal; 
	attempting anything of an idiographic nature would reveal, I suspect,
	that Christians demonstrate a varying degree of tolerance and 
	understanding. My brush was never so wide :-) you just judged it to be.

	I can understand your attitude but, and I probably don't need to
	say this, saying that something is an absolute and expecting other
	people to relate to that or accept it, without proof or evidence, is 
	asking a huge leap of faith. I guess that's the whole point isn't it: 
	there is only one truth, all others are false. I'm interested to
	know though, in your opinion, which of these is the right one; 
	Catholic, Presbytarian, Evangelical, Jehovas' Witness, Protestant, 
	The Hour of Power, Mormon, etc, etc. ?

	- Paul

	P.S. I read the Book of Ruth - 3 times ! - it didn't hit a home run
	I'm afraid :-(. I thought it sexist and deceitful but I'd be interested
	to discuss this and gain some counter perspectives. Shall we continue 
	here or would you care to open a new note ?




	

2Hi Paul,

I think the book of Ruth is worth a note to itself.  I've started a base
note in 279 already .... You have to bear in mind the context of the
levitical law, which governed things like gleaning, and the responsiblity
of relatives...  Rather than open up much here, I'll start a new one,
because I'd be interested to know how you come to those conclusions.  At
least - the 'deceitful' one.  Not sure where that would come from! 

� I'm interested to know though, in your opinion, which of these is the right
� one; Catholic, Presbytarian, Evangelical, Jehovas' Witness, Protestant, The
� Hour of Power, Mormon, etc, etc. ? 

Not sure whose opinion specifically you're looking for there, but the truth 
doesn't lie in a label, but in the Word of God.  Each of these is correct 
where it conforms to the Bible.  Each errs where it deviates from the 
Bible.  But then, that's where you were, really, with .125.

Complications arise because we each believe that we specifically reflect
what God intended His church to understand in our doctrinal and practical
stance and attitudes.  If any of us said 'X' is the right one, it would 
only indicate that it was the one we adhered to (without saying all of the 
list is right or wrong).  But I would say that I could happily worship in a 
number of churches which went under different labels, but which held the 
Bible as the ultimate authority.  Equally, attending - and even being a 
member of - one such church doesn't guarantee that one is a Christian...

re your .125, where you say that Christians should show more tolerance -
interesting ... And I would agree, on matters which do not touch God,and 
His holiness.  Paul (the other one, who was an apostle;-), said that we 
should be all things to all men in order to show them Christ in their own 
situation (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).  Not that we should compromise the real, 
important, eternal things of the one and only God, the Creator, but that we 
should live what we believe, that this life is transient, and the material 
world is not where we invest our hearts and treasure (Matthew 6:19-21).

I agree that a lot of us don't live like that.  We live as though material 
health and prosperity were of first importance.  All of us fall into that 
trap to some extent, but that doesn't mean that the principle we fal to 
live up to is unreal.  Just that we're imperfect.  There's a somewhat 
tricky parable around that area in Luke 16:1-15....

The problem lies where the boundary where tolerance becomes compromise.
I can give my small child whatever he asks for, but when his requests 
progress to things which would hurt him, he thinks I'm being unkind, 
because I've stopped giving. The giving would become destruction when it 
goes on to matcehs and knives (ok, so my kids are bigger than me now, but 
they weren't always, and there was a time...).

We can do what the world wants in certain areas, but to pretend to agree
with things which deny our LORD, as revealed through His Word would harm 
our relationship with Him, and represent Him in a false light to those 
around.

The crunch comes where God is real.  If my God claims to be unique; to
provide the answer to eternal guilt, and to be the only way; if I try this
offer and find it answers true in my heart, then, to accept all other
options as equally viable is not only an outward contradiction of my basis
of faith, it denies God's status within me, and loses me my peace, because 
it has denied His holiness, and I am no longer comfortable with Him in 
authority.... (1 Corinthians 10:21-22).

I guess what I'm saying is that if there is an ultimate truth, there isn't 
room for multiple truth.  My God claims to be the only One.  I believe Him.

