Today tolerance is being redefined to mean that all views are equally valid and all lifestyles equally appropriate. As such, the notion that Jesus is the only way is vilified as the epitome of intolerance. Rather than capitulating to culture, Christians must be equipped to expose the flaws of today's tolerance, while simultaneously exemplifying true tolerance.
First, to say all views are equally valid sounds tolerant but in reality is a contradiction in terms. If indeed all views are equally valid then the Christian view must be valid. The Christian view, however, holds that not all views are equally valid. Thus, the redefinition of tolerance in our culture is a self-refuting proposition. Moreover, we do not tolerate people with whom we agree; we tolerate people with whom we disagree. If all views were equally valid, there would be no need for tolerance.
Furthermore, today's redefinition of tolerance leaves no room for objective moral judgments. A modern terrorist could be deemed as virtuous as a Mother Teresa. With no enduring reference point, societal norms are being reduced to mere matters of preference. As such, the moral basis for resolving international disputes and condemning such intuitively evil practices as genocide, oppression of women, and child prostitution is being seriously compromised.
Finally, in light of its philosophically fatal features, Christians must reject today's tolerance and revive true tolerance. True tolerance entails that, despite our differences, we treat every person we meet with the dignity and respect due them as those created in the image of God. True tolerance does not preclude proclaiming the truth, but it does mandate that we do so with gentleness and with respect (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16). In a world that is increasingly intolerant of Christianity, Christians must exemplify tolerance without sacrificing truth. Indeed, tolerance when it comes to personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance when it comes to truth is a travesty.
"Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."
For further study, see Paul Copan, "True for You, But Not for Me": Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998); see also Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, The New Tolerance (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1998).
This question has been contributed from The Complete Bible Answer Book - Author: Hank Hanegraaff.
And who the hell told you, that there are no reference point? The reference point is being hurtful or not. And by that reference point, homophobes are immoral, not the gays.
And you know, that statement is kinda ironic, cuz you comparing terrorists to gays, when you're the actual people who advocating to hurt people, which terrorists do...
However, I will attempt to address some of your concerns. Let me point out that many individuals use the word "homophobe" just as anyone who would use the hypothetical word "christophobe". The word homophobe is blankly used simply as an attempt ad-hominem attack or name-calling of anyone who disagrees with the practice of homosexuality. Often it is a word used out of context as absurd as calling a Redaphobe someone who disagrees with Red as a color. More importantly, as Christians, it is should never be us who define what is moral or not -- we have a final arbitrator in the Bible who establishes what practice is immoral or not.
Regarding the statement with Mother Theresa, it was used in a ironic sense, not in a factual one to state that today's redefinition of tolerance leaves no room for objective moral judgments, making such allegations of absurdity.
"every human is guilty" umm, I heard that is was differently in the ancient greek bible, and in the orthodox faith. But I dunno, I'm not christian.
But still I think that morals and tolerance should be based on what is hurtful and what is not, an not on bias.
And plus, not all christians think like this.
And, umm, is it true about 'exodus', and their "reparative therapy" and abusing gays?
There is no difference from ancient Greek, as it relates to the subject of man's depraved state as a general term.
But still I think that morals and tolerance should be based on what is hurtful and what is not, an not on bias.It depends what you mean. Of course, under no circumstance should my opposition to a view be intentionally hurtful towards any other human being, if I profess to be a Christian. However, if I am honest in my difference of opinion towards a particular practice, that does not make me immoral. All the contrary, it would make me hypocritical if I call something I disagree on as if it were. As it relates to tolerance, as stated in the article, "we do not tolerate people with whom we agree; we tolerate people with whom we disagree."
Regarding Exodus International, there are changes in that particular organization. The answers you seek may be found in their own website. One thing I can vouch for is that they do NOT abuse gays but are genuinely interested on helping the homosexual community. Don't believe everything you read in the internet. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for their changes relate to the reality that they are genuinely interested in helping.
The moral standard of ANY Christian is not the one society places on us. It is a BIBLICAL precedent, or whatever God states is immoral. It is the Bible that calls homosexuality as a "practice", sin. I do not dictate what is sin, but God does.
