Our country has the mindset of “I’ll believe what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe.” You know: Tolerance (“sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own”). We have come to the point that we all have our own private religions practiced in our own private lives. You have absolutely no right to criticize someone’s religion (or lack thereof). If you do, you will be labeled as a bigot and intolerant.
Bigot: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
Intolerant: “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters” or “unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights”
There are no longer absolute, black and white, rules.
Before I go on, let me give you two very different definitions of tolerance that I have come up with. First:
“Negative Tolerance” — Acknowledging another human’s religion and understanding their right to freedom of religion. You respect their beliefs but do not accept them as truth.
Then we have:
“Positive Tolerance” — Accepting all religions as equally true, and allowing others to worship as they please because you have no right to criticize another’s truth.
“It’s true because I believe it is true,” is the accepted statement of today. The problem with this statement?
Say I believe it is all right to steal from a local gift shop because I’ve donated to it before but I never got anything in return for my services. So I decide I’m going to get my reward. But I get caught in the act. According to the view above, I didn’t do anything wrong. I believed it was fine to steal. It’s my truth, and you can’t say that it’s wrong. So with no moral absolutes, and nothing black and white, we have a society that truly has no law. But the law must be absolute—it cannot change from person to person.
Increased lawlessness results from the view of no absolute truth. Because how can you condemn anyone if you believe in tolerating others beliefs? Yes, a tolerant person must even be tolerant of the intolerant. How can you call me a bigot if, according to your view of tolerance, it’s true if I believe it’s true?
But for me as a Christian, the Word of God isn’t true because I believe it to be true. Rather, I believe it because it is true. The Bible is true whether you believe it or not. There must be absolutes or our society is headed to ruin.
When you accept the view that many ways lead to heaven, you cannot include Christianity. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me.”
Everyone has the right to believe what he chooses to believe. However, I cannot and will not treat other beliefs as equal with The Truth. To do so would dishonor the holiness of God. Yes, you will call me intolerant and a bigot. But then again, I’m afraid the tables turn when you say that. Because how can you be tolerant of the intolerant?
All definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Tim, your article was amazing! For a 14 year old, your logic is flawless and godly. You would make a great and honest lawyer!! You are such a wonderful testimony of your walk matching your talk. God bless you.
Jenifer Clark
Oceanographer
Tim, this is one of the best articles I have ever read! Your logic is completely sound all the way through, and I highly admire, and completely agree with your Christian viewpoint. Great job! I look forward to reading more of your work in the future.
Excellent article! The definition of “Tolerance” has certainly been hijacked and rewritten by some in order to fit a specific agenda.
Articles such as yours are critical for educating others about the TRUE meaning of this word.
With your permission, I’d like to print and copy this to share with the youth I come in contact with.
Keep up the good work, and as another guy named Timothy was told… “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. ” (1 Timothy 4:11-13)
Great job, Tim. I’m thinkin’ that you and I would get along pretty good. It’s pretty interesting reading articles of this sort because it’s so against the flow in our Western culture today (meanwhile, in the Middle-East…).
I’ve actually written something similar. If you’d like a copy, let me know.
Go with God,
David Ketter
Tim, this article is Fantastic
You have put in to words what I know I have been trying to tell so many people but couldn’t get the words together! As a “New Christian” I sometimes find it difficult to say the right thing to unbelievers when they make those all to familiar comments! This is Beautiful! I have forwarded it to everyone I know!
Thank you, you have made my day
Michelle Wyvill
This article is terribly written. I can’t follow the logic at all. What does this statement mean?
“Yes, you will call me intolerant and a bigot. But then again, I’m afraid the tables turn when you say that. Because how can you be tolerant of the intolerant?”
You see, Andrew, if you can’t tolerate intolerance, you are intolerant yourself. Thus, the table is turned.
The logic truly is clear, but you’ve been fooled into believing we can all tolerate each other’s beliefs for so long, it seems murky upon your first reading. Please think it through carefully before calling it bad writing. If you can’t follow the logic, try, try again. It is there.
I just think you guys are playing with semantics. No one has ever suggested that we allow people to “tolerate” murder because someone thinks it is okay to murder. That’s insanity. Society does not have to show “tolerance” to those who breaks rules that ALL REASONABLE people agree are important to the foundation of society.
Evangelical Christians seem to carry this faulty argument to ridiculous ends, arguing that tolerance itself is objectionable, an attack on their morals.
Tolerance means something different to the rest of the world, and I’d love to hear what you find unacceptable about it:
Tolerance is accepting that on some issues, REASONABLE people can disagree about right and wrong. Tolerance isn’t accepting their truth to be yours, but accepting that their opinion is valid and they are entitled to it. Issues such as abortion and the rights of homosexuals fall into this category.
Where REASONABLE people disagree, we must tolerate difference. What’s wrong with that?
Just out of curiosity, who defines “reasonable people”?
Andrew,
I humbly will attempt to explain our reason:
A. We as Bible-Believing Christians get our beliefs, mindset, and worldview from the Bible.
B. When God says that certain things are wrong, we believe that those things are wrong.
C. When the Bible teaches that Murder, Homosexuality, and Abortian(Murder of babies) are wrong, then we believe it is wrong.
D. The last thing Jesus commanded us to do before he left earth was to tell make disciples, and teach people what he had taught. When we proclaim the message of the Bible, we are attempting to do obey Him. Telling people the WHOLE message of the Bible is being honest. Telling people that Murder, Homosexuality and Abortian are wrong is teaching what Jesus has told us through the Bible.
If you have a problem with Christians saying that Murder, Homosexuality and Abortian are wrong, Take your complaint to our Boss. Jesus Christ.
Hope that clarifies it for you,
~Sparky
Derek—Good question, and you’re probably not going to like my answer: We’ll know the reasonable people when we see them. It’s not a black and white issue, there’s a sliding scale here. It’s not reasonable to think that stealing your neighbor’s car is right. But I think we can all agree that reasonable people should lock their cars so they don’t get stolen.
If you think there’s a whole in the gray area, give me a good example.
Sparky—As for you, here’s my simple reply: It’s not reasonable to expect that all people share your religious views, or that all people should be bound by your religious views. You may think that God is against gays, you are welcome to tell other people what you think, you are welcome to abstain from sodomy. But you are not welcome to impose your religious beliefs on me, and change the law to conform to your God, instead of mine. That’s tolerance.
“Sparky—As for you, here’s my simple reply: It’s not reasonable to expect that all people share your religious views, or that all people should be bound by your religious views. You may think that God is against gays, you are welcome to tell other people what you think, you are welcome to abstain from sodomy. But you are not welcome to impose your religious beliefs on me, and change the law to conform to your God, instead of mine. That’s tolerance.”
