Cultic Tolerance...?

[Lluvia]

Interesting question: do you think we, as Christians, should tolerate the structuring of mosques, and additional false houses of worship in America? (Hypothetically speaking.)

[Lluvia]

Don'tyou think it would build a more substantial statement for worshipping the one true God in the USA?

[Bobtheduck]

Any forced worship is not worship at all. If we forced everyone to be Christians, they really wouldn't be. We'd actually be harming them and that my prove our non-christianity.

[Orange Kitten]

Agreed with Cephas and Bob.

You can't force anything upon anyone. Remember: "Freedom of religion"
However, there's nothing wrong with evangelism and telling people about Christianity

"Patience is a virtue, but persistence to the point of success is a blessing."

[Straylight]

A lack of tolerance to other people's beliefs has proven to be very damaging to the reputation of Christianity throughout history. As we all know, when we talk about Christianity with our non-christian friends, these dark areas of history are frequently brought up.

Intolerance, if anything else, is an extremely bad witness, and drives people away. One of my flatmates is a stubborn non-christian because he was forced to attend a Christian school and worship regularly. It's probably one of the worst things you can do.

[mechana2015]

Prevention of the establishment of other religeous places of worship, and destruction of others places of worship was one of the trademarks of the taliban. That is not a good witness at all.

[Lluvia]

Don'tyou think it would build a more substantial statement for worshipping the one true God in the USA?

Four words: One nation under God. (Not Gods.)

It's an awfully poor witness to our faith when we compromise it in the name of tolerance. By the way, I never said anything on force...

[Bobtheduck]

Tolerance is a nice buzz word that can be quite dangerous, particularly to Christians, and I disagree with it's implications and the stigmas it creates, but other than that, I think I said the same thing as everyone else. We should NOT take down the Mosques in the US, especially not in the name of Jesus... Paul SPOKE to people, even if it was quite loudly, and never did he forcefully remove the religions set into place. The same goes for Peter, James, John, and all the other desciples. I do NOT believe in "manifest destiny" and creating a Christian state is a bad idea, because it would be Christian in name only. The plain fact is our nation was founded on a respect for the Bible but NOT on Christian faith. Not all of the founding fathers were Christians, and they were ALL involved heavily in Freemasonry which gets into some VERY non-christian areas. The nation is a republican democracy and the leaders, as is the same for every nation (including Iraq or China or North Korea) were put there by God. (that was in I Peter, I believe) but America is not a Christian nation, and I'm thankful it's not because for even how close we are to being one, our Christianity is very weak overall. Christianity flourishes in persecution and dies out when it's the dominant superpower. If we were to drive out other religions, we are in a very serious sense cursing our own faith.

[Lluvia]

By standing up instead of shrinking down, how would this be cursing our Christian faith? You pointed out the apostle Paul as well as some of the other disciples, although their major purpose was to build the church. In the Old Testament, however, you will find there were but few of the kings that did good in the eyes of the Lord, whereas the largest part did evil in the eyes of the Lord. You may inquire how it is they did good, and they did good by destroying the temples dedicated to false gods, in addition to all of the supplementary false idles. (I.E. Fertility gods, etc.) Please understand that it is not that I believe we could or should carry out this in the country's present condition, that it would be a solution to all of our tribulations to abolish all of the other religions exclusive of Christianity. I am merely trying to make the point that it is right in the eyes of the Lord. Can you be in agreement to this, as a fellow Christian?

[Straylight]

In the Old Testament, however, you will find there were but few of the kings that did good in the eyes of the Lord, whereas the largest part did evil in the eyes of the Lord.

It was right back then, because it was done within a nation which had been specifically designated by God as holy. Today however, we live in the democratic age.

The exception is probably Vatican City, the base nation of the Catholic Church. Anyone who starts promoting non-Christian doctrine there is clearly showing a complete lack of respect for the Catholic faith and heritage. It bears similarities with someone walking inside a Christian church and preaching the message of another faith.

[EliasEmmanuel]

Four words: One nation under God. (Not Gods.)

It's an awfully poor witness to our faith when we compromise it in the name of tolerance. By the way, I never said anything on force...

One nation under God whose constitution was written by a deist who made his own chopped-down version of the New Testament.

How does allowing other religions to exist offer a "poor witness"? Last time some so-called Christians decided not to tolerate other religions was the Crusades, and after upwards of 500 years our collective witness still hasn't recovered. I know you never mentioned force, but when you ask if we should tolerate the existence of mosques, what's the alternative? Work to kick out all the muslims? Start bombing mosques? If you're not talking about force, what alternative is there to "tolerating" the existence of other religion's buildings?

