Oh yes it is!!!

And that spirit is the spirit of TOLERANCE!!

Whoa to the person who confronts falsehood and erroneous teaching. They are labeled as "hate mongers," "unloving," their motives are called into question. In fact, it sounds like the Democratic National Convention!!!

They are told they need the "fruits of the Spirit." That also is a faulty interpretation as there are not "fruits" of the Spirit. There is only one fruit of the Spirit. But.....we are not allowed to say something is wrong.

Witness the treatment of D. Lee Muse the other day who stated her heartfelt convictions and was roundly chided by her "brethren."

Oh that the church of today had more D. Lee Muses!!!!

Witness the treatment of Lee Saffold. Granted....while some of Lee's methods make me uncomfortable....never would I question the depth of his love for the Lord and the passion of his faith!!

Oh that the church of today had more Lee Saffolds!!!

It appears there is more TOLERANCE on this forum for one who has denied the gospel plan of salvation than for one who "brawls for the faith ONCE delivered" (literal translation of Jude 3).

No wonder the Restoration movement has floundered!!

You think my sarcasm is harsh, then you obviously have not read much of A. Campbell. His pen was a literal knife that cut through the elitish snobbery of falsehood like a modern day slasher movie. When he was done, there wasn't much left over. Certainly ole' Al would be called on the carpet on this forum.

In the beginning our churches grew like wildfire because we dared to be different and claimed to be different.

What do we have today?? Instead, we invite people to come to the Christian Church because...."Our preacher tells the best jokes"......"We have a great youth program"......or...."Elvis is singing Amazing Grace."

How about this....."Come to the Christian Church/Church of Christ because we teach the truth of God's word and we're not afraid to point out and confront falsehood."

Won't work?? Ever tried it?? It works great for the Morman's and J.W.'s as numbers do not seem to be one of their problems. Right John??

We have so watered down the truth that most of our people feel very comfortable going to the Baptist church after they leave our churches. Difference between twiddly dee and twiddly dum.

Our churches have lost their backbone. They have become sissified and do not have the consistency of yesteday's oatmeal....and that comes through so clear on this forum.

I've actually told people about this forum.....and they say..."Oh they don't really say that." I tell them to check it out for themselves and they come back with their heads hanging low saying...."That's discouraging."

Was Paul TOLERANT when he confronted Peter in public in Galatians? Was Paul TOLERANT when he called the Galatians "foolish?" Was Paul TOLERANT when he wished that the Judaisers (who believed in Christ by the way)...would be consigned to hell?? Was Paul TOLERANT when he turned trouble makers "over to Satan?"

Or did it just work in Paul's day??

I thank God in my life for the people who were not TOLERANT with me. I thank God for my father in law who would not allow me to be satisfied with my denominational view of baptism and taught me the way of the Lord more perfectly. I thank God for the Roger Chamber's, Jim Smith's, and other teachers who simply said...."You are wrong. Have you ever considered this." I thank God for the Scott Sheridan's and Matt Hartford's....who even though were my associate ministers....I learned a great deal from them. I thank God for my wife who has taught me much....often times by saying, "You are wrong." I thank God for the Elders in my life who confronted me and challenged me to grow....sometimes in a very confrontational, yet well meaning way.

Those of you who claim a "higher level" who for whatever reason, find yourself not being as confrontive an individual as D. Lee, Lee Saffold, or whoever, have no right to question the integrity of their character or faith.

TOLERANCE may be the gospel of society......but it has not room in the church of Christ when it allows falsehood and truth to co-exist on equal terms.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Answers

Robin.....

I couldn't agree more...most especially with your statement concerning trying honey first.

However......what do you do when you have poured enough honey on to turn the person into a spiritual diabetic??

And secondly, I am the nicest guy I know.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Thank You A.Kelly.....

THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!

Never has anyone so brilliantly illustrated my point.

The point?? Just like the Democrats....who are the first ones to resort to name calling in this forum??

It is not the "conservatives" on here.

Most of the the judgementalism and name calling, as usual, come from those who put their pants on.....left leg first.

And by the way....can't you guys find something newer than "Pharisee and legalistic"......that's gettin' old and tired.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Again John....check the threads and see who starts most of the name calling.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

D. Lee.....

A wonderful post!!! You are an extremely intelligent lady!!!

John....D. Lee's post is my answer to your question.