Christians don’t deny that other people have every right to disagree with them. The problem with tolerance is that it is used to tell Christians that our beliefs “impose” on other people.
There are two levels of imposing beliefs on other people that generally come up. 1) Talking to them about what we think is right 2)forcing them to do what is right.
1) When I tell you I believe homosexuality is wrong, I’m not imposing on you any more than you are on me when you say that homosexuality is ok because you believe it’s wrong. This is our main issue with tolerance—people won’t tolerate our beliefs when our beliefs conflict with theirs. Tolerance is worthless if it can’t tolerate disagreement.
2) Forcing people to do what is right.
This is obviously not the role of the church. God wants people to follow him voluntarily, not out of compulsion.
When this has to be done for the protection of other people, it is the government’s job. The government’s job is not to make people into good people. Its place is not to prevent homosexuality, swearing, drunkenness, etc. just for the sake of doing so. That would be an impossible task. The government only has the right to prohibit actions that hurt its citizens.
So, the question is not whether to impose religious beliefs on people. Every law represents somebody’s religious beliefs, so if we did so we would have anarchy. The question is, when must the government “impose religious beliefs” on people. I believe it must when immoral behavior is a threat to other people.
So, obviously the government protects its citizens from murder, stealing, abduction, etc.
The things we disagree on are things like homosexuality and abortion. Can we tolerate homosexuality and abortion? You have your moral beliefs and I have mine, and everybody’s happy?
This is where we ask the question, do homosexuality and abortion hurt other people? This of course is a very controversial question. Christians argue that homosexual behavior hurts the children that homosexuals raise, and that abortion hurts unborn babies. We are not going to just “tolerate” harm to kids, and people who advocate those behaviors are not going to “tolerate” loss of their “rights.” One side is right and the other is wrong. The side that is right may “impose its religious beliefs” on the other, and when convince, the other side should graciously submit.
Of course, then there is also the issue of how far you can limit homosexuality in the interest of protecting children. Then, there is the fact that Christians believe that homosexuality hurts homosexuals. Should the government protect people from themselves? That seems to be the aim of laws against suicide…
We must address these important questions. But please, don’t fog up the debate with knee-jerk accusations of intolerance and “imposing religious beliefs.”
Andrew,
I’ve posted a response to your comments back on my site.
KM —Thanks for your response, I agree with most of what you’ve said. I agree that we must tolerate dissenting views in every discussion, in fact it makes every discussion more enlightening.
And I can understand how your logic leads you to your position that you must actively protect those who are being hurt by the actions of others.
As I said above, I think these two issues (abortion and homosexuality) are places where reasonable people can disagree. Surely, you can see that I—a normally rational person—believe that homosexuality is not immoral. And I believe that a 2 week old fetus is not a human being. I know you passionately disagree, but can you see that I and millions like me believe these things? Can you agree that this is a place where reasonable people can disagree?
My argument is that in places where reasonable people disagree, abundant restraint is required of both sides. Tolerance for each other’s rights to disagree must be maintained.
Sodomy laws, and laws that restrict the right to an abortion overstep this restraint.
“Sodomy laws, and laws that restrict the right to an abortion overstep this restraint.”
Not if they are protecting the rights of the helpless. That’s why we can’t just agree to disagree on whether a two week old fetus is a human being. A child’s life is involved. I can be tolerant as in, not being mean or vindictive. But I cannot be tolerant as in, you believe what you want to believe and I’ll believe what I want to believe and everybody’s okay. Sometimes the truth is more important than agreement for the sake of agreement.
And that’s the real test, isn’t it? That’s where you take your religious view, and impose it on me.
You apparently agree that millions of people have a reasonable opinion on abortion that differs from yours. But you think your religious view should bind those millions to your judgment. How is that right?
Abortion is murder. Like any other form of murder, how can you expect people to say—”I think murdering people is wrong, but you think it’s fine. I will tolerate what you believe, though, so you can go ahead and murder people, while I will refrain.”
I believe murder is wrong. Suppose Joe Blow thinks he has a right to murder his quarrelsome wife. If I prevent him from doing so, am I not “imposing my religious beliefs” on him?
Every law is somebody’s religious belief. Every law “imposes religious beliefs.” You tell me that if I prohibit abortion, I’m “imposing my religious beliefs.” Well, when a woman has an abortion, she’s imposing her religious beliefs on the baby. If Joe Blow murders his wife, he’s imposing his beliefs on her. Truth and justice are more important than tolerance.
Somebody’s beliefs are going to bind millions of people. We’d better be sure they’re the right ones. I’ll tolerate your believing whatever you want to. But I won’t tolerate the murder of innocent life. There is absolute truth.
“Sparky—As for you, here’s my simple reply: It’s not reasonable to expect that all people share your religious views, or that all people should be bound by your religious views. You may think that God is against gays, you are welcome to tell other people what you think, you are welcome to abstain from sodomy. But you are not welcome to impose your religious beliefs on me, and change the law to conform to your God, instead of mine. That’s tolerance.”
Andrew – Your definition of tolerance is totally deviod of the presupposion that there is a God that created this universe.
If there is no God – Then we as humans get to decide what is right and wrong, what we will tolerate and not tolerate.
If there is a God – Then he is the one who decides what is right and wrong, what will be tolerated and what will not be tolerated.
I understand that not all people share my views, but that doesn’t change the fact that God is the one who gets to make the decisions. The Bible tells us what God loves and what he hates (called sin).
As people that have accepted Christ as our Savior and Lord, we are to follow and obey him. We are to influence those around us to follow the Bible.
This includes the Government, and the laws.
We can understand that people do have other opinions than us in many area’s, but when something is wrong in the sight of God, then we must work to make that wrong in the sight of man.
Andrew, I can tolerate that you have differant thought and ideas about issues. But when those thoughts produce actions that God says are wrong, then it no longer is tolerable. You are intolerant in some areas(Muder, theft, personal injury) but because of differant resons.
The question isn’t about being totally intolerant, but what you will/will not tolerate. I decide based on the Bible.
~Sparky
Jesus is the Only Way
I don’t think you guys are paying attention to my argument, which explains each of these cases:
How many times should I say that REASONABLE people agree that murdering your neighbor is wrong? That’s why such murder is illegal in every country on the planet. (So I don’t buy the logic that every existing law is based on someone’s religious view. I think they are based on understandings of right and wrong that are accepted by REASONABLE people.)
On abortion, REASONABLE people disagree. I don’t think you are unreasonable to think that your God is against abortion. I see your logic. But I don’t agree. My God doesn’t agree. (I know, you think your God is better than my God, but that argument gets us nowhere).