That's intolerant, in terms of what credence I can give to other beliefs.  
It isn't intolerant in acceptance of people, as people.  All are made in 
the image of [my] God, and as such, are worthy of respect.  I have to reach 
them through love, not by hitting them.  Trouble is, sometimes I forget,
because although I *am* a person, there's times when I'm only a person
still...  We're undergoing sanctification.

							God bless
								Andrew

>        I guess that's the whole point isn't it: 
>	there is only one truth, all others are false. I'm interested to
>	know though, in your opinion, which of these is the right one; 
>	Catholic, Presbytarian, Evangelical, Jehovas' Witness, Protestant, 
>	The Hour of Power, Mormon, etc, etc. ?

There is only one truth.  And that is... Jesus Christ.  "I am the Way,
the Truth, and the Life."

None of the organizations you offer is The Truth, but some of them adhere
more closely to The Truth than do others.  To say that no one has a corner 
on The Truth, you would be [absolutely] correct.  To say that no one possesses
The Truth, and I would submit that you are incorrect.

God enables us to possess or reject The Truth.  And we do so with our choices.

Do you search for Truth?  Or simply say, "there is no [absolute] truth" ?

Mark

RE: .132

Nancy,


>    This is *not* an example of our Christianity being tolerant of *other
>    religions*, but of *other religions being tolerant of Christianity*. 
    
The above sentence bothers me.  Are you saying that other religions should
be tolerant of Christianity, but not vice-versa?  Are you also implying 
that Christian Religions should not be tolerant toward one another?

FWIW, if your answer to either of the above questions is "yes", then we 
are miles apart on this subject.


Best Regards,


Frank

    Define tolerance for me then I can tell you whether or not we are in
    agreement.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    My definition of tolerance is the same as in common usage in the USA.
    I am at work now (in Germany) and don't have an english dictionary
    close by.  As it was your statement, I would appreciate it if you
    would explain how you used the word "tolerant" in your sentences.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    
    Frank

	Hi, Frank & Nancy

	Here are a few definitions from the Penguin Pocket English
	Dictionary:

	Tolerance - 1a) Indulgence for beliefs or practices differing
	from one's own b) the act of allowing sthg; toleration 2) an
	allowable variation from a standard dimension.

	Tolerate - to allow to be (done) without prohibition, hindrance,
	or contadiction.

	Toleration - a government policy of permitting forms of religious
	belief and worship not officially established.

	Just as a comment, (and I hope it helps the discussion) as a
	Jehovah's Witness I am grateful that the government allows me
	to freely practice my belief and worship. Using the golden rule,
	I feel that it is proper to respect other peoples convictions
	without feeling the need to put them down or to forcefully try
	and stop them. That is not to say that I do not show them what 
	the Bible has to say on certain matters. If they feel offended by 
	this, then it is against the author of the Bible and not me. Most
	people do not submit themselves to God's authority, except 
	ofcourse ones own spiritual brother who have dedicated their 
	lives to serving God. One should not tolerate wrong doing of a 	
	spiritual brother if it conflicts with the Bible standards
	especially in the case of gross wrong doing, however if it is a
 	conflict of personal opinion then one should be tolerant of the
 	others viewpoint. Ofcourse, this is easier said than done.

	Phil. 

.139 Phil Yerkess
>        That is not to say that I do not show them what 
>	the Bible has to say on certain matters. If they feel offended by 
>	this, then it is against the author of the Bible and not me.

This is considered an intolerant viewpoint by many.  This can be said
of all of the beliefs of the Orthodox Christian.  

>        ..., however if it is a
> 	conflict of personal opinion then one should be tolerant of the
> 	others viewpoint.

Sometimes, the two statements you made are difficult to distinguish between,
don't you agree?  If I do not tolerate your opinion on the scriptures,
which as a Protestant Christian (me) and as a Jehovah's Witness (you),
I don't, (and you would not tolerate my view of the Trinity, either, for 
example), then against whom is the offense taken?  You, or your view of
the scriptures?

