Tolerance -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:27:07 10/30/04 Sat
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Tolerance
In reply to: Shane 's message, "Re: Fundamental or Fundamentalist?" on 12:07:13 10/29/04 Fri

Here is the American common definition of "Fundamentalist": '(one)who accepts the Bible as literally true'.

Well, let's see how far this would bring us.
So Al-Quaeda is a muslim fundamentalistic group?
You should be aware that there are, sociologically speaking, many kinds of "fundamentalism", only one of which is useful for describing certain streams of Christianity:
- Political fundamentalism (adhering to a certain set of political ideas such as equality, world peace, prosperity)
- Ideological fundamentalism (adhering to a certain set of ideological ideas, such as communism, capitalism, monarchism)
- Religious fundamentalism (adhering to a certain set of religious ideas, such as the Bible, the Qum'ran, Zen)

Now, the problem starts with this: the fundamentalists say that their underlying ideas are literally true. All fundamentalists say that. But what gives them the right to say that THEY understand things properly?
The real problems come in when certain groups with different ideas clash, just as you also noted.
A tolerant yet convicted person is capable of bearing with the others, without needing to yield an inch in their own belief, while the fundamentalist will try to make attempts at forcing their own beliefs upon the other, totally disregarding the free will and liberty of the others.

In America, the atheist, left wing socialist in America really hate Christians because we say the bible is the word of God. They hate us because we will not say gay marriage is ok. They hate us because we condemn abortion as murder. They hate us because we say people are accountable to God. They hate us because we preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. They left so desperately wants us to justify their sinful life and the moral decay around us.

Now, please - you should note that you're bringing many things in one pot: it's not that atheists automatically desire abortion to be legalized, it's also not that atheists want to allow gay marriage etc. And likewise, you should know that not all Christians share your views.
If you are talking about an atheist who wants to ban the Bible, ban prayer, legalize gay marriage, drugs and abortion - then you're talking about another religious fundamentalist: an atheist fundamentalist, because he wants to force his beliefs upon you, against your will. He rejects your viewpoint, is not willing to argue with you but only wants you to submit to him.
And now we have some wannabe Christians who want the exact opposite: force prayer in schools, make the Bible mandatory literature, put gay people, drug users and abortionists into prison. This is total intolerance and will only lead to escalation. Now, this wannabe Christian likewise denies the freedom of choice of others. What makes them better?

Please realize that one of the first things a Christian should learn from the Bible is that while on the one hand, humanity is free to make their own choices, on the other hand, we have to bear the FULL responsibility for our actions.
But to want to force our beliefs upon others is denying them what God has granted them: a free choice.
I'll only take the example of gay relationships: Romans2 clearly says that the gay person is fallen from God, but this passage also says that God lets it happen.
Are you greater than God to restrict people in a sense where God has given them the freedom to choose wrongly?
Please note: this is the Bible's view, down to the letter you can read "Homosexuality is against God's will". But in the passage you can read "But God lets people be like that, even though He turns away from them".
Now the fundamentalist wants to do something against homosexuality with institutionalized laws, while Paul simply would be smiling at a homosexual couple, telling them that like this, they'll never meet God and go to eternal perdition.

You see, this is the same thing we also see in UBF: when they see you doing something which doesn't fit their belief system, they try to fit you into their system rather than meekly bearing you and noting to you that there is another, better way. And this is fundamentalism.

But refuse to do it. Because of all these things, they say we are "intolerant". But truth be told it is usually the one screaming "intolerance" that is intolerant.
Indeed, this is why any person with half a wit would realize that here again the proverb applies: "If we use the means of our enemy, what makes us better than them?"

Through activist judges the left has been able to strip away numerous religious rights of Americans. We don't hate them, but they hate us. I could give you many examples of their perseuction of Christians.

Please note that even though they may have overstepped their position, fighting them with the same means will not make you better than them. I know that there's fundamentalist circles who kill doctors working in abortion clinics to prevent the murder of the newborn. So murder is better than murder? What's the biblical logic behind that? The end justifies the means? Again, we're in full circle back to UBF practice. See - UBF does the same thing as fundamentalists and this is why it's okay to say that in their sense, UBF is also fundamentalist.

You might find Philip Yancey's "Soul Survivor" enlightening.
People in Alabama 70 years ago believed that the Bible says that black people are inferior. 200 years ago, they believed the Bible says that slavery is God's will (there ARE passages in the Bible stating a relationship between slave and master, and from that people drew the conclusion that slavery is okay). 600 years ago, people believed that only with the blessing of the Catholic Church, they could go to heaven.
All this has been taken away from people under the label of "freedom". So you see, what our concept regarding many things is, is not necessarily what the Bible really means.
Or are we too liberal today to have abandoned slavery? You see, this question is rhethorical.

The simple problem with fundamentalism, regardless of where, is that people have their own concept of how things are supposed to be and they are intolerant towards anyone who disagrees with them and in the same line they reject that they COULD be wrong, and that results in them desiring to subdue others to their system.

Simply put, the fundamentalists make their own ideas greater than God, they want to become God in deciding the course of mankind.

And this is UBF.

So, UBF is fundamentalistic.

I'd advise you to get some books about the problem called "fundamentalism", and not from the Christian corner, but from the sociological corner.
You will find that the underlying idea of "fundamentalism" is always the same - and that it's not something which a bible-believing Christian should exercise.

Adhering to the Bible as the "basis, the fundament" - yes, by all means.
Using the Bible as a means to force your world view upon other people - God forbid!

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Tolerance -- Shane, 13:49:52 10/30/04 Sat