You want your God to make the decisions, I want my God to make the decisions, this gets us no place. So how do we resolve this difference? Simple: tolerance. You live by your God’s rules, I’ll live by my God’s rules.
How else can we co-exist?
It’s funny when you say “I know not everyone shares my views, but God is the one who gets to decide …” Sparky, “God” IS your view.
“How many times should I say that REASONABLE people agree that murdering your neighbor is wrong?”
In other words, murder is obviously wrong because it hurts people, because everybody knows it’s wrong, etc. We as Christians believe you should feel the same way about abortion and homosexuality. They hurt people. So are you going to tell us that we’re intolerant because we don’t want to let people hurt each other?
“I think [laws] are based on understandings of right and wrong that are accepted by REASONABLE people.”
Why is it that everyone all over the world accepts the same laws? I believe it is because God has given us consciences that, to a certain degree, understand the same concepts of right and wrong. There are reasons to obey God outside of what He says in his Word. We can’t outlaw everything He says is wrong, we only outlaw such things when we have practical reasons to do so, like protecting children. For example, it certaily would not be a good idea to make a law that everyone who is jealous has to go to jail.
So we don’t argue that abortion is wrong just because our God is against it. We think you should be against it whether you’re a Christian or not because you have conscience that tells you it’s wrong to kill a baby. In addition, there are little practical things like medical side effects, the option of adoption, and a dying Social Security System. Factors that you don’t have to be a Christian to recognize.
“You live by your God’s rules, I’ll live by my God’s rules.”
This leaves us nowhere. One set of rules is right, the other is wrong. On something as important as children’s lives, we can respect your opinion but we can’t allow that it’s an ok opinion. We have to do something about it.
Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis? I strongly recommend that you read his Abolition of Man. He was a brilliant writer.
I wonder whether it might be helpful to distinguish between two types of “religious” statements.
The first type involves things that can be known only by revelation. That would include any of the distinctive Christian doctrines – that the true God is Triune, that Jesus was the Son of God, that salvation is by grace without the deeds of the law. Here would also fall such things as belief in Allah, or in Zeus, or in reincarnation, etc.
The second type involves morality: Shoplifting is wrong. Cheating on tests is wrong. Breaking your word is wrong. Murder is wrong. All the things to which our consciences testify.
While statements of this second type can perhaps be called “religious” in a broad sense, they are very different from the first type in that they involve knowledge with which we are all born – the inscribed moral law, also called natural law. This natural knowledge includes awareness of the supreme Lawgiver. (Just as creation testifies to a Creator, so conscience testifies to a Judge; this is called the natural knowledge of God. Unconverted man is perfectly capable even of the following line of thought: God is holy; God created me; I am obviously not holy; therefore something went seriously wrong.) Scripture testifies to this awareness of God and his Law (Rom. 1 & 2), but in so doing it is simply affirming what we already know, if we do not suppress what our minds, hearts, and consciences tell us.
The point is that morality is not distinctive to any religion, Christian or non-Christian.
What is so horrifying today is that people are trampling even on natural law. Thus the hope that even if many turn away from Christianity, they would at least live in a way that would make human society reasonably decent and orderly is getting difficult to maintain. The key to what is really happening, is, I think, beyond discovery from merely human resources. The real explanation comes only from God – that He turns people over to the most incredible delusions. See the last part of Romans 1.
Perhaps this is a chance to make another point. Precisely because there is such a crumbling of morality, and such an effort on the part of many to restore moral understanding and moral standards, there is a greater danger than ever that Christianity, which of course takes moral standards seriously (chiefly to expose sin), ends up being equated with the upholding of moral standards. And then Christianity itself has actually vanished! For it has been converted into its exact opposite: from Gospel into Law.
We need to remember that when it comes to standing before God and facing eternity, just one “tiny” sin, even one confined to our thoughts, is just as bad as the most egregious and repulsive violations of the Fifth or Sixth Commandments. And we need to remember that Christianity is NOT a calling for any slightest work of the Law from us (which would leave us all eternally condemned), but the declaration that the price for our salvation has been paid in full by the Son of God, that every last sin has been atoned for by Christ’s blood. “It is finished!” “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” “He was pierced through for our transgressions.”
May all the devil’s efforts to silence the sweet voice of the unconditional Gospel (Good News) come to nothing!
But don’t you see the eternal tug of war this creates for us? If we operate by your philosophy, every time a religion thinks it has found an absolute truth, it will pass a law that binds us to it’s judgment. It will swing back and forth, forever. We’ll spend millions to ban abortion, then millions to legalize it, millions to ban it again …
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (DON’T FREAK OUT) – I can make a case that your brand of Christianity is destructive to children: It brain-washes them from infancy to believe they must deny themselves simple pleasure in this life (the only thing we are guaranteed) for a promise of ambiguous happiness in an afterlife for which there is no proof.
If I believe there is no such afterlife, then these poor children are victims, helpless to break the cycle of life-wasting self-denial. So how can I watch these children harmed this way and not seek a way to make your religion illegal?
Tolerance.
I see that you and your people have a REASONABLE opinion. I don’t agree with it, I think you are hurting innocent, helpless people – but I respect your choice to live that way.
This is the only way a free society can continue. Otherwise it is an endless of cycle of fruitless effort: trying to force other people to live a life they don’t want to live.
Do you see how your argument leads to this argument? Do you see how my argument (for abundant restraint and tolerance) saves us from this cycle?
THAT’S NOT A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF MY OPINION OF CHRISTIANITY, SO DON’T FREAK OUT. IT’S FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, BUT IT’S A CASE SOME REASONABLE PEOPLE CERTAINLY AGREE WITH.
(I will check out Abolition of Man, thanks for the suggestion.)
“If we operate by your philosophy, every time a religion thinks it has found an absolute truth, it will pass a law that binds us to it’s judgment. It will swing back and forth, forever. We’ll spend millions to ban abortion, then millions to legalize it, millions to ban it again ”
Nope. We don’t want to prohibit abortion just because we believe that is is absolutely wrong. The law should not keep changing because you should not need to be a Christian to understand that it’s wrong.
“I see that you and your people have a REASONABLE opinion. I don’t agree with it, I think you are hurting innocent, helpless people – but I respect your choice to live that way.”
#1: So if Joe Blow thinks it’s right to murder his wife, can you respect his choice to live that way? Or how about this…if I think it’s right to pass a law against abortion, can you respect my right to live that way? How much of your life can really be completely guided by tolerance? Don’t you need some kind of higher value that trumps it sometimes? Like doing what is right?
#2: Hindus raise their children in ways that I believe are spiritually harmful to them. I fully respect their right to do so and would not prevent them from it, though I might try to persuade them not to.
Read R.E.’s post, it’s really good and really important to this discussion.