NO ONE in this forum has the moral and/or scriptural authority to claim "their method is better."

Different personalities have different approaches.....all have their place in kingdom work!!

Thanks again D. Lee!

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Robin.....

Two things.....

1) The purpose of this board has NEVER been evangelistic. It is an areana for a discussion/debate of ideas.

2) I Cor. 13:6: "Love rejoices in THE (as in one) TRUTH."

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Oh John.....ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

For what you fail to see....is the "tolerance" in our society has come to be defined by society as "acceptance."

I no longer can say something "is wrong"......I must "tolerate it".....i.e., "accept it as of equal truth value as my belief."

And that, my dear friend, is what has infiltrated the church of our day.

No.....Danny's defintions are right on the money....i.e., I can "tolerate" you when you are wrong....but I do not have to accept it as having equal value with the truth.

Now....the only thing in our society that currently is not "tolerated"....i.e., "acceptable".....is Christianity itself.

Evidence.....mock a Jew, black man, homosexual.....and grab hold as the torrent of "hater" slurs are thrown at you.

On the other hand......mock a Christian and/or his religion.....and everyone has a good laugh.

Again, at issue.....is how this has crept into the church....as the trends of society so often do.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Danny,

I agree. ....But.... :-) I still feel that the way we present the Truth is very important. We already have had the 'Honey v/s Vinegar' discussion.... and I fully agreed that a little vinegar was good for the health (that's a proven fact now-a-days, isn't it?)... but... sometimes people here seem to douse each other with vinegar before ever even attempting a little honey. Then what happens is that the issue/beleif becomes secondary to the personal affront. The issue is lost in a flurry of disgust and nothing is accomplished except further separation. Let's just all try to be A Little NICER while holding to and speaking the Truth. We don't have to be Tolerant of Falsehood to be Loving, Kind, & Gentle (part of The Fruit we are to display) to PEOPLE.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Gee, it is so wonderful that our Movement has such wonderful legalist and pharisees!

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

I agree with Danny that we cannot and should not abide false teaching...meaning any teaching that does not come from the inspired word of God.

However, ISTM the problem comes when we attack each other and not the false teaching.

The apostle Paul was not a...milk toast. He stood firmly on the word of God and never gave an inch. But he didn't attack the individual who was searching. He used kindness. Paul did once tell a leader in the synogoge (?) that he was a *whited wall*. Yes, we should stand up and say, "You are wrong" for the other person's own good. If we see someone going against the scriptures and we simply pat that person on the back saying, "I'm ok, you are ok" Then if that person is on the wrong road, one that does not lead to heaven, then we are aiding him to continue down that wrong road.

We must be sure we are teaching the truth however, and not simply our own opinions. If we are teaching our opinions we will be greated judged.

That is what is so good about discussion lists. We can sharpen each other, sharpen our thinking, and maybe see something we hadn't seen before.

Nelta http://members.xoom.com/atlen/

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

"Gee, it is so wonderful that our Movement has such wonderful legalist and pharisees."

Are you trying to start the name calling so that you can wait until everyone forgets that you instigated the such and come back in here and condemn the atrocious name calling that is present in this thread.

I am sure that you just cannot wait for your next opportunity to condemn me and others for being "unkind" and Unchristian" and "unloving" and "judgemental" and not having the "fruits of the spirit". So you come in to instigate trouble so that others will correct you and ultimately sharply rebuke you and then you can use their sharp rebukes to protect yourself when you are miserably losing the argument. All you have to do is claim that "poor Brother Kelley" is being unjustly HAMMERED by those "mean spirited" people who do not have the "fruits of the spirit in their lives"! Ha! You hypocrite! You "whited wall"! Your inconsidstancies and self contradictions just never cease! No one in this forum is a "leagalist" and certianly no one person can be PROVEN to actually be a Pharisee.

But you just repented of having for you part in similar trouble in another thread and now you come to start it again.

What is interesting to me is that no one is very quick to condemn you when you are calling people names. They only condemn people like me, with whom they disagree concerning some issue if I call some one a name. Now I believe it is right to do call someone a name if the name fits and it is a statement of the truth. But you do not believe that ANYONE shopuld EVER call someone a name! But here you are instigating the very practice that you condemn. Like most hypocrites you are a bundle of CONTRADICTIONS.

