Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Multi-Culturalism is the new Racism...

That is all that needs to be said. It is the new racism towards whites for one and then towards the very minorities who spout and support the many ideologies of this cause.

Under this banner we have tolerance which enforces the logically flawed thinking that we ought to accept things that are different from the norm, or that all people are special and are naturally good. This line of thinking is at the core of our screwed up judicial system where minor offenders are sentenced to harsh terms and harsh offenders of the law get off scott free, in many cases, just because of the color of their skin!

Within this framework we also have the very popular notion that it is o.k. for foriegners to come into our country, whether illegally or legally, and not have to learn the dominant language of English. As a result, we have bi-lingual signs, advertising, radio stations, learning materials, interpreters, and now it is a job requirement to have to speak another language for jobs that, traditionally, never required it. And then there is the so called "dialect" of Ebonics or "code switching" which allows illiterate children to remain so without challenging them to actually learn to speak proper english, but still advance through our school system. In addition, this ideology has given birth to the atrocity called Affirmative Action (Special Preferences, Reverse Racism, Racial quotas, etc., etc.).

We have companies sponsor Gay Days for their homosexual employees to supposedly "come out" and share their lifestyle with coworkers, many of whom could probably care less. It is even to the point of having national recognition where people who practice such deviant behavior get to go out into the streets of the city in parade form. Even Disneyland has gotten into the act! Amazing!

Where will it end? How far will our society go in the name of Multi-Culturalism? Or Tolerance? Should we tolerate everything and everyone? Is that really tolerance or pandering? What is worse yet is that when you express disagreement with any of the afore mentioned you are deemed intolerant, racist, and judgemental. Well, I agree with two out of the three, I am intolerant and judgemental, but that is my right as a free citizen of the USA and I have a God given ability to do so. Based on the truth of God's word, we are to judge, although not self-righteously, but against the truth of scripture, and we ought not to be tolerant of every lifestyle or ideology, to do so causes us to come into conflict with God's will.

Well, enough ranting for now. Just had to get that out of my system.

Thank you for tolerating me!



It is the new racism.

20 comments:

c77m said...

Well put, but I think racism is only one small facet of the negative social and personal impact born of blind multi-culturalism and tolerance (aka "liberalism.") Tolerance, as the popular left would have it, seeks to erase the difference between right and wrong. This definition of tolerance is impossible in a world where humans have thought and free will, and I thank God for giving me both of those.

Rand said...

" Based on the truth of God's word, we are to judge, although not self-righteously, but against the truth of scripture, and we ought not to be tolerant of every lifestyle or ideology, to do so causes us to come into conflict with God's will."


YES! Well said. I've enjoyed your blog. I'll be keeping an eye on it.

Take care,

Ellbur said...

How exactly would you consider yourself to be in a position that allows you to be intolerant? What methods, precisely, constitute your opposition?

Jerry McClellan said...

"How exactly would you consider yourself to be in a position that allows you to be intolerant? What methods, precisely, constitute your opposition?"

To answer your inquiry, I will give an example. I am intolerant of views that support actions that are in essence evil, i.e. I oppose those who are pro-choice in that such a term signifies an acceptance of abortion, which is the murder of a baby. Hence, I am intolerant of pro-choice, or pro-abortion advocates and their views, as well as any person who actually chooses to kill a baby. In which case I will not vote for a candidate who stands or represents such views as well as speak out against it at whatever opportunity I have. The same logic applies to homosexuality. I do not tolerate such behavior, therefore I am intolerant. If a gay person approached me and in some way made his/her sexuality a subject of our conversation, I would reject their justification of such behavior openly and honestly. Not only that, but I would not allow someone to be a part of my home, club, or any other private interest that I have due to such lifestyle choices. I would openly and honestly reject them, hence, I would be considered intolerant.

A Voice of Reason said...

how does your intolerence match up with jesus'? He hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes, folks of whom he didn't approve and would not admit into heaven. He was "tolerent" in fact. It's the speck in his eye and the plank in yours.

He argued with the Pharisees, the hypocrites who proclaimed god with their lips but were prideful and less concerned with following God than with their standing in the jewish community. Take my (and scripture's) advice and save your intolerence/judgement for hypocritical christians.

Jerry McClellan said...

"how does your intolerence match up with jesus'? He hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes, folks of whom he didn't approve and would not admit into heaven. He was "tolerent" in fact. It's the speck in his eye and the plank in yours."

You logic is flawed sir. One, you assume that I am attempting to compare myself with Christ, I am not. Two, I am not talking about not hanging out with gay people or any other person of such deviant behavior. My point, in case you missed it, is simple, we are creating new laws, mores and the like in order to pander to people for the simple reasons of somehow justifying their behavior. While Jesus did "hang out" with tax collectors and prostitutes he never approved of their sinful lifestyle, therefore he was not tolerant at all. He did not make special arrangements to accommodate their lifestyles so that they could continue to live the in the same manner. He spoke the truth to them with the love of God, unwavering. Apparently, people who practice such behavior find it offensive when someone points out that their behavior is in fact deviant and therefore wrong, and many, such as yourself use the foolish argument of tolerance from Jesus yet you fail to realize that Jesus was not tolerant of evil, He spoke against it at every turn. I suggest you read the whole bible and not just the parts you like before you come here and try to use such an argument.

