"Tolerance is reserved for those you disagree with." What a great and elemental point to illustrate how genuinely INtolerant the modern climate of media, universities, entertainment is towards God's Word in the Bible.
It is why we are homeschooling our kids. We want then to learn tolerance of divergent viewpoints. The modern left who dominate the school system demand that they practice active indulgence of a very narrow set of principles, to the violent opression and exclusion of all else. I will not let my children be raised by fascists and bigots.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 fascist and bigots are not a part of a "left" thing. It only looks that way to someone who has drifted further and further to the right.
The intolerance of those who preach tolerance, is intolerable! Praise Jesus for this teaching and now implement it and share the Truth of God, through Jesus alone.
I’m not a Christian but this guy is certainly helping me see the way in these trying times. It seems very odd to me that acceptance with disagreement is hate and acceptance as long as we agree is considered tolerant reasonable and righteous by so many today. Often the group people insist are stuck in the past and believe in fairy tales seem to be the ones making sense and having a clear reasonable position these days. Thank you for your message and your level head while under attack for clearly reasonable positions.
This is a very refreshing comment.. Even though I try to shrug off the insults for being Christian, it's very uplifting to hear that maybe Christianity is not all bad and all crazy
Bought the Tactics book,,, and am slowly,, taking pains to grasp the concepts, and commit them to my way of interacting everyday. This lecture was brilliant. I'll be taking pains to see every video I can find.
George Orwell in his novel "1984" published in 1949 wrote of Newspeak and how language would be used to stifle thought. Examples he gave were “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Greg gives an example of Newspeak in how the old definition of tolerance has been inverted to mean the opposite.
The well formulated question is something I have used for years--to find out more information, to reveal flaws in the argument, to invite others to think more deeply.
Amazing talk but also shocking what is going on in our society these days. We stop thinking, arguing and instead start yelling. Discussions stops and verbal abuse, smearing starts. Thanks for posting this.
I'm watching this after reading about the recent violent, profane rant against Christians by a member of the Human Rights Commission in a town in Massachusetts. Those who should be the most tolerant are often the most intolerant. It's scary.
this video should be prefixed to every youtube video that deals with politics, religion and science! if not to all videos! maybe! MAYBE .. then we would get any progress!
15:30 the flaw in their assertion is that a totalitarian is NOT a person who “believes they are right to the exclusion of others’ beliefs”. (If that were true, every math teacher ever would be a totalitarian).
It's not post-modern to apply egalitarianism to ideas but simply a form of modernism. It is value relativism, as can be found in Max Weber's sociology.
Here's an example of tolerance: *Tolerance* to drugs and alcohol. Hence drugs and alcohol are to be promoted. "Tolerance" is the subversive way to subdue love, and using love as the reason to achive this. And another quote: "Tolerance' is only good in houses of tolerance".
I’d like to see Kokul address the following argument: “The paradox of intolerance disappears when you see tolerance not as a moral standard but a social contract. If they do not obey the terms of the contract, they are not covered by it. In other words, the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, it no longer covers them. Therefore their intolerance must not be tolerated.” I want to see Greg Kokul respond to THIS argument sometime
In other words, egalitarian illusions (value relativism) would have us believe that all religious positions are of equal value. This might be called the third-person or pluralistic over-view. To adopt it is to think as a sociologist, where the Many have priority over the One. This perspective displaces believing any particular form of piety to be supremely valid (believing as such). Our political union enjoins us to adopt this collective perspective to allow (tolerate) that everyone freely and privately espouse whatever credo they find most compelling. Koukl's point--also made many years ago by G.K. Chesterfield--is that one cannot adopt this position, i.e., that one's own beliefs are as valid (no more valid) as any other. Without vacating our individual perspective; the voice of the first person. One cannot exercise tolerance vis-a-vis one's beliefs because believing them and assuming that they are uniquely valid are one and the same thing. Does this not mean that, strictly speaking, there is no place for individuals in the public forum? Only if it is supposed that the aspiration to treat everyone equally before the law applies to individuals in all spheres of life. Which is demonstrably false. This suggests the proper limits of the egalitarian quest. Not to mentions the social conceits of democratic regimes. No wonder Facebook won't allow this video to be posted. But how did it slip past Google's censors?
It’s simple: It you have the desire to *control* another human being you are *at the least* intolerant. If you have no such desire you cannot be intolerant.
Those who claim Christians are intolerant are by far more intolerant. Or the sinfully tolerant are hypocrites because they are far from tolerant. He is pointing out how many that speak out against something are guilty of doing those exact things.
Classical tolerence (the original meaning of it): all people have a right to hold a particular view, but that right does not mean that their view is necessarily correct. New tolerence: everyone is entitled to their views as long as those views agree with my own views. See it now?
51:49 - 52:06 of the video describes what real tolerance is. Probably the best summary of what he's talking about. If you agree with someone, it's agreeing, not tolerance. If you disagree with someone but treat them kindly, that is tolerance.
You only tolerate things you disagree with. Have you ever heard the question "why do you tolerate that?" ? It is usually asked of someone who would otherwise have done something about another person's disagreeable behavior, and its negative effect on them. But, instead, they tolerate the person while disagreeing with their behavior. THAT is TOLERANCE!
The way they get around this is citing "The paradox of tolerance", as if being intolerant of intolerance somehow is ok, but all other intolerance isn't. They will actually say in order to be truly tolerant, you have to be intolerance of others intolerance.
Note that Faye Waddleton writes that she does not want governments to dictate how people should behave, and yet she suggests that laws should be made for a specific way on which people should behave. I guess that she does not actually believe that those laws should be taken seriously.
I'm not about to switch religions, or to become "selective" as to which I defend, but I was pleasantly surprised by a calm, logical and thought-out lecture on the intolerance of tolerance that wasn't the usual cheap hate speech about "why tolerance is wrong". 45:47 Welcome to the world of peer pressure...
Is neutrality indifference? Edit: Assuming everyone in that room believes that what they believe is right, takes a lot about human beings and beliefs for granted. 41:10-41:33 Edit 2: name-calling is name-calling name-giving. Name giving makes phenomena discussable. Edit 3: they do not think you're wrong. They think you are intolerant. You just defined the rule then broke it. You can choose to call that wrong but you defined it as intolerant so that's what it is.