KM -
#1: Passing a law against abortion is not the logical next step after you decide abortion is wrong. The next step is to NOT have an abortion. Passing a law is an extreme step, it’s saying that your judgment trumps all others. That’s a pretty arrogant thought.
#2: “Hindus raise their children in ways that I believe are spiritually harmful to them. I fully respect their right to do so and would not prevent them from it, though I might try to persuade them not to.”
This is my point exactly. If we allow these religious viewpoints to become our society’s laws, then this argument makes perfect sense. And it won’t end until we start eliminating religions. What keeps us from it? Right now you wouldn’t condone outlawing the Hindu religion, but it’s only a step away from the argument for outlawing abortion and sodomy.
Spend your lifetime preaching your version of the truth, scream it from the rooftop and I’ll fight for your right to do so. But when we cross the line into inscribing our religious truths into law, the ballgame’s over.
R.E. – I almost agree with your logic, separating the two types of statements. But you lose me on the second part. I don’t think logic proves this statement, at least not as you mean it: “Just as creation testifies to a Creator, so conscience testifies to a Judge.”
I think it’s at least possible that creation came from a power that wasn’t aware it created something. You have to admit that’s possible, right? Even if you don’t think that’s what did happened, it’s possible that it COULD have happened.
And I don’t think I need a judge to make me an honest person. I don’t believe in Santa Claus anymore, but I still eat my vegetables. I think people should live honorably, whether they get eternal life as a reward or not.
I agree that morality is not a Christian monopoly. In fact, I think morality can exist without religion or God at all. As you said, there are some innate instincts of right and wrong.
But there are clearly well-intentioned disagreements, even among people who try to live morally. And that’s what we’re discussing here: How do you resolve a dispute where reasonable, well-meaning people have opposing conclusions? For me, it has to be tolerance. Abundant restraint.
You may have the democratic might to force your opinion on the rest of the country. But one day, the democratic force will not be on your side. What will you say then, when they outlaw your morals, or your religion? I bet you’ll wish for tolerance.
#1: When is passing a law extreme? I say that it’s extreme when it’s for a purpose other than protecting life, liberty, or property, which is the government’s job. The “arrogance” of passing such a law is nothing compared with the arrogance of ending another person’s life.
#2: “Right now you wouldn’t condone outlawing the Hindu religion, but it’s only a step away from the argument for outlawing abortion and sodomy.”
It’s not. The government only has the power to restrict Hinduism insofar as it is necessary to protect life, liberty, or property.
“But when we cross the line into inscribing our religious truths into law, the ballgame’s over.”
My belief that abortion is wrong isn’t merely religious. It is moral. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is wrong. It’s apparent in the way the world works and in people’s consciences.
Look at it this way. If I were to pass a law banning abortion, it wouldn’t make you a Christian, or a nominal Christian, or anything like that. Therefore, it is not imposing Christianity on you. Laws against murder, stealing, or cheating are the same way. A law abolishing Hinduism, however, would affect your religious liberty.
“I think people should live honorably, whether they get eternal life as a reward or not.”
1) It is impossible to live honorably outside of Jesus Christ. 2) Living honorably is a benefit of Christianity just as much as eternal life is.
Another thought: would it be possible to try to discuss moral law in our country without getting into whose assumptions about God are right? I don’t have a problem with discussing those assumptions, but if we try to discuss too much at once the discussion will get really messy.
(I’m not positive that the discussion would get too messy, I’m interested in your thoughts-both of you).
“You may have the democratic might to force your opinion on the rest of the country. But one day, the democratic force will not be on your side. What will you say then, when they outlaw your morals, or your religion? I bet you’ll wish for tolerance.”
Our country is built on a government that supposedly protects life, liberty, and property. As long as we have that, nobody should have serious problems with the government of our country. But of course, whether it will continue is questionable because of things like abortion.
Thank you, Andrew (and others), for your comments.
At the moment, I should like to venture these thoughts:
1)I most certainly would not go so far as to say that no disbeliever in God as Judge will act morally. I did mean to express the truth that the unsuppressed voice of conscience testifies to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver and Judge.
Denial of his existence starts us down a slope where there is less restraint of immoral conduct.
2)I would agree that there is just as much possibility of creation coming from a source unaware of what it was creating as there is of a computer being built by something unaware of building it.
3)The key disagreement among the posters here seems to be where to draw the line between areas of legitimate disagreement and areas where agreement must be expected. (I doubt whether anyone disputes the need for tolerance—in its place.) I am among those who cannot fathom how abortion can belong in the former category (disagreement permitted). Not only does it involve slaughter of a human being, but it involves the prior slaughter of the fundamental maternal instinct to bring forth a child. If abortion can be justified, I don’t see how any life is really safe anymore.
That said, I am encouraged that you did not dismiss my earlier post as simply “off the wall.”
Something else has just come to mind—the relevance of the slavery issue as a borderline case (is agreement required or not?). More tolerance and less abolitionism would have helped keep things calm in our country. Though uniting north and south under the Constitution was hazardous,perhaps too hazardous, it could have worked in my estimation, the key thing being that the issue involved was not really a moral issue. (I say this, believing that Scripture permits slavery—while of course it condemns bad treatment of slaves.)
Allow the addition of one word to the last paragraph of the foregoing: “... the key thing being RECOGNITION that the issue involved …”
Some thoughts about truth and tolerance:
The light energy wavelength of the visible color green is 510 nanometers. Visible red light has a light energy wavelength of 650 nm. These facts are true and indisputable. There are some people that exist that cannot “see” green light. When green light is reflected to their eyes, they see it not as the color green, but as the color red. For them, green is red, despite the truth that the light entering their pupils is green. It cannot be true that light traveling at 510 nm is both green and red. It can only be one of these two colors and science has proven that the color at 510 nm is green and not red.
Now, those that see green as green have every support in notifying those who see green as red that the latter are not seeing correctly. The green-seers do not “tolerate” that the red-seers see red for green. Instead, they accept that the red-seers see red, when in truth, the color is green. Is that the end of it, then?
No. The green-seers are obligated to explain to the red-seers that there is a difference between red and green and that their eye’s biological and chemical interpretation of green wavelengths is wrong. The red-seers may be disbelieving at first and may never fully understand what green should look like, based on their experience of seeing green as red. In the end, most red-seers, through faith in science of which they cannot verify through personal experience, believe that light energy traveling at a wavelength of 510 nm is green while red exists at 650 nm.
Are the red-seers to be censured for not being able to see green? No, unless they refuse to first consider then believe that their experience in seeing green is flawed and if they refuse to acknowledge the truth that science has proved regarding wavelengths and color. In other words, if they deny the truth of green. Is this just? Yes, because truth, while unpalatable to some, is always just.