"He argued with the Pharisees, the hypocrites who proclaimed god with their lips but were prideful and less concerned with following God than with their standing in the jewish community."
You are absolutely correct. So what is your point here? He also preached to the multitudes about sin, to his desciples about faith, as well as many more about various other topics. Tell me where Jesus approved of deviant behavior that would constitute sin?

"Take my (and scripture's) advice and save your intolerence/judgement for hypocritical christians."

You should take your own advice sir, for you are being intolerant of my intolerance. You are also judging me for being judgmental. So are these acts reserved for the rare few, such as yourself, who have special insight and knowledge? Are you and others like you the only ones who can excercise intolerance and judgment?

Think before you react this time. Don't hurt yourself.

A Voice of Reason said...

"you assume that I am attempting to compare myself with Christ, I am not"

When you say "I am first and foremost a man of God, born again Christian" I took it that Christ was your example which you strove to follow and honour. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that.

"I am not talking about not hanging out with gay people"

I was responding to an earlier comment of yours which included "I would not allow someone to be a part of my home, club, or any other private interest that I have due to such lifestyle choices".

The verb "to tolerate" is not identical to the verb "to approve (of)" -- you are perhaps using them interchangeably. Nobody could ask you to approve of, for example, homosexuality; but we might easily require you to tolerate it. Do you see the difference?

As I see understand the bible (and I have read a great deal of it, I missed out for example many of the genealities) Jesus as a man tolerated a great deal without approving of it. He did not smite prostitutes and tax collectors (which means he tolerated them), but neither did he bless them (which would mean he approved of them).

My point about arguing with the pharisees, is that here was a group which he actually did not tolerate. He turned over tables in the temple, he dismissed the Pharisees' legalism and cursed their hypocrisy. Why them and not the Romans in charge or the whores or the theives? (to whom he preached, but that is different -- there was no anger in his preaching.) I think the key difference is the hypocrisy. So where you see a "Christian" acting hypocritically, go ahead call him out on it, even act intolerently towards him; that is not appropriate towards those who do not claim to know Christ.

"You should take your own advice sir, for you are being intolerant of my intolerance"

Firstly, by my own advice it would be fine for me to gently correct / debate you, since that is not in itself intolerence. It is not intolerent to present a conflicting view; it would be intolerent if I were to exclude you from the internet with a series of denial of service attacks for example. Secondly, by my argument it is fine for a Christian to be intolerent of a hypocritical Christian -- so there is some scope for me to be intolerent if that were the case. Thirdly, I have not announced myself to be a Christian, so perhaps none of this applies to me.

"Don't hurt yourself"

Thank you for your concern, I hope you continue to safely grow in wisdom and perspective.

Jerry McClellan said...

It is interesting when someone attempts to use the bible to argue for or against a given subject without actually reading it in full context or even believing in its content. Quite fascinating. You will notice that I haven't cited any scriptures in any of my posts. I don't believe that one has to in order to make an argument for good. True logic and reason comes from God alone. Not to mention, there are those, such as yourself, who merely see scripture as a straw man to knock down at every opportunity. That is too easy, for all it takes is quoting out of context or mis-applying meaning to a given verse or event, or simply just saying that you don't believe it. Case in point.

"although technically "secular" just means "not related to any religion or religious body", which in my book isn't specific enough to be "an ideology."

secular humanism: An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values. Secularism.

Lets see, Ideology: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

In your book it may not be, but in the dictionary, secular thinking, specifically, secular humanism, is an ideology.

The verb "to tolerate" is not identical to the verb "to approve (of)" -- you are perhaps using them interchangeably. Nobody could ask you to approve of, for example, homosexuality; but we might easily require you to tolerate it. Do you see the difference?

Lets see, Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. Leeway for variation from a standard.
The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.

Synonyms
Entry: tolerate
Function: verb
Definition: allow
Synonyms: abide, ACCEPT, admit, AUTHORIZE, be big, bear, bear with, brook, CONDONE, consent to, countenance, endure, go, have, hear, humor, indulge, live with, PERMIT, pocket, receive, SANCTION, stand, stand for, stomach, string along, SUBMIT TO, suffer, sustain, swallow, take, tough out, undergo, WINK AT

Where did Jesus recognize and show respect for the contrary (sinful)lifestyles of others sir? Where did he show any leeway for a variation from the law of God? Where did he permit someone or a particular lifestyle to deviate from the values demonstrated in the Bible? (I am sure you will cite more examples of him indicting the Pharisees & Sadduccees regarding Moses and the Commandments)My point is that God does not tolerate sin, period. That includes homosexuality, abortion, adultery, and any other "lifestyle" that is contrary to moral behavior. Jesus was not tolerant of any evil thing. What you mistake for tolerance is called mercy and grace from God.

"Firstly, by my own advice it would be fine for me to gently correct / debate you, since that is not in itself intolerence. It is not intolerent to present a conflicting view; it would be intolerent if I were to exclude you from the internet with a series of denial of service attacks for example. Secondly, by my argument it is fine for a Christian to be intolerent of a hypocritical Christian -- so there is some scope for me to be intolerent if that were the case. Thirdly, I have not announced myself to be a Christian, so perhaps none of this applies to me."

