Oh, I'm also reminded of:
http://www.xtremejesus.com/
And the various Christian camps for children I've heard of based around the theme. You can tell if someone went to it because they'll have a tee shirt.
Anyone here a extreme lover-of-Jesus?
- Thread starter ShadeoftheMoon
- Start date
- Status
Oh, I'm also reminded of:
http://www.xtremejesus.com/
And the various Christian camps for children I've heard of based around the theme. You can tell if someone went to it because they'll have a tee shirt.
Amenin a strait way
Huh?
You don't have to qualify a hug just because someone isn't straight.
Last edited:
All these divisions exist only in people's minds. Catholic and Evangelist, Christian and Muslim, Christian and Atheist, and even straight and gay. We are all human beings who share this world together, and instead of just focusing on how we are different, we should also remember the far more things we have in common.
Oh ok. Given the nature of the thread up until now, I'm still feeling a bit defensive.
In a gay way. (but in no way sexual)
Yeah. That's been my point all along. I wasn't the one drawing the line in the sand.
It's difficult to know how to deal with that kind of situation. For one, we are partially responsible. Just because someone can draw a line doesn't mean we have to recognize it. If no one did recognize the line was there, then it would be rather arbitrary and meaningless. I'm sure in Shade's mind, he wasn't drawing a line to divide people with his comments and this thread. But that is how some of us recognized it.
On the other hand, people do need to be held accountable for what they say. It was no more right for me to mock people's Christian beliefs than it was for Shade to mock atheists, Catholics, Muslims, and scientists. And its incredibly simple minded to hold people accountable for what you perceive they believe as opposed to what they actually say. And that is what I notice is a common factor in these discussions.
For example, there are Christians who embrace homosexuality as long as it is between two consenting and monogamous adults, so it isn't fair of me to assume that every Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin. And I read in the Evolution thread that Black sees evolution as an "atheist dogma" even though there are Christians who accept and believe in evolution. I think it is good to challenge these lines, but I don't think we have to allow ourselves to be "put in our place" by them. As long as we are trying to understand where others are coming from, we don't have to recognize any arbitrary lines and people will find it useless and isolating to even try to create them.
And I'm sure that there are some people who wish to be isolated from the rest of the world and to only associate with those people whose beliefs fall in the same narrow perspective, but those people are worthy of pity not hostility, because they are the ones who are ultimately losing out.
Last edited:
I was actually just about to suggest that this be moved to a different thread when I got back to my computer. What an excellent idea. At this point, I was going to continue in my replies to certain posts. However, I think I will refrain for now unless anyone really thinks they need to hear them. It seems that somewhat of a general conclusion has been reached here and though there are still some loose ends to tie up as I see it, it is probably best just to leave them untied. I just bet they will probably pop up somewhere else.
Oh, I'm also reminded of:
http://www.xtremejesus.com/
And the various Christian camps for children I've heard of based around the theme. You can tell if someone went to it because they'll have a tee shirt.
That was not even remotely necessary Koba. Come on guys, I thought we were past this.
Tolerance, or just resignation that nothing will change when all is said except for a widening of the gulf that has been uncovered?
People aren't going to change unless they are willing to, and they aren't going to be willing to change if they are being accused of this and that and thus being put on the defensive. Taking a stand is only effective if it means holding people accountable for what they actually say and do, not what they believe. And I have faith that if a person is genuinely good, then they will change when they are made aware of how what they say and do is benefiting no one and only serving to divide them from their fellow human beings.
So what we are returning to in this thread isn't tolerance, but acceptance of human imperfection. We realize that blame, accusations, and condemnation will only serve to create a gulf between us, and as I believe our goal is to hopefully come to a better understanding together, it makes more sense to simply accept that we have different beliefs. Only when somebody selfishly tries to divide, disgrace, or damage us through what they say or do should we confront them.
I've been hearing about "extreme Jesus" and its various spin offs since I was a kid. It always seemed ridiculous to me, even when I was religious. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out how strange some expressions are.
I guess my understanding of the word "tolerance" (and use of it) implied acceptance of human imperfection in that we would tolerate (endure, indulge, be lenient regarding) those statements which offended us but move on from that point for the overall health of the discussion.
S
Shai Gar
Are you seriously going to into the semantics of tolerance and acceptance? :mwtf:
Human imperfection isn't something I tolerate, it is something I accept as a fact of life. And I think you may have missed the overall point of what I said.
Last edited:
Some are, some are not. Some atheists are close minded, and others are not.
I just want to say this:
I am a practising Catholic (i.e. go to Mass each week). But that doesn't mean I'm some sort of narrow-minded, gay hating, conservative individual.
In my opinion, it's important to realise that the authority of the Church, is much different to the fundametal beliefs and spirituality of Catholocism.
I'm Catholic, yes. But I also believe that women should be priests, priests should be able to marry, homosexuality should not be condemned, and that we should all love and embrace one another, no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual preference.
No. I wasn't.
I used the word "tolerance" back there after the mood seemed to "lift" a bit in this thread, and it seemed like people participating in the thread (not people throughout the world) were agreeing to be a little more tolerant in their exchanges in this thread.
Then you went on to say what tolerance was or wasn't, without allowing for the way I was using the word. Hence my explanation for the definitions of tolerance I was thinking of when I used the word.
Sheesh.
- Status