Tolerating religious intolerance

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
 


Yes, I'm certainly still baffled.

One, because your "conditions for love" argument is just arguing semantics. When people talk of unconditional love, the supposition is that Person A would never permanently and absolutely deny Person B. I was under the impression that "agape" was an ideal trait in Christians, but whatever.

As for your position on equality, well... I guess it was too broad from the start. Regardless, surely there are certain types of equality. Surely you stand for legal equality? Formal equality? Equal civil liberties and basic human rights for all? Come on, you're on ATS mate!

If people aren't equal in ability, socio-economic class, ambition, etc., does that make one superior to the other? Is one more worthy of life than the other?

I asked the questions of sheer curiosity and was genuine. Snark and condescension are unbecoming IMO, so don't take this post with the pitcher of salt you did with the other one.

As such, I'll ask one more question. If I have no real potential for change (why capital letters btw
), then aren't you condemning me on God's behalf? What kind of Christian are you? Not only is it rude to assume people's futures like that, it's darn right troubling since I know where you think I'm headed.

P.S. I don't think my beliefs are superior to yours. They just make more sense on a personal level. So, equality under the law, yes?


Now how did I know that this was going to turn into a discussion all about me. Do you really think I'm that interesting or do you just need someone to look down on?
I don't consider myself a Christian, the fact that I have to mention that time and time again kind of proves to me what I said about stereotypes, people feel that because I tend not to speak with flattering words that I'm not what they feel I'm supposed to be, whatever.
There is a difference between judgement and condemnation, which of the two words do you suppose is more likely to fall under a less taboo word known as discernment? Therefore I would use the word Judge in place of Condemn on that little question about saying things on God's behalf, now whether or not God agrees with me is up to him and not me since I personally don't know what will become of you after your death.
Because believe it or not, person A (God) would infact eventually deny person B (sinners) into paradise.

"If people aren't equal in ability, socio-economic class, ambition, etc., does that make one superior to the other? Is one more worthy of life than the other? "
bing.com · Bing Dictionary su·pe·ri·or
1.higher in quality: above average or better than another in quality or grade
2.better than others: surpassing others in something such as intellect, achievement, or ability
3.higher in rank: higher in rank, position, or authority than another

In a word, yes.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


Need someone to look down on? Don't play the martyr. What is there for me to look down on? I'm not your garden-variety Internet atheist.


Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. You don't believe in religious tolerance, and this thread is about tolerating the intolerant.

Sorry if you were offended by my calling you a Christian, but you do seem to accept Jesus as your saviour. Christians are followers of Christ, right?

In any case, you're right. It's likely we'll never agree on anything, especially with your witty little dictionary quote at the end. But see, I recognise your right to have the views you do, and say the things you say (even if it is abhorrent) without legal repercussions.

That's what I, and several others would consider tolerance. What do you have against that, to be more on topic?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
 


Need someone to look down on? Don't play the martyr. What is there for me to look down on? I'm not your garden-variety Internet atheist.


Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. You don't believe in religious tolerance, and this thread is about tolerating the intolerant.

Sorry if you were offended by my calling you a Christian, but you do seem to accept Jesus as your saviour. Christians are followers of Christ, right?

In any case, you're right. It's likely we'll never agree on anything, especially with your witty little dictionary quote at the end. But see, I recognise your right to have the views you do, and say the things you say (even if it is abhorrent) without legal repercussions.

That's what I, and several others would consider tolerance. What do you have against that, to be more on topic?

Martyr? I kind of thought that's the card you were holding when you suggested that I might be condemning you on God's behalf. Thank you for clearing that up.
I'll let the words of the bible determine whether I am worthy to be saved.
I've already explained my stance on tolerance, you may want to read it again.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


Well, that certainly would help, except for the fact that it doesn't. The definition of tolerance in the text you provided is more akin to acceptance. It's a typical straw tactic against "political correctness" (e.g. not being a jerk when you say something), not employed by you but the article. If we define tolerance as we have in my previous post (i.e. acknowledging freedom of choice and speech), then what is your problem with it?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
 


Well, that certainly would help, except for the fact that it doesn't. The definition of tolerance in the text you provided is more akin to acceptance. It's a typical straw tactic against "political correctness" (e.g. not being a jerk when you say something), not employed by you but the article. If we define tolerance as we have in my previous post (i.e. acknowledging freedom of choice and speech), then what is your problem with it?


I suppose you're right, in a sense. We do have freedom of choice, but those choices are not limitless and freedom of speech has it's limitations as well.
I think that people who are free should have standards and limitations, they're usually known as laws, statutes and commandments, and I don't think that I'm the only one who thinks this obviously.
According to the bible, God's laws are eternal, His will is to be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
I'd like to share a few verses with you if you'll allow me.
2 Peter 2:19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”

James 2:12
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,

James 1:25
But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

The law that gives freedom, is the law that sets people free from sin. The truth sets us free, Jesus came into the world to set people free from their sins, and a consequence of being set free from sin is that one is free from the consequences of sin. Some people mistakenly think that legitimate Christians are sinners who magically are free from the effects of their willingness to sin until death. The truth of the matter is that there is never a cause to no effect. We either gather or scatter abroad. We are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.

Regarding a believer's freedom: 1 Corinthians 10:23
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.

Regarding an unbeliever's freedom: Jeremiah 34:17
“Therefore this is what the Lord says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the Lord—‘freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Cause and effect. Now what do you think, should people only be made aware of the cause, with disregard to the effect, even go so far as to say that the effect does not exist? There are people, on this site even, who seem to be seriously want to believe that reality is just an illusion, that life's just like some videogame where you die and damn the consequences because there are no eternal consequences for losing a videogame.

When harmful effects come from cigarette addiction or drinking and driving or stealing or anyother abhorrent activity, are people horrible judgemental fear-mongering control freaks for giving warning to folk who take on precarious undertakings?
Honestly I'm reminded of this verse when Jesus was addressing those who wished to become students of his:
Luke 14:28 "But don't begin until you count the cost. For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it?
Even Jesus gave warning to his followers to look before they leap, he wouldn't have told people to follow through to the end if it was impossible for his followers to be tempted to give up. Buildings usually are made with the help of blueprints, but if anyone doesn't have what it takes to build according to the blueprints, those blueprints will still exist.

Matthew 11:16-19 "To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 'We played wedding songs, and you didn't dance, so we played funeral songs, and you didn't mourn.' For John didn't spend his time eating and drinking, and you say, 'He's possessed by a demon.'
The Son of Man, on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and other sinners!' But wisdom is shown to be right by its results."

John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn't know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.

Luke 5:31-32 Jesus answered them, "Healthy people don't need a doctor--sick people do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Hopefully you can understand the gist of all this. Any more questions feel free to ask.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ihavenoaccount
 


By the way, I'd like to admit that I appreciate conversing with you, your words are quite lucid, and I didn't think so at first but you seem like a person slow to anger and I genuinely appreciate you encouraging me to explain things further, which to me is a sign that you do care more than others about truth.
I'm sorry for assuming that you made up your mind to disagree with me from the start. Maybe you did, but thanks for prodding anyway. It's better than indifference.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


No worries, it was fated to be a misunderstanding given the nature of debate on this forum!


But likewise, your perspective has been very insightful - it's easy to forget how I used to feel concerning Christian theology and its application to everyday life. In all context, your reasoning is well and truly on point, but for now I think I'm well beyond subscribing to it. Who knows, that could all change one day.

I have to say though, thanks for sticking with me and going into more detail. Someone else might of assumed I was trolling, being rude or otherwise disingenuous, but you carried on. Seriously, thank you.





top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join