Once again you logic is flawed here. Both examples you cited, gently debating and denial of service attacks are examples of intolerance, they both do not tolerate my point of view. Your argument falls apart in that you are implying that it is o.k. to disagree with some people but not others. In this case, it is o.k. to disagree with other Christians but not o.k. to disagree with non-Christians, this is especially disingenuous given that you admit to not being Christian, demonstrating an obvious bias. Sir, as I cautioned you before, be careful, your reasoning is leading you down a twisting, winding path of rediculous conclusions.


Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5) Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

A Voice of Reason said...

"It is interesting when someone attempts to use the bible to argue for or against a given subject without actually reading it in full context or even believing in its content."

I have read the greater part of it, and it is not uncommon for one philosopher to adopt another's worldview for the purpose of exploring it and/or exposing its flaws.

"In your book it may not be, but in the dictionary, secular thinking, specifically, secular humanism, is an ideology."

No. Secularism is nothing more than the rejection or indifference to religion and religious consideration. That is, at best, a family of ideologies, not a single ideology. Are all religions examples of the same ideology? No.

Your definition of "tolerence" is odd. You may be confusing it with its usage in engineering, where the "tolerence" of, say, a resistor in a circuit might be discussed. You do better to follow the definition of "tolerate" which is less ambiguous: I have it as "to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction".

Jesus incarnate did little to stop evil. He tolerated it. In fact I find that different from the mercy and grace which you label it as. Mercy is where God forgives and saves the elect from eternal torment; most of the people He has tolerated will burn forever, and He has not been merciful to them.

"Once again you logic is flawed here"

You repeatedly assert that I have flawed logic, yet you do not go so far as to point out or demonstrate where that flaw lies. To simply point out a flaw without illustrating it is useless.

As I see it I am currently tolerating your current point of view, since I am not forcing you to abandon them. All I'm doing is asking how you reconcile your attitude to certain groups with Jesus' example which you claim to follow.

For my part, let me clarify: I think it's OK to disagree with anyone. My understanding of your position, as a man of God, is that you should tolerate the sin of the unGodly world (where it does not threaten you or your dependants') but have license to be intolerant of the unGodly behaviour of those who share your conviction in Christ.

Jerry McClellan said...

"No. Secularism is nothing more than the rejection or indifference to religion and religious consideration. That is, at best, a family of ideologies, not a single ideology."

Once again, in your book it may not be, but in the dictionary, secular thinking, specifically, SECULAR HUMANISM, is an ideology. For it is based on a set of beliefs or if you will, non-beliefs, for even non-belief is a belief in nothing. To reject one form of belief is to embrace another.

Are all religions examples of the same ideology? No."
I agree, yet all religions are ideologies.

"Your definition of "tolerence" is odd. You may be confusing it with its usage in engineering, where the "tolerence" of, say, a resistor in a circuit might be discussed. You do better to follow the definition of "tolerate" which is less ambiguous: I have it as "to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction"."

I agree, the last portion of that definition was does not apply.

"Jesus incarnate did little to stop evil."
So dying on the cross is considered little?

"He tolerated it."
How did he tolerate evil? Apparently in your mind, His inaction in one area demonstrates that he tolerated evil, yet you dismiss his actions in other areas that were counter to evil as well, i.e. healing the sick, ministering, raising the dead. All of these things demonstrate an intolerance of evil.

"In fact I find that different from the mercy and grace which you label it as. Mercy is where God forgives and saves the elect from eternal torment; most of the people He has tolerated will burn forever, and He has not been merciful to them."

Mercy is not when God forgives, God forgives because of His love for us. His mercy is an excercise in His expression of love, i.e. sending His only son as the Christ to take on the sins of the world or withholding His wrath from us to give opportunity to repent. That is not tolerance as defined earlier. In the excorcise of His grace and/or mercy, God is still intolerant of sinfulness. His intolerance is demonstrated by the fact that we have a bible that explicitly states his laws, and that He sent His son to die for our sins, to conquer "...sin in the flesh".

"You repeatedly assert that I have flawed logic, yet you do not go so far as to point out or demonstrate where that flaw lies. To simply point out a flaw without illustrating it is useless."

Your logic IS flawed, apparently you did not read the entire comment, both examples you cited, gently debating and denial of service attacks are both examples of intolerance, they both do not tolerate my point of view. Your argument falls apart in that you are implying that it is o.k. to disagree with some people but not others. In this case, it is o.k. to disagree with other Christians but not o.k. to disagree with non-Christians, this is especially disingenuous given that you admit to not being Christian, demonstrating an obvious bias. In other words, you do not want a Christian to disagree with you.

"As I see it I am currently tolerating your current point of view, since I am not forcing you to abandon them. All I'm doing is asking how you reconcile your attitude to certain groups with Jesus' example which you claim to follow."

Not tolerating something is not forcing someone to abandon their point of view, it is merely disagreeing and ultimately expressing that disagreement. I am not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, i.e. this is my own personal blog which displays my own views. Anyone can choose to read it or not. The simple fact that you are challenging me, demonstrates your lack of tolerance for my point of view.