Truth – visible green light is 510 nm, no matter how one sees it. Most know this truth, a few do not. Making others aware of this truth is not being intolerant of those who are not aware of this truth. It is simply speaking the truth. Non-believers may insist that seeing red is the truth, but they would be wrong. No amount of passionate debate, hoping, wishing and even sincere believing will ever change the truth about green light.
The reaction to hearing truth is where the concept of tolerance begins. Some will immediately see the truth and believe. Some will gradually see the truth after hearing it several times. Yet others will refute the truth forever. Truth and tolerance are not mutually exclusive. Truth may or may not be tolerated. Tolerance, however, will never reveal truth. One must choose, therefore, whether to seek truth or not. If truth is sought out and discovered, intolerance for untruth is also found. They cannot be separated.
Moral and natural laws are based on truth, whether universally believed and accepted or not. Opposition to laws based on truth is akin to opposing the truths behind the laws. If one chooses not to believe a truth, the law upholding that truth will also be challenged. Until all truths are upheld unanimously by all people, there will always be a clash over the justness of the laws. By its very nature, a law cannot be tolerant of all views. Standing up and speaking out for truths and the laws associated with those truths are not condemnable offenses, though more often than not they are viewed that way by the “tolerant” folk.
Religious truth works in the same way. There is but one true God and one way to heaven. Only one religion makes this claim and it is Christianity. No other religion’s doctrines, including those found in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and occultism, make both these claims. The Judeo-Christian God and the gods of other religions cannot all be the same God or truth, like 510 nm cannot be both red and green light. Like the truth of green light, the Judeo-Christian God is truth, no matter how the rest of the world sees Him. One’s personal experience may make the truth of Christianity difficult to believe, but the truth still exists.
(I happened upon this site and this specific dialog quite by accident. I don’t know when/if I’ll return, but I was inspired to write these comments before leaving. I enjoyed reading the original article and the lively discussion it prompted.)
MT - Here’s the simple difference that you don’t seem to get: Would you suggest that we execute those red-seekers that refuse to believe the “truth” about the green light?
Of course not. That’s my point.
We can have a whole separate argument about whether your knowledge of God represents actual truth. But if you’re not here to discuss it, I won’t waste the time.
KM - I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you saying you think abortion is the biggest thing that undermines our government and our future?
KM - To your earlier post: You missed my point a bit. Your argument against tolerance and restraint allows you to pass laws based on your religious claim that your truth is right and all other truths are wrong. This is what opens the door to the argument that Hinduism should be illegal, and other such radical steps.
It’s not enough to say that you’d restrict it to only protecting life, liberty and property. Those goals are so often in conflict (i.e. the fetus’s life, the mother’s liberty, the father’s property). That too ambiguous.
Your statement that it is impossible to live honorably without Jesus Christ is truly offensive. Look around the world, lots of honorable people living good lives who don’t share your religion. It’s staggering arrogance to think only your path leads to honor.
RE - On point 2: Is your position that nothing is ever created EXCEPT when someone/something intends to create it and stays to supervise it after creation? I can think of a dozen examples of that happening.
On point 3: I think you only have to look around to see that honest, rational people disagree on this point. I know you can’t see how, but you can see that they do. (I don’t want to explain my viewpoint, because I fear that will get us way off topic.) The point remains that where reasonable people disagree, abundant restraint and tolerance are required. When religious truths become laws that bind us, chaos ensues.
I don’t even want to get into the debate about slavery. The fact that God condones it in the Old Testament is reason enough to doubt the Bible’s inerrancy.
Andrew, I don’t understand you at all. It’s pretty obvious you don’t think there is any absolute standard of truth, so then how can you say that anything is wrong? Maybe killing anybody who upsets me is right to me. Who are you to deny that? Just because people have a conscience (funny, where did that come from?) that says killing is wrong doesn’t mean a thing. Maybe some people don’t have that same accusing conscience. It blows my mind how you think it’s okay to kill an unborn child, but that the Bible’s condoning of slavery means it is flawed. Personally, I think it’s a lot worse to suck the brain out of a living human being than to own a slave.
The fact is, without an absolute standard of truth, you have to tolerate EVERYTHING, including slavery, polygamy, incest, cannibalism, or anything anybody wants to do. The only philosophy you can have without an absolute standard is “might makes right.” What makes you think slavery is wrong? The fact that you don’t like it? The fact it doesn’t fit in with your egalitarian philosophy? To you, truth is arbitrary. You’ve made up your truth as you go along. To the Christian, truth comes from God’s Word, and it is absolute. We know why we believe what we believe. God establishes truth, not men. The truth is, God doesn’t care what you or I think of His laws. He just requires us to obey them, and He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe on Christ, “or we shall all likewise perish.”
Truth doesn’t tolerate error. We can tolerate disagreement with others, because none of us are infallible. I can argue with somebody who supports abortion or homosexuality without killing them, but that doesn’t change what God says about those crimes, and that doesn’t mean I think those things are acceptable.
Without an absolute standard of truth, truth is arbitrary, and defined by whoever is strongest at the moment. “Survival of the fittest,” Darwin would call it. That’s the logical outcome of evolutionary humanism, which is the god of modern thought.
I’m willing, Andrew, to consider counter-examples you may wish to provide about creation.
RE - I’m not saying I know how we were created. I’m just saying that sometimes, things are created without an intentioned creator, or with intention but no afterthought.
For instance, I drew an elaborate picture of Washington D.C. when I was a kid, and I haven’t thought about it in years. And the other day, my cat knocked over a vase with flowers – created a HUGE mess – and he didn’t know he created anything, didn’t mean to do it.
The point I was making was simply that creation does not necessitate a creator who cares. Maybe God made the universe and then left. Isn’t that at least possible?
SA - I’m going to think about your note for a day before I respond.
“MT – Here’s the simple difference that you don’t seem to get: Would you suggest that we execute those red-seekers that refuse to believe the “truth” about the green light?”
Nobody is arguing that we should execute people for being wrong. We execute people when they commit murder. We set them straight and protect them from each other when they are wrong.
Your question, Andrew: My point is that as long as the government fulfills its responsibility to protect life, liberty, and property, no one should have to worry about their religious freedom unless their religion tells them to attack life, liberty, and property. Basically, I’m saying that our standard for what can be made law should not be tolerance but it should be protection of those things.
Your second post: You’re missing my point. You argue that I can’t “impose” my morals on everyone else because they come from my religion. 1) why is that worse than morals that come from non-religion, which in reality is its own religion? 2) You don’t have to be Christian to see the logic of my morals. If it’s wrong to impose morals, then we should never pass any laws. Please consider my other standard, stated above. It seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me.