It doesn't surprise me that in Canada he is getting such resistance. They are always years a-head of the US in Political Correctness when it comes to Conservatives. When you go out on the street they are as liberal as can be. I went to Urbana in 1985, a Christian Mission Conference. . They taught us to do a giant wave and we would have something called a attitude check were if we were falling a-sleep they would say attitude check and we would Praise God. Well these Canadians were on their bus and we went to say hi to them, then jokingly we said attitude check and they cursed us out with F bombs. Why were they there? I know that in the US it was expensive to go so not everyone went. The Canadians weren't as affluent as the US since it was in the Regan years so, why waist your money on something you don't like? Having said that I know that there are many mature in Christ Canadian Christians and these knuckle heads were probably just some youth that were forced to go. The US kids that were forced to go probably wouldn't have the guts to do that.
Political correctness has replaced truth. Just as utilitarianism has replace ethics, psychology has replaced philosophy and social justice has replaced reason.
I'm glad I'm not one of them lol but sadly some people still are not going to and will not grasp the profound point and the positive affected this brilliantly put topic 100% would have world wide! Shame
LazlosPlane "With God, all things are possible", is from the scriptures when Jesus was teaching about salvation for wealthy people. Your response doesn't show much thought, but rather an arrogant retort based on your emotional beliefs.
Wow! Speaking of arrogance and emotional condescension, you must have written the book. Clearly, feeling inferior in many ways to other men, (who knows, perhaps some anatomical shortcoming) you have decided that it is YOUR station in life to correct others and to correct them with a little punishment. Did mommy hurt you? Did she touch you in that "special" place? JESUS SAID,"FOR, (BECAUSE) WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE." Dork.
LazlosPlane What does calling him names achieve? Does it make his argument less valid? Does it convince him that your argument is valid? Does it make you a better person? Or does it lower you down to his level? It certainly isn't a God-like behavior. Trust in your own logic and arguments. If they result in them name-calling, do not stoop to their level. Instead, know that your arguments have hit their mark and they no longer know how to argue back. Be strong! You can do it.
It's not the secular humanist community per se. It's the post modernist/radical leftist community. You'll find people like Sam Harris decrying the same kind of thing Koukl is talking about here. It's not up to us as secularists to try and shut down the free speech of Christians. It's up to us to counter their views with reasoned argument.
@@snuzebuster or the anti-Christians could just allow Christians the right to practice their faith, instead of blaming Christianity and Christians for everything that goes wrong in the world.
@@LlyneM-rf3gd Right, and I'm certainly not blaming Christianity for everything wrong in the world. I think if I had the choice of continuing to live in this world that has no doubt been culturally, profoundly influenced by Christianity or choosing to flip a switch that would make it so that Christianity never existed, I would not take that chance. So, I guess that means I think it is likely that Christianity has made the world a better place than it would otherwise have been. That's just an educated guess though. Also, I'm not in favor of denying Christians the right to worship their God or live their life as they see fit, just as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others. As far as I know Christians are still completely free to practice their faith. They are just not allowed to impose it on any one else by mandating it as part of any public institution or proceedings or to use it as an excuse to deny other people their constitutional rights.
...which is why he knows that the Papacy is a fraud. They molest little children in the name of Jesus, and their claims to authority have been refuted by Jesus himself. Trust no one but Jesus Christ himself. Also, turn caps lock off.
I agree with this presentation and find it amazing that when the church Universal has been wrong on an issue that it takes decades and centuries to admit it and change for the good. Examples: role/status of women, treatment of those not like us, slavery, divorce, lgbt issues, etc.
Because... anyone who leaves christianity seems to instead adopt stupid believes of flat earth, billions of genders, women have dicks, men can give birth and pedophilia is a sexual orientation... OR they convert to islam and blows stuff up. *_EXACTLY like pedophile democrats._*
Indeed, most "non-belief-trapped" people see the statement "Jesus is the only way" as intolerant. It is a misguided and erroneous denial of other people's belief systems. Going around continually spouting that "my belief system is the only true belief system" - regardless of what that belief system is - is arrogant and narcissistic because people are following many different paths in their lives and making a great deal of spiritual progress. This kind of attitude creates divisions among people, and the evidence is right there for all to see. It's so unnecessary. Cheers.
***** I don't. I contend that nobody should "believe" or myopically follow anyone: me, you, Koukl, the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Arabs, Indians, Chinese, or whomever on faith alone. Belief is the enemy of spiritual growth. All the best!
***** Are you familiar with the phenomena in many European cities of Muslim men patrolling the streets of Muslim neighborhoods and repeatedly telling the non-Muslim women who are walking through to cover themselves? Of course, these men feel obligated by their religion to repeatedly inform these women that they need to cover themselves. And it doesn’t matter to them that the women aren’t Muslim because, according to their belief system, ALL women are bound by Allah’s laws. So then it would be intolerant for non-Muslim local men to go into these Muslim neighborhoods and tell these guys to stop “harassing” their daughters, wives, sisters, etc. as they’re walking through Muslim neighborhoods to get to work, school or wherever. Since the Muslim men are simply following the dictates of their religion, wouldn’t it be intolerant to tell them to stop? They’re not breaking any laws. But they sure are making a lot of non-Muslim women’s lives pretty miserable because of their primitive beliefs/superstitions. Cheers.
