Listen to Erathoniel ranting on and on in good ol' conservative Christian fashion.
Published on July 12, 2008 By erathoniel In Current Events

     Go to a public high school and you will find curiculum made to teach "tolerance". In reality, what I find most taught "tolerance" to be is a pile of drudged up drek made to desensitize or demonize those long-standing establishments of moral standards. Tolerance cannot be taught. Children will not learn tolerance by these means, merely the intolerance of conscience.

     My question is this: Why is it so wrong to have a conscience? I believe that homosexuals are wrong. I do not hate homosexuals no more than I hate those who I'd disagree with on matters of politics or science. I believe that God exists. I do not hate those who say that God does not exist, I merely disagree with them. This comes with no "tolerance" training that I accepted, other than what I heard at church. Is it so much that we secularize the nation, but also blame the preachers of tolerance as the distributors of slander? I have never heard a pastor preach any form of anger or intolerance (other than, of course, the righteous anger towards those who attack innocents or undermine the church), so why should children be tought "tolerance"? Children are perfect innocence, and intolerance is only instilled on them by outside factors. Therefore, should we not eliminate the creators of intolerance before breaking down logic and reason via "tolerance" training?


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jul 12, 2008

First!

I'm glad I sparked a productive reaction on your part.  At least your thinking.  You may not allow me to take credit for this but it is to no avail, for credit I shall take. 

I'll tell you what, your tolerance, your perceived moral compass, your conscience has nothing to do with others, it is not wrong to have a conscience only to project your conscience on to others.

What may be the right thing to you may be the wrong thing to others.  Professing your beliefs is fine, but when you project your beliefs onto others thats a different animal.  you see when you out right tell people that something is wrong, and tell them they are morally wrong and sinning and going to hell because of it that is projecting your conscience and beliefs.  Furthermore, calling for a boycott of a company because of its policies which you disagree with is you being intolerant of that company.  You know if you've never heard a pastor preach intolerance or hatred then you are very secluded. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892.html

 

Theres a link of a pastor being intolerant and down right crazy.  Again, much like I said in my last reply to you I think you need to do some reading, research, and soul searching because you seem very secluded. 

Now as far "tolerance training" that sounds like indoctrination.  The reason that someone might call someone intolerant is when they project and/or forcibly submit their beliefs onto another person.  That's why I think you should live and let live.  God is the ultimate judge, and furthermore salvation is personal, or is it not?

on Jul 12, 2008

Now as far "tolerance training" that sounds like indoctrination. The reason that someone might call someone intolerant is when they project and/or forcibly submit their beliefs onto another person. That's why I think you should live and let live. God is the ultimate judge, and furthermore salvation is personal, or is it not?

I wrote this first. I found that other thread later. Ask a Stardock admin, they could tell you the time. I hope.

You know, if you've never heard a pastor preach intolerance or hatred then you are very secluded.

That is crap. It is a blatant lie. I've listened to MANY (8?) pastors, and had more theological teachers, and there has never been any instance when they have preached intolerance or hatred. Even the less wise or younger or less suitable ones. The problem is when you have a pastor who has strayed from the Truth and interprets his own work instead of the Bible. See my gripe with the LDS Cult.

Professing your beliefs is fine, but when you project your beliefs onto others thats a different animal.

That is crap also. Truth is absolute. Else, I could tell you that you don't need water to survive or air, either. I have studied the Law, and I have found a connection between foods that have warnings on them and Kosher teaching. This means that either the Jewish society was highly logical and advanced, or there was a divine hand. I have found that in other areas, commands are always for the better.

Furthermore, calling for a boycott of a company because of its policies which you disagree with is you being intolerant of that company

KFC did that, not me. Why are you considering us the same? I'm not hooked up to some mind-sharing device. At least not one that doesn't use a keyboard for transmission.

Also, some of us consider that a very good reason to boycott a company. It's our money they're spending.

You see, when you out right tell people that something is wrong, and tell them they are morally wrong and sinning and going to Hell because of it that is projecting your conscience and beliefs.

[sarcasm]No, really? I never knew that![/sarcasm] No. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. I am merely stating my opinion, and persuading people to agree with me. If I had a dollar for every time I had to type that.

Now as far "tolerance training", that sounds like indoctrination. The reason that someone might call someone intolerant is when they project and/or forcibly submit their beliefs onto another person. That's why I think you should live and let live. God is the ultimate judge, and furthermore salvation is personal, or is it not?

Wait, are you agreeing with me? Well, for the first sentence, at least. I never force anyone to believe with me. If I did, I'd use insidious means.

However, this "live and let live" policy is basically a surrender to letting people go to Hell for no good reason.

If God is the ultimate judge, then shouldn't I preach His Law?

Salvation is not "personal" as you are thinking. It's only available to an individual with each ticket, and relies upon faith.

 

Shall I point out how quickly you fell for my trap, in a sense of speak. See, you pretty much pointed out that the only acceptable grounds are "for" or "neutral", not "against". It is almost impossible to say that you are against anything that doesn't promote maximum pleasure.

on Jul 12, 2008

Tolerance and Conscience.....Interesting topic Erathaniel. It should rouse some good discussion.

Go to a public high school and you will find curiculum made to teach "tolerance".

