News-Record.com

I don't know who said the second line, but the first quote is from the pastor D. James Kennedy from Coral Ridge Fla., well known televangelist and apparently intolerant of beLIEfs different from his own.

Tolerance has become a dirty word to many "evangelists," the sort who criticize "legalistic" religions, yet insist on making others follow the laws of the Old Testament that they find most appealing.

Too many people equate "toleration" with "approving," when it should more appropriately be seen as "living in peace with those who are different."

"Evangelist" means "bearer of good news." Many folks who wear this title seem to think that bearing news of God's hatred for the things they hate is all they need to do. For these, living in peace with their fellows is not a very attractive option. I find this most interesting, considering what I read of Jesus and his lifestyle in the Gospels.

“ . . . yet insist on making others follow the laws of the Old Testament that they find most appealing.”

Like policemen arresting people for stealing, murdering and perjury? If we as a culture (and any other civilized nation) embrace the Law of God in so many matters of ethics and morality in our legal system, does that not say something about the importance of the rule of law? As well as the universality and transcendent origin of it?

“I find this most interesting, considering what I read of Jesus and his lifestyle in the Gospels.”

It seems, Eric, you have not been reading your NT lately. Jesus hated sin and hypocrisy (sin), but showed MERCY (not approbation) toward repentant sinners. He was VERY intolerant of the legalistic religious types who were more concerned about forcing people to conform to their “traditions of men:” added rules and regulations that obscured works of mercy and true righteousness. He used such intolerant language as, “white washed sepulchers,” “children of hell,” “brood of vipers” etc. - and drove the money changers from the Temple with a whip; and promised the utter destruction of apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was simply being a typical OT prophet in warning lawbreakers of their impending doom.

Jesus nowhere called for either the toleration OR acceptance of evil and lawlessness. It is utterly contrary to the biblical worldview to accept spiritual/religious counterfeits, sin or evil in any form, at any time; but rather to oppose it with vigor and determination – because the blessing of people, the salvation of souls and the glory of God are at stake.

What if MLK had tolerated hatred and prejudice? Or if America had decided to “just get along” with Hitler? Or sensitive, civilized people had tolerated baby slaughter? One tolerates what one cannot perceive as contrary to God’s will.

“The last virtue of a depraved nation is tolerance."
"Intolerance is the primary virtue of those who would end the American dream."

The first statement is the true and accurate one! If a sin-bound generation wants to murder its babies, indulge freely in fornication and perversion, watch its vulgar, depraved movies, listen to its offensive and debased music, worship the almighty State, and repress God’s Truth it will use the ruse of “intolerance” to intimidate its enemies in order to advance its cause - and, ironically, taut it as a “virtue.” And so it is today.

As far as the second statement is concerned, toleration of sin and false religion has brought us frighteningly close to the American Nightmare – a dark, surreal landscape littered with tiny aborted bodies, Hollywood depravity, Big Brother government control, materialistic madness, and economic slavery. Such is the American "Trauma."

Nikos. I'll bet you wear poly-cotton shirts.
You've probably eaten a shrimp or two or atttended a pig picking.
You ol' Bible-wielding, scripture quoting ABOMINATION...
XOXOXOXO

Alice

"Like policemen arresting people for stealing, murdering and perjury?"

No, those are places where the Torah overlaps with common sense. I'm talking about how certain people want to bring back executions for gays, racial purity, and remove religious freedom in favor of OT theocracy, where priests hold veto power over the political process.

"It seems, Eric, you have not been reading your NT lately. Jesus hated sin and hypocrisy (sin), but showed MERCY (not approbation) toward repentant sinners."

Funny. I seem to recall that Jesus was constantly hounded for sharing meals with tax collectors and other enemies of Jewish purity. How many times have you gone and shared a meal with a gay man or some teenage girl who just had an abortion?

Are you SURE you've pulled out all the logs from your eyes so that you can get at the motes in theirs?

You know, at this point I feel the need to post a comment that I made on another blog a few days ago.

As for the "Law of God," I believe that Jesus the Christ is recorded as noting that he (and he alone) came to fulfill the Law AND the Prophets. And when asked what was the greatest commandment he is recorded as noting that would be to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul (all that you are); and then to love others as you would love your own self. And then Jesus the Christ noted that ALL of the Law and the Prophets could be hung upon these two commands.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Shalom

Apprently you guys just do not read with anything approaching honesty and clarity. Eric, I said He had mercy on sinners, and came "to seek and to save that which was lost." - that takes care of eating with publicans and healing on the Sabbath, etc.

I have said many times that there are laws that related exclusively to the scrifical/Temple cultus and are NOT applicable today.