***** "The Muslim men are harassing the non-Muslim women by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Muslim faith. Intolerance by the non Muslim men would come in to play if they told the Muslims to never share their convictions. The fact is, the Muslims have been able to testify to their beliefs, but have shown intolerance themselves in not allowing the women to follow their own convictions." The Christian version: "The Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith. Intolerance by the non-Christians would come in to play if they told the Christians to never share their convictions. The fact is, the Christians have been able to testify to their beliefs, but have shown intolerance themselves in not allowing the gays (and supporters of gay rights) to follow their own convictions." Christians telling gay people that they do not have the right to marry and working diligently to block gay people's (and gay supporters') efforts to gain that right in all 50 states, again, following your reasoning, means that "Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith." So then you must surely be against Christians who are trying to block the efforts of gay people (and gay supporters) to gain the right to marry in all 50 states. Cheers
***** That's what I thought: you can see the intolerance in the Muslim example but not in your own. Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course. No one is imposing gay marriage on Christians. If Christians don't believe in gay marriage, then they don't have to get gay married. There are a lot of gay (or same sex attracted) Christians who have decided to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and that's their right. But denying the right for gays who want to marry to do so because of one's Christianity is intolerance at the highest level. It is also true that: "Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith," just as you said that’s what the Muslim men are doing by telling the non-Muslim women to cover themselves - in effect telling them to follow the Muslim faith. And yet you'll never see the contradiction within yourself that says these are two different cases because you refuse to accept it for what it is, your own religion-based intolerance. Fortunately, for society as a whole, this grave error has been significantly rectified over the past decade, and we should find out this year as to whether this injustice is going to finally, at long last, be put to rest. And it’s not just secular society that is finally opening their hearts on this issue, but large numbers of Christians, as well: Carrie Underwood: “I’m in favor of acceptance. And I am a Christian person, and I do love the Lord, and I feel no matter who you are, what you believe, how you live your life, it’s not my place to judge. As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.” President Carter: “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things - he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.” Kristin Chenoweth: “If Jesus was to walk the Earth today . . . [he] would be horrified. Those people saying they’re doing it in the name of God? No no no no no. It is very anti-Christian of them . . . It is the antithesis of what I believe. It is the antithesis of what you should believe if you believe in Jesus. . . It’s not what he taught, it’s the opposite of what he taught.” Even significant numbers of Evangelicals, the toughest crowd in Christianity when it comes to gay issues, are getting sick and tired of all the senseless, religion-based anti-gay prejudice, and it’s the young people who are making the biggest difference: In today’s Politico Magazine (7-8-14), Jim Hinch examines why more evangelical Christians are breaking with their church’s condemnation of same-sex relationships. That study finds that more than one quarter (27 percent) of white evangelicals favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, including a “substantial minority” (43 percent) of younger white evangelicals (age 18-33). www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.U9F9DPldWUK It’s very gratifying to see more of these Christian folks finally starting to “grow up,” spiritually. And I am deeply proud of every last one of them. Only a matter of time, my friend. Cheers.
I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone be so blatantly dishonest. At best he is simply reading into what Ms Wattleton wrote what he wants to hear. He claims she says she is neutral (she doesn't). But given he wants to argue the 'myth of neutrality' (whatever that is, my guess is he is alluding to moral relativism) so he probably needs to set her up as claiming she is neutral and that tolerance is rooted in neutrality. But worse he quotes her [at 20:07] "He then, just a minute and a half later claims to repeat what she says with the following [at 21:38] I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. I have seen this type of political activism dressed up as religiosity since the 1980's but it is still galling to see someone so casual with the truth just to make a point. Perhaps not so casual on second viewing - he put an enormous amount of effort into preparing us for this sleight of hand. And I'm surprised by how emotional I feel. It feels quite violating, like I need a shower. Its all a bit creepy I don't think I can watch the rest.
There's a difference between fact and faith. We might believe that Jesus is the messiah, but we obviously cannot prove that. We choose to believe it based on faith, just as other religions have their own chosen beliefs on their own faith. Obviously we believe those other religions are wrong. Everyone already knows this, but telling them so is mean-spirited. It is a claim which we cannot back up, and therefore it is a pointless attack on their faith. They are desperately clinging to their beliefs just as every religious person must, so let's not inconsiderately wave our contrary faith in their faces and make their lives harder for no reason. Imagine a person clinging to the edge of a cliff and in danger of falling into a pit of eternal torment. We might go to that person to tease and torment and try to loosen her grip, but doing so would be terrible. We don't believe that the cliff she clings to will actually protect her from hell, but she believes it, and we've no way to prove her wrong, so all we'd accomplish is making her life miserable. It would be fine if we were presenting facts, but presenting our faith as if she should share it is just cruel.
Christian faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah is not a "blind" faith. We can and should use reason to 'contend for the faith' and 'always be ready with an answer for the reason of our hope.'
@Sandy Ridge he's showing his complete ignorance on the historicity of the subject. Virtually every sane modern atheist believes in the historicity of Christ. This sceptical joker's ideas were vaguely given credence by a couple of fringe German 'historians' in the mid-19th century. Now completely discredited.
dan cash If you listen to the context, he means that he is not interested in bringing the matter of abortion into the discussion about this woman’s fake neutrality. He’s putting the abortion issue aside and saying that it is not relevant to his point about “neutrality” and how she clearly isn’t neutral. Obviously abortion is wrong but it’s not relevant to the argument.
@@areallycoolguy5004 and if you listen to what he says he lies that she claims to be neutral, she doesn't, the word 'neutral' doesn't even appear in his quotation of her 'citation' and he says that she states that people who hold moral positions different to her are unfair and un-American and tyrannical. It is difficult not to conclude the he is wilfully telling a falsehood and that he is well aware that she said it was unfair etc to force your morals on others, including hers and only showed respect and tolerance for the views of others. Christ's command is to love one another. That is the Gospel (and that such love will free me from death). Those are the fundamentals and that is all that is needed to evangelise. God it is not easy. It is particularly challenging when that person I am to love spends every waking moment either Sin chasing or idolising a book. It makes me wonder if church is the last place I will find a sister or brother in Christ.
Apart from the historical record of the ancient scriptures, given by the Spiritof God Himself? What more do you want? The history channel, who brought you Ancient Aliens?