Mark
---------
American Heritage Dictiinary (for cross reference)

Tolerance

1.  The capcity for or practice of recognizing and respecting the opinions,
    practices, or behavior or others.

2a. Leeway for variation from a standard
2b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension

3.  The capacity to endure hardship or pain

4a. Physiological resistence to poison
4b. The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large dose without
    adverse effect.

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

Interesting, but I can find application in every one of these definitions
in regards to [not] tolerating the beliefs of another.

I have Webster, too, if you like.

Mark

I think the question, Frank, is about the degree of tolerance.

If you are speaking of active persecution of any kind, then of course we must
be fully tolerant of ALL people, whatever their beliefs.  But you seem to be
speaking of something beyond that, of "not criticizing" other religions. 
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, tolerance to
the point of "not criticizing" takes a step beyond what Christ called us to.

There's this aspect of exclusiveness to Christianity that I used to find
really annoying, just as you appear to now.  I found it annoying when I
thought it was wrong, and I found it *REALLY* annoying when I began to
suspect that it was right. :-) It would be so much more comfortable and
convenient for us if the Author and Finisher of our faith had said "I am a
way, a truth, and a life.  You may come to the Father by me, or by one of the
many other acceptable paths."  We could follow Jesus, and not be worried
about how other people sought God.  We could be lovingly tolerant "buddies"
with everyone.

But He didn't say that.  He said "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life.  NO
ONE comes to the Father BUT BY ME." (emphasis added).  The rest of the New
Testament affirms and reaffirms that a saving faith in the Lord Jesus is the
ONLY way of salvation.  Now Christ didn't say "No one comes to the Father but
by a proclaimed faith in me before the moment of death," so we can hold out
some hope that in His mercy the Lord has a plan for people to come to the
Father "by Him" but not in a way we can identify.  But that is far from
assured, if not downright doubtful, and we *are* assured that whatever plan
there is involves Christ.

If we take this claim seriously, we *CAN'T* be 'tolerant' of other religions
in the way you suggest, and it would be extremely UNloving for us to do so. 
Suppose a friend truly believed that they could fly, and was going to jump
off a building based on that belief.  Would it be loving to say "You know, I
disagree, but I respect your beliefs, and I would never do anything to
criticize you," and then watch them plummet off the building to their death?
In a very real sense, that is EXACTLY the dilemma we are faced with.

Given a choice, I would much rather be lovingly tolerant.  When I was a youth
group leader, the part I hated was when I had to be the bad guy as the
leader: "It's time to go to bed now," "you can't do that," etc.  I wanted to
be their friend; holding people accountable to anything is a pain, because
you come off as an annoying kiljoy.  But if I loved those kids, it was my JOB
to hold them accountable when it was necessary.  Though we are not in an
adult/child relationship with people of other religions, if we hold the truth
that we think we hold, and if we do love those other people, the only option
available to us is to not be 'tolerant' of where they are.

This only addresses tolerance of other religions.  I addressed tolerance
within the Christian faith in reply .17, which I don't remember you
responding to.

Paul

 Nice note, Paul.



 

>       No disrespect, but I do not consider you as a spiritual brother
>	and as such you hold no obligation to me. But seeing that you
>	have brought it up, yes I do try to tolerate your viewpoint
>	on the Trinity eventhough I don't agree with it

None receievd.  We know the consideration is mutual.  But what you demonstrate
is patience, and not tolerance.  You do not tolerate my viewpoint to the
point of acceptance of it; you merely tolorate it to the point of voicing
disagreement.  And I think this is the rub of this string: to what point
do we tolerate things, ideas, etc.  Paul Weiss did express it adequately.
There is a point at which tolerance is unacceptable, to you, to me, to 
everyone.  So let's not point fingers as the intolerance of Christians
when all we've done is quibble over the point or line of intolerance.

Mark

re .140

	Oops sorry having problems with my new PC.

	.143 is a reply to my deleted reply which follows, confused?
	I wanted to make a quick modification but got myself in a
	bit of a pickle, sorry.

	Mark,


>        ..., however if it is a
>       conflict of personal opinion then one should be tolerant of the
>       others viewpoint.