"For my part, let me clarify: I think it's OK to disagree with anyone."
Who is anyone? Christians only? Or Secularists? Based on your argument, you are saying that I shouldn't disagree with anyone one else except those Christians who are hypocrits, but I cannot disagree with people who are not Christians? I should tolerate them?

"My understanding of your position, as a man of God, is that you should tolerate the sin of the unGodly world (where it does not threaten you or your dependants') but have license to be intolerant of the unGodly behaviour of those who share your conviction in Christ."

That makes no sense. I should be tolerant of sin in the world without resistance, but when a Christian sins I should be intolerant of their behavior? This goes against good reasoning in that if I tolerate evil, except when it affected me or loved ones, then what about police officers, firemen, or paramedics, who go out and risk their lives to save people they do not know. They do not tolerate sin or evil in that they combat the causes and consequences of evil acts or behavior to save lives and protect property. What about a clergyman who counsels drug addicts, suicidal individuals, gang members, wife-beaters, etc...? Should they simple tolerate these sins and not say anything to them in disagreement?

That is a foolish argument in that without the notion of intolerance for evil or sin then no Christian would share the truth of God's word. Based on that reasoning, even Christ would not have preached to the multitudes for his contrary notions would have demontrated his intolorance of their lifestyles. Not to mention, your argument that Jesus was intolerant of the Sanhedran lacks common sense in that they were not followers of Christ at all. They WERE the sinners and the multitudes/disciples were followers. A more truthful argument would be the reverse, that Jesus was 'tolerant' of those who followed him and 'intolerant' of those who did not follow him. I think you should go back and read the Gospels again, you missed some key points where Jesus was intolerant of those who did not receive the Gospel. You seem to be attempting to reason what Jesus should have done if He were intolerant of evil without understanding what His purpose was to begin with. Your non-belief clouds your understanding.

I agree with your point that those who claim to know Christ yet have a lifestyle that is contrary ought to be criticized, and by other Christians. I never argued to the contrary, this is explicitly pointed out in scripture. That truth does not exclude the ability of Christians to point out error to those who are non-believers as well. For even non-believers have a basic understanding of good and evil, even if they do avoid defining them.

A Voice of Reason said...

re: secularism
Part of our disagreement lies in the definition of words like "secular", but I think there is a genuine error on your part, namely

"To reject one form of belief is to embrace another."

which is not so. As an example, you might tell me a story about a very large apple which you picked at the weekend, but not tell me what colour it is? So, what is my belief about the colour of your apple. If I don't believe it is green, does that mean that I believe it is red? Or do I believe both its redness and its greenness?
The same can be true of religion. I neither believe that your religion is true nor that it is false, and you should not insist that I believe it is false, simply because I don't believe it is true.
Your statement "non-belief is a belief in nothing" is similarly false.

Perhaps now we can dispense with "secular humanism is an ideology" -- no, it is the family of all the ideologies which do not rely on religion. There are many in that family.

re: jesus tolerating evil
Again, we disagree on the meaning of "tolerate," but I shall repeat my definition of it so that you will know at least what *I* mean when I say the word.
tolerate - "to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction"
(taken directly from Mirriam-Websters)

"So dying on the cross is considered little?"
It did little to prohibit or hinder evil. Has evil in the world been reduced by that action?

"...[some of jesus' actions] were counter to evil as well, i.e. healing the sick, ministering, raising the dead."

Unless you consider the phenonmena of sickness and death evil (remember that God is responsible for both, they are not man-made) then these are not "counter to evil", although they are pleasant and welcome. Ministering does nothing to hinder evil.

"Mercy is not when God forgives"

Do we deserve forgiveness? If not, then how is forgiveness not an act of mercy??

"His intolerance is demonstrated by the fact that we have a bible that explicitly states his laws"

A crime which is made illegal by some law which is not enforced, is a crime which is tolerated. One might say that smoking pot or speeding on the highway is tolerated to a degree. God does nothing to directly stop sinners. He tolerates them -- he doesn't like it, agree with it, condone it or accept it, but he tolerates it. Otherwise he would stop it.

"gently debating and denial of service attacks are both examples of intolerance, they both do not tolerate my point of view"

No, I am still tolerating your point of view despite voicing my disagreement. In fact, I'm not even voicing disagreement, I am asking you how you reconcile your intolerant behaviour with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately I'm still explaining the question -- maybe we interprate Christ's work differently... My question is How is it that Christ condones your intolerence of homosexuals, which manifests itself to the point of saying.

"I would not allow someone to be a part of my home, club, or any other private interest that I have due to such lifestyle choices."

You can disagree all you want, but this cranks it up a notch, surely? This to me is what qualifies for intolerence. It is analagous to the example I gave of me excluding you from the internet because of your views.

I broadly accept your criticism of my claim that you should ignore most sin, although I could fix it by playing with the definition of "dependants" -- that is a police officer's dependents are everybody in his jurisdiction etc. I would also say that a police officer's duty is to uphold the law, which is not entirely the same as "combating evil" or whatever heroic quest you might wish he was on. The difference is important, because we *don't* want vigilante cops running around doing whatever they think is best.