I will say, however that if there were a legalist in this forum I would prefer him over a LIAR any day!

It is interesting that none have complained to you for calling someone names. I guess they are very "selective" concerning this matter. THis selectivity is evidence that they are only using this hypocritical aversion to such things as a ploy to discredit those with whom they disagree with concerning the teaching of the word of God.

Now, I do not complain that you have called everyone in the restoration movement legalistic and pharisaical. If it were the truth it would carry more weight with me but you are the one who condemns those who call others names but your "rules' do not apply to yourself. Now that sounds more like the pharisees than you might imagine! In fact, you come closer to actually being a "PHARISEE" than anyone else in this thread!

Physician heal thyself!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Brother Danny:

I just want to say AMEN AND AMEN to your words adressed to Brother Kelley! He has most certainly poven that it is not those who are faithful to the word of God that instigate trouble but rather it is those who are seeking to establish their own way and deceive us that are causing the trouble in these threads!

Do not worry about the trouble, for it will always be with us. We will continue to teach the truth no matter how many people call us names or hypocritically work to show themselves to be spiritually "superior" as they go about telling LIES in the name of Christ.

I know that few if any agree with my methods but I can tell you that there is no METHOD that can prevent such tactics from being used by those who are opposed to the truth as is Brother Kelley. They just do not like being resisted and it does not matter whether we resist them with gentle words and Phrases or sharp rebukes! They are stiffnecked and uncircumsized in heart and ears and when they hear the truth, regardless of the way in which it is presented, they will "Gnash on us with their evil teeth" and if it were legal and possible they would "stone us to death" as similar characters did to stephen. (Acts 7:58).

Any way, I think it is excellent that you have pointed out at the very begining who is the SOURCE of this "name calling" that will ensue in this thread! Ha!

Now I have no problem with being called a pharisee or a legalist if one is willing to prove that the label is true. Just as I will not repent of having called Brother Kelley a LIAR for I have proven that he has lied and therefore I have "labeled" him justly. But these names that do not fit are a shame and the hypocritical ploy of conndeming such a practice in others while practicing it themselves is really "pathetic". And this is the third time that I have said that Brother Kelley was "pathetic" and these instances of self contradiction which have now mounted high in number justifies that appellation.

I thank you for your points made in your initial post and agree with them entirely. In fact this is one of the very best post that I have seen you write. In my view it is brilliant and cuts straight to the heart. And we already see, through Brother kelley's words, who is "bleeding", haven't we!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Danny,

First, a question. In your original "question", you said, "Witness the treatment of D. Lee Muse the other day who stated her heartfelt convictions and was roundly chided by her 'brethren.'" In saying this, did you have in mind my little exchange with Sis. Muse a couple of days ago? If so, please allow me to clarify what happened from my perspective.

It seemed to me that at that time almost every thread I looked at -- including ones which should have prompted rejoicing over how God had helped a brother in Christ -- were filled with bitter wrangling, and not over important matters of doctrine either, but disputes over words and motives, etc.

I asked (paraphrased), "Why is EVERYONE so bellicose right now? Could it be the weather? BTW, what's the weather like there now?" If I had ANY particular individual in mind over and above a half dozen others, it was probably Connie, since she is so quick to chide others for not exhibiting the "fruit of the Spirit", yet she seemed at that time to be as "touchy" and argumentative as everyone else. Sis. Muse would have been fairly low on the list of people I was thinking of. I felt she was being harsher in what she said than was really necessary, but still in a fairly restrained manner.

However, Sis. Muse apparently took it personally and thought I was referring to her. She wrote to defend her approach toward Connie. I answered, telling her that I'd actually had Connie more in mind than Sis. Lee herself. However, since she had brought it up, I did go ahead and suggest that a different approach on her part might be more effective.

Turning to the general principle of "tolerance" vs. "confrontation", why does it have to be either/or? You make it sound as though "tolerance" and kind words are ALWAYS wishy-washy, ineffective, and a watering down of the truth, and as though anyone who is really concerned about the truth will ALWAYS be quick to confront. I think the Bible teaches that there is a place for both. Yes, Paul confronted Peter, and yes, he wrote, "Oh foolish Galatians." But he also wrote about "speaking the truth IN LOVE", and speaking "only what is helpful for building others up" (Eph. 4:15, 29).

