Intolerance for other's opinions...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2ndGen

Guest
…might I suggest that the opinions and beliefs of those who don’t have the same faith as you do be respected at the very least.

We don’t all have to believe in the same thing in order to exchange our beliefs.

And just because we disagree (Catholics and Protestants), there’s no need for animosity or for anger.

Ultimately, instead of responding to a thread you don’t like or agree with, simply don’t engage in the conversation and leave it to the people who do want to discuss the topic.

Remember, no one “has to” read any of these threads. It isn’t mandatory to agree on a forum. If there was mutual agreement, then it wouldn’t be called a forum (which has always traditionally been a place where differences can be discussed without the fear or being chastized).

👍

While there are already rules of engagement here, simply put, let’s go by the “live and let live” accord.

Pax.
 
Questions:

Do we all have to “agree” to be able to talk?

And…

How do we learn if we don’t communicate openly?
 
Matthew 21:16

And said unto him,
“Hearest thou what these say?”
And Jesus saith unto them,
“Yea; have ye never read,
‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?’”

youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9Fxy1kWqE

Amen.
 
2ndGen said:
Ultimately, instead of responding to a thread you don’t like or agree with, simply don’t engage in the conversation
Click to expand...
Hmmm, there’s been no replies to this thread, I wonder what that means.

:sleep:

sorry, couldn’t resist.
 
2ndGen said:
…might I suggest that the opinions and beliefs of those who don’t have the same faith as you do be respected at the very least.

We don’t all have to believe in the same thing in order to exchange our beliefs.

And just because we disagree (Catholics and Protestants), there’s no need for animosity or for anger.

Ultimately, instead of responding to a thread you don’t like or agree with, simply don’t engage in the conversation and leave it to the people who do want to discuss the topic.

Remember, no one “has to” read any of these threads. It isn’t mandatory to agree on a forum. If there was mutual agreement, then it wouldn’t be called a forum (which has always traditionally been a place where differences can be discussed without the fear or being chastized).

👍

While there are already rules of engagement here, simply put, let’s go by the “live and let live” accord.

Pax.
Click to expand...
*Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

“Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of stability.”
  • His Excellency Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Servant of God
 
holy_wood said:
*Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

“Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of stability.”
  • His Excellency Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Servant of God
Click to expand...
👍
Another one of his sayings that I’ve read and love…

“The Catholic Church is like a caged lion…It doesn’t need to be defended, just let out of it’s cage.”
 
with all respect can you show me where Jesus himself in scripture “showed respect for false religion”?

I agree he showed love for victims of false religion, but he does not give any respect to false religion itself.

Basically, love the sinner, hate the sin comes to mind.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
with all respect can you show me where Jesus himself in scripture “showed respect for false religion”?

I agree he showed love for victims of false religion, but he does not give any respect to false religion itself.

Basically, love the sinner, hate the sin comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I never heard of Him showing respect to false religion, but He did use non-believers to show supposed believers how to be.

For example, when He used the story of The Good Samaritan. Samaritans were enemies to The Jews and He showed how someone of a different faith could show more compassion and mercy and love than someone of The Jewish faith could when the Jewish Priests in His story left the Jew who was beaten and left for dead helpless while the Samaritan (the supposed enemy of The Jew) helped him and cared for him.
 
The traditional, early church fathers, patristic interpretation of that parable goes a bit differently.

Christ, himself was the Good Samaritan, who rescued the poor, worthless, ignorant sap, who through no fault of his own , was left wounded and bleeding and half dead on the side of the road.; The man was described as “a certain man”, which gave him a unique identity…nothing about what his faith/religion, or how well he practiced it was said…the fact that he was a man, an image of God is the one thing that sets us apart from the rest of creation and is what makes each human being of priceless worth.

You don’t leave something like that lying like a heap of garbage, dying on the side of the road.

I think Christ was trying to make a point also about religion/ or rather a living relationship between God and man.
But the Jews and their Faith the culprit? Hardly.
Would you indict Christ, a Jew by birth and by faithfulness to living that commandments of God.

The law given by God was perfect, and it given to serve to sanctify man; Not as a reward for being lucky enough to be born a Jew.
His indictment was for those who tried to use the privilege in that way. They were given more than anyone, all that was needed to fulfill God’s purpose, his highest and best-to love God and man.
They chose to flaunt their superiority and perfectly love and serve their religious system, an error than any one of us can fall into at any time.

The binding of the wounds, the signs of the oil and wine, the delivering him to a place of safety…might remind you or something.
All foreshadowing of the Church that he was going to establish.

That Christ took the sick man to the Inn, and gave instructed the innkeeper to care for him, and provided for his care, and promised reimbursement for the care shown in his absence. instructions and provided for his care, in his absence, foreshadowed the work of the Church,
It seems to be about healing, and the Church as a place charged to care for the sick, a place to return to wholeness, and an innkeeper, a servant, who would answer for the man’s care and condition when Christ returned.

Maybe Christ would set the man straight on true and false religion later on, when he was not so near death, or in so much pain. Tending wounds seemed to be the priority. I think the patient would be a more attentive listener in a healthy condition.

just my 2 cents
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top