|
Post by Gene on Jul 20, 2007 14:05:43 GMT -5
[Imported from the "Exes Hate 2x2s" thread] Dear Diet Coke, Two opposites cannot both be right. Exes and 2x2s do not believe the same things. If they did, there would be no exes. We would still be going to meetings. What you are proposing is irrational logic. What you probably would like to see is more tolerance shown to one another. I would, too, If there were really some tolerance going on, there could be honest dialogue. As it is, most people have to use pseudonyms on the internet because they know if they put their own name on their posts, their friends and relatives would reject them. "Classic tolerance" is when people disagree on something important and they have a respectful dialogue with one another, expressing their side of the story as best they know how. It has to be an important issue, moral issue, legal, political or religious issue in order for tolerance to be necessary. If it were just a matter of preference as in the case of food, decorating or cars, tolerance wouldn't be necessary. After both sides have discussed the issues and continue to disagree, they show tolerance to one another by respecting each other, giving each other space for their view, even though strongly disagreeing with one another. They don't kill each other, call each other names, or do things to harm one another. They respect one another as human beings, created in the image of God. If the issue is so radically harmful such as the desire of some people to be able to kidnap, steal, rape or murder men, women or children without legal restraint, that is a different issue. For some ulterior reasons, non Christians have led people to believe that "tolerance" is claiming that all religions lead to God, or that every person's belief is equally valid or good. And the media, cults, and liberal politicians, homosexuals and witches want Christians to shut up and allow them to teach everyone that every religious point of view is personal preference and equally right, equally light. They say if you think or say someone or something is wrong, then you are intolerant. If God believed that, why on earth would He have come to die to pay for the sins of men? If there were no hell, then all this discussion would not be necessary. But Jesus said more about hell than any other person in the Bible. There is a hell. There is right and wrong. The Bible does have real meaning. The workers have subverted the meaning of scripture by changing the definitions of words and by symbolizing nearly every topic. By doing so, they have led 6 generations of people astray. "Contemporary media-run tolerance" tells us that Christians don't have the right to talk about truth, because Christians claim there is only One Truth: Jesus and His Word. Liberal politicians, college professors and deceitful people want people to think that Christians are intolerant to claim that Jesus is the only Way to the Father and entrance to heaven. The workers claim that the WORKERS are the way to Jesus and Jesus is the way to the Father. They have inserted themselves into the position of deity, even though they would deny that is what they have done. They claim that attending their meetings is necessary in order to get to God. That is making imperfect humans dependent on other imperfect humans in order to gain salvation. That does not give the Father, Son or Holy Spirit any glory. The "Contemporary kind of tolerance" is immoral because it stops people from going through the educational dialogue which is necessary to stop deceitful people from destroying people's lives, morals and souls. Scripture commands Christians to defend sound doctrine and to confront false teaching whenever it appears. Something is either true or false. False things cannot be true. Darkness cannot be light. Tolerating ideas is not the same as tolerating people. We can be intolerant of an idea while still being kind and respectful to a person who holds that idea. Rejecting people's behavior does not mean that we reject the people. People are fond of saying "Don't push your morality on me." If they say that, you can simply ask "Why not? Aren't you pushing your morality on me?" People who object to Christian view of truth are relativists who want to believe that their views are right and the Christian view is wrong. But don't pretend or think that opposites can both be true. Hi Kathy. I really like your treatise on tolerance on the “Exes hate the 2x2s” thread. I’ve never read such a clear description of what “classic tolerance” is—and what it is not. I also appreciate your statement, You wrote further down that I cannot speak for others, but I can speak as one of those homosexuals that you refer to, and I would like to comment on the issue of “harming one another.” First, I do respect Christians’ right to believe as they do and to conduct their lives accordingly, and while I may disagree on many points, I certainly have no problem ‘tolerating’ both the ideas and the people who adhere to them as long as they are not harming others. However, when it comes to some Christian’s (and others) words and actions regarding homosexuality, in my view they cross the line from personal belief to—actually—harming others. This happens in at least two ways, which I will describe in a moment. But before I state those two points I want to be clear that my intention here is not to change your mind or alter your beliefs, but simply to provide another point of view. For that reason, I would respectfully ask that you—just for a moment—suspend your belief that homosexuality is: a) a choice, b) something that can be cured by God, or c) okay as long as the homosexual does not ‘act’ on his homosexual feelings, and d) immoral, and e) resulting in eternal damnation. I used to believe all those things, and therefore I think I can say that I truly do understand your point of view. I just ask that you make an attempt to recognize—not agree with or even respect—my current point of view. So here goes… 1. When young people who are struggling with their homosexual feelings are told by Christians that giving in to those feelings will result in a horrible life, AIDS and eternal damnation, the results are often catastrophic: Confusion, self-loathing, alienation from God, ill-advised marriages, and self-harm through myriad means. 2. Christians (and others) in the U.S. actively promote legislation that limits the rights and responsibilities of gay people, and imposes civil, social, and financial hardships. Now I know that in regards to point one, Christians feel that their efforts in preaching against homosexuality are to stop the destruction of peoples’ lives, morals, and souls, as you put it in your post. But do you see that from another point of view, this is not an issue of morals and souls, but rather a matter of freedom to live as one chooses without undue hindrance from others? And as for point two, I understand that Christians believe they are acting to prevent the decay of society. But do you understand that to this homosexual, it seems an awful lot like other people trying to make me live my life in accordance with their religious beliefs and punishing me when I fail to do so? In peace, Gene
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 20, 2007 14:55:58 GMT -5
This is relativist reasoning in itself. If you can feel free to push your morality on someone else merely because you perceive them to be doing the same thing to you, you have not claimed the moral high ground but rather attained an equal level of dogmatism.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 20, 2007 15:01:18 GMT -5
mrleo, you're looking pretty sexy these days...
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 20, 2007 15:04:37 GMT -5
Yeah - I should probably find a less provocative avatar...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 20, 2007 17:06:39 GMT -5
Yeah - I should probably find a less provocative avatar... please do...
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 20, 2007 17:18:57 GMT -5
I don't know, mrleo--I'm a bit concerned. I think I'm catching a glimpse of your bun, and as we all know from the "why I cut my hair" thread, the bun should not be visible from the front.
Tsk, tsk.
But I still think you're hot.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 20, 2007 17:26:42 GMT -5
fmofthe2x2s - I'm working on it...stay tuned. lol, gene - right back atcha!
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jul 21, 2007 13:20:48 GMT -5
Gene, there is something that I've been wanting to ask you, though it may not be appropriate. I don't have a good feel for your version of Christianity.
It seems to me that Paul is very vocal against homosexuality. We can try to soften it, or we can try to misdirect it, or we can try to find little loopholes, but the bottom line is, for me, the Bible teaches against homosexuality.
So, what's your take? Mine is simple: This is an example where the Bible is not perfect; Paul's teachings are hurtful on this subject and we should grow up a little and discard those teachings. But most people prefer to think of the Bible as something inspired directly by God and therefore every letter is to be revered.
This reverence of outdated morality, of course, leads to intolerance. Kathy cannot be blamed.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 21, 2007 18:18:09 GMT -5
Coke, I think your question is very appropriate. And I have had this same discussion with many a gay Christian who has a way of explaining Paul's writing in such a way that it does not condemn a mutually committed, monogamous same-sex relationship. And they may be right in their explanation.
My preference, however, is to take the writings attributed to Paul exactly as they appear -- that homosexuality is sin. I think that is erroneous teaching, and one of many areas where the bible does not serve well as a guide for living. I do not believe the bible is perfect. I think some of it is great and reflects strong standards of morality and ethics. But there is much that we would do well to either ignore or counter in the interest of improving our world.
|
|
|
Post by confused1 on Jul 21, 2007 18:30:46 GMT -5
But there is much that we would do well to either ignore or counter in the interest of improving our world. So you are saying that we can pick and choose what we want in the Bible depending on whether or not it works for us?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 21, 2007 18:37:41 GMT -5
Why limit yourself to just one book? I would recommend picking and choosing from a larger number of books than just the bible. Shakespeare would be a good start. "Old Turtle", a children's book, is a good one too.
|
|
|
Post by recentarriver on Jul 21, 2007 18:55:40 GMT -5
I don't know, mrleo--I'm a bit concerned. I think I'm catching a glimpse of your bun, and as we all know from the "why I cut my hair" thread, the bun should not be visible from the front. Tsk, tsk. But I still think you're hot. Yes you probably should change your avatar because I detect the fake bang look too. (hot or not) RA
|
|
|
Post by confused1 on Jul 21, 2007 19:05:33 GMT -5
Why limit yourself to just one book? I would recommend picking and choosing from a larger number of books than just the bible. Shakespeare would be a good start. "Old Turtle", a children's book, is a good one too. Then would I be correct to assume that you do not think that the entire Bible was divinely inspired?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 21, 2007 19:10:06 GMT -5
That's correct.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jul 21, 2007 20:27:29 GMT -5
Gene, at what time did the thought run through your head..."wow, I don't think the Bible is perfect after all"? Did it shake your world, or was it simply time for that revelation to come gently? Did your gay lifestyle prompt that thinking, or were there several other concurrent thoughts that contributed to your awakening? And were you sad or relieved to discover that there was no perfect/divine instruction for how to live life on earth?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 22, 2007 5:12:12 GMT -5
Coke, I was still in the work when that thought started running through my mind, and the gay question was only one of many. Several things that Paul wrote about were always questions in my mind: women's hair, women being silent in the church, subjugation of women in general, men's hair (I have never understood how 'nature' teaches that it is a shame for men to have long hair), etc. Then there's the old testament. Wow. There is so much horror in that book attributed to the will, direction, and acts of God that it simply leaves me with no alternative other than to say that no divine being with whom I would ever want to associate myself could POSSIBLY have inspired those writings!