;Sometimes, the two statements you made are difficult to ;distinguish
;between,don't you agree?  If I do not tolerate your opinion on the
;scriptures, which as a Protestant Christian (me) and as a Jehovah's
;Witness (you), I don't, (and you would not tolerate my view of the
;Trinity, either, for example), then against whom is the offense taken?
;You, or your view of the scriptures?


        If you re-read my reply you should see that the statement that
        I made was in the context of another spiritual brother. No
        disrespect, but I do not consider you as a spiritual brother
        and as such you hold no obligation to me. But seeing that you
        have brought it up, yes I do try to tolerate your viewpoint
        on the Trinity eventhough I don't agree with it. Many are
        born into their religion they don't choose it, should one
        not respect another's upbringing eventhough it might be wrong
        in ones own opinion? (this should answer your question). Rather
        than putting it down, sharing ones faith and hope can help such
        ones to make the right choice.


        Has not religion caused many wars due to intolerance and
        lack of understanding. In fact religion has now a bad name
        due to such intolerance. Also people associate such intolerance
        with the Bible so refuse to take a glimpse at it, what a pity.

        Phil.

	Something to consider, is the good news message one of
	critising another's religion? How likely is one to listen
	to someone who is being overly critical of oneself and ones
 	upbringing?. Surely the aim is to get people to hear the
	good news as well as the proclamation of God's day of 
	judgement, then it's upto them to make the choice.

	Or another way, is ones message one of tearing down rather
	than building up.

	Just an opinion, and I'm not pointing any fingers.


	Phil.

>	Something to consider, is the good news message one of
>	critising another's religion? How likely is one to listen
>       to someone who is being overly critical of oneself and ones
> 	upbringing?. Surely the aim is to get people to hear the
>	good news as well as the proclamation of God's day of 
>	judgement, then it's upto them to make the choice.
>
>	Or another way, is ones message one of tearing down rather
>	than building up.
>
>	Just an opinion, and I'm not pointing any fingers.

It is a good thing, because finger pointers often point at themselves, too.
Certainly the Jehovah's Witnesses criticize other religions with every door 
to door contact they make with a religious non-witness.  To contradict
Witness doctrine with the good news message (other religion, as you say)
is whatever it is you have defined as criticising (or not criticising).
In other words, a JW disagreement with my doctrine criticizes my doctrine.
I wouldn't expect JWs to be tolerant of me in their midst if I espoused
my doctrine at their gatherings.  Would you?

Mark

    Frank,
    
    I think Paul Weiss' note pretty much says what I feel about tolerance. 
    If tolerance means knowing when to allow someone their choice to reject
    Christ, then yes.  If it means ACCEPTANCE, then my answer is No.
    
    And for what it is worth, I do not believe that we are to be silent
    while heretical doctrines are being spewed forth.  But I also don't
    believe the CRITICAL tone is the way to go either.
    
    Nancy

re .147
	Mark,

	Why the last reply?......

;Certainly the Jehovah's Witnesses criticize other religions with every door 
;to door contact they make with a religious non-witness.

	On occassion yes, but...

	Showing people for example Revelation 21:3,4 and giving
	people hope in a depressing world is critising other religions.

	Saying, "Eventhough we have a different religion, we both
	face the same problems. Do you know what answers we might
	have to solve such problems we face?"

	"Did you know that the Bible is a practical guide..."

	Sometimes the Watchtower's are critical of ungodly practices
	and pictures are shown of other religions practices for
	comparison. One just has to say no to such material if you 
	don't want to read it.

;To contradict Witness doctrine with the good news message (other 
;religion, as you say) is whatever it is you have defined as 
;criticising (or not criticising).

	What I meant by critising is putting down, I'm not giving
	any examples or saying that anyone is doing that here.

	Just talking in general terms, this is one of Digital's
	employee interest notes conference, now what should
	go on here? 

	1) The putting down of another religion without considering
	   other Digital employees.

	2) Or the good news (if it contradicts then so be it)

;In other words, a JW disagreement with my doctrine criticizes my doctrine.