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

One of my favorite verses is Peter's advice for sharing your faith found in I Peter 3:15. "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." But people seem to forget the last part of the verse, which tells us the manner in which we should do this:

"But do this with GENTLENESS and RESPECT".

The spirit of the age? No, it should be the spirit of the Church. I fail to see a lot of either quality in this forum of late. Unbelievers are supposed to know us by our love, by our fruits, not by our venom. As it is written, "speak the truth in love."

There is a great deal of difference between tolerance and respect. And a world of difference between gentleness and combativeness. You can "earnestly contend" for the faith without being contentious and just plain nasty. An unbeliever will not listen to attack but may respond to kindness, gentleness and above all, respect. Even if you disagree with their position, even if it is dead wrong according to the scriptures, we are still called to be respectful. To be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. I see a lot of fanged doves lately.

This is not the "spirit of the age", it is the fruit of the Spirit. Remember these? Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness? Why are these qualities so hard for us to put into practice when speaking to our fellow men?

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Again, Thank you Danny!!

I agree that the spirit of the age is tolerance. That tolerance is our downfall. The split in the church that we discussed on another thread I believe is caused by tolerance.

Thanks for the correction on "Fruits of the Spirit", I have used that I am sure.

I too thank God for your father-in-law! I thank God for those in my life who did the same for me...who would not give in or give up...who would not compromise the truth no matter what I said or did.

It is beyond me, that people who know the truth can give it up so easily. It amazes me that there is such compromise. Few know the truth today, it really scares me that those who have known the truth walk away from it by allowing all kinds of falsehood into the church. What are the elders doing?? Who is guarding the flock?

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Benjamin,

Again (I've posted the same on another thread), I did not take it personally thinking that you were primarily speaking of myself while excluding the possibility of others.

I don't want you to think that I do not consider your words. I do believe you may be the one that said on another thread some time back that we should ask for clarification before assuming something. That is good advise, something I will try to do my best to follow.

I understand your purpose for urging others to try a different approach. This I have done, though you might not be aware of it, as sometimes it is done through email. I also understand completely why you believe a different approach might be more effective. But even though you felt I may have been harsher in what I said than what was really necessary or that a different approach might have been more effective, I did not.

You are absolutely right, the principle of "tolerance" vs "confrontation" does not have to be either or!! Neither Danny, E. Lee, nor I are saying that tolerance or kind words are ALWAYS wishy- washy, ineffective or a washing down of the truth.

But you know what? We work in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that. It has to be a personal judgement call.

And you know what else? When Paul confronted people, he was "Speaking the Truth in Love"!

"Speaking the Truth in Love"...CAN...but does not necessarily mean you are NOT speaking...harshly or bluntly...rebuking or refuting.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Danny, you wrote;

Again John....check the threads and see who starts most of the name calling.

So .... why do we have to stoop to that level and return fire? We seem to not only want to throw our pearls before the swine, but get right in the pen with them and mud-wrestle. I see no reason to stoop to the level of the name-callers. Christians should be taking the high ground.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

D. Lee...

You said, "But you know what? We work in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that. It has to be a personal judgement call. " I'm not sure that "we work in different ways" can ever be used as an excuse for name-calling, hurting sarcasm, and provoking innuendos by anyone (And, please Danny, no "Well they did it first!"... there has been Plenty to go around!)

I cannot even believe how fast someone searching to be a Christian and stumbling upon this site would run away!!! "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Brother Robin:

You have said:

I cannot even believe how fast someone searching to be a Christian and stumbling upon this site would run away!!! "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Let me tell you that I know of people, who e-mailed me, to tell me that they had been baptized into Christ in part because of things they had learned through some of the great conflicts that we have had in this forum. In fact it was seven people from the same family that were baptized on the same day. So your theory that someone searching to be a Christian and stumbling upon this site would run away just does not square with all of the facts. Did you base that comment upon an objective study of reality or was that just your subjective feeling? I can understand how you might have such a feeling for I have thought so myself on occasion. Nevertheless we have seen just the opposite in actual fact. Some do run away. The ones that I know that have left us because of attitudes were not non- Christians but Christians that could not stand to see their liberal cliches challenged. Those who were not Christians remained. I do have an example of a non-Christian that went away. He was an agnostic condemning Christianity in severest terms and when challenged by faithful Christians that were knowledgeable to resist his nonsense he went away. But he did not leave because we were being harsh and judgmental! He left because he could not answer those who challenged his agnosticism. Satan has sent several of his servants and false teachers in this forum to resist and fight against the truth as it is in Christ our Lord there have left for they cannot stand the truth.