Yeah, what you said about thye OT was accurate.... but you miss that 1) the ones you mention are the ones who stopped idolatry in Israel, a nation God had designated as His, and regardless of what some folks may like to think, America is not the new Israel. 2), brush up on your NT. Nowhere in there is there any instruction regarding "smiting the heathen". In fact we're told to keep ourselves (not others, we're not the Jesus gestapo) from idols, live lives of holiness and live in peace with all men as much as we can. No grand sweeping plan of conquest or contempt for the unsaved. Although 2000 years later people still want a conquering messiah......

You want to REALLY "stand up rather than shrinking down"? Do it Jesus' way (radical, I know...). Do it by loving those who hate you, blessing those who insult you, not striking back when someone attacks you. Do it by serving others sacrificially and knowing that in doing so you serve Jesus Himself. Do it by making yourself less rather than insisting on a place of power and prestige, and by considering yourself the servant of all. That is the life Jesus calls us to, not one where we question whether we should allow people of other religions on "our turf". Frankly I wonder where people get the latter idea, as you'll never find it in the NT.....

Did you know that much of Acts falls during the reign of Nero, a certified maniac who was the most violent persecutor of Christians ever, murdered most of his own family.... I could fill a post with the things he did. Wouldn't know it from reading the NT or Paul's letters though, because he is never mentioned once. Because Paul and the early church knew they'd never been promised the world and they didn't have some Divine Right to be on top. They knew the success of the Kingdom of God didn't depend on it having popular and legislative approval. Take a tour of Acts and the Epistles next time you feel like we in america have anything to complain about.

Anyway, rant mode off. But I will say, conquest and "cleansing" has only ever ended in evil and bloodshed and the utter betrayal of the Gospel. The application of Jesus' teachings has changed the world, won respect and honored God.

[Lluvia]

Thank you for your responses to my topic, everyone. ^^ I natually realize that although we consent to other religions that build their temples in our country, America, it isn't right to demolish them, as that would be taking the law into our own hands, when the Bible says, "Vengeance is mine", declares the Lord. However, it is enormously right and imperative for us to stand up and call evil, evil, and what is false, false.

All your answers were...interesting, and I value them. Thank you.

[Technomancer]

What would it say about Christianity if the only way we could only spread worship was through force?

[Lluvia]

It has nothing to do with force. The topic is hypothetical... That is, when the USA was in its infancy, we should never have allowed people to come and worship their false gods. And from the time that we did, we live among them, but we don't agree and must title their false gods false, and call evil, evil, given that it is the truth. Yes, EliasEmmanuel, our country was founded by Christians, the Puritans (i.e. Calvinists, of which I am), but I'll put that speech away for another hour...

[EliasEmmanuel]

Thank you for your responses to my topic, everyone. ^^ I natually realize that although we consent to other religions that build their temples in our country, America, it isn't right to demolish them, as that would be taking the law into our own hands, when the Bible says, "Vengeance is mine", declares the Lord. However, it is enormously right and imperative for us to stand up and call evil, evil, and what is false, false.

Yes, we should acknowledge what's false. But HOW we do it is the issue.

I don't see a biblical precident for screaming it from the rooftops. I don't see proclaiming "Islam is evil/false" being a biblically sound form of outreach.

Check out how Paul dealt with the Epicurean Philosophers on Mars Hill. Or the people who tried him.

Anyway..... by way of clarification, exactly what are you proposing, hypothetically? How are you proposing "standing up"? Clarifying that will make things easier.

[Lluvia]

I'm quite aware of Paul and Mars Hill, and of course, everything that Paul did was accurate. One of the primary things that he noted when he arrived in Athens were the wealth of false gods, and one of them was marked "The Unknown God", and rather then keeping silent about it for the sake of tolerance, he proclaimed God in Jesus Christ in the midst of them all. This is what we must do in our everyday Christianity. It's really very straightforward. No uproar, no force, but mere proclamation.

[EliasEmmanuel]

It has nothing to do with force. The topic is hypothetical... That is, when the USA was in its infancy, we should never have allowed people to come and worship their false gods. And from the time that we did, we live among them, but we don't agree and must title their false gods false, and call evil, evil, given that it is the truth. Yes, EliasEmmanuel, our country was founded by Christians, the Puritans (i.e. Calvinists, of which I am), but I'll put that speech away for another hour...

Yeah, it was founded by Puritans.

Who burned "witches" and killed people for disrespecting their parents. Under whose rule you'd get a dagger rammed through your tongue for using God's name in vain. The first time. The second you'd be publically executed.