Of course, debate would come in on my standard at some point.
For example: Suppose you agree that homosexuality should not be allowed to endanger anyone’s life or liberty. The argument then is over whether homosexuality does that, and how much we should restrict it to prevent it from doing so. It is now a debate of facts rather than vague values, and is no longer a question of me imposing my religion. This is the standard we should have for passing laws dealing with morality.
“It’s not enough to say that you’d restrict it to only protecting life, liberty and property. Those goals are so often in conflict (i.e. the fetus’s life, the mother’s liberty, the father’s property).”
It seems fairly obvious to me which should take precedence.
“Your statement that it is impossible to live honorably without Jesus Christ is truly offensive.”
I meant it in the sinners that everyone is lost in sin outside of His saving grace. All our righteousness is as rags before Him. Our lives may appear to be honorable, but inside our character is despicable. I’m describing myself.
“It’s staggering arrogance to think only your path leads to honor.”
1) Disclaimer: Christians are imperfect people who will not achieve righteousness until we reach heaven. We make plenty of mistakes.
2) It’s not arrogant because the path is not ours, it’s God’s. Righteousness is possible only in Him. To refuse to submit to his calling is to condemn yourself to physical and spiritual death. Real arrogance is refusing to honor and obey the One who created you.
There are 2 ways to know whether God is still involved in the world he created. 1) He changes people’s lives. 2) You have to step out in faith and believe that He can change your own. When you do that, He will.
“Maybe God made the universe and then left. Isn’t that at least possible?”
Theoretically, it’s quite possible. If God truly sent His Son to earth, it didn’t happen. In the case that He really did send His Son to die for you, you are all the more obligated to honor and obey Him. And you had better be all the more careful to know whether He did or not.
1st sentence paragraph 10: sorry that sentence doesn’t make any sense…take out the words “the sinners” and it should make sense.
KM - “Suppose you agree that homosexuality should not be allowed to endanger anyone’s life or liberty. The argument then is over whether homosexuality does that, and how much we should restrict it to prevent it from doing so. It is now a debate of facts rather than vague values, and is no longer a question of me imposing my religion.”
Please tell me what “facts” would be central to the debate without bringing religious values into it.
SA - I fear your questions get us into an entirely different debate. Let me see if I can answer your questions and still keep it on point.
You are right that my own truth is not absolute. Partly right. It’s not that I don’t believe there is absolute truth, it’s that I don’t believe I have found it. So it’s not that my scale of right and wrong is arbitrary, it’s just that it is evolving.
The main guiding principal of morality in my mind was articulated by Confucius, Mencius, Hillel, Jesus and Muhammad (in that order): “Try your best to treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Percy Bysshe Shelley elaborates: “A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many others; the pleasures and pains of his species must become his own.”
I believe this is a fundamental pillar of morality and of laws, and it is an unchanging principal for me. Slavery, incest, cannibalism and murder don’t fit with this view. That will never change. I don’t think those are arbitrary choices, though I proudly admit they are egalitarian.
I would add a couple thoughts to this:
1) Living virtuously is its own reward. Nothing makes me feel better than doing something good for someone else. Vice is its own punishment. Nothing makes me feel emptier than giving in to my own vices. I don’t need an eternal judgment or the guilt of Jesus’s sacrifice looming over my head to motivate my choices of right and wrong. In fact, there is something more selfish about doing good if your motivation is self-focused (I’m really getting into heaven now!).
2) I don’t expect that I will ever find all the answers to this and many other deep questions in life. And I don’t think it’s important to answer all the questions. What’s more important is to keep asking the questions. The idea that you have found absolute truth in all things, from my view, robs you of a lifetime of honest thought.
So you can see where I find a need for tolerance on issues that are not easily discernible from this moral guide. I don’t believe that “might makes right”, but I believe consensus can be reached on many issues, reasonable people can agree on many things. On many other issues, reasonable, well-intentioned people will arrive at different conclusions. I believe that just society must protect their divergent opinions. Christians live by the Golden Rule, so do Muslims, but their particulars diverge. They are reasonable disagreements, they must both be permitted to exist.
I’m talking about specific measurable facts. Here’s some things that could be investigated.
(I’m not just randomly picking these, they are reasonable considerations because they have proven to be true with children whose fathers are absent.) – Does homosexual influence hurt kids?
– Are they more likely to become homosexual?
– If they do, will it shorten their lifespan?
– Are they more likely to be criminals?
– high school dropouts?
– do drugs?
– experience or inflict domestic abuse?
– teenage pregnancy?
There is also the question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to hurt themselves. I am not sure what the answer to this is. But if suicide is wrong, it is a question we should consider. So we should at least consider the possibility that homosexual behavior damages a person’s behavior.
So, that’s what I mean by facts. Only objective facts about whether life and liberty are being attacked. Those are the only conditions under which the government has a right to intervene.
Let me clear up something on your “1)” in your second post. I agree that living virtuously is its own reward. It does not get us to heaven. We get to heaven because our un-virtuous behavior was paid for on the cross. We live virtuously because we owe it to Christ, and he empowers us to do it. Without him, attempts at virtuous living are failures. Even virtuous acts inescapably are tainted by selfish thoughts, like, “this makes me feel so happy” or “I don’t need heaven to motivate me to do this” or “don’t I look like a good person.” Selfishness is so deeply ingrained in all of us that we simply can’t stamp it out on our own.
“It’s not that I don’t believe there is absolute truth, it’s that I don’t believe I have found it. ”
You’re close. We’re finite beings and can’t find absolute truth. God has taken the initiative to reveal it to us in his Word and his Son. We are responsible for our decisions whether to accept or reject his revelation. Don’t take the choice lightly. It’s the difference between spiritual death and spiritual life free from sin.
Andrew, the flaw in your assertions is that you’re viewing it as a Christians vs. the world situation, which is inaccurate. Abortion and homosexuality are not evils merely in the Christian worldview; even some atheists and agnostics believe them to be wrong, based on an objective, rational, and, dare I say, reasonable outlook.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there’s a 50/50 possibility I’m right. I’m sure you can agree that’s fair, right?
Given that, wouldn’t you say that it’s wisest to err on the side of caution, and go for the least possible evil?
If you accept that, then look at abortion. If you’re right about abortion, and I ban it, then what happens is that people are encouraged to have safer sex, and certain children are given up for adoption, or, at worst, lead deprived lives until the age of majority.
However, if I’m right, and you permit abortion, then countless innocents are being massacred on a daily basis. Which is the greater evil?
Let’s say you’re right about homosexuality, but I ban sodomy, homosexual unions, et. al. A small segment of the population is prevented from enjoying sexual activity in their preferred fashion, and may incur some distress from lack of government sanction for any emotional ties they might form.