@@charlitoadams777 the law and the prophets which the Jews have preserved for millennia. Then there's the new Testament which, despite unprecedented scrutiny has stood the test of criticism and of which we have an embarrassment of manuscripts. What sort of 'historical evidence' are you looking for? All past history is appraised by historical writings and/or archaeological discoveries. But the historicity of one man (Abraham) is hardly going to be established by archaeology, since he was a nomad with simple means. I ask you this: Without reliance on written historical data, can you confirm there following: 1. Why was the Eiffel Tower built? 2. Who designed it? 3. Who built it? 4. How long did it take to build? The Eiffel Tower is still there in Paris, yet thr answers to these questions rely on historical accounts of eye witnesses or other persons in the know at the time. The preservation of the documentation in archives or the reliable copying of such original documents, is the key to whether such information is trustworthy or not. The field of biblical textual criticism has made so much progress that only the most hardened, biased skeptic would choose to write them off. On another point: A believer unto salvation is a believer because of an act of divine intercession. One can no more unbelieve, than they can believe unto salvation without being reborn. Additionally, such belief is eternal and cannot be undone. For this reason, I say this; your assertion that you are no longer a believer is not true. Either you were never a believer unto salvation in the first place, or you are going through a season of unbelief which you need to repent of.
@@theologian1456 How many Israelite slaves were there at the time of the Exodus? Any evidence in the desert of the Exodus? What was the original written language of the Torah? How come the Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites etc. Never mention the Israelites amazing conquests? How come no one wrote about Jesus and his miracles until over hundred years after his death?
@@charlitoadams777 well the book of Acts is dated to 60-90 AD with better evidence of 60 AD as it ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome prior to his martyrdom and to omit this and the events leading up to this important historical part makes no sense as as the book is all about the acts of the apostles. However it is known that Acts follows on from the gospel of Luke so it has to be written before 60 AD. And it is widely accepted that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written So it would need to date before 60 AD in order to be before Luke. Also archeological evidence of Jerusalem indicates that the authors could accurately describe the city and locations within which would be impossible after it's destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. Leaving at most a 30 year gap which during that time churches were established with eye witnesses present. In fact it is remarkable in an oral culture to pen down something so early. Comparing to homer and the Iliad which has a 400 year gap between spoken to written. Also the fact that there are slight variations in the Gospel confirm that they were eye witnesses without corroboration as the churches that they established prior would have pointed out the difference between what they heard and what was written.
You use a million words. Genesis 6:7 God fired everyone but Noah's family. He was so angry He would never again reveal Himself to everyone. He called out the Jews to be His chosen special ones. They also let Him down. For a long time God was content to let people be born live their 70 to 80 years, die and He'd drop them in hell. But He is far too compassionate for that. So He sent Jesus not because He loves us but rather because He doesn't like us. If God loved you there would never have been Jesus. What for? If God loved you you could go straight to Him for Salvation but since He doesn't like you YOU NEED JESUS!! JOHN 14:6 the way the truth the life schpeel you all know it. Why did He say that? Why do we go through Jesus? Jesus will tell you because my Father doesn't like you.
I was hoping for an understanding of why christian evagleicals sometimes are considered intolerant. But no, it's just another defence of christian intolerance and disrespect of other world views. Why should I listen when all I hear is "I'm going to keep disrespecting you and beeing intrusive towards you and that's my religious moral right". Why don't you just ONCE stop and listen to what we on the recieving end are saying?
@@danielmann5427 From websters dictionary: "a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something"
This brother is brilliant, thank you david wood for leading me her, praise God
D. Wood's video also brought me here!
Me too!!😁
@buymebluepills And me 👍
And me!
I've just finished his book and it was very interesting and informative
Me too!!!! :) :) :)
"Tolerance is reserved for those you disagree with." What a great and elemental point to illustrate how genuinely INtolerant the modern climate of media, universities, entertainment is towards God's Word in the Bible.
It is why we are homeschooling our kids. We want then to learn tolerance of divergent viewpoints. The modern left who dominate the school system demand that they practice active indulgence of a very narrow set of principles, to the violent opression and exclusion of all else. I will not let my children be raised by fascists and bigots.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 fascist and bigots are not a part of a "left" thing. It only looks that way to someone who has drifted further and further to the right.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 So your solution is to ensure your kids are exposed only to your own views and principles smh
We, Christians, are the most tolerant people ever, and the most humble, too. 🤪
The intolerance of those who preach tolerance, is intolerable! Praise Jesus for this teaching and now implement it and share the Truth of God, through Jesus alone.
I’m not a Christian but this guy is certainly helping me see the way in these trying times. It seems very odd to me that acceptance with disagreement is hate and acceptance as long as we agree is considered tolerant reasonable and righteous by so many today. Often the group people insist are stuck in the past and believe in fairy tales seem to be the ones making sense and having a clear reasonable position these days. Thank you for your message and your level head while under attack for clearly reasonable positions.
This is a very refreshing comment.. Even though I try to shrug off the insults for being Christian, it's very uplifting to hear that maybe Christianity is not all bad and all crazy
Bought the Tactics book,,, and am slowly,, taking pains to grasp the concepts, and commit them to my way of interacting everyday. This lecture was brilliant. I'll be taking pains to see every video I can find.
As a catholic, I cant get enough of this guy.
He has really inspired me and I cant recomend him highly enough.
God bless you and family Greg
Read the Bible though, you’ll come out of that false doctrine as I did , he died ones ..
Best thing I've watched in a long time. Loving your book, too, Greg.
Bless you!
George Orwell in his novel "1984" published in 1949 wrote of Newspeak and how language would be used to stifle thought. Examples he gave were “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Greg gives an example of Newspeak in how the old definition of tolerance has been inverted to mean the opposite.
...by pedophile fascist racist negative IQed democrats
And after you watched Greg actively invert it. Genius!
, 😊😊
Excellent presentation - you show the modern attitudes so clearly.
Nice breakdown. I'm beginning to think the problem has less to do with reason though, and more with peoples' emotional responses.
Absolutely
Ya true
I'm very happy I watched this. Greg is such an intelligent man.
I praise God for people like him.
I don’t really understand why people disliked this video.
@buymebluepills to be tolerant of the intolerant, who are just taking advantage of our tolerance, but have no good intentions, is stupid.
I understand those who are intolerant but preaching tolerance.
Truly inspired and extremely competent thinker.
Love Gregs work God bless him
The well formulated question is something I have used for years--to find out more information, to reveal flaws in the argument, to invite others to think more deeply.
Amazing talk but also shocking what is going on in our society these days. We stop thinking, arguing and instead start yelling. Discussions stops and verbal abuse, smearing starts. Thanks for posting this.
What do you think this post is doing?????