The idea that conflict prevents conversion is completely contrary to what we witness when reading the New Testament, especially the book of Acts. If one were to remove all conflict from the book of Acts he would not have much left to read! In fact, a though study of the New Testament as well as Church history and even restoration history might reveal that the truth THRIVES in controversy for lies cannot bear the test of such conflict.

It is true that all men will know that we are our Lords disciples if we love one another. But it is not true that we love one another by refraining from rebuking one another when we see wrong- doing and sin and false doctrine being taught, accepted and practiced among us. For Jesus also said, IF YE CONTINUE IN MY WORD THEN ARE YE MY DISCIPLES INDEED, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31,32. It is first important that we be our Lords disciples INDEED otherwise it matters not that the world should perceive that we are his disciples at all!

Brother, I know what you mean by your words and in general agree with you. And I believe that you understand most of what I will be saying in this post and agree as well. But I will say these things because I am convinced that much wrong is being done and overlooked in this forum in the name of the artificial and hypocritical love that is made up of sweet, soothing, phrases and fair speech instead of the bear truth. So I really am not denying what you have said about too much name-calling, hurting sarcasm, and provoking innuendoes. But I am trying to show that just because one is harsh and truthfully exposes deliberate lies in a strong and powerful way does not mean that such a one is unloving.

Did Jesus love ALL of the Jews? Notice what he said to some of them:

Ye are of your father the Devil and the lust of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: For he is a liar and the father thereof. But because I say the truth ye believe me not (John 8:44,45)

Did he speak the truth in love in this passage? He told them that they were children of the devil and by saying that the devil is the father of lies he basically called them LIARS. He spoke the truth and he spoke it in love but many today would argue that because you tell someone that they are children of the devil and that they are therefore liars that reject the truth for a lie that such language is harsh and unloving. Did Jesus Love all of his disciples? Does he not say that one of them was a devil? Did he not say,  For the Son of man goeth as it hath been determined, but woe unto the man through whom he is betrayed. Did he not love the disciple who betrayed him? Yes. Then how can anyone conclude that love eliminates all possibility of harsh language that is truthful?

Paul said, If any man preach any other gospel that that which ye have received let him be anathema! (Gal. 1:8,9). He said this because his Brethren were perverting the gospel of Christ. Did he violate the command of Jesus to love one another when he made this statement? Was Paul making it difficult men to know that they were his disciples by speaking such harsh words? I do not think so!

Let us look at John the Baptist and what he said to the Jews from all of Judea coming to confess their sins, When he say the Pharisees and Saducees coming to his immersion, he said unto them, ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matt 3:7). Did he violate the principle of love?

Anyone who holds the esteem and respect of men higher than the truth does not love himself or the person that he respects. For it is the truth that shall make us free and that will sanctify us. Anyone who thinks that strong words that are true are in conflict with and out of harmony with the principle of love needs to go back and study just what both truth and love really is. Those who lie while speaking soft, gentle, soothing words of mutual human respect and withhold and in many cases hide the truth from you are the ones that do not love you. They only appear to love you. But if they really love they would tell the truth. The statement of Paul that we are to speak the truth in Rather the verse is telling us to love one another enough to speak the truth, rather than to speak the truth in a gentle manner. The words gentle and soft and kind are not in this verse. The word LOVE is. LOVE is not always and only demonstrated merely by kind gentle behavior. A father who is angry with a disobedient child and expresses that anger is not being acting contrary to the principle of love toward his child. A father that spares not the rod is not failing to love his child. In fact the scriptures tell us that one who spares the rod HATES his child. This idea that love exist only in the mushy gentle form see in the kind, soft and gentle remarks made by those who pretend to love as they gently tell us lies that will lead us to destruction are not loving us. They hate us. What we have in this forum is a lot of speaking a lie under the cloak of fained and artificial love instead of speaking the truth because we love enough to do so even though we know we will be hated and despised for doing so.

