kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (02/22/90)
Kenneth J. Kutz writes about `intolerant': > >It is my prayer, that those who feel the Bible is worth daily reading >(Acts 17:11), and inevitably come to the same level of intolerance the >Scripture writers had, to remember the words of Paul. To correct weak >convicted people with a spirit that is compatible with the patience our >Lord showed to us in our rebellion prior to coming to Christ. I personally do not consider myself to be on Paul's level; where he spent a bit of his writing time arguing against theological error, I spend a bit of my reading time going over what he said. There are many people who do likewise, and who interpret his words differently; it would be rather arrogant of me to claim that it must always be the others who are mistaken. Given that I know I am fallible, it would be foolishness for me to insist that everyone must agree with my reading of Scripture. Which brings me to my next point... >It is also my prayer that those who rate "tolerance of contradicting >beliefs" higher than their own, that they capture the spirit of >"intolerance" found in Holy Scripture and to begin to "fight the good >fight" by "earnestly contending for the faith, once for all delivered >to the saints" (Jude 3). I don't mean to disappoint you, but there have been many times when I have found myself to be mistaken. If I had been as intolerant as you are telling me to be, I would not have listened to others who knew more than I did. Additionally, there are many people who think that my beliefs are wrong, and I am occassionally treated poorly as a result of it. I personally hope that those who think I am mistaken will at least treat me with respect -- am I to deny them that same consideration? >Apostasy begins with the toleration of error. Don't misread me, but this sounds like it came right out of the Spanish Inquisition... kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls." -- Paul [It seems to me that there has to be some intermediate position possible here. I think everyone realizes that in principle they could be wrong. However there are some issues where critical values are at stake and the issues seem clear. In such cases, we may well feel called to take a clear stand. Consider the Barmen Declaration from the German Confessing Church during World War II. This is a very uncompromising document. It says in no uncertain terms that Christians may not compromise the Gospel of Christ for nationalism. Somehow it would never occur to me to criticize the authors of that document for being intolerant. Is it just that I agree with them? I guess it possible that intolerance is exactly the same thing as being prophetic and standing up for important values, except that you use the term intolerance when you happen to disagree with the guy's values. But I had hoped for some better distinction. What I'm looking for is a way to characterize intolerance that is independent of whether I agree with the values being expressed, and which leaves room for things like the Barmen Declaration. --clh]
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (02/22/90)
It seems that intolerance is the only mortal sin these days! I somewhat agree with the referenced posting that we can't let cultural norms prevent us from asserting that there is truth and falsehood, good and evil, etc. The problem comes when we as Christians seem to be saying that we POSESS good, or truth, or whatever. On the one hand, we should remember that one of the strongest psychological drives is the drive to justify one's self; it seems to me that much of the ``sinfulness'' of intolerance lies in its refusal to allow people to freely indulge in wishful thinking in this area. On the other hand, we must remember that as Christians, we have declared moral bankruptcy. We have given up our claim on self justification, and any justification, rightness, wholeness, goodness in our lives is external, that is, from Christ. Thus as Christians we identify with unsaved, rather than condemn them. Jesus himself, the perfect one, said that he came not to condemn but to save. I have always enjoyed the ironic comparison between the Pharisees and Christ in Mark, where the Pharisees come from the marketplace and scrub furiously to remove all the pollution and corruption they have been tainted with there, while Christ goes to the marketplace and heals, cleanses, and frees those he finds there. Two different forms of righteousness: one is, by its own admission, tainted by contact with evil; the other overcomes and removes it. -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
us277492@mmm.serc.3m.com (Arthur T. Manning) (03/01/90)
in Article 1088 of soc.religion.christian: howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes >I find it difficult to understand the spreading of a message of Love when the >terms employed are those of Conflict. The perception of ourselves as warriors >for God, rather than emmissaries of love is mis-guided in my mind, and >does not particularly serve us well in seeking our god. I re-iterate that >in so far as intolerance alienates us from each other, it is inappropriate. >I can not tolerate intolerance (now there is a fine little paradox for you :-) I find Scripture to use terms of 'conflict' regarding the Gospel in many places (I Cor 5:13,9:26; I Tim 5:20,6:12; 2 Tim 4:2,4:7; Tit 1:13,2:15; Jude 3 ) . The "message of Love" also contains the message of condemnation of sin. Romans 5:8 "For God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." We are also to contend for the Faith in humility (2 Tim 2:24-26), but to speak out against error none the less. -- Arthur T. Manning atmanning@mmm.uucp / 3M Center 518-1 \____/_________ St Paul MN 55144-1000 __ , / _ __ __ \ ph. 612 733-4401 / / / / / / / |