Sabine, you’ve identified the overwhelming fact that the ad hominem attack is the easiest and most readily available to ALL people. True story.
~ Powerful TRUTHS! + Amazing INSIGHT!
Even more painfully relevant today.
False tolerance is the worst kind of poison, or at least it is more dangerously subtle than "intolerance".
This is gold! I hope your message could spread a lot more among people, because they are lost and brainwashed my media and greedy politicians
thank you so much....I can make sense of this topic so much better.
He really put stones in my shoes. Now I'm scratching my head and start using my brain to think about the thing he just said.
Brilliant man. Love Greg.
i love this. Well done Greg!!
I'm watching this after reading about the recent violent, profane rant against Christians by a member of the Human Rights Commission in a town in Massachusetts. Those who should be the most tolerant are often the most intolerant. It's scary.
God Bless Greg Kokul. Wow. Thank you for this!
I tried to post this on Facebook, but guess who was intolerant to it. Hmmmm
Lol
Irony of Ironies... Facebook seems to be very intolerant towards this sharing this video... sad.
Buks Hanekom - why?
The insight about the after effects of 9/11 stopped me in my tracks. Never thought of it that way.
Tolerance is reserved for things you disagree with.
That's true
Well done Greg . Its almost over my head
This man is wonderful
I am not belong to this Evangelical church but thumps up to Greg Koukl. I am so impressed.
Brilliant.
Very well done! Most reasonable!!!
GREAT VIDEO!! Wow, well articulated.
There are many paths to God as long as you understand the Gospel of John chapters 1 through 3
What a cool, rational, mean guy 😁
Fantastic talk!
this video should be prefixed to every youtube video that deals with politics, religion and science! if not to all videos! maybe! MAYBE .. then we would get any progress!
15:30 the flaw in their assertion is that a totalitarian is NOT a person who “believes they are right to the exclusion of others’ beliefs”. (If that were true, every math teacher ever would be a totalitarian).
It's not post-modern to apply egalitarianism to ideas but simply a form of modernism. It is value relativism, as can be found in Max Weber's sociology.
So good and so helpful.
good topic but, whoever set up camera should have had it focused on the screen
Here's an example of tolerance:
*Tolerance* to drugs and alcohol. Hence drugs and alcohol are to be promoted.
"Tolerance" is the subversive way to subdue love, and using love as the reason to achive this.
And another quote: "Tolerance' is only good in houses of tolerance".
Drugs and Alcohol 🥃 are only temporary relievers.
Is there anywhere i can get/watch the "Test of Faith" episode which Greg Koukl's in?
I'm not in America.
I cannot find it. Could it be called something else?
I think this might be it: www.imdb.com/title/tt3473118/
@@RosannaMiller I think this might be it: www.imdb.com/title/tt3473118/
Thank you. Lovely talk
Awesome ..
I love this video!
Why is FB world intolerant of this?
In Norway I can post it on facebook
I’d like to see Kokul address the following argument: “The paradox of intolerance disappears when you see tolerance not as a moral standard but a social contract. If they do not obey the terms of the contract, they are not covered by it. In other words, the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, it no longer covers them. Therefore their intolerance must not be tolerated.”
I want to see Greg Kokul respond to THIS argument sometime
In other words, egalitarian illusions (value relativism) would have us believe that all religious positions are of equal value. This might be called the third-person or pluralistic over-view. To adopt it is to think as a sociologist, where the Many have priority over the One. This perspective displaces believing any particular form of piety to be supremely valid (believing as such). Our political union enjoins us to adopt this collective perspective to allow (tolerate) that everyone freely and privately espouse whatever credo they find most compelling. Koukl's point--also made many years ago by G.K. Chesterfield--is that one cannot adopt this position, i.e., that one's own beliefs are as valid (no more valid) as any other. Without vacating our individual perspective; the voice of the first person. One cannot exercise tolerance vis-a-vis one's beliefs because believing them and assuming that they are uniquely valid are one and the same thing.
Does this not mean that, strictly speaking, there is no place for individuals in the public forum? Only if it is supposed that the aspiration to treat everyone equally before the law applies to individuals in all spheres of life. Which is demonstrably false. This suggests the proper limits of the egalitarian quest. Not to mentions the social conceits of democratic regimes.
No wonder Facebook won't allow this video to be posted. But how did it slip past Google's censors?
So is it okay for me to be intolerant of Rightwing Christians and seek to stop their (what I feel is) theocratic agenda?
It’s simple:
It you have the desire to *control* another human being you are *at the least* intolerant.
If you have no such desire you cannot be intolerant.
Hi Greg, It has been a long time.
Can someone summarize what Greg is saying. I seriously don't get it.
Those who claim Christians are intolerant are by far more intolerant. Or the sinfully tolerant are hypocrites because they are far from tolerant.
He is pointing out how many that speak out against something are guilty of doing those exact things.
Classical tolerence (the original meaning of it): all people have a right to hold a particular view, but that right does not mean that their view is necessarily correct.
New tolerence: everyone is entitled to their views as long as those views agree with my own views.
See it now?
51:49 - 52:06 of the video describes what real tolerance is. Probably the best summary of what he's talking about. If you agree with someone, it's agreeing, not tolerance. If you disagree with someone but treat them kindly, that is tolerance.
David wood referred me to this man
So, if he’s against pluralism does that mean he supports a theocracy? Totalitarianism? Religious monarchy? What is the alternative?
You only tolerate things you disagree with.
Have you ever heard the question "why do you tolerate that?" ? It is usually asked of someone who would otherwise have done something about another person's disagreeable behavior, and its negative effect on them. But, instead, they tolerate the person while disagreeing with their behavior. THAT is TOLERANCE!
Nine years passed and it's only got noticeably the same only worse.
The way they get around this is citing "The paradox of tolerance", as if being intolerant of intolerance somehow is ok, but all other intolerance isn't. They will actually say in order to be truly tolerant, you have to be intolerance of others intolerance.
He hit the nail on the head about Islam. Such irony. I talk about this all the time.
Has anyone been saved by your method?
“A religious totalitarian is someone who believes he’s always right and everyone else is wrong 😑”
True words about the Democrats and Liberals
OMG LOL
Great video
Ms mani There s more historicity of Jesus than Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon!? No one doubts the latter with less historicity.
