Comments on: Tolerance http://my-wp.com/hereticconfessions/2007/08/03/tolerance/ Just another My-wp.com weblog Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:58:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Heretic http://my-wp.com/hereticconfessions/2007/08/03/tolerance/comment-page-1/#comment-250 Heretic Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:19:47 +0000 http://hereticconfessions.my-wp.com/?p=124#comment-250 Mike- Good observation in point 2. I think the church has mis-interpretted the portion of scripture you are referring to here. We can eat with sinners - so long as they don't consider themselves a brother. There's a big distinction there between an unsaved sinner and a "saved" person who is in the habitual lifestyle of sin. Does it not seem strange that sinners actually flocked to Jesus - and run from His followers? Blessings! Mike-
Good observation in point 2. I think the church has mis-interpretted the portion of scripture you are referring to here. We can eat with sinners – so long as they don’t consider themselves a brother. There’s a big distinction there between an unsaved sinner and a “saved” person who is in the habitual lifestyle of sin.

Does it not seem strange that sinners actually flocked to Jesus – and run from His followers?

Blessings!

]]> By: Mike Brooks http://my-wp.com/hereticconfessions/2007/08/03/tolerance/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Mike Brooks Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:29:46 +0000 http://hereticconfessions.my-wp.com/?p=124#comment-217 Again, Heretic, we are in the same chior. Of course, I think it is fair to look at this from both sides: 1. Yes, many people, Americans especially, are trained to be "tolerant" of all sorts of things, just not Christianity. The only evil is to call something evil. While political correctness (and even "Christian" open theism) says we must consider all religions as equal and valid paths to God(s), Chirstianity can not co-exist with other religions in this way, by definition. If there were more than one path, that really cheapens the whole cross thing. What would be the point? 2. Unfortuntely, I must also include here those inside the Church, who may see me having lunch with a gay man "approval" for his lifestyle instead of "tolerance". How are we to minister to the sick, as Christ did, if we must see any interaction with any individual as a full endorsement of everthing he or she does? Can I also not eat with anyone divorced? Are we not all sinners? I would never tell a homosoexual (just using it as an example) that such a lifestyle is "OK". I would simply be willing to speak with him or her as a human being instead of demanding one become fully clean before they are allowed to BEGIN a relationship with Christ. God loves us just the way we are, but loves us way too much to let us stay that way. Again, Heretic, we are in the same chior.

Of course, I think it is fair to look at this from both sides:

1. Yes, many people, Americans especially, are trained to be “tolerant” of all sorts of things, just not Christianity. The only evil is to call something evil. While political correctness (and even “Christian” open theism) says we must consider all religions as equal and valid paths to God(s), Chirstianity can not co-exist with other religions in this way, by definition. If there were more than one path, that really cheapens the whole cross thing. What would be the point?

2. Unfortuntely, I must also include here those inside the Church, who may see me having lunch with a gay man “approval” for his lifestyle instead of “tolerance”. How are we to minister to the sick, as Christ did, if we must see any interaction with any individual as a full endorsement of everthing he or she does? Can I also not eat with anyone divorced? Are we not all sinners? I would never tell a homosoexual (just using it as an example) that such a lifestyle is “OK”. I would simply be willing to speak with him or her as a human being instead of demanding one become fully clean before they are allowed to BEGIN a relationship with Christ.

God loves us just the way we are, but loves us way too much to let us stay that way.

]]>