"without the notion of intolerance for evil or sin then no Christian would share the truth of God's word"

I disagree. I christian prosletyzes for the following reasons: to be obedient to God, and out of compassion for his neighbours. If the purpose is to hinder evil, it's not working. Certainly I believe there are Christians who would not cite intolerence of evil among their motivations -- for example, any Calvinist.

I think the rest of your comment stems from our disagreement over the word "intolerent". If I haven't mentioned it before, I should point out that the synonyms listed in a thesaurus are related words, but they do not carry identical meanings. Otherwise, what would be the point of having so many identical words?

Jerry McClellan said...

There is a disconnect in using such an example, you are comparing the lack of information, i.e. not knowing the color of the apple, with not believing revealed information, i.e. religion. The two aren't the same. If I don't tell you what color the apple is, then you will decide on your own, or the color may not even occur to you. With religion, the information is revealed to you already through discussion, debate, commentary, and scripture. A structure exists for you to examine at will. With the apple, you cannot examine it if I don't show it to you, therefore believing it red or green is a moot point. In religion, an example is knowing what God looks like, we don't know because it hasn't been revealed to us therefore however one may picture God is a moot point. Believing in one ideology vs. another, whether you are willing to admit it or not, is the point here.

I posted on this premise before: The Real Path To Freedom. In it I contend that true fredom is choosing between one thing or another. That there is no true freedom FROM something without embracing something else. In achieving freedom there has to be an allegiance to something else, whether that be a physical entity, ideology or other. Expressing non-belief in one thing only demonstrates a belief in either its opposite or alternative. Simply stating "I don't know" when the information is available and accessible is a cop out, in that case you choose ignorance. In scripture Jesus states that one cannot serve two masters, he will either love one and despise the other. Again, in Revelation he speaks about churches being luke-warm (straddling the fence), yet even in such a situation, you are adhering to one thing vs. another. You are choosing supposed nuetrality over a definitive choice.

Saying that secularism is a "family of all ideologies that do not rely on religion" is an ideology. The core of which is a life absent of so called religion. Playing with the terms doesn't change that. Your definiton of secularism demonstrates a certain belief and attitude about religion, which is an ideology. Therefore, Secular Humanism IS an ideology.

In so far as accusing me of intolerance based on my previous statement in my post, you are absolutely correct. I never said I was being tolerant. I will not allow a person who continues to practice a sinful lifestyle into my home, work, or any other part of my life, especially if they agree with such sinful behavior. In other words, if one were attempting to be free from a certain sinful behavior and expressed a willingness to discontinue such behavior then I could "tolerate" them if they happened to slip every once in a while in their progression towards living a life free from that particular vice or sinful habit.

As for the rest of your comments, I must say, you should change your handle to something else, for your reasoning is quite off. Example: upholding the law IS a form of combating evil just as disobeying the law or not enforcing it is a way of assisting the progression of evil. My contention wasn't that it was exactly the same as a physical fight against evil, or whatever you may have meant. Vigilante cops? pahleese!

And in your mind, due to your unbelief, Christ dying on the cross did little to hinder evil? Amazing! (I can't stop laughing)

In such a statement you miss the point of the Gospel through Jesus Christ. God created a perfect(sinless) world this includes the creation of man, the potential for sin was there from the beginning in that God gave us the ability to choose. It was man, Adam and Eve who introduced sin by first disobeying God, this brought upon us a curse of sin, which is a spiritual separation from God, which lead to a corruption of our bodies through aging and death as well as other consequences of sin. Therefore sickness, death, stealing, etc. are evil in that they are contrary to God's perfection and will. Christ died to take on our sins in that we would not suffer the consequences of our own sinfulness. He is an eternal sacrifice given on our behalf. Jesus Christ lived a perfect life (sinless) and died an innocent man. He arose from the grave 3 days later and is now our mediator between man and God. It is through Him that we have salvation, that we have access to God and can have a relationship with God Almighty.

You really should be careful in your statements regarding what God is or isn't responsible for, saying that God is responsible for evil, sickness and death in the world is quite misleading and ignorant of the nature of God. While God did create the "potential" for evil to happen by giving us the ability to choose, sin and its consequences are a result of man's disobedience to God. Arguing on this point will take yet another long string of comments.

In so far as tolerance, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "maybe we interpret Christ's work differently".
I have nothing to reconcile with the work of Christ, for you are attempting to take few examples of what you deem as tolerance and use them as a doctrine to suggest that I am in conflict somehow with the teachings or actions of Jesus Christ. In such a question you have already assumed that there is something to reconcile. It is like asking, "do you feel guilty when you beat your wife".

As far as reasons why a Christian shares in the Gospel, you are correct, but on one point, combating evil IS a reason that many Christians share in the Gospel message. You may not agree that it is working because, similar to the thinking of the Sanhedran in Jesus' day, a Christian's version of combating evil is not the same as what your expectations may be. You demonstrate this with your previous statements about the crucifixion not doing much to hinder evil. (I am stil laughing at that one!!!) Absolutely amazing!

I think you have some things to reconcile with Christ in that you do not believe in who He really was and still is. Nor do you have a real understanding of the nature of sin and evil in this world. I would suggest reading the whole bible first (yes, I have read it from cover to cover) measuring scripture with scripture rather than your preconceived notions of tolerance, evil and so forth. Then come back and we can have a real, honest conversation. : )

A Voice of Reason said...