Note that Faye Waddleton writes that she does not want governments to dictate how people should behave, and yet she suggests that laws should be made for a specific way on which people should behave. I guess that she does not actually believe that those laws should be taken seriously.
BRILLANT ARGUMENT/DEBATE.
I'm not about to switch religions, or to become "selective" as to which I defend, but I was pleasantly surprised by a calm, logical and thought-out lecture on the intolerance of tolerance that wasn't the usual cheap hate speech about "why tolerance is wrong".
45:47 Welcome to the world of peer pressure...
To not embrace a particular religious view is to deny all religion.
Tolerance is a FALSE form of Love which translates into Narcissim.
Wow.
Is neutrality indifference?
Edit: Assuming everyone in that room believes that what they believe is right, takes a lot about human beings and beliefs for granted. 41:10-41:33
Edit 2: name-calling is name-calling name-giving. Name giving makes phenomena discussable.
Edit 3: they do not think you're wrong. They think you are intolerant. You just defined the rule then broke it. You can choose to call that wrong but you defined it as intolerant so that's what it is.
Wow this good
It doesn't surprise me that in Canada he is getting such resistance. They are always years a-head of the US in Political Correctness when it comes to Conservatives. When you go out on the street they are as liberal as can be. I went to Urbana in 1985, a Christian Mission Conference. . They taught us to do a giant wave and we would have something called a attitude check were if we were falling a-sleep they would say attitude check and we would Praise God. Well these Canadians were on their bus and we went to say hi to them, then jokingly we said attitude check and they cursed us out with F bombs. Why were they there? I know that in the US it was expensive to go so not everyone went. The Canadians weren't as affluent as the US since it was in the Regan years so, why waist your money on something you don't like? Having said that I know that there are many mature in Christ Canadian Christians and these knuckle heads were probably just some youth that were forced to go. The US kids that were forced to go probably wouldn't have the guts to do that.
Canadians are like New Zealanders. Passive aggressive. .
Bunch of cry babies at the endo the day ..
Political correctness has replaced truth. Just as utilitarianism has replace ethics, psychology has replaced philosophy and social justice has replaced reason.
I'm glad I'm not one of them lol but sadly some people still are not going to and will not grasp the profound point and the positive affected this brilliantly put topic 100% would have world wide! Shame
That is the past, present, & future of Christian.. to be hated & branded as intolerant.
That bar poster makes the assumption that you can tell that by looking at a person
True Tolerance is for the subjugated not powerful.
The flaw is failure to define terms
What is POST modernism.
"Under no circumstances can they be BOTH right." Really? With God, all things are possible. Strike two.
LazlosPlane "With God, all things are possible", is from the scriptures when Jesus was teaching about salvation for wealthy people. Your response doesn't show much thought, but rather an arrogant retort based on your emotional beliefs.
Wow! Speaking of arrogance and emotional condescension, you must have written the book. Clearly, feeling inferior in many ways to other men, (who knows, perhaps some anatomical shortcoming) you have decided that it is YOUR station in life to correct others and to correct them with a little punishment.
Did mommy hurt you? Did she touch you in that "special" place?
JESUS SAID,"FOR, (BECAUSE) WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."
Dork.
LazlosPlane That last part was rude and uncalled for. How would you like that said to you? What does his mother have to do with anything he said?
Melissa, please. I have no patience for him and his type and they deserve to be mocked and belittled in any manner conceivable.
LazlosPlane What does calling him names achieve? Does it make his argument less valid? Does it convince him that your argument is valid?
Does it make you a better person? Or does it lower you down to his level?
It certainly isn't a God-like behavior.
Trust in your own logic and arguments. If they result in them name-calling, do not stoop to their level. Instead, know that your arguments have hit their mark and they no longer know how to argue back.
Be strong! You can do it.
Vergil, its funny how you just retort to just name calling just as the poeople in the show Greg was in did.
Don’t think this only applies to theology… body positive, masks, jabs, political affiliations, genders…. And on it goes
Tolerance is a social contract. If you are bigoted, you have broken the contract, and you don't deserve to have tolerance extended to you.
LoL!! Really funny + he accurately points~out the MAJOR HYPOCRISIES, that exist within the Secular Humanist community!
; |
It's not the secular humanist community per se. It's the post modernist/radical leftist community. You'll find people like Sam Harris decrying the same kind of thing Koukl is talking about here. It's not up to us as secularists to try and shut down the free speech of Christians. It's up to us to counter their views with reasoned argument.
@@snuzebuster or the anti-Christians could just allow Christians the right to practice their faith, instead of blaming Christianity and Christians for everything that goes wrong in the world.
@@LlyneM-rf3gd Right, and I'm certainly not blaming Christianity for everything wrong in the world. I think if I had the choice of continuing to live in this world that has no doubt been culturally, profoundly influenced by Christianity or choosing to flip a switch that would make it so that Christianity never existed, I would not take that chance. So, I guess that means I think it is likely that Christianity has made the world a better place than it would otherwise have been. That's just an educated guess though. Also, I'm not in favor of denying Christians the right to worship their God or live their life as they see fit, just as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others. As far as I know Christians are still completely free to practice their faith. They are just not allowed to impose it on any one else by mandating it as part of any public institution or proceedings or to use it as an excuse to deny other people their constitutional rights.
WISH GREG BECAME A CATHOLIC..SUCH A SMART COMMON SENSE MAN
...which is why he knows that the Papacy is a fraud. They molest little children in the name of Jesus, and their claims to authority have been refuted by Jesus himself.
Trust no one but Jesus Christ himself.
Also, turn caps lock off.
It's not just common sense, it is the HOLY SPIRIT !!!!!!!!!
A
I agree with this presentation and find it amazing that when the church Universal has been wrong on an issue that it takes decades and centuries to admit it and change for the good. Examples: role/status of women, treatment of those not like us, slavery, divorce, lgbt issues, etc.
why does the left dems come to mind about Trump in 2019
Because... anyone who leaves christianity seems to instead adopt stupid believes of flat earth, billions of genders, women have dicks, men can give birth and pedophilia is a sexual orientation... OR they convert to islam and blows stuff up.
