Posted on 07/21/2006 9:23:07 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
What do you get when you hold a conference with 1,200 people who are all afraid of offending one another? I’ll tell you what you don’t get. You don’t get unity, and you don’t get agreement on anything.
That’s what happened when the Spiritual Activism Conference took place recently in Washington, D.C. According to the New York Times, this group of religious liberals came together to discuss “taking back religion from the conservative Christians.” But the conference members had trouble getting anything specific done.
The Times hit it right on the nose when it explained, “Turnout at the Spiritual Activism Conference was high, but if the gathering is any indication, the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone’s priorities rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement.” Never mind even setting policy goals; some conference members were afraid that singing hymns might be enough to upset some members. Instead of coming away with a clear set of objectives, the conference members mostly came away frustrated.
Ironically for a group that prides itself on tolerance, it seems the only thing the conference could agree on was its opposition to the “religious right.” But frustrating as it was for them, the group had to concede that the “religious right” is a lot better at getting things done. Beliefnet suggests this was because “religious conservatives are willing to argue there is one correct view on policy issues.”
You see, that’s the crux of the liberals’ problem. This conflict is not about political or social divisions. It’s about authority—specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.
Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. He’s honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, “I thought this was a spiritual progressives’ conference. I don’t want to play the game of ‘the Bible says this or that,’ or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.”
There you have it. Validation from ourselves simply means you make up your own god. We Christians may interpret the Bible differently; we may apply it to life differently; we may have arguments over exegesis. But the Bible has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise we end up worshiping the goddess of tolerance and believing that tolerance takes precedence over truth.
Dorothy Sayers, the great English writer, said it best: “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
This kind of so-called “tolerance” can never bring people together, but only as we saw in Washington, pull them farther apart.
Doesn't taking something back imply you had it to begin with? Lefty "religious" types are the most arrogant, self-centered, and hypocritical group I've ever encountered.
The funniest part is they think we're arrogant and paint us as thinking we've heard directly from God in some special way, but their whole schtick depends on believing that they have a special insight that's extra-Biblical and yet godly. In other words, they hear from god in a special way we mere knuckledraggers can't understand, and the conduit of God's voice is lefty colleges.
I've noticed a lot of them aren't terribly bright, either, especially considering they're the wing of the Church that is supposedly more intellectual. Take for example, the pastor of a lib church here in town, who told me (that my protest against a local appeasenik group was the same as restricting their right to speak and vote, and also told me he was a big supporter of the troops but was worried that American flags and a "Honk if you support the troops" sign would reflect badly on his church. He was right, BTW, another pastor from his denomination was passing through town and called him up to ask him why he was tolerating the actions of "that jongoist member of your congregation I keep seeing outside your church."
You're not real big on the whole conversion, atonement, redemption thing, are you?
Therein lies the question. Even if they want to call themselves a religion, they're basically Unitarians at this point.
Good observations.
Hey, Jerk...yeah, you.
It was a pun, get it? Not very tolerant of you. Perhaps you should read someones previous posts and/or profile before you attack.
"They have no tolerance."
Bingo. Liberals have created their own creeds and world view and they are as zealous in enforcing it at the point of a sword or gun as Torquemada or Hitler ever was. As Coulter's book points out, it is their religion. Therefore they are every bit as, if not more so, bigoted, intolerant and self-righteous as any of their stereotypes of the religious right. Their current quibbling among themselves is no different than the ecumenical movement in Christianity.
In the current American lexicon, "spritual" mainly means "not a materialist," though much of the population couldn't tell you what a materialist is. In this particular use, "spiritual" means "The people who are Marxists only smarter than the Marxists because we know that God exists, and we wish to implement Her glorious socialist state on Earth."
Yes and he also received Christ and his debts are paid in full.
Colson has spent over 3 decades since then promoting the Gospel. Are you willing to be judged by your worst decision, to the point that nothing else you do matters? That's how you're judging Colson.
"real" tolerance is great. Liberal tolerance disgusting.
_______
Liberals have made "tolerance" a buzz word to attack conservatives. It seems to be working, even in this forum.
At best.
No Ping List ping {!}
13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Isaiah 29: 13-14
BRAAD is a take-off on GLAAD. It is intended to poke fun at the entire diversity culture. The point was the same point you were making - the tolerant would have to be tolerant of the intolerant or they aren't tolerant. And if someone wants to define their own morality to make homosexuality acceptable, we can define our own morality to make bigotry acceptable.
Sorry you missed the humor. I should have made it clearer.
Shalom.
By that definition it means "emotional." Unless you accept the spiritual realm as an actual realm as real as the physical, that's all that's left.
Shalom.
Campolo is, at best, a fool.
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.