Religious Tolerance (or not)

[firstpusk 10]

anarchist, I also thought that the Muslim woman in EagleInKy's story had not been intolerant. Like the others she simply stated her view. Often it is hard to break away from notions that we have grown up with. Another point that I noticed in the story was the characterizaton of some of the leaders as Catholic and others as Christian. I have heard a number of evangelicals define others Catholic and themselves as Christian without recognizing that the Catholics present consider themselves Christians and will likely be offended by such statements.

 

Scouting calls us to recognize and respect the beliefs of others. Theological discussions could be appropriate even with scouts if they are simply curious and the leaders are fair and sensitive in their explanations. I have had opportunities to talk with scouts about respecting the faith of a fellow scout. The scouts did not understand why their friend was upset with comments they made. Getting the scouts to share something of their beliefs can be fruitful if all of the parties are open and respectful.

 

Debate is another thing altogether. No good can come within the unit by trying to prove that the other fellow is practicing a false religion. Parents of differing faiths are very concerned that leaders not take advantage of their role as SM to promote a faith other than the family's. It seems like such a simple concept, yet is beyond the capacity of a few scouters to comprehend.

[SemperParatus 1]

"Religion...someone once told me that more folks have died in the name of religion than any other cause"

 

anarchist,

 

I hear that sometimes too...nothing could be further from the truth.

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

SemperParatus, whether true or not (and I try to use caution when I hear such things) such claims sure make great bumper stickers. But it was an interesting site. I keep thinking of a university historian (I won't mention the university but it rhymes with Southern Mississippi) who claimed that the two favorite books carried by soldiers for the South during 'the war' were "The Holy Bible" and "Les Miserables". My point is that it is difficult to identify the actual religious elements driving one or any other destructive actions. Many of the actions listed certain did have a religious element to them but perhaps not the dominant force.

 

By the way, he taught that "Les Miserables" was popular, not because they liked the story. Far from it, few of them (the South, you know) could read. They merely thought the title was Lee's Miserables...meaning it must be about them, of course. Have a nice day

[Hunt 11]

Rooster makes the interesting suggestion that a Christian who participates in a nonsectarian service without invoking Christ by name is somehow "disowning" Christ. There are some Christian sects that believe this--one of the Lutheran groups forbids its clergy from participating in any kind of ecumenical service (even with other Christian groups). I think it would be very difficult for a person who really held such a view to be involved in Boy Scouts, with its nonsectarian Religious Principle. [in fact, I just looked it up: the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not allow its youth to join BSA because BSA recognizes religions other than Christianity.]

It's very difficult, I think, to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate proselytizing. Some religious groups think it is so important to convert people that it is OK to use deception to bring them in. Most Christians wouldn't do this, but there are some who would preach to a resistant, unwilling, or captive audience. I don't think this is appropriate or effective, and it's not the technique that is modelled in Acts, or by Jesus himself.

[Laurie 10]

...respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus...

 

I just heard this in the inauguration (sp?), and the first part caught my attention. I've never heard a prayer stated in that way, and I have been taught to pray in the name of Jesus, so this is something that I think works in relation to the discussion here.

[Rooster7 11]

Rooster makes the interesting suggestion that a Christian who participates in a nonsectarian service without invoking Christ by name is somehow "disowning" Christ.

 

Actually, my point was, no one should feel the need to cringe when they see a Scout following his faith. But to be sure, the Scripture has much to say about those who do not recognize Christ as their Lord and Savior. Any self-professing believer, who reads the bible, should be convicted to speak His name often. To make a conscientious effort to suppress his name, so not to offend others, doesnt bode well for those folks who claim to be His children.

 

There are some Christian sects that believe this--one of the Lutheran groups forbids its clergy from participating in any kind of ecumenical service (even with other Christian groups). I think it would be very difficult for a person who really held such a view to be involved in Boy Scouts, with its nonsectarian Religious Principle. [in fact, I just looked it up: the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not allow its youth to join BSA because BSA recognizes religions other than Christianity.]