"No, those are places where the Torah overlaps with common sense." Eric

It's common sense, Eric, because the Law of God is "written upon their hearts." It's organic, built in - though most often repressed in rebellion.

And Darryl, Jesus also stated categorically that every "jot and tittle" would be fulfilled of the moral Law. And I stand solidly behind my statement that Jesus NEVER approved or tolerated the breaking of the moral Law. He DID have compassion and mercy on sinners, as he does today IF they repent and turn away from their transgressions. The passage you quoted about loving God and neighbor is ONLY for the redeemed, covenant-keeper. All you have to do is read these blogs and you can see that some reject and hate God - so much for loving the Lord YOUR God (Elohenu). All the loving of neighbors can not make up for the great transgression of rejecting God and His Word.

As for the death penalty for abominations, ALL sin in death-imparting ("the wages of sin is death). Some sins are such grievous sins against the social order and the imago dei that they incur the physical death penalty in the OT. But ONLY if they are convicted by due process. You must argue with God about the ones He designated as worthy of death, not me.

Actually all of us are under the death penalty - and all of us WILL die as a result of Adma's transgresson. But thanks be to God that He has provided a Lamb, who took the eternal death penalty away, so that even though our (Christians') bodies will see corruption, they will rise in glory to live forever with our merciful Savior and God. For "he came into the world to save sinners."

And Alice . . . well, I'll pray for your embittered soul. And I don't say that in a spiteful or condescending manner.

Nikos, could we meet in person? I want to physically see what a person looks like who has ALL of the answers.

It seems no matter what anyone else thinks/believes regarding God, the Bible, of a religious nature, etc., if it is not likened to that of yours, it is wrong. If interpretation is not exactly like yours, that person is wrong, a "liberal," or "pc."

And now, to basically say that the two greatest commands found in scripture, attributed to Jesus the Christ himself; "wiggle room" is found to "fight against God!"

Please let me know where we can meet and I can shake the hand of the hand that knows ALL and communicates same for God!

And please do not respond with some drivel about that not being the case. All one has to do is go back and read anything posted. So, now there is no need to use that excuse.

Shalom

"It's common sense, Eric, because the Law of God is "written upon their hearts." It's organic, built in"

So-- why do you reckon it "common sense" needs to be written down?

Also, why is it that so many of "holy laws" aren't part of today's "common sense." Do you have any idea how many of those Levitical laws aren't "written on" anyone's hearts -- not even yours? Your attempt to explain this concept, while repeated every so often, has never been reasonable. It's nothing but superstition. Just so you know...

"So-- why do you reckon it "common sense" needs to be written down?"

That's bible 101, Eric. The fallen nature distorts and represses the Law written on the heart. Reading the ancient codes of law (Hammurabi, Manu, Confucius, et al.) shows that there needed to be a clear written version to provide accurate moral judgment, especially the commandments relating to man's relationship with hte one true and living God (first table).

It isn't always a matter of "rejecting God", Nikos. It is that there is no consistently rational way for some of us to even begin to fathom the existence or necessary use for such a belief. In addition, the entire emotional pull and "need" many clearly have for a god experience is entirely foreign to me since I outgrew magical thinking-type pre- and early adolescence.

I am fully aware of the subconsciously and often consciously manipulative tactics devised and engaged in for converting non-believers, too. I am sure for many it is out of real compassionate, empathetic hope to help what they see as distressed individuals, or "lost souls". Sometimes it is to alleviate their own fears that someone they care for would "burn" if not brought into the fold. I won't cast aspersions on such motives.

But it is even more distressing than the daily travails of life alone to think there are so many, worldwide and from many faith traditions, who claim exclusive rights to ethical behavior, or always interpret any good act as being innately attributable to the secret writ upon the heart inscribed by their singular chosen (or inherited) deity. Such folly dooms us to perpetual ethnocentrism and arrogant insult of others. How would we ever hope to settle differences and secure a lasting peace.

I think I may know your answer, of course.

By the by, the vast majority of Hammurabi deals with issues of ownership/property. I am not surprised similar concerns weigh quite heavily in Judaic law and, as interpreted by many Christian cultures, a certain brand of "blessed capitalism".

"It is that there is no consistently rational way for some of us to even begin to fathom the existence or necessary use for such a belief."

That's the thing that I wish folks would understand. Belief in the supernatural is NOT necessary for ANY aspect of human existence, whether it be civil behavior, personal happiness or anything else. It may be part of our evolutionary heritage, so that its elements appear in every human society, but the fact remains that millions of people around the world are able to lead lives indistinguishable from those of religious people -- other than the fact that they don't attend church every week.