Christian intolerance shows they are not Christian

[rnmomof7]

I see what you are saying, I think though His saying "neither do I condem you" has some room in the discussion?
...and a better person for it I'm sure!
tulc(who's working on the second cup of coffee, but they are really big cups!)

That is a separate issue.

The question is not does God through Christ forgive sin .. the answer is a loud YES .

The question is does God tolerate sin , is it just another lifestyle to God?

The answer there is a large NO

If that were so Jesus would not have told her not to sin again.

I think we have gotten confused between the forgiveness of God and the concept of tolerance for sin.

BTW I just did a personal study of that scripture .
If you look at levitical law, you see that one needed to have an accuser to be put to death (3 actually) . So Jesus was saying that he would not be one of her accusers .

Would you agree that God hates sin?

Always glad to find another coffee addict:>)

 

[AngelusSax]

So Jesus was saying that he would not be one of her accusers .

I always wonder what the people were doing to catch her in the act.... Makes them seem a little less clean themselves.

And that was part of Jesus' point, as well. Another aspect was to not be trapped between Roman and Mosaic Law (one says death, one does not). He therefore avoided a premature arrest of Himself, which would have lead to a premature crucifixion. As it was, there was more work to be done in teaching those who would start the Church.

AngelusSax(who is going to pay homage to tulc by saying something in these parenthesis. So, uh.... I'm finishing my Diet Dr. Pepper now.)

 

[tulc]

Would you agree that God hates sin?

Yes.

If you look at levitical law, you see that one needed to have an accuser to be put to death (3 actually) . So Jesus was saying that he would not be one of her accusers .

So when He had the chance He didn't accuse her? He didn't condemn?

AngelusSax(who is going to pay homage to tulc by saying something in these parenthesis. So, uh.... I'm finishing my Diet Dr. Pepper now.)

Well done vampire with a soul!
tulc(whos wife make's coffee that makes grown men weak in the knees)

 

[markie]

Intolerance is something I have always been strongly against. I hate bigotry and stereotypes.

There is a difference in bigotry and being stereotypical and in telling a person he is in a false religion. Jesus loved sinners but he didn't tolerate sin. He told the Pharisees they were of the devil. That doesn't mean He didn't love them, He was just telling them the truth. I think it's more loving to tell someone the truth about something than not to. Paul said don't be unequally yoked with unbelievers, was that steriotypimng because he called the people who aren't christians unbelievers and said not to be unequally yoked with them?

 

[seebs]

Jesus did not tolerate sin. He said Go and SIN NO MORE.

And when you're perfect, you can say it too.

He reinforced the laws of Israel.

Except for the ones He broke.

He does not forbid us from judging, the warning is not to be hypocrites when we judge.

Wrong, wrong. A thousand times wrong. Read Romans 2. It does not say "IF" you do the thing you accuse; it says "FOR". We are inexcusable whenever we judge. Always. Every time. Because we do do the same thing, even if we deny it, even if we do not recognize it.

No seebs we are not to be "tolerant" We are to present the gospel to a sin-filled world.

And how are we to present the Good News if all we have to say is bad?

We do not need to cease being tolerant to present the Gospel.

Seebs are you telling me God has changed his mind?

I am expressing no opinion on that topic.

The bible says God is immutable.

Cite.

God no more likes or tolerates sin than he did in the OT. God is the God of the OT and the NT

And yet, in the OT, those who are unclean, or defective -- even those who need glasses, for instance -- may not enter the Temple, but now they can be the Temple. Looks like a change to me!

If God "tolerated " sin he would not have destroyed the earth with water.

And He didn't. There is a story about Him doing it, which contains things we can learn from.

If God tolerated sin , there would be no reason for Jesus to return to be the judge , for tolerance means not to judge.

No, it doesn't.

Also, you are once again mistaking humans for God. God does what He does; we do what He tells us to do. We do not need to do His work. Believe me, He can judge adequately without us "helping".

But tolerance does not mean not judging!

Does God tolerate sin today?

Above, you said that destroying the world was proof that God did not tolerate sin. Since the world is still here, God is currently tolerating it.