I have nothing against Calvinists in general, so don't think that. But I find that kind of graceless, forced, violent theocracy so far from the early church community founded by the Apostles as to be completely loathsome.

Now, as far as the founding fathers go..... Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the constitution, was an avowed deist who made his own New Testament by cutting out every reference to God and all Jesus' miracles, and called Christ's deity and ressurection "the deleria of crazed imaginations". John Adams considered the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy" that should be gotten rid of. George Washington said in the Treaty of Tripoli that America "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". Heck, the American flag was the first flag of a western nation to NOT feature a Christian symbol. These folks were running from a nation with an established state church and a history of killing people who belonged to the wrong one. I don't think your vision of banning infide.... I mean, non-believers is what they had in mind.

Again, I don't find the idea of outlawing other religions particularly Christian.... in the "following the commands of Jesus and the example of the apostles" sense, I mean.

The New testament gives us plenty of good council for living among non-Christians. I think I'll stick with that.

[EliasEmmanuel]

I'm quite aware of Paul and Mars Hill, and of course, everything that Paul did was accurate. One of the primary things that he noted when he arrived in Athens were the wealth of false gods, and one of them was marked "The Unknown God", and rather then keeping silent about it for the sake of tolerance, he proclaimed God in Jesus Christ in the midst of them all. This is what we must do in our everyday Christianity. It's really very straightforward. No uproar, no force, but mere proclamation.

Okay, reread what he said.....

"Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious......."

he even quoted their own philosophy to them. "As your own philosophers have said, 'we are His offspring'...."

Not "you're wrong and your gods are false and I'm right, turn or burn", but "'The Unknown God'? Lemme tell you about Him....".

I see a fundamental difference in tactic there. Paul engaged in a discussion on their terms. At some points, in their own jargon and vernacular. I find that really interesting.

And I can't see how you can say you're not talking about force when you're asserting that all nonChristian religions should be illegal in America (to say nothing of the questionably Christian ones).

[Technomancer]

It has nothing to do with force. The topic is hypothetical... That is, when the USA was in its infancy, we should never have allowed people to come and worship their false gods.

Of course, that rather begs the question about all those Indians. And who decided what is false. The "Know-Nothings" ring a bell?

[cbwing0]

Last time some so-called Christians decided not to tolerate other religions was the Crusades, and after upwards of 500 years our collective witness still hasn't recovered.

The situation was much more complicated than that. I won't go into it here, but if you like I can start a new thread/PM you about it.

Anyway, it is not a good idea to tear down the places of worship of other religions, as that would violate the right to freedom of religion and assembly enjoyed by all citizens of this country.

Second, that is the kind of tactic used today in many muslim countries against Christians and other religions. If we use the same oppressive tactics, how are we different from them?

It is admirable that you would want to spread the gospel (and I encourage you to do it), but tearing down mosques is not the way to do that.

[Azier the Swordsman]

If you attempt to force someone out of your country just because they believe differently than you, that is the worst possible Christian witness you could give IMHO. If you really want to minister to those people, the best way is to ask God to put those people in your path and give you the words to say. Careful, the 'I'm right, your wrong' approach is the worst way to try to minister to someone. Unfortunately, there are people who try to use the 'turn or burn' tactic. *cough* Chick Tracts *cough*

[Straylight]

"Turn or burn" is a bad way of witnessing. I think that "turn and live" is a far better way to take things.

[EliasEmmanuel]

The situation was much more complicated than that. I won't go into it here, but if you like I can start a new thread/PM you about it.

I know, but.... you get my point :p

[The Grammarian]

The nation is a republican democracy.

Technically, we're a democratic republic. (Emphasis on republic, not democracy. Hence why the votes of the Electoral College trump the popular vote--to Nixon AND Gore's chagrin.)

[EliasEmmanuel]

If you attempt to force someone out of your country just because they believe differently than you, that is the worst possible Christian witness you could give IMHO.

Amen. Many times over.

[EliasEmmanuel]

"Turn or burn" is a bad way of witnessing. I think that "turn and live" is a far better way to take things.

Well said.

And I dig your choice in usernames, incidentally. Gibson rules.

[Straylight]

Well said.

And I dig your choice in usernames, incidentally. Gibson rules.

Nice to see another fan! Let's avoid hijacking this thread with a Gibson discussion though.