The point of the example is that it is possible to not believe something without believing its alternative. If you were to tell me the apple was green, and your brother tell me it was red, all the time not showing it to me, what should I believe then?

In the case of God there are 5 or so major religions, some which feature a God, some which feature many Gods, and some with no God at all. Furthermore there are uncountable variations on those religions and other minor religions or cults I could invest in. I don't know what to think. I neither believe there is a God nor do I believe there isn't one.

"Expressing non-belief in one thing only demonstrates a belief in either its opposite or alternative"

is simply not true. I have provided examples.

One more: I claim to you that 2716057 is the sum of two cubes. Do you believe me? It sounds plausable, but I could be playing a philosophers' trick on you, or I might be honestly mistaken. So do you believe it is not the sum of two cubes? Or do you believe neither.
This mirrors my position in deciding whether to accept your claim that God exists.

"You are choosing supposed nuetrality over a definitive choice."

In fact, as an honest thinking person belief is not a matter of choice. I have no choice but to withold judgement about God. If I claimed to believe in him I would be lying.]

"Secular Humanism IS an ideology."

If, as I say, you insist.

"upholding the law IS a form of combating evil just as disobeying the law or not enforcing it is a way of assisting the progression of evil."

Not in Iraq last year it wasn't. Upholding the law was assissting the Baathist regime, and breaking could be assissting the progression of Good.

"Vigilante cops? pahleese!"

You think this is a remote possibility?? Do you follow the news?

"Christ dying on the cross did little to hinder evil?"

How much evil was there immediately before the first Easter? How much evil is there in the world now? How much evil did the crucifixion stop?

Does God hold no responsibility at all for the punishment he unleashed upon humanity? When you punish your children, are you not responsible for what you do to them? Death and sickness are punishments introduced by God, and He is responsible for them.

Forget the word "tolerence", since for us it causes nothing but confusion. Instead consider this: Jesus did not excluded from his ministry or his every day life sinners, even the obvious sinners like tax collectors and prostitutes. How then do you exclude homosexuals from your life, while claiming to follow Jesus?

Jerry McClellan said...

As I stated before, go back and read the whole bible and then come back and we can have an honest conversation. Right now it is merely you going on about your own personal ideology that certain ideologies are not in fact ideologies, etc, etc. Your example of the sum of two cubes is once again flawed as well for it still requires a "choice" to be made that is contrary to a choice in favor of either, nuetrality. This is the point, there is in actuality no such thing as nuetrality in that it still requires a choice to not choose.

Your entire notion of God and understanding of his divine nature is based on your misconceptions of good and evil. If you would like to meet and have coffee and converse for a few hours maybe we could delve deeper into this topic and I can truly explain to you in depth what I am talking about. As of now, most of your comments I've already addressed and others are so off base that we would literally be here for weeks clarifying them.

In so far as Christ being tolerant, your examples are true, but once again, misguided. Example: Tax collectors weren't necessarily sinners for being tax collectors. Also, I've never stated that I would not be around homosexuals, I gave you a clear example of my initial statement. I clearly specified that my intolerance would be within my own personal, private areas of my life, as well as the fact that if one were to continue practicing that which is contrary to morality, without repentance, then that person would be excluded from my personal life. How is that un-Christ-like? It is funny actually, that you are attempting to correct me for my supposed contradiction to Christ's teaching, yet, you do not believe in Jesus, or God, nor do you profess to being a Christian yourself, in addition, in your original argument you contended that only Christians should correct other Christians and should tolerate sinners. I guess the reverse of this rule doesn't apply to you, right?

Sir, I sincerely, and respectfully urge you to go calm down, let go of your anger about God and Christians and sit down to read the scriptures with an open mind. Don't deny your anger, for it has been revealed in several of your statements, especially in the one where you ask if God takes responsibility for any of the "punishment" unleashed upon humanity. You obviously cannot resolve why there is suffering in the world if there is supposed to be a loving God who created it. An understandable feeling, one that cannot be resolved with secular reasoning.

A Voice of Reason said...

Do you neither believe that 2716057 is the sum of two cubes; nor that 2716057 is not the sum of two cubes? What is the opposite or alternative which you do believe?

I neither believe that God exists nor do I believe that He doesn't. I don't see what neutrality has to do with it.

"[any unrepentant sinner] would be excluded from my personal life. How is that un-Christ-like?"

It's un-Christ-like because Jesus did not exclude sinners from his private life. He had lunch with zaccheus, a corrupt tax collector, for example.
Also, if you're going to exclude unrepentant sinners, that doesn't leave that many people for you to include!

"I guess the reverse of this rule doesn't apply to you, right?"

No, because I'm not a christian, so I don't follow all the laws which you choose to follow. If you want you can be a hypocrite, but I know you would choose other than that. It isn't a rule I'm trying to impose on you, it is a rule set in the bible.

"let go of your anger about God"

Thanks for your concern, but let me put you at ease: I'm not angry. :) See?
I ask about God and responsibility for the punishment he unleashed purely because you claim the responsibility for death and sickness rests with man; I don't see it that way. If I imprison a burgler, I am responsible for his imprisonment. I am justified, so the imprisonment is therefore not evil. This is the point with sickness and death -- you wanted to lable it as evil, when in fact it was the invention and will of God. It wasn't me who insisted they were evil.