There is no way to Contend earnestly for the faith without being contentious about it. Those who think otherwise do not realize that they contradict themselves when they say that we can contend without being contentious. (Jude 3).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Danny,

I didn't say the purpose of the forum was evangelism.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with pursuing The Truth.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Hi Robin,

I am not using it as an excuse for name-calling, hurting sarcasm, or provoking innuendoes. I am trying to think back, but I do not believe I have called anyone a name. Do I use sarcasmyes. I do not believe that is wrong. I do agree we should try not to hurt others. That does not always happen though. The saying is trueThe Truth Hurts, sometimes.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Now if that verse does not scream pain, and hurtI dont know what does!

I see examples of certain things in the word, examples of strong rebuke, or harsh refuting of the false teachers and what they teach. I do not use that as an excuse to speak such every time I speak (and never speak kindly or gently). Though when I do speak that way it is not wrong and it is done in love. By the same token, I do not always use the examples of kindness and gentleness as an excuse when speaking (and never rebuke or refute). Though when I do speak with kindness and gentleness it is not wrong and it is done in love.

We do not need an excuse to contend for the faith. We are supposed to contend for the faith.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

I have been thinking about this problem we have...

Those of us that are more confrontational and blunt in our approach ARE NOT saying that we should use that approach all the time!

Those of us that are less confrontational and blunt in our approach ARE NOT saying that confrontation and blunt speech is always wrong!

The problem comes in when those of us who use a more confrontational approach are constantly told we are wrong and should be more loving. As if we are not loving. Also when those who are confrontational accuse others of being sissies or whatever. If you really think about it guys, more often than not it is you who take a less confrontational approach that is the first to say the others are wrong. And you do this often.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Thanks Danny again for the compliments! The glory goes to our God!!

Some of you may not want to read this...I believe this is my third post in a row on this thread...as you may think I have spoken too soon:)

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

JESUS said the truth-will-set free--so what's the opposite of free?? how many are=blind??-what's worse=physical-blind-or-spiritual-blind? and how many are=willfully blind-then get stoked-when told=truth?? i'm not highly educated-but it seems there's alot of heart stuff being-revealed!!

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

why-all-the=confusing-hyphens? Just=wondering ...

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

There is a place for tolerance. It would be hard to live in a country with freedom of religion without tolerance.

God forebears. He waits for a long time before judging sin. We Christians have to show a degree of tolerance. But we shouldn't compromise the truth.

Link

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

I believe that Danny may be confusing "Tolerance" with "Acceptance". There is a big difference between the two.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Danny,

Thats exactly my point. You can can tolerate someone when they are wrong, but you don't have to accept their view as truth. Today's society has redefined the word. We Christians should be tolerant, but by the true definition of the word, not by society's standards.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Do ancient unexplained artifacts and high technology potentially provide evidence of pre-flood civilizations? Do 800 Billion fossils of all types in the Karoo Bone yards provide additional evidence of a worldwide flood? Does the Bible mention dinosaurs? Is there an easy explanation for fitting dinosaurs on the ark? Is there a reason that scientists cannot do on purpose in the lab what they claim happened by accident? Is evolution the worst theory ever to fit known facts?--

Is there evidence that dinosaurs did co-exist with men in agreement with the Bible and in opposition to the theory of evolution? Do Giant versions of some of today's plant, insects, animals and "Mega" Men prove a stumbling block for evolutionary theories?

Hello! Is there an unmistakable Message (from God) in the cells of every living thing?

YES!

Ooparts & Ancient TechnologyBEvidence of NoahBs Flood?

Twentieth Century Dinosaurs?

History, Archeology & Art Crawling with Dinosaurs

With Some Size Estimates At 8 to 10 Feet Tall, Meganthropus Would Have Gone in The First Round There Were Giants In the Earth in Those DaysBAnd Afterward

SETI: Search for Elusive Terrestrial Intelligence Put your hand on the radio? Say this prayer I wrote myself? Become a "Prayer Partner"i.e.; Send money? Though they have hair like Charleston Heston (in his role as Moses after receiving the 10 commandments) What really matters is: What the Bible Says Concerning SalvationBNot Slick-haired Preachers

No backwards collars, no funny hats, no special vestments, no accoutrements Bno titles such as Father, Rabbi or Teacher as Jesus Commanded; and they called themselves: Christians? Neither Catholic Nor Protestant; A Christian Only!

Take care,

No html? Type http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/spiritst/s8int/phile12.html into your address bar.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000