(As a side note, as little people reading and hearing those OT stories from early youth, I think we become inured to the misanthropy of the OT to the point we gloss over it. But go back and read it again as if you had never heard of it before, and it can be pretty gruesome. Got a rebellious, drunkard son? Report him to the elders so that they can gang up and stone him to death. Child-rearing 101, by anonymous-writer-playing-god.)
Of course there are timeless truths in the bible too. Love joy peace longsuffering gentleness goodness faith meekness temperance. How can you go wrong with that? If that were to be the guide to one's life and to one's reading of the bible (and the daily news), then I think one would have a life of meaning and contentment.
Ultimately this view of the bible has been a source of comfort for me--certainly not sadness. Truth is not bound between two black leather covers any more than it is the sole purvey of followers of Irvine. To accept that the bible may not reflect absolute truth about an issue is to realize that one must actually contemplate the issue; consider the motive and consequence of an action; consider the issue against the backdrop of greater good for humanity rather than simple compliance (or noncompliance) with a rule found in an old book.
Perfect/divine instruction for how to live on earth? I do not really think it is a mystery to any of us. I believe in the basic goodness of people. Sadly, organized religion with its books and creeds often clouds our innate knowledge of right and wrong. Think of the tremendous waste of mental, emotional and moral energy spent on the question of length of hair for women! If those verses had never appeared in the bible, one wonders if the question would even exist. What a pity.
|
|
|
Post by Supporter on Jul 22, 2007 14:22:21 GMT -5
Beautifully written. Well said Gene.
|
|
|
Post by my view on Jul 22, 2007 14:33:15 GMT -5
Beautifully written. Well said Gene. I agree. I've been watching this board for a few months now, and I think that Gene is easily one of the more impressive individuals here. Sometimes I think it is a pity that some of the people here may never open their hearts and minds enough to see this - but Gene seems perfectly okay with this. That's cool.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jul 22, 2007 15:27:31 GMT -5
Gene: I think you just summed up thoughts that I hadn't quite formed, yet. Thank you! Juli
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jul 23, 2007 11:12:53 GMT -5
This thread fits in with some thoughts I had recently on the difference between tolerance and compassion.
The word tolerance it is not in the KJV at all. It does appear a few times in the NIV but always in a somewhat negative way- as in tolerating something that was wrong.
Compassion is a whole different thing. It is found many time in the bible and denotes a deep care and love for the sick, suffering downtrodden, misunderstood or weaker person.
Every time Jesus showed compassion on someone- they went away a changed person. So what good would tolerance have done?
Jesus showed us over and over the wonderful example of compassion. But he never tolerated things that were clearly wrong in the sight of God.
Tolerance is the twin of compromise- they seldom change anything.
Whenever I am doing wrong I love tolerance because it means I don't have to change.
May we all have compassionate toward those who are sick (spiritually) and suffering from choices they have made that they now need divine help and healing from.
I-more than anyone need the compassion of others- but please don't ever do me a disfavor by tolerating the wrong in my life.
Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jul 23, 2007 11:48:56 GMT -5
I-more than anyone need the compassion of others- but please don't ever do me a disfavor by tolerating the wrong in my life. I am in agreement, HFA! However, the problem will remain so long as we refuse to grow spiritually by continuing to align our "tolerance level" with the Bible. Tolerance of gay lifestyles is just one example.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jul 23, 2007 12:25:26 GMT -5
I find it interesting that people who are living a lifestyle that is in conflict with the Holy Word of God- come to the conclusion that the Bible is not totally correct.
This has been how Satan has worked right from the very beginning when he said "Hath God said"?
This goes way beyond tolerance OR compassion- but to the very root of the problem- no faith in God's written word.
And if we cannot agree that God's word is true- then no amount of tolernace or compassion is going to bring unity is it?
Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 23, 2007 13:41:59 GMT -5
And if we cannot agree that God's word is true- then no amount of tolernace or compassion is going to bring unity is it? Love, HFA Unity in faith -- no. Unity in many other matters is still viable, though -- unless your faith disallows it. Does it?