*_EXACTLY like pedophile democrats._*
Indeed, most "non-belief-trapped" people see the statement "Jesus is the only way" as intolerant. It is a misguided and erroneous denial of other people's belief systems. Going around continually spouting that "my belief system is the only true belief system" - regardless of what that belief system is - is arrogant and narcissistic because people are following many different paths in their lives and making a great deal of spiritual progress. This kind of attitude creates divisions among people, and the evidence is right there for all to see. It's so unnecessary. Cheers.
***** Believe whatever you want. Just don't expect others to believe it or live by your beliefs. Cheers.
***** I don't. I contend that nobody should "believe" or myopically follow anyone: me, you, Koukl, the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Arabs, Indians, Chinese, or whomever on faith alone. Belief is the enemy of spiritual growth. All the best!
*****
Are you familiar with the phenomena in many European cities of Muslim men patrolling the streets of Muslim neighborhoods and repeatedly telling the non-Muslim women who are walking through to cover themselves? Of course, these men feel obligated by their religion to repeatedly inform these women that they need to cover themselves. And it doesn’t matter to them that the women aren’t Muslim because, according to their belief system, ALL women are bound by Allah’s laws.
So then it would be intolerant for non-Muslim local men to go into these Muslim neighborhoods and tell these guys to stop “harassing” their daughters, wives, sisters, etc. as they’re walking through Muslim neighborhoods to get to work, school or wherever. Since the Muslim men are simply following the dictates of their religion, wouldn’t it be intolerant to tell them to stop? They’re not breaking any laws. But they sure are making a lot of non-Muslim women’s lives pretty miserable because of their primitive beliefs/superstitions. Cheers.
***** "The Muslim men are harassing the non-Muslim women by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Muslim faith. Intolerance by the non Muslim men would come in to play if they told the Muslims to never share their convictions. The fact is, the Muslims have been able to testify to their beliefs, but have shown intolerance themselves in not allowing the women to follow their own convictions."
The Christian version:
"The Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith. Intolerance by the non-Christians would come in to play if they told the Christians to never share their convictions. The fact is, the Christians have been able to testify to their beliefs, but have shown intolerance themselves in not allowing the gays (and supporters of gay rights) to follow their own convictions."
Christians telling gay people that they do not have the right to marry and working diligently to block gay people's (and gay supporters') efforts to gain that right in all 50 states, again, following your reasoning, means that "Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith."
So then you must surely be against Christians who are trying to block the efforts of gay people (and gay supporters) to gain the right to marry in all 50 states.
Cheers
*****
That's what I thought: you can see the intolerance in the Muslim example but not in your own. Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course.
No one is imposing gay marriage on Christians. If Christians don't believe in gay marriage, then they don't have to get gay married. There are a lot of gay (or same sex attracted) Christians who have decided to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and that's their right. But denying the right for gays who want to marry to do so because of one's Christianity is intolerance at the highest level. It is also true that: "Christians are harassing gay people by repeatedly telling them, in effect, to follow the Christian faith," just as you said that’s what the Muslim men are doing by telling the non-Muslim women to cover themselves - in effect telling them to follow the Muslim faith. And yet you'll never see the contradiction within yourself that says these are two different cases because you refuse to accept it for what it is, your own religion-based intolerance.
Fortunately, for society as a whole, this grave error has been significantly rectified over the past decade, and we should find out this year as to whether this injustice is going to finally, at long last, be put to rest. And it’s not just secular society that is finally opening their hearts on this issue, but large numbers of Christians, as well:
Carrie Underwood: “I’m in favor of acceptance. And I am a Christian person, and I do love the Lord, and I feel no matter who you are, what you believe, how you live your life, it’s not my place to judge. As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”
President Carter: “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things - he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.”
Kristin Chenoweth: “If Jesus was to walk the Earth today . . . [he] would be horrified. Those people saying they’re doing it in the name of God? No no no no no. It is very anti-Christian of them . . . It is the antithesis of what I believe. It is the antithesis of what you should believe if you believe in Jesus. . . It’s not what he taught, it’s the opposite of what he taught.”
Even significant numbers of Evangelicals, the toughest crowd in Christianity when it comes to gay issues, are getting sick and tired of all the senseless, religion-based anti-gay prejudice, and it’s the young people who are making the biggest difference:
In today’s Politico Magazine (7-8-14), Jim Hinch examines why more evangelical Christians are breaking with their church’s condemnation of same-sex relationships.
That study finds that more than one quarter (27 percent) of white evangelicals favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, including a “substantial minority” (43 percent) of younger white evangelicals (age 18-33).
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.U9F9DPldWUK
It’s very gratifying to see more of these Christian folks finally starting to “grow up,” spiritually. And I am deeply proud of every last one of them. Only a matter of time, my friend. Cheers.
I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone be so blatantly dishonest. At best he is simply reading into what Ms Wattleton wrote what he wants to hear. He claims she says she is neutral (she doesn't). But given he wants to argue the 'myth of neutrality' (whatever that is, my guess is he is alluding to moral relativism) so he probably needs to set her up as claiming she is neutral and that tolerance is rooted in neutrality. But worse he quotes her [at 20:07] "He then, just a minute and a half later claims to repeat what she says with the following [at 21:38] I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. I have seen this type of political activism dressed up as religiosity since the 1980's but it is still galling to see someone so casual with the truth just to make a point. Perhaps not so casual on second viewing - he put an enormous amount of effort into preparing us for this sleight of hand. And I'm surprised by how emotional I feel. It feels quite violating, like I need a shower. Its all a bit creepy I don't think I can watch the rest.
It is all carefully planned Greg from the 1940 by the richest guys in the world.
There's a difference between fact and faith. We might believe that Jesus is the messiah, but we obviously cannot prove that. We choose to believe it based on faith, just as other religions have their own chosen beliefs on their own faith. Obviously we believe those other religions are wrong. Everyone already knows this, but telling them so is mean-spirited. It is a claim which we cannot back up, and therefore it is a pointless attack on their faith. They are desperately clinging to their beliefs just as every religious person must, so let's not inconsiderately wave our contrary faith in their faces and make their lives harder for no reason.