[wiggins]

I apologize for not reading any of the other replies first, but yes... we don't want to scare people away from us do we? Jesus said to his disciples something about them being the harvesters in a field to harvest souls for Christ, and show people the way to Jesus Christ, the one and only true God. Sure there is missionary work, but if we scare people away from America (although I am currently in the UK), we would build up a bad reputation for us in this world whjich celebrates freedom of thinking and universal (I mean this extremely literally - look at everything we are supposed to accept nowadays like homosexuality, etc.) acceptance. Everywhere we went people would say "Oh! That guy/girl is from that prejuduced country..." or something to that effect, and would weaken our witness for Christ wouldn't it? I can't remember where I read it (in the Bible? In some other Christian book?), but I read something to the effect that although we as Christians have been reborn in and through Christ, and are no longer of the world, we are still in it. We have to follow the laws of the world, and the laws that the authorities set down, except when it clashes with God and His laws, rules and instructions. I know Jesus also wrote something about obeying authorities because God is the one who allowed/ put those authorities in power. God is almighty, all-knowing, and perfect in every way. He can't get anything wrong. God knows everything that is in the world and the state of the world now, and it must be in His Plans because He is a Perfect God. He is in control. Now to reorientate myself with the question on hand (I may or may not have gone off on a tagent...), right after the event where Jesus asked for a drink of water from the Samaritan woman (you guys probably know what event I am talking about right? So, I won't continue about that, since I am finding it hard to summarize it and not lose meaning...), Jesus was talking to his disciples. This was where he told them about their being harvesters. Jesus said that the fields are ready for harvest. I believe he meant the fields of souls are ready to harvest. I think we should look at people who have no religion of are of another faith as sould ripe for the harvest, souls we can win for Jesus, and potential future brothers and sisters in Christ. It will probably be hard for us to make them see the light of Jesus and that Jesus is the One and Only True God, as well as, the only Way, Truth, and Light. But all the same it doesn't change the fact that they are souls in need of Jesus and God's salvation. And we can help show them the way to Jesus!

[Bobtheduck]

By standing up instead of shrinking down, how would this be cursing our Christian faith? You pointed out the apostle Paul as well as some of the other disciples, although their major purpose was to build the church. In the Old Testament, however, you will find there were but few of the kings that did good in the eyes of the Lord, whereas the largest part did evil in the eyes of the Lord. You may inquire how it is they did good, and they did good by destroying the temples dedicated to false gods, in addition to all of the supplementary false idles. (I.E. Fertility gods, etc.) Please understand that it is not that I believe we could or should carry out this in the country's present condition, that it would be a solution to all of our tribulations to abolish all of the other religions exclusive of Christianity. I am merely trying to make the point that it is right in the eyes of the Lord. Can you be in agreement to this, as a fellow Christian?

Hmm... This is a very broad theological topic, but let me say the violence in the old testament was primarily to establish israel, David, and David's line. That's because there was a physical "God's Land" back then, wheras the Kingdom of Heaven is the salvation of man, not a physical location. Therefore, keeping the land pure (tearing down of idols in the theocracy of Israel) is not the same as if we were to tear down the mosques. The idols and temples we need to tear down are the ones in our own selves because the church is people and not a building, and the kingdom is the salvation of man and not a physical place. Much as how God never had people killed, regardless of how contrary to his laws they were, who were outside of the jurisdiction of Israel (say, for instance, in South America), the same goes with Today, where outside of a much narrower jurisdiction, we do not have a Christian state because God's kingdom is not a physical place but Christ's growing body (AKA Us) So, there is no reason for us to tear down mosques and force Muslims out of the Country because the Kingdom of God is NOT the United States.

As for the Koran, I've heard passages out of it that specifically tell them to murder non-muslims, particularly Jews. Unless they do the mormon thing, and the leaders can rewrite the Koran at their whims, then there's not much direction I can go with "If you see an unbeliever, smite at their neck" and other such passages specifically telling Muslims to kill unbelievers. Even taking the Old Testament as in full force today, it was still only talking about Israel and not the US. Not all muslims are violent, in fact it's only a small number that are, but it's that small number that's actually obeying one of the pillars of islam. That does not mean we respond in force (tearing down mosques) but in perseverence, turning the other cheek, and prayer. As of now, we don't have direct muslim persecution in the US, or in Canada or the UK, but in Muslim countries, there are Christians living under the persecution getting followers by exactly what I said we should do, and not by fighting.

"and rather then keeping silent about it for the sake of tolerance, he proclaimed God in Jesus Christ in the midst of them all."

But he did NOT tear down their places of worship. He instead gave them the chance to leave it willingly. If they did not do so, they continued to worship their false gods.

[shooraijin]

Brief warning, not pointed at anyone:

Strictly speaking, this thread shouldn't be here by the current site rules about theology and politics (it being a topic that touches and has morphed into both), but since mod laziness didn't nip it early on, it may stay up. However, it is being closely monitored.

This wasn't triggered by anyone or by any particular post; just an informational note.