One of Gods attributes is Holiness that demands that He hate sin.

So many people tell me. But I've never seen a meaningful definition of "holiness" beyond "God hates what I hate".

But the original question was are Christians to be "tolerant" and we have gotten a bit off track.
Tolerance is "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." Respecting does not mean, respecting their right to those views, but rather accepting or embracing their views as valid."

Really? Says whom? What do we mean by "valid", anyway?

Seebs real love is offering the gospel not letting people think they are just fine as is. That day of judgment is coming, the church has a responsibility and a duty to call sin sin and not pretend that God is indifferent to it

But this is a red herring.

When I see people sin, I may be called to try to guide them out of it, although the final work is always God's. But I am also called to love them, and support them, no matter what. No exceptions, no excuses. No rationalizations about how I'm "really being loving" even though no one could possibly see any love in my actions.

You're still using prooftexts, and heavily.

You have asked me to show "how" each passage is taken out of context. This is, regrettably, impossible to do in finite space. There are several different ways of understanding these passages. Each way is consistent, and whichever one you adopt, you can easily reconcile the whole Bible with it. So, it'll look perfectly reasonable... Just as my reading is perfectly reasonable to me.

I would suggest you read a few of the passages you don't refer to at all in these. Read Matthew 25:34-end. Here we see the ultimate criteria for judgment, articulated directly by the Judge Himself. Read 1 Corinthians 13, and reflect that this is what "love" is in the Bible. Read Genesis, and ask yourself whether God said any part of His creation was "not good".

 

[seebs]

I see what you are saying, I think though His saying "neither do I condem you" has some room in the discussion?

It is the centerpiece of the story.

If Jesus were not tolerant of sin:
1. He would have struck her dead on the spot.
2. Or let them stone her, at least.
3. Or punished her in some way.
4. Or threatened her with Hell.

He does, indeed, say "Go, and sin no more".

Does He then say "if you do, I will change my mind"? Does He say "or else"? No. There is no point at which any threat is offered, or any price is charged. The forgiveness is free, immediate, and complete; she is not condemned. Full stop. There is no condemnation for her. She is free.

He does tell her not to sin, but He doesn't threaten her, or berate her, or even attack her.

If we were to keep our responses to sin to the same level, that would be a good thing. Of course, one change is required; it is not within our authority to command any other human, so we cannot tell them what to do. All we are left with is not condemning.

A narrow path to walk, but we are told it is the one to be on.

 

[seebs]

Paul said don't be unequally yoked with unbelievers, was that steriotypimng because he called the people who aren't christians unbelievers and said not to be unequally yoked with them?

I wonder what makes a yoking "unequal". For that matter, why do people love to quote this, but never mention "the marriage is sanctified by the believer"?

 

[rnmomof7]

And when you're perfect, you can say it too.



Except for the ones He broke.

Jesus NEVER broke a God given law . That would have been a sin and Jesus died sinless.
The laws he challenged were fro m the Rabbinical legalist interpretation. A good example is the following.
The Law of God says we are to keep the Lords day.
The Pharisees wrote all manner of interpretation of that law that was man made . Thus Jesus was not breaking a law of God when he and his disciples ate wheat from the wheat field or when He healed on a Sabbath .

Wrong, wrong. A thousand times wrong. Read Romans 2. It does not say "IF" you do the thing you accuse; it says "FOR". We are inexcusable whenever we judge. Always. Every time. Because we do do the same thing, even if we deny it, even if we do not recognize it.

You gave a scripture, now you want to change it.
The point of Romans 1st few chapters is to show us we are all sinners in need of a Savior .

Scripture tells us if we break one law we have broken them all. So the point of Romans is not telling us that we can not or should not " judge" others, but that we too are judged .

Here is the point of Romans 1-3

Rom 3:22
Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:



Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



Rom 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Sinners are saved and made righteous by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

Your citation has nothing to do with making judgments on the spiritual condition of others. That is a command of scripture .

And how are we to present the Good News if all we have to say is bad?

