Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Islam, Christianity and tolerance: David Limbaugh decries attempts to misrepresent Gospel
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, October 16, 2001 | David Limbaugh

Posted on 10/15/2001 11:49:02 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: JohnHuang2
It's good that David stands ready to defend the faith.

The fact that Christianity is being smeared in the process is not a surprise - the LORD told us there would be days like this. Of course, we suffer nothing like the persecuted Church in other countries........yet.

21 posted on 10/16/2001 6:35:40 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bump for later reading.
22 posted on 10/16/2001 6:38:34 AM PDT by FourPeas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Anyone who compares Falwell and Robertson to a murderous barbarian like Bin Laden has motivations that are both highly questionable and suspect in nature. While Falwell and Robertson have made statements that are both caustic and intolerant, I don't see how freedom of speech can be compared to the wanton brutality and killing of innocent and helpless people.

Al Qaeda isn't a religion, its a terrorist organization run by fundamentalist Muslim's, bend on imposing their extreme form of Islam on the rest of the world. 'Kill all the infidels' isn't a harmless religious catch phrase. It's the battle charge for crazies and wackos, who are anti-civilization and anti-society, and who have no value for human life of any kind. Even their own!

23 posted on 10/16/2001 6:42:28 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I will not duck the fact that Christianity adheres to moral absolutes and is not tolerant of sinful behavior. But Christianity hates the sin, not the sinner. Tolerance doesn't require that we discard our moral standards. It also doesn't mean that we accept as true, opposing belief systems. It means "to recognize and respect others' beliefs without sharing them."

This comes off as a half-apology. There is no need for any apology at all. Vital, genuine Christianity is not merely intolerent but wholly and unwaveringly intolerent on moral standards. Morover, there is no requirement to "respect" opposing beliefs. We are commanded to pray for our enemies, to feed them, to bless them--but nowhere are we commanded to respect their beliefs.

Anyone who follows genuine, vital Christianity will be despised by the world--not loved or applauded by it. I've never followed Robertson or Falwell much, but the fact that they are the targets of such continuous bile and abuse by the mavens of popular culture should give Falwell and Robertson reason to cheer. It is when a Christian is praised and applauded by the world that he or she should be concerned.

24 posted on 10/16/2001 6:42:59 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Bravo, my friend -- couldn't have said it better.
25 posted on 10/16/2001 6:46:52 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
While Falwell and Robertson have made statements that are both caustic and intolerant

Jesus Christ was accused of the same things. The accusations were true. And Jesus Christ committed no sin.

Truth can be caustic; it can sting. A good doctor is intolerent of disease, and the necessary treatment to restore wholeness can hurt.

26 posted on 10/16/2001 6:50:46 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Theres a time and a place for everything and on occasion, we all have the right to be stupid in public. Diarrhea of the mouth is part of the human conidion. Some might even say, part of a human affliction.

I don't compare Falwell and Robertson to Bin Laden, and I don't compare Falwell and Robertson to Jesus Christ either. That's my opinion, of course.

27 posted on 10/16/2001 7:02:16 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
correction:

make that condition, not conidion

28 posted on 10/16/2001 7:07:52 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Wolfe cites examples of Christian intolerance in American history, but expresses his relief that America has now changed. We are still a religious society, he says, but no longer intolerant, except for extremists in the Christian right, typified by the favorite whipping boys, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Strange as it may seem to Wolfe I believe Falwell is or was a DEM. I think he still is. It was him, Paul Weyrich, and Howard Phillips that got the Moral Majority rolloing. If I read right is was actually Weyrichs suggestion to Falwell.

29 posted on 10/16/2001 12:03:00 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Great post, thanks.
30 posted on 10/16/2001 12:35:02 PM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the heads up!
31 posted on 10/16/2001 2:25:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Since you don't know me, and have chosen to attack me , with no knowledge at all, of what I do or do not believe in, YOU have just broken one of the 10 Commandments. How does that make you feel, dear ?

I am far from intolerant, don't believe in moral relativity; however, I do object to being preached at, by someone who is a prime example of what I mentioned. Thank you very much for proving , beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what I said was completely true, and without bias.

32 posted on 10/16/2001 3:38:45 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Tolerance doesn't require that we discard our moral standards. It also doesn't mean that we accept as true, opposing belief systems. It means "to recognize and respect others' beliefs without sharing them."

I certainly agree with that statement.

33 posted on 10/16/2001 6:09:11 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bumpbaugh
34 posted on 10/16/2001 6:17:42 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
Speaking of which...our friend from outerspace has found this thread.
35 posted on 10/16/2001 6:28:00 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Vital, genuine Christianity is not merely intolerent but wholly and unwaveringly intolerent on moral standards.

Yes, Kevin, with respect to other believers. As far as unbelievers, though, according to the Bible, you aren't to judge them at all; that's G-d's job. You are to feel no compunction at all over associating with them. Separatism from the world (though not separation from worldly behavior) is a mark of an immature believer (see I Corinthian 5:9-13).
36 posted on 10/16/2001 6:42:40 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: nopardons
Since you don't know me, and have chosen to attack me , with no knowledge at all, of what I do or do not believe in, YOU have just broken one of the 10 Commandments. How does that make you feel, dear ?

I don't have to know you. No one has to know anyone else here. Your words speak for you, in the context of what is in this thread. And I know those words that you spoke. That is all I have to know. My words stand to those words.

Whoever and whatever you are makes no difference to me in a public forum. If you have some desire to "make yourself known" to everyone publicly -- go right ahead. I speak to what you said -- and that is enough for me.

As far as your supposed "slight" (which you presume) and attribute to the breaking of the Ten Commandments -- I point to many others we read about in the Bible, who speak out against whatever the prevalent and popular ideas of the day were. It seems to be popular to get on the bandwagon of "religious intolerence" -- which is what will bring us all to "Mystery Babylon" (in Revelation) -- the whore of all religions. Your present attitude will be one of many which will bring the world to that religious whoredom.

Your "position" in regards to "religious intolerants" (in post #13) speaks as loudly there (in that previous post) as it is here in your present post.

 

I am far from intolerant, don't believe in moral relativity; however, I do object to being preached at, by someone who is a prime example of what I mentioned. Thank you very much for proving , beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what I said was completely true, and without bias.

You are a prime example of the creeping influence in this society of PC-relativism -- while you seem to revel in the fact you haven't traveled as far down that road -- even though you took that "fork in the road" a long while back. You have a large crowd ahead of you -- on their way to "Mystery Babylon".

You are also an example of the time which shall come (and may be here partially now) -- in which people say evil is good and good is evil.

Such is part and parcel of your comment regarding "religious intolerants".

38 posted on 10/17/2001 8:55:39 AM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

big bump
39 posted on 10/17/2001 9:48:14 AM PDT by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson