The Church of the Comfortable and Tolerant | An Allegory or Parable by Jesse Morrell

[1Feather]

The Church of the Comfortable and Tolerant | An Allegory or Parable by Jesse Morrell - YouTube

Jesse Morrell website is www.OpenAirOutreach.com

The Church of the Comfortable and Tolerant is a parable or allegory told by Jesse Morrell about a congregation in the land called Feel Good. The Church recently hired a new Pastor, Pastor Peace Keeper, who just graduated from the Seminary of Smooth Talking. But trouble arose when pastor Peace Keep mistakenly allowed an Elder to speak from the pulpit - Mr. Conscience....




Sound like your church? Or one you've read about?


​

 

[SkyWriting]

The Church of the Comfortable and Tolerant

I have room for the tolerant in my heart. And the intolerant as well.

 

[2ndRateMind]

A nice little parable, for our time. But I suspect it to be a conservative message.

My own feeling is that those complacent in their conservatism, so self-righteous they just know they are going to heaven, well, these are the very sinners Jesus wants us to save. Truth is, liberals know sin, just as conservatives do. Difference is, liberals admit it, and consign no-one to damnation, seeing as they acknowledge they are flawed, and that their judgement is flawed in turn. So, that is God's prerogative, and liberals appreciate that, and just try to get on with loving, rather than condemning, their neighbour.

Come Judgement Day, I'd rather be on side with the people who love, than the people who hate. I think that is the message Jesus meant for us to understand by His mission. If that is the road to damnation, then satan himself is superfluous, and we need only the Gospels to lead us astray.

Best wishes, and seasons greetings, 2RM.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

Good video and nicely shared parable of today's liberal falling away from scripture. And the chaos that ensues as those who have fallen presume to see the Biblical tradition as now the enemy called; conservative.

Jesus was conservative as we all know and this is a timely tale.
Thank you for sharing.

 

[Albion]

My own feeling is that those complacent in their conservatism, so self-righteous they just know they are going to heaven, well, these are the very sinners Jesus wants us to save. Truth is, liberals know sin, just as conservatives do. Difference is, liberals admit it, and consign no-one to damnation, seeing as they acknowledge they are flawed, and that their judgement is flawed in turn.

Have you any connection to the real world at all?? The most viciously intolerant people are liberals who cannot even contemplate the idea that anyone would disagree with their suppositions. They deliver death threats to people who dare to voice contrary ideas, try to get them fired from their jobs, call them "haters" and worse, destroy their property, and more. While such actions come occasionally from the nutsy Far Right, they are almost never engaged in by conservatives...and for one very good reason. They know, as conservatives, that such things are morally wrong.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

Well said.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Have you any connection to the real world at all?? The most viciously intolerant people are liberals who cannot even contemplate the idea that anyone would disagree with their suppositions. They deliver death threats to people who dare to voice contrary ideas, try to get them fired from their jobs, call them "haters" and worse, destroy their property, and more. While such actions come occasionally from the nutsy Far Right, they are almost never engaged in by conservatives...and for one very good reason. They know, as conservatives, that such things are morally wrong.

Hmmm. I agree with your idea that the intolerance of intolerance is, obviously, an intolerance and therefore an inconsistency in otherwise tolerant individuals. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be an understandable, (on an 'eye for eye, tooth for a tooth' justification), if not ideal, response to intolerant conservatism. I also agree that death threats, destruction of property, denial of livelihood, and other such reactions to conservatism are completely out of place. This is not liberalism, however, but (even supposing such things happen, in the absence of any provided evidence) ordinary illegality.

The essence of liberalism is that anyone may do anything they please, however eccentric, provided it does no-one else harm. The moment harm is dealt, we are no longer talking liberalism, but some other political position, more akin to any other extremist credo, such as fascism, communism or militant Islam. So, by definition, you are not attacking liberals or liberalism in your post, but an intolerant tendency I share your opposition to.

The essence of conservatism, on the other hand, is not so easily defined. Conservatism seems to be the idea that anyone may do anything, however harmful, provided it makes money, and is not gainsaid by tradition or the Bible. I find this position less intellectually satisfying than liberalism. Where liberalism seeks, consistently, to minimise harms, conservatism just wants to get rich, irrespective of harms. I just don't think this ambition is universally sustainable in a finite world of only finite resources.

Happy new year, 2RM.

 

[Grandiose]

You are defining a libertarian position, not a liberal one, 2ndratemind. Liberal and Libertarian are worlds apart, almost opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

[Albion]

Hmmm. I agree with your idea that the intolerance of intolerance is, obviously, an intolerance and therefore an inconsistency in otherwise tolerant individuals. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be an understandable, (on an 'eye for eye, tooth for a tooth' justification), if not ideal, response to intolerant conservatism. I also agree that death threats, destruction of property, denial of livelihood, and other such reactions to conservatism are completely out of place. This is not liberalism, however, but (even supposing such things happen, in the absence of any provided evidence) ordinary illegality.

It's what liberalism has become. Many political terms "morph" over the years, as you know, and liberalism today is hardly liberal--if that's what you are saying.

The essence of liberalism is that anyone may do anything they please, however eccentric, provided it does no-one else harm. The moment harm is dealt, we are no longer talking liberalism, but some other political position, more akin to any other extremist credo, such as fascism, communism or militant Islam. So, by definition, you are not attacking liberals or liberalism in your post, but an intolerant tendency I share your opposition to.

As another poster just wrote, you are describing Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism). The Liberals we were discussing are the folks who otherwise are called Progressives, and these are the opponents of Conservatism these days.

The essence of conservatism, on the other hand, is not so easily defined. Conservatism seems to be the idea that anyone may do anything, however harmful, provided it makes money, and is not gainsaid by tradition or the Bible.

Whew. What a mistaken attempt. You seem to be trying to describe the Marxist stereotype of Capitalism, or else some sort of Anarcho-Capitalism, but certainly not Conservatism. You know Edmund Burke, I assume, so I'm surprised, frankly.

I find this position less intellectually satisfying than liberalism.

I understand. However, I described modern day Liberalism whereas you described some hypothetical adversaries of the same Liberals, not Conservatism.