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jul 24, 2007 10:50:09 GMT -5
And if we cannot agree that God's word is true- then no amount of tolernace or compassion is going to bring unity is it? Love, HFA Unity in faith -- no. Unity in many other matters is still viable, though -- unless your faith disallows it. Does it? Gene, What did Jesus mean when he said that even our own homes may become divided? Father against son etc. True faith in Jesus ONLY will bring division with all others who do not believe. But the beautiful thing is that this same faith will bring wonderful fellowship and unison with others who believe and have like precious faith. Are you suggesting that if I am not in unison with all men this means my own faith is weak or incorrect or mis-placed? If so, I'm confused on that one. I pray that my faith would allow me to show compassion on all men-regardless of who they are. Tolernace is not the answer. It is like a house of cards-like two people "putting up with each other"- like North and South Korera. Peace, HFA
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 24, 2007 14:07:31 GMT -5
I guess 'family values' is a relative concept (no pun intended) amongst True Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 24, 2007 14:46:44 GMT -5
Hope, I believe that people can be of different faiths (i.e. religions) or of no faith at all, and still be united in very worthy pursuits. For example, they can work side by side to assist orphans, or to provide shelter to abused women, or to comfort those who are sick.
I am not suggesting that a lack of unison OF FAITH with others means that your own faith is weak or incorrect or misplaced. But I would say that inasmuch as religious pursuits cause division between people for no moral or ethical reason-- indeed no reason other than a difference in one's definition of God, then that religious pursuit is detrimental to humanity.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 25, 2007 7:07:44 GMT -5
Gene, as much as I appreciate (and in fact, sometimes downright admire) your friendliness demonstrated on this board, and your promotion of unity between people, I cannot in good conscience condone your lifestyle, your beliefs, or your statements regarding the Holy Scriptures of God any more than I can stand idly by without making at least passing comment.
[Gene Wrote] I do not believe the bible is perfect. I think some of it is great and reflects strong standards of morality and ethics. But there is much that we would do well to either ignore or counter in the interest of improving our world.
The problem with all such statements is that of final authority. If the Bible is not divinely inspired and inerrant (hypothetically speaking), and if there is error taught in the scripture, who is to determine which parts we should recieve and follow, and which parts we ought to reject? Who is to become our arbiter of morality and ethics, and what individual among us will define the content of our moral and ethical code?
You assume, Gene, that there is a self-evident standard of morality already established. I am afraid my standard of morality will be quite different from yours, for I believe that the definition of goodness is in the Lord God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (for there is no truth found in any other).
And although I wish no personal or bodily harm to homosexuals as individuals, I would eagerly embrace government legislation that promises to end homosexual parades and the concept of homosexual marriage. And this desire is informed by my standard of morality and ethics.
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Jul 25, 2007 10:47:44 GMT -5
I have really enjoyed this thread. Thank you, Gene, for starting it.
I don't think tolerance has to affect anyone's morality. Maybe Glory in Truth and Gene will not ever come together in terms of morality or issues of faith, but they can certainly tolerate each other - and, I feel, it is important to tolerate each others beliefs.
I don't know if I'm making myself clear - but I'll try with a little illustration. I've been married to my hubby for 12 years. If Gene and his same-sex partner choose to get married - what does that take away from my own marriage? Will I love my husband less? No. Will my husband and I have a less fulfilling relationship from that point on? No. So I guess I don't understand the driving need to have the government regulate Gene's morality for him, or deny him rights based on MY morality. THAT is tolerance.
Just think - if the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis could all realize - "Hey! My neighbor's way of worship in no way degrades my own way of worship, nor does it take away from the richness of my own beliefs" , then maybe there would be more peace in Iraq. (Though, of course, I'm sure the issues are more complicated than that - but it would be a start.)
In any case - I can be as moral as I wish. I can be as Christian as I wish. That is determined between myself and God. It has nothing to do with my relationship with Gene - as long as I show him love and compassion.
It is clear that Gene knows and understands what the Bible says about his "Lifestyle choice". It is clear he is not going to change regardless of who disapproves or condemns his "choice". It serves no useful purpose to continue to show "compassion" by pointing out that God condemns his "choice." If you really feel that his "choice" condemns him to hell - then live your moral code, let him live his, and God will decide in the end.
Now - I keep using Gene - but certainly, you can substitute a number of people/ideologies/lifestyles in here. In fact - every time I say "Gene" you can substitute "My brother". And the one place I used "Glory in Truth" you can substitute "My grandmother." Their tolerance allows them to have unconditional love for each other- though I'm sure Grandma prays daily for my brother to morph into a heterosexual. (Not gonna happen! It's not a "choice").
Anyway , thanks again, Gene, for starting this thread. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself "out there" to encourage a discussion on our tolerance of those different from us.
PS - Glory in Truth. Be careful what you would willingly legislate. To deny "gay parades" can then be used to deny "million men marches" and "World Trade Organization protests" , anything related to abortion (For or against), Women's rights parades, protests against police brutality, etc. . . . To deny one group can lead to denial of all groups - virtually everything offends SOMEONEs moral code.
|
|