 

There is a difference between washing your hands of other faiths and washing your hands of your own faith. In the example given by Acco40 (i.e., the Scout recognizing Jesus as his Lord and Savior, at his own Eagle ceremony), he is suggesting that the Scout did something appropriate. I argue vehemently that this boy has done nothing wrong, and most especially so as a Scout. In fact, he is living up to the Scout Oath, by doing his duty to God. On the other hand, I would argue in the example above that the members of that particular denomination (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) have washed their hands of all other faiths. If they truly believe they have a responsibility to witness to others, this in a very ineffective way of meeting that end. Regardless, these two examples do not mimic one another. They have distinct and profound differences.

 

It's very difficult, I think, to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate proselytizing. Some religious groups think it is so important to convert people that it is OK to use deception to bring them in.

 

Talking about ones faith before a captive audience is not necessarily deceptive. For example, if a Christian attends a mitzvah, he should expect an unabashed celebration of the Jewish faith. Similarly, when one accepts an invitation to a wedding, the faith of those persons being married, is likely to be celebrated. While an Eagle ceremony is not born out of ones faith, many people of faith (Christian and non-Christian) feel compelled to recognize their faith in all aspects of their lives, and most especially when a milestone in life is being celebrated. Anyone who is likely to mention God at such a ceremony probably demonstrates his faith enough in public life, that this occurrence would come as a surprise to no one or very few. But even so, it is a ceremony for the Scout - however the ceremony is conducted (religious or not), it should be accepted as such. Those who would take offense to a Scouts religious expression at his own Eagle ceremony; they are the ones who are demonstrating religious intolerance NOT the Scout!

 

Most Christians wouldn't do this, but there are some who would preach to a resistant, unwilling, or captive audience.

 

I agree with this statement. Yet, you seem to be ignoring the difference between preaching and simple public expressions of personal faith in God. A Scout who prays in the name of Jesus is not preaching. He is not even witnessing. He is merely praying to his God. For many people of faith, there is no such thing as a generic god. The God of the bible demands that we recognize Him by name. Some may prefer not to interpret Scripture this way BUT that does not mean others must do the same, or that they are wrong for not being as open-minded. These folks are simply practicing their faith a faith, which does not change as they move about from private life to public life. All of life is dedicated to God.

 

 

I don't think this is appropriate or effective, and it's not the technique that is modeled in Acts, or by Jesus himself.

 

Again, I agree that preaching to a captive audience is not effective. However, I am curious what technique do you see being modeled by Jesus? I ask, because while Jesus forced no one to hear his messages, his messages were not always seeker friendly. Or rather, they were not seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition. I believe that those truly seeking God received Jesus and His words well. Those who wanted to maintain the status quo often rejected both. And as Jesus warned us:

 

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.

John 15:19-21

 

[packsaddle 753]

What is seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition?

[BadenP 93]

Rooster

 

Hunts post contains some real truths that you seem to ignore. So here is one for you from me, anyone who uses the Bible as a weapon to demean other Christians or non Christians in their own beliefs is not a true Christian but a self indulgent religious bigot. Jesus was accepting and open to all, you on the other hand are open to only a small select few who believe as you do. I suggest you take some scripture courses from a good theology school so you can properly interpret the scriptures true meaning rather than constantly taking them out of context, as you so often do to support your intolerance. "Beware of false prophets...", that my friend is how I see your views on religion.

[firstpusk 10]

Pack,

 

Seeker friendly is an internal debate among some evangelicals. Some argue that the traditional evangelical church is too unwelcoming to the "unchurched" and that adjustments have to be made to be more accomodating. Traditionalist view these changes with suspicion and insist that such an approach will love these folks straight to hell. They will want to put heavy emphasis on the fire and brimstone at every opportunity to every visitor. The more liberal want to get to know the perspective church member before laying the fire and brimstone on them.

[Rooster7 11]

Hunts post contains some real truths that you seem to ignore.

 

I acknowledged certain truths in his post. But, I didnt agree with the entire post either.

 

So here is one for you from me, anyone who uses the Bible as a weapon to demean other Christians or non Christians in their own beliefs is not a true Christian but a self indulgent religious bigot.