Why bother to present the gospel ? What reason would you have to present it? The GOOD NEWS is that God has provided propitiation for our sins by taking them on Himself .
If a man does not see himself in need of a savior, he does not need any good news..
Just what are you saving them from seebs ? Or is the gospel saving them at all?
What is the good news to you seebs?

We do not need to cease being tolerant to present the Gospel.

Just show me the scripture where Jesus says to be tolerant of sin seebs.
He says just the opposite .
What you present is an unneeded gospel .

They are fine just as they are, they simply have a different life style. God is tolerant , He does not care . Is that your gospel seebs?

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 2;17
When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

Luk 5:31
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Mat 3:2
And saying,[b] Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Hear Peter being intolerant

Act 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

What happened? Did they think he was cruel or unkind?

Act 2:37
Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?



Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Act 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.



1Cr 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Cr 6:10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cr 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Seebs the NT is clear. One can not be saved without repentance.
Until a man knows he need a Savior, he will not seek one .

The gospel you are suggesting is not scriptural nor will it produce lasting fruit .
The more sinful a man see himself, the more precious is the gift.

There was a night I was literally driven to my knees in repentance .
it was not until I saw the depth of my sin , that I sought a savior.

I am expressing no opinion on that topic.

Yes you are seebs. You have suggested that the God of the OT was different than the God of the NT. It is not two differnt God

Immutability is one of the attributes of God, or you could never trust Him not to change His mind .

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hbr 1:12
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Hbr 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Jam 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Isa 40:28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, [that] the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? [there is] no searching of his understanding.

If God was fickle He would not be trust worthy , How could you trust Him to be faithful in any thing?

And yet, in the OT, those who are unclean, or defective -- even those who need glasses, for instance -- may not enter the Temple, but now they can be the Temple. Looks like a change to me!

Seebs, the change occurred when the curtain of the temple was rent. That was the message of Christ.

Not only the priests could now come before God and offer sacrifices FOR THEIR sin, and the sin of others but now man could come to the Father through Christ.

This does not speak to a God that is tolerant of sin, it speaks to a God that allows men to come boldly before the throne for the purpose of repentance

And He didn't. There is a story about Him doing it, which contains things we can learn from.

So God killed off al the population of the world because it was a good teaching tool?

Well what do you think He was teaching us? That we should ignore sin because He did?
Well lets look are the words of God in this.

Gen 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.



Gen 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.



Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

That does not sound tolerant of sin to me

No, it doesn't.

Also, you are once again mistaking humans for God. God does what He does; we do what He tells us to do. We do not need to do His work. Believe me, He can judge adequately without us "helping".

But tolerance does not mean not judging!

So you are saying it is ok to judge, but you should pretend to think it is ok and ignore it?

The eternal fate of men rests solely in the hand of Jesus the judge of men.
That is not the issue at hand.
The issue is are men to judge right from wrong ? Are men to choose friends, marriage partners, and business partners by biblical standards ?
Are we to call sin, sin ? Are we to encourage other to walk away from their sin?

We are not talking about witch burning here seebs. We are talking about living out our faith.
That is to carefully choose our friends, associates , spouse etc .
We are to rebuke sin in our homes and yes in the community when we can.
So yes you will see Christians in anti abortion groups as an example .

Above, you said that destroying the world was proof that God did not tolerate sin. Since the world is still here, God is currently tolerating it.



So many people tell me. But I've never seen a meaningful definition of "holiness" beyond "God hates what I hate".

That is meaningless seebs.
The definition of Holy is God

(1) To be holy is to be distinct, separate, in a class by oneself. As Sproul puts it:


The primary meaning of holy is ‘separate.’ It comes from an ancient word that meant, ‘to cut,’ or ‘to separate.’ Perhaps even more accurate would be the phrase ‘a cut above something.’ When we find a garment or another piece of merchandise that is outstanding, that has a superior excellence, we use the expression that it is ‘a cut above the rest.’22


This means that the one who is holy is uniquely holy, with no rivals or competition.