However, let’s say I’m right about homosexuality, and you legalize gay marriage. A corrupting effect spreads over the entire society and its attitudes toward unnatural sexual behaviour. Which is the greater evil? (I confess this argument is somewhat less solid than that against abortion.)
Also, I find your comments on the search for absolute truth quite interesting. How will you know absolute truth when you see it?
Further, what evidence would you accept that the Christian God is who He says He is?
Roberto – The trouble I have with the example that you’ve set up is that it’s impossible to know which is the greater evil. There is a possibility that legalized abortion – and fewer unwanted births – have led to decreases in crime, poverty, teenage pregnancy, teenage suicide. These numbers have all been declining in the last 20 years, and an argument can be made that they are all somewhat connected to children born to unfit parents.
I know that argument is unconvincing to pro-lifers, but the connection is at least possible. And of course, without a pro-life mentality, I don’t think of all abortions as massacres of human beings.
So you see that for me, balancing the “greater evil” is a much different equation.
That’s precisely why my argument is – and has been all along here – that in these instances of honest disagreement between reasonable people, abundant restraint and tolerance must rule the day. I still haven’t heard someone articulate a better way to resolve these conflicts without opening us to religious civil war.
(You are right that not only Christians oppose abortions and homosexual civil rights, but you have to admit the great majority who do are Christians. And regardless, there is a clear conflict of reasonable people.)
I don’t know how I will know the absolute truth when I find it. But I suspect that morality and God are in the searching, not in the finding.
KM - I find that interesting, and I’d love to know the answers to all those questions. The hard part of your system would be finding pure, measurable statistics – uninfluenced by other factors. Numbers are so often twisted to the needs of their users, so I doubt we could ever find facts that we’d all agree on. But I do find this solution interesting.
(As a side note, I’d like to point out that those risk factors all increase in children raised in poverty. MILLIONS of them in our own country. I’m not lumping you into this group, but I can’t help but notice how little conservatives seem to do to intervene for children in urban wastelands. It makes me think that this concern for the children of homosexual couples is not really motivated by the needs of children.)
You may not believe it, but I met a guy raised by a homosexual couple. By all measures he seemed to be a completely well-adjusted young man. He remains heterosexual, he’s studying to be a doctor, and he seemed kind and nuturing. Of course, that’s just one guy.
As for my search for truth, I don’t take it lightly at all – maybe that’s evident from our discussion. But the more I study the Bible and the life of Jesus, the less confident I am in its absolute truths. I find too many internal inconsistencies, and I’m troubled by the human effort to frame and define the basic message of Jesus. But I will continue with an open mind.
Andrew, may I ask what internal inconsistencies you are referring to?
That’s an entirely different conversation. Here’s the kind of stuff I’m referring to:
http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dminconsistencies.htm
“There is a possibility that legalized abortion – and fewer unwanted births – have led to decreases in crime, poverty, teenage pregnancy, teenage suicide. These numbers have all been declining in the last 20 years, and an argument can be made that they are all somewhat connected to children born to unfit parents.”
Causality is impossible to determine. There’s been an increase in polluation in the last 20 years as well… but if I decided to attribute such to a decrease in teenage pregnancy, I’d probably be laughed out of the house. The argument “could be made,” but, in the absence of a definite link, it’s just hot air.
Sorry I have been gone for a while, and have missed a lot.
I wanted to draw the discussion back to the original focus:
1. Christians base their decisions for what to tolerate, and in what way, on the Bible. The Word of God is our Absolute Truth.
Andrew, the Bible has stood the test of time for over 2000 years. There are many reasons for our belief that the Bible is truth, but ultimatly it comes down to faith.
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9 KJV
2. Non-Christians in America base their decisions for Toleration based on the current values and thoughts of their society.
Society will change, and so will a tolerance based on society.
1. Slavery now isn’t tolerated, but 200 years ago it was.
2. Polygamy wasn’t tolerated 100 years ago, but it could in the next 50.
3. Smoking was tolerated everywhere (even in state capital buildings) 50 years ago, but is now tolerated in specific places.
4. Abortion wasn’t tolerated 66 years ago, but for 33 years it has not been tolerated.
Andrew, we can debate the particulars of Tolerance all day long (As evidenced by the length of this string) but the main point boils down to this:
Who or What your worldview is based on will influence your tolerance.
As for me, my feet are firmly planted on our rock, The Lord Jesus Christ and his word, the Bible.
~Sparky
Sparky – (Welcome back)
“Christians base their decisions for what to tolerate, and in what way, on the Bible. The Word of God is our Absolute Truth.”
I get this, I’m not arguing against it. I understand that Christians have made a decision to embrace this faith and put their trust in God. You believe God calls on you to live a certain way, by certain rules, and that He takes vengence on those who fail to live by his rules. I believe you have every right to believe this, and I’d gladly fight to protect that right for you.
All I’m asking is that you restain yourself when you reach the point at which your choice of faith begins to bind those who don’t share your faith. That’s tolerance.
I understand that you believe Jesus opposes abortion. So don’t have an abortion. Don’t allow your children to have abortions. Protest peacefully outside abortion clinics. Pray for unborn children. But don’t impose Jesus’s will on those who don’t share your faith in Jesus. Make them think about it if you wish, but don’t change the law to restrict their freedoms based on your choice of faith.
My argument is just that when religious views are imposed as laws, it weakens religious freedoms.
Let me ask this: What do you think is the chief difference between a nation like ours (where many religions and cultures live together in peace) and a country where religious and cultural conflicts erupt almost constantly?
Andrew, just curious. Are you a libertarian?
No, do you think I should be?
Andrew said: “All I’m asking is that you restain yourself when you reach the point at which your choice of faith begins to bind those who don’t share your faith. That’s tolerance.”
That is your level of tolerance. Remember that we as Christains have tolerance, just not at the level that you currently have. We can’t tolerate as much as you do because we believe in Absolute Truth.
Andrew said: “Make them think about it if you wish, but don’t change the law to restrict their freedoms based on your choice of faith.”
In America we have a unique system (from history’s perspective) in that average people can influence our country’s direction.
Andrew, if there is a God that hates sin, then he will judge sin. The entire city of Sodom was destroyed, in part, for sodemy. Once the entire counry of Israel was sent into captivity, in part, because they were murdering their children by sacrifice. Note it was the entire population that suffered the consequence of the actions group did or allowed.
This being said, it is in Christians best intrest to not allow certain actions that God hates, because we don’t want to see our country destroyed.
Andrew said: “Let me ask this: What do you think is the chief difference between a nation like ours (where many religions and cultures live together in peace) and a country where religious and cultural conflicts erupt almost constantly?”
