Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Communion and Religiosity (was Re: Communion without alcohol? Message-ID: Date: 25 Feb 90 03:57:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NCR Canada Ltd, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Lines: 66 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com previously commented on people who are "intolerant, accusatory and denegrating of the beliefs of each other." bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) responded: >In the spirit of ecumenism today, we frequently find the word >"intolerant" being used to describe those who have firm convictions >about what they believe Scripture says to be true. --clh] This is true, but I am not suggesting that loyalty to ones convictions must be undermined to hold a "tolerant" attituded toward the beliefs of others. I am tolerant of the beliefs of many Christians and non-Christians alike, and find much value and wisdom in their teachings. What I do not agree with is the intolerance born of ignorance and fear that does little to join men together and much to alienate them from each other. The important term you use is "what they believe Scripture says to be true". It takes some time before each individual accepts (if they ever do) various aspects of the Gospels as true; this implies that they must be examined, studied, and seriously thought about before they are accepted; there is a degree of doubt initially. If an individual closes himself off at any point to the views of others, and ever stops doubting, secure in his/her 'firm convictions', they will cease to grow. >This word "intolerant" brings with it an initial human response that in most >cases is more negative than positive. This is my feeling exactly, and my intent. >Therefore it is a very powerful >word to use from a person whose convictions aren't strong enough for >him to feel the need to communicate those convictions to another. The use of adhominem attacks, even subtle ones, does not become this discussion >The second factor which makes this an effective word for an ecumenist >is the testimony given by Christians whose zeal for the truth (even if >they are "correct") is so strong that they come across as "harsh, >accusatory, and degenerating". When this "zeal" comes across in this way, it is of little value in finding truth. >This adjective is then the effective ecumenical weapon to yield >whenever the "intolerant" enemy shows up yielding his own sword, the >Word of God. All too often, during the exchange, the adjective is >able to dull the sword by removing the spirit of gentleness which >visibly affirms the reality of faith within the "intolerant >fundamentalist". >It is my prayer, that those who feel the Bible is worth daily reading >(Acts 17:11), and inevitably come to the same level of intolerance the >Scripture writers had, to remember the words of Paul. To correct weak >convicted people with a spirit that is compatible with the patience our >Lord showed to us in our rebellion prior to coming to Christ. >It is also my prayer that those who rate "tolerance of contradicting >beliefs" higher than their own, that they capture the spirit of >"intolerance" found in Holy Scripture and to begin to "fight the good >fight" by "earnestly contending for the faith, once for all delivered >to the saints" (Jude 3). Apostasy begins with the toleration of error. I find it difficult to understand the spreading of a message of Love when the terms employed are those of Conflict. The perception of ourselves as warriors for God, rather than emmissaries of love is mis-guided in my mind, and does not particularly serve us well in seeking our god. I re-iterate that in so far as intolerance alienates us from each other, it is inappropriate. I can not tolerate intolerance (now there is a fine little paradox for you :-)