Here's an article, I haven't read all of it, cuz it's so long, but based on it's beginning, it seems pretty good: [link]
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I myself am a Christian - and a Pansexual one at that. I love God like no other and I know He loves me. However, Jesus also said that we should love our enemies, but hate their sin.
If your friend was slitting their own wrist and fully desiring it, would it be more loving to stop them or to let them bleed to death?
Self harming is often caused by unhappiness, to the level of depression, and can be unknown by everyone including the person suffering.
The question is, would it be better to try and let them get help, which may or may not work, or let them end their own suffering, which may or may not help.
That kind of thing is a case by case kind of thing. It shouldn't be compared to being homosexual, not having a choice in that matter, and people being homophobic, or ignorant.
To be honest, if it occurs in nature, which homosexuality does (and this [link] will back me), then it's perfectly normal in humans.
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but if they are going to be that closed minded, then they shouldn't be allow to press that onto a younger generation when the rest of the world is becoming more and more open about things of these nature.
Homosexual activities are self harming. Perhaps not directly, but in effect they are. In both cases they have no choice in how they feel. Human emotions are unstable and often times cannot be trustworthy. I read the main article and it said that exclusive homosexuality is extremely rare and so far only found in sheep. Either, way it is our duty as spiritual and civilized beings to fight against and restrain our own base animal instincts which are by nature selfish and unproductive.
To reiterate, this also applies to heterosexual couples. Heterosexual activity is no more justified or healthy as homosexuality if you take out the reproductive aspect. Reproduction is what sex is there for and it is immoral to use it solely for pleasure regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, although this is only my personal opinion and is not official to my knowledge, I think heterosexuals that use abortion and contraception carry a greater weight of sin than homosexuals.
I am asking no more from homosexuals than I ask from myself. Although possible, it is highly unlikely for me to get married in the foreseeable future. Even if I hypothetically did, it would be with one woman invariable until one of us dies and we would and could not stop the natural growth of children. I practice what I preach and I am indefinitely doing what I believe homosexuals should.
It's a common misconception that conservative Christians are closed minded. We think a lot about why we believe what we believe and we do question it, but there are real reasons for our beliefs that we cannot ignore.
So what you meant is that they are bad parents, I assume. Perhaps it would be best to be more specific and less inflammatory.
Metaphors are as powerful and meaningful as any use of language.
I'm not saying Christians are closed minded, but the select few people, regardless of religion, who are. I was talking about humans in general. And I understand about metaphors, hence why I use them.
Not all natural instincts are selfish and unproductive. If we didn't feel lust, we would not breed. If we didn't naturally nurturer our children, then we would not survive as a race. Fight or flight has saved many lives. What you suggesting is actually the opposite, I've learned this studying physiology. If anything, basic instincts are better than the emotions we feel exclusively, they are what has brought us this far. There is no harm in being who you are, whatever that entails.
And if you believe that you shouldn't expect of others what you don't expect of yourself, then why are we having this conversation? I agree with that.
Lust is natural but when blindly followed leads only to the hurting of others in one way or another. Only in the proper context is it useful and helpful.
Though the taking care of children is a natural instinct, it is lacking when compared to charity which is anything but. The instinct of taking care of offspring only applies to your own and permits tribal warfare and the killing of others offspring. The fight or flight response can lead to the abandoning of others, unnecessary fighting and rage.
Biologically it these things help species survive, but it also keeps them primitive. The idea that these basic instincts brought us this far is flawed. Basic instinct only brought us as far as the iron age (if even that). It was higher thought that brought us the more advanced ideas of civilization from the Greeks which only flourished because of Christianity. It was also in China but that remained separate until recently and is besides the point. Modern civilization is here only because of the 'unrealistic' ideas of self restraint and keeping emotions in-check.
There's harm in being 'who you are' if someone is a sociopath or a pedophile.
I do expect chastity from myself and desire the benefits of it for others.