“When the Bible calls God holy it means primarily that God is transcendentally separate. He is so far above and beyond us that He seems almost totally foreign to us. To be holy is to be ‘other,’ to be different in a special way. The same basic meaning is used when the word holy is applied to earthly things.”23


The Scriptures put it this way:


11 “Who is like Thee among the gods, O LORD? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders? (Exodus 15:11). 2 “There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides Thee, Nor is there any rock like our God (1 Samuel 2:2).


8 There is no one like Thee among the gods, O Lord; Nor are there any works like Thine. 9 All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; And they shall glorify Thy name. 10 For Thou art great and doest wondrous deeds; Thou alone art God (Psalms 86:8-10; see also Psalm 99:1-3; Isaiah 40:25; 57:15).


(2) To be holy is to be morally pure.


When things are made holy, when they are consecrated, they are set apart unto purity. They are to be used in a pure way. They are to reflect purity as well as simple apartness. Purity is not excluded from the idea of the holy; it is contained within it. But the point we must remember is that the idea of the holy is never exhausted by the idea of purity. It includes purity but is much more than that. It is purity and transcendence. It is a transcendent purity.24
excerpt from
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=252

Really? Says whom? What do we mean by "valid", anyway?

Apparently you and every other man that casts himself as 'tolerant"
Every man a law unto himself. Every man doing what is right in his own eyes

But this is a red herring.

When I see people sin, I may be called to try to guide them out of it, although the final work is always God's. But I am also called to love them, and support them, no matter what. No exceptions, no excuses. No rationalizations about how I'm "really being loving" even though no one could possibly see any love in my actions.

The very fact YOU call it sin makes YOU judgmental..
Supporting people IN their sin, may make you feel good, but it does nothing to help them eternally does it?
You will love them right into hell.

Do we love people in spite of their sin YES . But instead of telling them it really doesn't matter (all the while secretly thinking it is sin) , you may just want to try to ask them how they think god sees their lives.

You're still using prooftexts, and heavily.

That is the worlds excuse when they do not like what they hear.
those texts mean what they say, God does not change him mind in the next verse.
I have presented to you sections of scripture that indicate that man is to judge..

You have asked me to show "how" each passage is taken out of context. This is, regrettably, impossible to do in finite space. There are several different ways of understanding these passages. Each way is consistent, and whichever one you adopt, you can easily reconcile the whole Bible with it. So, it'll look perfectly reasonable... Just as my reading is perfectly reasonable to me.

Come on seebs, put your keyboard where your mouth is. There is plenty of space for you to refute those texts with other scripture .
I am waiting for you to tell me how one does not become unequally yoked unless they ,make judgments ? How is one to avoid the darkness unless he judges it is dark ?

I would suggest you read a few of the passages you don't refer to at all in these. Read Matthew 25:34-end.

Seebs that text has NOTHING to do with the requirement of believers to call people to repentance.
This speaks to the works that flow from our salvation .
The works did not save anyone .
We know that from the text .

Here we see the ultimate criteria for judgment, articulated directly by the Judge Himself. Read 1 Corinthians 13, and reflect that this is what "love" is in the Bible. Read Genesis, and ask yourself whether God said any part of His creation was "not good".

Seebs the problem is you think that love is letting people go to hell, I do not think that is love .

God is love, but He is also judgment. God is love, but he will cast the unsaved into hell.

So if we offer them comfort and acceptance their sin , we offer them death

 

[rnmomof7]

Yes.
So when He had the chance He didn't accuse her? He didn't condemn?

Read the text carefully, you will be amazed what we read into it.

It is a very simple story really.

I am that woman , a sinner that has been caught in the act of sin many many times.

The woman was not looking for forgiveness. She was caught in sin and expected to pay the penalty.
But she experiences what all of us did when we met Christ, that is mercy .

But for mercy to be given , one must have been judged first.

She was guilty, Christ did not tell her she was not.
Christ did not tell her it was OK.
He told her he would not condemn her.


That is a lesson in the mercy of Christ.
It is not a lesson in the tolerance of sin.
If it were , he would not have told her to sin no more.

He called sin, sin. He named it , He did not shy from it .

This is not about the Roman law, this is not about the Levitical law .
This is about Jesus that told us his 1st coming was not to judge, but to save.
But even the merciful Saviour called her sin sin .