Thanks for your invitation for a chat, actually that intrigues me, but I think I live too far away (london).

Jerry McClellan said...

"Do you neither believe that 2716057 is the sum of two cubes; nor that 2716057 is not the sum of two cubes? What is the opposite or alternative which you do believe?

I neither believe that God exists nor do I believe that He doesn't. I don't see what neutrality has to do with it."

What you just stated would be considered a nuetral position. You choose to not choose. It can't get any clearer than that. It is interesting that you use a mathematical analogy when such is absolute, whether I believe one or the other or neither, the answer is absolute. The same is for God, whether you believe in Him or not, He still is.

"It's un-Christ-like because Jesus did not exclude sinners from his private life. He had lunch with zaccheus, a corrupt tax collector, for example.
Also, if you're going to exclude unrepentant sinners, that doesn't leave that many people for you to include!"

To cite such an example completely misses the purpose of why Christ came. Jesus having dinner with a sinner in which you do not know whether or not he was repentant, doesn't preclude the fact that I don't associate with someone who is not open to the Gospel message. You completely disregard the passages where Christ instructs His disciples to not go into towns where they are not received, but to move on. It is also indicated in scripture where Jesus expresses that He will not go into a particular city because of their lack of repentance.

"No, because I'm not a christian, so I don't follow all the laws which you choose to follow. If you want you can be a hypocrite, but I know you would choose other than that. It isn't a rule I'm trying to impose on you, it is a rule set in the bible."

Where is this rule set sir? This is a rule that you are interjecting into scripture that scripture doesn't explicitly state. You are interpreting scripture based on your own preconceived notions rather than on what it actually says as a whole. This will not only lead you on a slippery slope of thinking but is quite disingenuous as well. You are not being honest.

"Thanks for your concern, but let me put you at ease: I'm not angry. :) See?"

Funny, but you cannot hide your contempt for the truth. The mere fact that this discussion string has lasted this long between us demonstrates your anger and my patience.

"I ask about God and responsibility for the punishment he unleashed purely because you claim the responsibility for death and sickness rests with man; I don't see it that way. If I imprison a burgler, I am responsible for his imprisonment. I am justified, so the imprisonment is therefore not evil. This is the point with sickness and death -- you wanted to lable it as evil, when in fact it was the invention and will of God. It wasn't me who insisted they were evil."

Using your own analogy, who is responsible for that brugler having to go to prison? In other words, why would he be in prison to begin with?

I'll asnwer that for you in case your anger once again clouds your judgement, the burglar himself is responsible for being in jail because his situation is due to his behavior which was contrary to the law. The same is true of sin, death, and sickness, man is responsible for these conditions due to his own immorality and lack of obedience to God's laws. Death and sickenss are consequences of sin, they are contrary to God's perfect order established from the beginning, therefore they are evil.

"Thanks for your invitation for a chat, actually that intrigues me, but I think I live too far away (london)."

That is unfortunate, maybe one day we can run into each other. God bless.

A Voice of Reason said...

I find much more to agree with here. Just a few subtle comments really...

"What you just stated would be considered a nuetral position. You choose to not choose. It can't get any clearer than that. It is interesting that you use a mathematical analogy when such is absolute, whether I believe one or the other or neither, the answer is absolute. The same is for God, whether you believe in Him or not, He still is."

Or isn't. If He doesn't exist, your belief will not make Him.

Also, I would say that in the honest case, no choice is involved. I cannot choose to believe something when I find the evidence wanting; nor can I choose to disbelieve something where I find the evidence convincing; and neither can I choose to withold judgement where I find a definite belief (one way or the other) to be a clear winner. It's a combination of knowledge and evaluation and, as long as I'm being honest, my preference does not come into play. Of course, if I'm not going to insist on being honest then all bets are off and I can (pretend to) believe absolutely anything.

"Jesus having dinner with a sinner in which you do not know whether or not he was repentant, doesn't preclude the fact that I don't associate with someone who is not open to the Gospel message."

How do you know the homosexuals you exclude are not open to the Gospel?

"You completely disregard the passages where Christ instructs His disciples to not go into towns where they are not received, but to move on."

That's not excluding people, that's just not pointlessly preaching to people who aren't going to be receptive. Not going into their towns is not the same as refusing to admit them should they want to join one of your clubs, for example. Do you see the difference? I admit I haven't completely spelled it out.

"It is also indicated in scripture where Jesus expresses that He will not go into a particular city because of their lack of repentance."

I do not recall this incident(s)? May I have a reference?
Again, would Jesus have turned away representatives from that town? (we decend into the hypothetical unfortunately, since such an instance is not recorded).

"Where is this rule [not judge non-Christians] set sir?"

Matthew 18 instructs christians to discipline one another, but points out that there is no authority to judge non-believers; instead the official government should do that, as Romans 13 states. Notice that all governments are established by God, even the American one which you have such difficulty with, and the Sudanese one. And that whacky old Iraqi government which we just dismantled.

"The mere fact that this discussion string has lasted this long between us demonstrates your anger and my patience."