The reason is very simple: America was founded on the premise that CERTAIN rights were given by God to every human, and couldn’t be taken away by man. The right to BELIEVE what you want, and to worship in a way you want were part of that premise. However, the right to do whatever you want wasn’t part of that premise.
~Sparky
I won’t restate my argument again, even I am getting tired of hearing it.
But let me ask you a question about your “Absolute Truth”. Christians in our country once used the same scriptures to argue that we need to hunt down witches and burn them at the stake. Christians once pointed to the scriptures as proof that God endorsed slavery. Add to this the fact that the Bible sends a lot of mixed messages: It tells us that divorce is okay, and then Jesus says it’s not okay, and he compares it to adultery. And adultery, God tells us in the Old Testament, is punishable by execution. Add to this, the fact that some of the issues we’re discussing (like abortion) aren’t spoken of in the Bible.
How, then, are you all so certain about these Absolute Truths?
“But let me ask you a question about your “Absolute Truth”. Christians in our country once used the same scriptures to argue that we need to hunt down witches and burn them at the stake. Christians once pointed to the scriptures as proof that God endorsed slavery. Add to this the fact that the Bible sends a lot of mixed messages: It tells us that divorce is okay, and then Jesus says it’s not okay, and he compares it to adultery. And adultery, God tells us in the Old Testament, is punishable by execution. Add to this, the fact that some of the issues we’re discussing (like abortion) aren’t spoken of in the Bible.
How, then, are you all so certain about these Absolute Truths?”
An excellent question.
First of all, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6
The word of God is pure.
Second. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15
The word of God must be properly divided. That ability comes from studying the word of God, so that you can be workman for God. The end result is, “Rightly dividing”
Third. “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16
There are hard things in the Bible to understand. That is why we have to study it. Andrew, there are answers to every argument you brought up about the Bible, and I will answer each of them in the next post.
The next logical question of course is: How do we know the Bible is true?
This is good, because this is where the heart of the matter of Tolerance lies. If the Bible is true then there are certain things as a people and government that we can’t tolerate. If the Bible is false, then we are free to come up with our own standard, and Christians are really wrong on our view of tolerance.
~Sparky
“But let me ask you a question about your “Absolute Truth”. Christians in our country once used the same scriptures to argue that we need to hunt down witches and burn them at the stake. Christians once pointed to the scriptures as proof that God endorsed slavery. Add to this the fact that the Bible sends a lot of mixed messages: It tells us that divorce is okay, and then Jesus says it’s not okay, and he compares it to adultery. And adultery, God tells us in the Old Testament, is punishable by execution. Add to this, the fact that some of the issues we’re discussing (like abortion) aren’t spoken of in the Bible.”
1. “hunt down witches and burn them at the stake”
You are correct in stating that the Bible is very clear about the fact the God says he doesn’t like Witchcraft, or witches. And this is one thing that wouldn’t be tolerated in a country that followed the Bible. But like I said before: I’m not the one saying this, this is the Bible, God is the one who gets to make the calls.
2. “as proof that God endorsed slavery”
See my post above for the verse that talks about rightly dividing the word of God. Slave owners that owned slaves had a bias toward dividing the Word of God in such a way that slavery was permitted. But the first commandment of God (Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself) directly contraticts slavery.Not only that, but the Bible does NOT ENDORSE slavery.
3. “the Bible sends a lot of mixed messages”
A. Divorce is OK, then Jesus says it’s not, compares it to Adultery
First of all, one example cannot be called a lot. Again, the Bible must be rightly divided. From the beginning of the world, God created marriage as between one man and one woman for life. The law of Moses, which was from God, allowed divorce for certian reasons. But today as Christians we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who very plainly tells us that divore is wrong, with a couple of exceptions. This isn’t a mixed message, this issue is very clearly spelled out through the Bible, you just have to study it.
4. “And adultery, God tells us in the Old Testament, is punishable by execution”
Like I said, we are no longer under the law, but under Jesus Christ our Savior. The law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. God created marriage as between one man and one woman, for life.
5. “Add to this, the fact that some of the issues we’re discussing (like abortion) aren’t spoken of in the Bible.”
That one of the reasons why we know the Bible is true. It was written 3500-1900 years ago, but is still applicable today. The message of the Bible can be applied to any culture, and to any “new” thing that comes along in history. Like killing babies with Doctors. The Bible very clearly says that killing another human is wrong. Killing is unauthorized murder. God is the only one who can authorized the death of humans, and he has given guidelines for GOVERNMENTS, not individuals to follow. Killing unborn humans isn’t one of those catagories.
The next logical questionis: How do we know the Bible is true?
~Sparky
Sparky – 1) So you think it’s okay to burn people we suspect of withcraft? I thought that period of our history was widely regarded as an embarassment. How does that fit with “Thou shall not kill”?
2) I, of course, agree that slavery is an abhorent violation of the great commandment. But the Bible seems to endorse it all over the place. Exodus is filled with rules on how to treat your slave, and none of it is very nice. (Read Exodus 21). And even in the New testament, Jesus is quoted speaking flippantly about slaves (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5-6).
This is a great example of the lack of “Absolute” truth in the Bible. There’s nothing absolute in this ambiguity. If God had a truth to tell us here, he missed his chance.
3&4) So is your position that just the New testament is inerrant, perfect truth? If not, how do you decide which things in the Old Testament still apply?
5) But see, to me, this is proof that the Bible ISN’T absolute, because it fails to give us clear direction here. You have read God say “Thou shall not kill”, and you think he’s talking about abortion. But he doesn’t say abortion. And while you fight abortion, you kill animals for food and clothing.
This isn’t absolute at all. This is murky and gray.
Sparky – 1) So you think it’s okay to burn people we suspect of withcraft? I thought that period of our history was widely regarded as an embarassment. How does that fit with “Thou shall not kill”?
2) I, of course, agree that slavery is an abhorent violation of the great commandment. But the Bible seems to endorse it all over the place. Exodus is filled with rules on how to treat your slave, and none of it is very nice. (Read Exodus 21). And even in the New testament, Jesus is quoted speaking flippantly about slaves (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5-6).
This is a great example of the lack of “Absolute” truth in the Bible. There’s nothing absolute in this ambiguity. If God had a truth to tell us here, he missed his chance.
3&4) So is your position that just the New testament is inerrant, perfect truth? If not, how do you decide which things in the Old Testament still apply?
5) But see, to me, this is proof that the Bible ISN’T absolute, because it fails to give us clear direction here. You have read God say “Thou shall not kill”, and you think he’s talking about abortion. But he doesn’t say abortion. And while you fight abortion, you kill animals for food and clothing.
This isn’t absolute at all. This is murky and gray.