 

[tulc]

This is not about the Roman law, this is not about the Levitical law .
This is about Jesus that told us his 1st coming was not to judge, but to save.
But even the merciful Saviour called her sin sin .

I can see that. I can see both sides of the argument, perhaps there is room somewhere in-between?
tulc(has enjoyed talking to you will be back tommorow!)

 

[CaDan]

Read the text carefully, you will be amazed what we read into it.

It is a very simple story really.

I am that woman , a sinner that has been caught in the act of sin many many times.

The woman was not looking for forgiveness. She was caught in sin and expected to pay the penalty.
But she experiences what all of us did when we met Christ, that is mercy .

But for mercy to be given , one must have been judged first.

She was guilty, Christ did not tell her she was not.
Christ did not tell her it was OK.
He told her he would not condemn her.


That is a lesson in the mercy of Christ.
It is not a lesson in the tolerance of sin.
If it were , he would not have told her to sin no more.

He called sin, sin. He named it , He did not shy from it .

This is not about the Roman law, this is not about the Levitical law .
This is about Jesus that told us his 1st coming was not to judge, but to save.
But even the merciful Saviour called her sin sin .

If you may recall, I took this line of reasoning apart back in August. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=735061 beginning at about post 217.

I fail to see how the establishment of yet another discipline and punishment religion where the good are rewarded and the evil are punished is Good News.

 

[CaDan]

Jesus NEVER broke a God given law . That would have been a sin and Jesus died sinless.
The laws he challenged were fro m the Rabbinical legalist interpretation. A good example is the following.
The Law of God says we are to keep the Lords day.
The Pharisees wrote all manner of interpretation of that law that was man made. Thus Jesus was not breaking a law of God when he and his disciples ate wheat from the wheat field or when He healed on a Sabbath .

The Law

Ex. 31:14-16 -- Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

De. 5:14 -- But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Jer. 17:21-22 -- Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

The Violation

1. Violation by the Disciples:

Mt. 12:1 -- At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

2. Violation by Jesus:

Mt 12:10 & 13 -- And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Analysis by Jesus

Mt. 12:3-8 -- But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; ow he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Mt. 12:11-12 --

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Analysis

Sabbath observance was important under the Law. As clearly as possible, the Law established that NO WORK WHATSOEVER was to be done. To claim this is simply a rabbinical interpretation beggars belief. Further, sabbath observance was not some forgotten or ignored doctrine. Jeremiah refers to it, and it was a live controversy in First Century Palestine. The punishment for working on the sabbath was death. We are not taling about minor ritual uncleanness here--we are talking about a major, major portion of the Mosaic Covenant.

In neither of these controversy dialogues does Jesus deny that he and his disciples have worked on the sabbath. Given the clear commands in the Torah and the Prophets, JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES VIOLATED THE LAW. I really don't care what sort of spin you or Paul or the author of Hebrews put on it, the words in Matthew are clear and cannot be denied.

What Jesus does is interesting. He has three responses. The first is to argue that David broke the Law (albeit a different section), so it was OK for Jesus and his disciples to break the Law. The second is that He is the lord of the Sabbath and therefore He and His disciples can do whatever they want about the sabbath. So much for God's unchanging Law, huh?

The third response is that the Law does not forbid doing good on the sabbath. Of course, this is incorrect. There are no exceptions to the "no work on the sabbath rule." None. Jesus just created one on His own.

It is left as an exercise to the student to determine how Jesus could violate the Law and still be sinless . . .

 

[seebs]

I fail to see how the establishment of yet another discipline and punishment religion where the good are rewarded and the evil are punished is Good News.

Indeed. In fact, we have it on the best authority that in any such system, everyone would be punished, because there is none good save God.

We have two options:
1. Grace is magically able to save even sinners.
2. Heaven is empty.

Jesus said that at least one person was to be in "paradise", and I am not much inclined to listen to elaborate justifications about how that's not really the same as "heaven".

Conclusion: Even sinners may be saved by grace.