 

Wow. Who and how specifically, did I demean or humiliate? I try to argue my points about faith in strong and convincing words, but I have not attack anyone like you have attacked me. In my posts, I have attempted to stay focused on exchanging thoughts on Christianity, and those in the BSA who feel compelled to express or not express their faith.

 

BP - thus far, you have pointedly called or labeled me as intolerant, angry, hateful, self indulgent, bigoted, and a false prophet. Youve even went so far as to say, makes me wonder what other issues might be lurking inside you. If anyone on this forum is being abused, it is I. And you are the source of that abuse.

 

Jesus was accepting and open to all, you on the other hand are open to only a small select few who believe as you do.

 

Im open to many people. I like people. However, I do believe that the bible is Gods Word. His Word warns us:

 

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mathew 7:13 & 14

 

Is this my desire to have a narrow gate to God? No, but I understand the teaching behind it, and I accept it as Gods Will. Does that make me open to only a small select few. No - Thats just a distorted way of viewing it.

 

I suggest you take some scripture courses from a good theology school so you can properly interpret the scriptures true meaning rather than constantly taking them out of context, as you so often do to support your intolerance.

 

Im pretty confident that I have used Gods Word properly. And I have read enough Scripture to know that if I were to use it for my own purposes, he will judge me harshly for such an offense.

 

If you feel that my selection of Scripture verses are out of context, rather than hurling insults, simply provide the bible verses that demonstrate that my choice of verses are out of context. I do applaud the fact that you recognize the need to interpret Scripture with the aid other Scripture (i.e., in context to the rest of Gods Word). Still, Im willing to bet that I can find more relevant verses to support my arguments than you will be able to find to contradict my claims. Furthermore, I believe that I will be able to show that your verses are out of context, not mine. So, bring it on. Youre the guy with two theology degrees. If my words are truly intolerant and unrepresentative of Gods Word, then quote me and juxtapose those words against Gods Word. Believe me, if you can prove that I am truly heading down the wrong road, my pride will not stop me from admitting that. My big concern in life is not proving you wrong. My big concern in life is being right with God. But as it stands right now, Im not convinced that you know of what you speak.

 

"Beware of false prophets...", that my friend is how I see your views on religion.

 

True. His Word also says:

 

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1

 

In regard to the bible as a weapon, have you not heard about the sword of Spirit? Now tell me, is not a sword, a weapon? Have you not heard that the Word of God can pierce hearts? In this way, I am willing to use the bible like a weapon.

 

Jesus said:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughterinlaw against her motherinlaw a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:34 39

 

Im fairly confident that the sword of which Jesus speaks, is the Word of God.

 

In regard to Jesus being open to everyone yes, hes open to all who are willing to come to Him. But I think the above verses, as well as many others that can be found in the bible, establishes that one must come to Him. You cannot claim Him to be your Savior and then pretend to have a respect for tree worshipping. It doesnt wash.

 

[Trevorum 24]

Anyone know how many Angels can sit on the point of a multi-tool?

[Rooster7 11]

In my opinion, Firstpusk has overstated it.

 

Some churches, in order to bring in non-believers, avoid Gods Word as much as possible. They concentrate only on feel good messages. It becomes all about meeting the needs of those attending, even if those needs are not biblical. Theres nothing wrong with being friendly to those who are seeking God. Conservative evangelicals know the great commission as well or better than most others. Yet, theyre not willing to misrepresent God or His Word to accomplish that end. If youre sitting in the pews of a church, where you are rarely convicted, then theres a good chance youre not hearing Gods Word being preached.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Having been a long time forum member, I have to say I was not really looking forward to seeing where this thread was going to go. I do have to say that for the most part everyone has been pretty civil in tone. I know its hard to read a poster's thought and not relate them to past transgressions or perceived transgressions but to move forward, we have to leave comments behind and only respond to a poster's comment on the curent thread

[packsaddle 753]

I'm beginning to have a nebulous idea of what is seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition. That replaces almost no idea at all before.

Now, though, I must also ask, what is 'the great commission'?

[Rooster7 11]

The Great Commission

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:16 - 20