No, I assure you I'm not angry. We've both been patient. But that's good, I'm certainly beginning to get a sense of your point of view.

"the burglar himself is responsible for being in jail"

Not quite -- the burglar is responsible for that fact that he is being punished; his government is responsible for the specifics of that punishment, in this case jail time as opposed to fining, execution, or having his hand chopped off. The burglar has no part in that decision nor should he be held responsible if the government response to his crime (which is still his fault) is itself immoral. For example, if the state wanted to punish a woman by sexually abusing her, the state would be wrong and that wouldn't be the woman's fault. (the woman would still be guilty of her own crime, nothing can erase that).

There are many ways that God could have punished Adam for his curiosity/disobediance. The choice that he made to introduce sickness and death is one for which God is responsible. That point aside, sickness and death are certainly God's inventions, and you wanted to describe them as "evil" in order to provide an example of Jesus' work being counter to evil -- how can any invention of God's be evil?

Jerry McClellan said...

First of all, you are not interpreting scripture honestly or correctly. Matthew 18 doesn't in any way speak about how Christians are not to judge those in the world, it speaks only of the relationship between fellow Christians, i.e. the lost sheep, and the unmerciful servant. All of these parables have to do with our relationship with God and then each other as Christians.

Second, the burglar is responisble for the punishment in that he/she was forwarned of the impending consequences of such deviant behavior. Therefore, being warned that such offenses will bring on recompence and committing them anyway demonstrates that one is responsible for the consequences.

Your statement or question about God creating evil is based on incorrect premises, according to the Bible, the evil we encounter in this world is the direct result of choice, we have the freedom to choose. Because God desired to create a world where genuine love was expressed, he gave us free will. Because true, genuine love can never be coerced, it was necessary that God created us with the freedom to choose. Mankind therefore had the choice either to obey God’s commands or to rebel against them. Now in rebelling against them, there are consequences, just as there are consequences in obeying them. Genesis 3 tells us in detail, after being forwarned, how the first man and woman used their freedom to choose to rebel against God. This rebellion, which followed an earlier such rebellion on the part of the angels, is the true origin of evil. Evil and suffering are therefore the result or consequences of the wrong choice on the part of God’s creation and continues to be perpetuated throughout the world today.

It seems you are either implying that the presence of evil in the world proves the nonexistence of God or at least the inconsistency in such a belief in God or that the things that I cited to be evil, sickness, death, suffering, are not actually evil. But these arguments are self-defeating because in not believing in God there is no reliable standard upon which to judge what is good or evil. You have no guarantee that evil will ever be overcome because it is something that is arbitrary and not based on any absolutes.

A Voice of Reason said...

"First of all, you are not interpreting scripture honestly or correctly."

It's less dishonest or incorrect than you failing to deal with the other chapter I supplied, Romans 13.
See also 1 Corinthians 5. In the light of that, do you still feel biblically justified to be intolerant of homosexuals?

"the burglar is responisble for the punishment in that he/she was forwarned of the impending consequences"

Does this extend to the woman who was forewarned that she would be sexually abused?
On a side note, I don't thin Genesis shows God warning Adam or Eve *what would happen* if they disobeyed Him. But I'm not sure that simply being warned makes one responsible for a state's response to your actions. Preaching Jesus in the Sudan a hardline Muslim state may result in the preacher's torture, is he responsible for that?

"our statement or question about God creating evil..."

I asked no such question and made no such statement. I asked you about God creating *sickness* and *death*.

"It seems you are either implying that the presence of evil in the world proves the nonexistence of God"

I am aware of making no such inplication. In fact, what quote of mine can you find which even suggests that God does not exist?

"or at least the inconsistency in such a belief in God or that the things that I cited to be evil, sickness, death, suffering, are not actually evil"

I will restate my question. If you believe that everything God has made/invented is Good, and if God invented sickness and death (just as the state invented prison), how can it be that those things are evil?

Jerry McClellan said...

I will restate my last post since it seems you have missed the point, your statement or question about God creating evil, or as you clarified, invented evil, is based on incorrect premises, according to the Bible, the evil we encounter in this world is the direct result of choice, we have the freedom to choose. Because God desired to create a world where genuine love was expressed, he gave us free will. Because true, genuine love can never be coerced, it was necessary that God created us with the freedom to choose. Mankind therefore had the choice either to obey their creator or to rebel against Him. Now in rebelling against God, there are consequences, just as there are good consequences in being obedient. Genesis 3 tells us in detail, after being forwarned, how the first man and woman used their freedom to choose to rebel against God. This rebellion, which followed an earlier such rebellion on the part of the angels, is the true origin of evil. Evil and suffering are therefore the result or consequences of the wrong choice on the part of God’s creation and continues to be perpetuated throughout the world today. In Romans 1 the Apostle Paul points out the unrighteousness of man and how when God's creation is revealed to them, he still rejects this truth through disobedience and dishonor towards God.

1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Paul then reenforces this point in stating that part of that rebellion was not retaining God in their own mind.

1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..."

Also, to clarify once again, I did not say that you specifically stated that God did not exist but merely that it seemed from your comments that you were implying the idea. If you believe He exists then simply say so. If not then say so. If you are continually looking for proof, good luck, in your mind, you will never find it even though it is staring you in the face.