	Oh come on Mark, if someone says "I believe XYZ" should one
	be over-sensitive and think they are being critical of their
	religion or just expressing what they believe?.

;I wouldn't expect JWs to be tolerant of me in their midst if I espoused
;my doctrine at their gatherings.  Would you?

	Certainly, but this Digital Employee Interest Notes Conference
	is not quite a church is it?. I do not come here with the
	intention of putting your belief down. In the past I have
	expressed some views on things but tried to be sensitive to
	it's content (likely not to have anything to do with the 
	Trinity), the usual reply is "But you have a different Bible" 
	which in turn leads me to make a defense. I now realise/
	understand that I have no need to make a defense in such  
	circumstances. But it also looks like I should not even express 
	any viewpoint to any discussions, or am I being over-sensitive?.
	This will be fine with me and I'll keep out of any on going 
	discussions, unless perhaps a topic is started about a false 
	truth regarding my religion.

	Arrivaderci

	Phil.

    Phil,
    
    In that while I cannot speak for anyone but myself in this forum and am
    at this moment taking off my moderator hat... 
    
    I do not wish to discourage your viewpoint from being entered. 
    However, if my viewpoint is different, then let us decently and in
    order lay out our justifications of said viewpoint without condescension.
    
    I learn each time a discussion takes place here... geez, I don't want
    to stop growing... sorry, but each time I do become more rooted in the
    fundamentals of the Bible and not in denominations. :-) :-)
    
    Well, FWIW, I can disagree with you and still value you and like you.
    
    Nancy
    

    As a reader of this Employee Interest Notes Conference, I see a high
    skill of debating and faith justification on the part of individuals.
    This to me is a strong tool for learning and as a reader, I strongly
    encourage a healthy exchange of differing viewpoints if time permits.
    Being sensitive is one thing.  Showing therapeutic political
    correctness to me is intolerable!! :-)   
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

.149 (Phil)

>	...any viewpoint to any discussions, or am I being over-sensitive?.

Yes, you are being over-sensitive, Phil.  The point was that using the
word criticism has ambiguity to it, as much as tolerance does.  After
all the [mis]communication, you clarify things thusly:

>	What I meant by critising is putting down, I'm not giving
>	any examples or saying that anyone is doing that here.

However, the general theme of this note has been largely the intolerance
of Christians, who coincidently populate this conference in significant
numbers.

>	2) Or the good news (if it contradicts then so be it)

Defining what is presentation of the good news and "putting down" another
person's faith becomes rather subjective (another point I was making with
my notes).  In .149, you began to parrot some of the very arguments people
in here on the "other" side have always used: 

>        Oh come on Mark, if someone says "I believe XYZ" should one
>	be over-sensitive and think they are being critical of their
>	religion or just expressing what they believe?"

Yet, when XYZ contradicts the truth as you know it, it *might* be construed
as putting down your faith, correct?

Now, with this in mind, we can better come to an understanding as to 
definition of the words tolerance and criticism.  In colloqial meaning, it
generally seems to mean that those who disagree with my view are intolerant, 
but when I disagree with your view, that's sharing my [alternate] belief.
Measuring the colloquial meaning against the actual meaning and we find
that the colloquial meaning falls short because it has been rendered 
subjectively.  (That is, "I define what is intolerant and what is sharing 
the good news.")

>But it also looks like I should not even express any viewpoint to 
>any discussions, or am I being over-sensitive?

Express any viewpoint, but be reminded that the standard by which Truth 
is measured is the Bible.  We wrangle over doctrinal interpretations, 
but beneath this is the Word which is still a firm foundation.  Viewpoints 
that are contradictory will be challenged - that the nature of disagreement.
We can disagree (criticize) agreeably (tolerably).  Can't we?

Mark

After .141 there is nothing left for me to say.  Thanks, Paul.  Wish
I could say it that well.

Lew

    >>> .149 this is not a church<<<
    
    	Phil ,
    
    Believe it or not we as believers are the church  ;^)
    
    
    				Fonz