To be honest, I don't see this conversation going anywhere. So, I'm going to be polite, and say thank you for your opinion, nice to hear a different side of things, and thanks for being civilized.
That's ok, I'm not going to force anything on you. That in it's self is the wrong thing to do.
Good bye, and thank you also for being polite.
Oh, and actually finish you quick statements before you comment on mine.
God loves every one, that is true, but true love does not permit people hurting themselves. Love doesn't mean to let some one do what ever they feel like and kindness does not mean to say everything is 'O.K.' even when it's not. Sometimes doing the right thing hurts.
Sexual promiscuity leads to disease and early death. For the record this also applies to promiscuous heterosexuals.
And there never has been any real proof to that speculation. A lot of people who have only one parent, that doesn't dictate their sexuality, as much as it dictates their gender.
And the point about love. The start and the end of that paragraph are very contradictory. I think I understand what your trying to say but is it doesn't work with the way the world works.
Look, I don't want to start an argument. We clearly have two different opinions, there is nothing going to change that.
Not at all. Love seeks what's best for another and what feels good isn't necessarily what's best for you. Meth feels good, at least at first, but no one even tries to argue that it's good for you. True love seeks only the best for another and there is nothing better than heaven. God's ways are as above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. He asks us to do the impossible and than gives us the grace to do it.
I very much don't want an argument as well and I'm glad you'd like to avoid it also. I only want to help.
The point I was making about the happiness was that you were comparing two very different situations. I agree with what you are saying, you were just comparing two different things that shouldn't be compared. That was all.
Well, if my example wasn't on-topic or accurate enough I can accept that, but my point still stands.
I believe you need to carefully read the journal you have just made a comment:
"First, to say all views are equally valid sounds tolerant but in reality is a contradiction in terms. If indeed all views are equally valid then the Christian view must be valid. The Christian view, however, holds that not all views are equally valid. Thus, the redefinition of tolerance in our culture is a self-refuting proposition. Moreover, we do not tolerate people with whom we agree; we tolerate people with whom we disagree. If all views were equally valid, there would be no need for tolerance."
Two. You're statement is basically the same thing when you break it down as what you are criticizing me for.
We're supposed to love our neighbors, to 'remove the plank' from our own eyes before calling attention to 'the speck in our brother's eye!' Forgiveness is what our religion is based upon!
Here's an example: are you saying that I should hate my sister because she loves another woman? Is that what you're telling me?
Go ahead, call me a false Christian. Your opinion of me doesn't matter to me... I know what I believe, and that won't change.
"This movement has been militantly demanding [...] that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an 'oppressed minority.'"
Pardon my sarcasm, but of COURSE being demeaned, verbally and physically attacked (thankfully, my sister hasn't encountered that kind of trouble, but there's still the future to consider...) doesn't mean you're an oppressed minority! It just means you're savagely attacked! And of COURSE being openly gay makes you an aggressive, militant bastard! ...
And yes, I realize that I'm being a bit unforgiving myself... My apologies for that. =.='
As Christians we are members of society as well... we are aware of the injustices committed against individuals who practice homosexuality. We do not condone injustice and barbarism, and nor does Jesus, even in midst of the obvious condemnation by Scriptures on the "practice". We must also not forget that today's society has equally been unfair and unjust to Christians, simply because we stand to Biblical standards over social ones. Therefore, the injustice is seen in the root of the problem, which is indeed "man" as a whole.
Yes, yes yes yes, we poor Christians always get the short end of the stick, and all that... Must we throw a pity party for our religion? Can't we just tighten our belts, turn the other cheek and be a little patient until the Second Coming? In fact, isn't patience/long-suffering one of the nine virtues of the spirit, along with love and gentleness?
"oh stick with your belief but we all know you're going to hell".
WHAT A BUNCH OF CHARMING PEOPLE.
Personally, I feel no man has any way of knowing who is going to hell or heaven, because only god can see man's hearts.
Subject closed, because I don't want an argument, here. Every time someone keeps bashing at me over controversial issues, it drives me off the deep end, and I'd rather avoid that.
And, didn't I say "subject closed"?