 

[somasoma77]

There is but one pure consciousness, one power and one medium that we all use. This medium is in one God that creates many manifestations. Multiplicity comes from unity without breaking up the one true God or Whole because everything is in God. At first we are ignorant of this and misuse our power, consequently binging on ourselves misfortune and negation. Liberation and repression, sickness and health, poverty and wealth, heaven and hell, good and bad, happiness and misery, peace and panic appear to be opposites, but they are only the result of opposing forces, the forces that lead us to the one power or God. These forces teach us how to live and how to think so we can be happy in unity. Man already has this ability to be at peace, but first he must realize his relation to the Whole, a relationship with God in complete unity.

 

[freespirit2001]

Christian Intolerance shows that they are not Christian:

First of all we all have to recognize matters about judgement in the end will be left up to God. Even St.Paul said this about judgment:
[bible]1 Corinthians 4:4[/bible]

Often with intolerance, people are reflecting their personalities along with their fears, fragile egos and an inner need to put other people down. It takes alot more effective communication skills to work with these issues..."The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook..."

Sometimes the Kingdom of Heaven will be taken away for those who have lost the insight into the Spirit:
[bible]Matthew 23:13-15[bible]
[bible]Matthew 21:31-32[/bible]
[bible]matthew 21:31-32[/bible]

Christ addresses concern for his commandments with this reference to the Kingdom of God:
[bible]Matthew 5:18-20[/bible]
The Athanasian Creed states:
"Therefore let God-inspired scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of god, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."
---Basil of Caesarea
There is alot of bible passages that speak of love and loving insight and the loving attitude and to remain steadfast in the Lord despite differences:

"Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility towards one another, for 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble'.

"Do not grumble, brethren, aginast one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the judge is standing at the door. As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we call those happy who are steadfast.You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful." James 5:9-11 RSV

[bible]James 5:9-11[/bible]
[bible]James 4:11-12[/bible]

 

[freespirit2001]

[bible]Matthew 23:13-15[/bible]

 

[Switch Radic]

I might also add that discpline and correction are the highest forms of Love. The Bible clearly states that God is Love and Love is God. He doesn't just have Love, He IS Love. He is not the Spirit of Love but the Spirit which is Love.
This was why God made the ten commandments. He did it because He loves all of his creation. You see, when you sin; that sin separates you from God and leads to death. Because God is Love, he doesn't want us seaparet from Him. And he most certainly doesn't want us dead. So, in order to show His love, He wrote the ten commandments. Jesus later summed them all up in two commadnments.

 

[jjdoe]

I might also add that discpline and correction are the highest forms of Love. The Bible clearly states that God is Love and Love is God. He doesn't just have Love, He IS Love. He is not the Spirit of Love but the Spirit which is Love.
This was why God made the ten commandments. He did it because He loves all of his creation. You see, when you sin; that sin separates you from God and leads to death. Because God is Love, he doesn't want us seaparet from Him. And he most certainly doesn't want us dead. So, in order to show His love, He wrote the ten commandments. Jesus later summed them all up in two commadnments.

Hi, I suppose this is technically my first post, since my last one got deleted because it did not follow the guidelines. I just have one question. How do you explain Deuteronomy 28:63? "Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you"

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Hi, I suppose this is technically my first post, since my last one got deleted because it did not follow the guidelines. I just have one question. How do you explain Deuteronomy 28:63? "Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you"

God is all powerful he also knows all, He may be doing it for your streangth. or for a lesson to be learned. or to a poeple who will never repent. Theres a good possability that we can't even comprehend the reason. But concider this If His joy is in you becoming perfect, and living in heaven with Him, He would be pleased to see your wordly destruction, if you later go to heaven, as a result.

 

[jjdoe]

God is all powerful he also knows all, He may be doing it for your streangth. or for a lesson to be learned. or to a poeple who will never repent. Theres a good possability that we can't even comprehend the reason. But concider this If His joy is in you becoming perfect, and living in heaven with Him, He would be pleased to see your wordly destruction, if you later go to heaven, as a result.

yes, but why is an all loving God taking pleasure in destroying people? I do not understand this.