In some states, "Tolerance" and "Diversity" training are indoctrinated in the much lower grades now. Gotta get em' young...you know ,  the younger the better. Can you imagine schools wasting time and our taxpayer monies on such drivel?

They are teaching our kids to tolerate everything and everyone...What's right and what's wrong according to moral absolute standard is long gone ...went out in 1962 with prayer (Christian prayer, that is,)and the Ten Commandments... gone .

 

  

 

on Jul 12, 2008

I'll tell you what, your tolerance, your perceived moral compass, your conscience has nothing to do with others,

really?

But we all have to live together in a society, don't we?

What things as a society should we tolerate and what things shouldn't we tolerate?

What things get zero tolerance and what things get absolute tolerance?

 

 

 

 

on Jul 12, 2008
My question is this: Why is it so wrong to have a conscience?


We all have an inner voice of conscience dictating to us a law that we didn't make and which no man could ever make. Every one of us is born with a sense of right and wrong.

So, it may be more correct to ask, why is is so wrong to express our conscience? I'd answer that it isn't...It's just that leftists and worldlings don't like to deal with people whose conscience is formed around God's absolutes of right and wrong.

.
on Jul 12, 2008

It's not a question I meant for you to answer. I know all about conscience. I'm asking them.

on Jul 13, 2008
Therefore, should we not eliminate the creators of intolerance before breaking down logic and reason via "tolerance" training?


Public school sex ed programs are the vehicle used to teach kids "tolerance" of homosexuality as normal, immutable, and natural, even good. What is happening here is the schools are actually either forming or attempting to deform the student's
conscience via "tolerance" training.

Therefore, if not linked to the objective norm of morality which is law, natural law and divine law, conscience itself can be erroneous and knowingly to follow a conscience which is formed erroneously would be wrong (sinful) in itself.



on Jul 13, 2008
But we all have to live together in a society, don't we?

What things as a society should we tolerate and what things shouldn't we tolerate?

What things get zero tolerance and what things get absolute tolerance?


Those questions are answered in a single word: law.

A society is governed by it's laws. Period. While many people would love to see a theocracy here, it simply isn't. It's a country made up of peoples from many different countries, races, religions, and backgrounds. What is and isn't tolerated is determined by the laws of the society. Not religious dogma, not religious rules, not religious standards, but by law.

As for the original post, I agree that the sort of "teaching" described is not what our tax dollars are being paid to teach. The schools need to busy themselves with teaching the skills and knowledge needed to be a productive and successful member of society and not waste time and money on warm and fuzzy crap.

In a time where our students are graduating with less than acceptable reading and math skills, and our students are testing well below those of other nations, this sort of nonsense is not only a waste of taxpayer monies but borders on criminal dereliction of duty on the part of our schools.

The whole 'conscience' issue is actually irrelevant. I am a firm believer in allowing others to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't harm others or infringe upon the rights of others, and that includes allowing intolerant religious types to spout their message of hate and intolerance of others instead of tending to the planks in their own eyes.

Doesn't mean I won't voice my own opinion of their asinine behavior now and again.
on Jul 13, 2008

Public school sex ed programs are the vehicle used to teach kids "tolerance" of homosexuality as normal, immutable, and natural, even good

I beg to differ here. All the schools in Arizona teach only abstinence.

A society is governed by it's laws. Period. While many people would love to see a theocracy here, it simply isn't. It's a country made up of peoples from many different countries, races, religions, and backgrounds. What is and isn't tolerated is determined by the laws of the society. Not religious dogma, not religious rules, not religious standards, but by law.

And only the laws of God are worth following, only His name is worthy of praise.

The schools need to busy themselves with teaching the skills and knowledge needed to be a productive and successful member of society and not waste time and money on warm and fuzzy crap.

Yes, that is what this article is about.

on Jul 13, 2008
And only the laws of God are worth following,


Really? Doesn't the bible say "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man"?

Meaning you should obey the law.

Or don't you believe your bible?
on Jul 13, 2008

Really? Doesn't the bible say "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man"?

Is that not a law of God?

on Jul 13, 2008
Is that not a law of God?


Cute way of dodging the point there Skippy, but very obvious. What's the matter? Wrote something you can't now stand behind because you know it was dumb?

Either you obey the law or not, and if you don't you're violating your own religion.
on Jul 13, 2008

Either you obey the law or not, and if you don't you're violating your own religion.

Then I obey the law as I am commanded by God. I do not have to believe that the law is worth following to follow it.

You're going off track of the discussion, here. Next time at least post something pertinent to the original discussion.

on Jul 13, 2008
You're going off track of the discussion, here. Next time at least post something pertinent to the original discussion.


Are you trying to say that the following was not pertinent to the original discussion?

As for the original post, I agree that the sort of "teaching" described is not what our tax dollars are being paid to teach. The schools need to busy themselves with teaching the skills and knowledge needed to be a productive and successful member of society and not waste time and money on warm and fuzzy crap.

In a time where our students are graduating with less than acceptable reading and math skills, and our students are testing well below those of other nations, this sort of nonsense is not only a waste of taxpayer monies but borders on criminal dereliction of duty on the part of our schools.


As for my follow up comments, they were in direct response to your own comments so screw you. I'll never comment on another one of your pathetically moronic posts again you wimpy little worm. Rot in Hell.
on Jul 13, 2008

Good. First blacklist. I never liked you that much anyways.

5 Pages1 2 3  Last