Imagine a person clinging to the edge of a cliff and in danger of falling into a pit of eternal torment. We might go to that person to tease and torment and try to loosen her grip, but doing so would be terrible. We don't believe that the cliff she clings to will actually protect her from hell, but she believes it, and we've no way to prove her wrong, so all we'd accomplish is making her life miserable. It would be fine if we were presenting facts, but presenting our faith as if she should share it is just cruel.
Christian faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah is not a "blind" faith. We can and should use reason to 'contend for the faith' and 'always be ready with an answer for the reason of our hope.'
What physical proof do you have for Jesus' physical existence? You have only text claims from doubtful sources.
1 What do you mean by doubtful sources?
2 And how did you come to that conclusion?
Good grief... Really? What proof? It's proven historical fact, like Napoleon. Jesus Christ is perhaps the most documented person in history.
@Sandy Ridge he's showing his complete ignorance on the historicity of the subject. Virtually every sane modern atheist believes in the historicity of Christ. This sceptical joker's ideas were vaguely given credence by a couple of fringe German 'historians' in the mid-19th century. Now completely discredited.
Yet I can post "The God Delusion" as free as day???......
"Racial overtones"???????
At 20:48 he says " im not interested in abortion" disgraceful. And no, im not tollerent of people who dont care about human life
dan cash If you listen to the context, he means that he is not interested in bringing the matter of abortion into the discussion about this woman’s fake neutrality. He’s putting the abortion issue aside and saying that it is not relevant to his point about “neutrality” and how she clearly isn’t neutral. Obviously abortion is wrong but it’s not relevant to the argument.
@@areallycoolguy5004 and if you listen to what he says he lies that she claims to be neutral, she doesn't, the word 'neutral' doesn't even appear in his quotation of her 'citation' and he says that she states that people who hold moral positions different to her are unfair and un-American and tyrannical. It is difficult not to conclude the he is wilfully telling a falsehood and that he is well aware that she said it was unfair etc to force your morals on others, including hers and only showed respect and tolerance for the views of others. Christ's command is to love one another. That is the Gospel (and that such love will free me from death). Those are the fundamentals and that is all that is needed to evangelise. God it is not easy. It is particularly challenging when that person I am to love spends every waking moment either Sin chasing or idolising a book. It makes me wonder if church is the last place I will find a sister or brother in Christ.
I'm no longer a Christian. Couldn't find anything historical about Abraham's lineage or it's mythological stories.
Apart from the historical record of the ancient scriptures, given by the Spiritof God Himself? What more do you want? The history channel, who brought you Ancient Aliens?
@@theologian1456
What ancient scriptures?
@@charlitoadams777 the law and the prophets which the Jews have preserved for millennia. Then there's the new Testament which, despite unprecedented scrutiny has stood the test of criticism and of which we have an embarrassment of manuscripts.
What sort of 'historical evidence' are you looking for?
All past history is appraised by historical writings and/or archaeological discoveries. But the historicity of one man (Abraham) is hardly going to be established by archaeology, since he was a nomad with simple means.
I ask you this:
Without reliance on written historical data, can you confirm there following:
1. Why was the Eiffel Tower built?
2. Who designed it?
3. Who built it?
4. How long did it take to build?
The Eiffel Tower is still there in Paris, yet thr answers to these questions rely on historical accounts of eye witnesses or other persons in the know at the time. The preservation of the documentation in archives or the reliable copying of such original documents, is the key to whether such information is trustworthy or not.
The field of biblical textual criticism has made so much progress that only the most hardened, biased skeptic would choose to write them off.
On another point:
A believer unto salvation is a believer because of an act of divine intercession. One can no more unbelieve, than they can believe unto salvation without being reborn. Additionally, such belief is eternal and cannot be undone. For this reason, I say this; your assertion that you are no longer a believer is not true. Either you were never a believer unto salvation in the first place, or you are going through a season of unbelief which you need to repent of.
@@theologian1456
How many Israelite slaves were there at the time of the Exodus?
Any evidence in the desert of the Exodus?
What was the original written language of the Torah?
How come the Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites etc. Never mention the Israelites amazing conquests?
How come no one wrote about Jesus and his miracles until over hundred years after his death?
@@charlitoadams777 well the book of Acts is dated to 60-90 AD with better evidence of 60 AD as it ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome prior to his martyrdom and to omit this and the events leading up to this important historical part makes no sense as as the book is all about the acts of the apostles. However it is known that Acts follows on from the gospel of Luke so it has to be written before 60 AD. And it is widely accepted that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written So it would need to date before 60 AD in order to be before Luke. Also archeological evidence of Jerusalem indicates that the authors could accurately describe the city and locations within which would be impossible after it's destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. Leaving at most a 30 year gap which during that time churches were established with eye witnesses present. In fact it is remarkable in an oral culture to pen down something so early. Comparing to homer and the Iliad which has a 400 year gap between spoken to written. Also the fact that there are slight variations in the Gospel confirm that they were eye witnesses without corroboration as the churches that they established prior would have pointed out the difference between what they heard and what was written.
You use a million words. Genesis 6:7 God fired everyone but Noah's family. He was so angry He would never again reveal Himself to everyone. He called out the Jews to be His chosen special ones. They also let Him down. For a long time God was content to let people be born live their 70 to 80 years, die and He'd drop them in hell. But He is far too compassionate for that. So He sent Jesus not because He loves us but rather because He doesn't like us. If God loved you there would never have been Jesus. What for? If God loved you you could go straight to Him for Salvation but since He doesn't like you YOU NEED JESUS!! JOHN 14:6 the way the truth the life schpeel you all know it. Why did He say that? Why do we go through Jesus? Jesus will tell you because my Father doesn't like you.
I was hoping for an understanding of why christian evagleicals sometimes are considered intolerant. But no, it's just another defence of christian intolerance and disrespect of other world views.
Why should I listen when all I hear is "I'm going to keep disrespecting you and beeing intrusive towards you and that's my religious moral right".
Why don't you just ONCE stop and listen to what we on the recieving end are saying?
Tolerance is not acceptance
@@danielmann5427 From websters dictionary:
"a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b: the act of allowing something"