Piety and Tolerance: Musings of One With Faith

[Chase]

"One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God."

- Romans 14: 2-6

---

As a conservative and someone who is usually a strong advocate for assimilation over diversity in some instances I've often wondered if assimilation is what the Gospel truly pushes those who believe in Jesus to pursue.

Here, it would seem that Paul is telling the church in Rome the opposite, that both the vegetarian (who may be considered weak due to having to hunt for one's own game during the time period, or because they are unable to eat meat for whatever reason - not to just hold prejudice against those who only eat vegetables.) and the omnivore honor God in their actions.

If this is the case - is it not possible for those who love those of the same sex to honor God as those who love those of the opposite sex do? What about those who have cast out the gender boundery in favor of a spectrum or lack of image at all? Is it not possible for the xe's and xem's of the world to honor God?

---

This doesn't mean that everything should be tolerated, mind you - but it would seem like - to Paul anyway - that people are not in the position to pass judgement against others. This much is applicable to those of any faction.

It also means that maybe those of us in the faith should be more considerate of what God's Word really says about things before applying basic family upbringing and conservative social norms to the world that is doomed regardless of it being traditional or progressive.

---

Hopefully, you guys don't take too much offense in the things that I say. I - like many of you - am on a personal journey. I don't wish to trample others on my path to righteousness. That kind of behavior only convinces others not to walk on said path with me.

I am sorry for the mistakes I've made in the past.

[Brave]

Before I begin, let me first preface this by saying I am not a conservative, nor am I pious in any way. Still, I don't think this prevents me from commenting on religious matters.

["As a conservative and someone who is usually a strong advocate for assimilation over diversity in some instances I've often wondered if assimilation is what the Gospel truly pushes those who believe in Jesus to pursue."]

• It's beyond me how anyone can argue for assimilation over diversity, seeing as how diversity is one of our greatest strengths as a species. The act of assimilating into a culture carries with in an expectation that the person assimilating abandon aspects of themselves and their culture - pieces of their identity - solely for the purpose of fitting in. Even with my cursory knowledge of the Gospel, I don't believe Jesus' message was for adherents of Christianity to cast off their identity so that they might be accepted by him and the Lord. Jesus was all about acceptance of others' differences, and it is through understanding our differences that we learn what makes us similar. Prejudice towards others was nowhere in Big J's game plan and certainly not what he wanted his followers to do; the overall message of Christianity is unconditional love and acceptance. Assimilation has too many conditions attached to it.

["If this is the case - is it not possible for those who love those of the same sex to honor God as those who love those of the opposite sex do? What about those who have cast out the gender boundery in favor of a spectrum or lack of image at all? Is it not possible for the xe's and xem's of the world to honor God?"]

• That's a bit of a silly question IMO; if the vegetarian and the omnivore both equally honor God despite being fundamentally different, logically, it makes sense that gay people and nonbinary people can do the same in relation to heterosexuals. This is a constant source of confusion to me when it comes to religious conservatives, and this isn't to point fingers or cast aspersions on you. I just struggle to understand how one can say God's love is infinite and unconditional and that all one need do to accept his love is be open to it, only to turn around and claim that it is impossible for someone to love God because they don't conform to traditional gender roles or conservative social norms. The more extreme ones say God outright hates those who do not share their worldview. Such statements are incongruent with the core philosophy of Christianity and Jesus' word. God cannot be all-loving if he hates the people who willingly don't follow him.

["This doesn't mean that everything should be tolerated, mind you - but it would seem like - to Paul anyway - that people are not in the position to pass judgement against others."]

• Right, and right again. Nobody is in any position to pass judgement on others, with the exception of those who willingly do wrong for wrong's sake. However, I feel I must be as clear as possible about the first half of that sentence. "Not everything should be tolerated". Yes, and no; we shouldn't tolerate persecution or evil or oppression but when it comes to the differences that make each person unique, I don't believe we have a choice in the matter. We have to tolerate peoples' differences; if we don't, then we risk succumbing to the idea of forcibly changing another so that they might fit our image of who they should be. No one has any right to do that to anyone else. If we become intolerant, we become tyrants. The world doesn't need tyrants.

["It also means that maybe those of us in the faith should be more considerate of what God's Word really says about things before applying basic family upbringing and conservative social norms to the world that is doomed regardless of it being traditional or progressive."]

• This is going to come off rude no matter how I say it so I'mma just say it: How is this not obvious? The faithful most absolutely SHOULD be more considerate of the Gospel and its true intended meaning before forcing their beliefs on other people. The world and the people in it aren't going to bend to any one ideology over another just because it claims to know the truth of the universe as said by (their proposed) one true god. Or maybe that's not what you meant by that sentence; either way, the truth of it still stands. Also, I don't think it's fair to say the world is doomed. That is just one perspective out of many with its own rationality behind why the world is doomed. For all the shit that's going on right now, I think the world will be fine and it doesn't need faith to save it. This is just my opinion but it especially doesn't need to be clinging to conservative social norms that have not and show no sign of adapting in the face of an ever-evolving world, society, and species. One of the basic tenets of existence on this planet is "Adapt or Die", and those who refuse to do so are the truly doomed. Preservation of culture and tradition is fine; it's when conservatism is spread through force that it becomes a disease rather than the balm its adherents believe it to be. Heterogeneity and tradition aren't as cool as they sound. Progress is the only way forward.

Apologies if anything I've said offended you. I just can't pass up an opportunity to debate.

[Chase]

For as much as I love debate, neither of us provided much to debate over as most of the topics covered are not up for discussion in the first place. The things I've stated were merely titled "musings" and thus were not intended to be taken by you the reader as "declarative statements" that were up for objection. That doesn't mean you couldn't object to them of course, but I wasn't aiming - at least this time - to spar with anyone on these points.

I would encourage you to not put "conservatives" under the "bigot" umbrella however, because many of those conservatives (particularly the silent majority of them) are impartial to social liberalism or are opposed on grounds of due process (I.e. disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriages because the Court overstepped it's legal bounds in reaching that decision, as opposed to disagreeing with the decision due to upholding a conservative view on the topic of marriage.)

I -DO- disagree with you on "assimilation" weakening the human race conceptually, because the race is ultimately stronger when collaborating with one another as opposed to working independently. I agree with you however in that it's not the point of Christ's sacrifice nor is it edifying to discourage diversity.

Nobody said my musings had to be completely sensible either. I suppose it wasn't clearly obvious, but I am criticizing the "religious right" along with you here. It is completely possible for those with more liberal social views and identities to honor God as I do. It was a bit of a rhetorical question.

Your clarification on "not everything should be tolerated" is where I have my biggest head scratching moment. You essentially agreed with me, but then disagreed with me to get your piece in diversity - when in reality, you just agreed with me twice. "Not everything should be tolerated BUT you don't have a choice in the differences of others BUT not everything should be tolerated because evil and oppression is bad." I'm uh...glad we're on the same page there for the most part.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the state of the world, but the Scripture that has been uncannily prophetic when it comes to events (this doesn't mean by the word, mind you!) gives me hope in another world as opposed to the one we live on. Don't mistake my opinion of this rock to be pessimism. You're hopeful because you probably believe humans have the capacity to be good.

I'm hopeful because my God is good.

...Anyway, this wasn't a debate thread - so I won't pontificate further on anything other than my musings on tolerance - but know that I wasn't offended at all. I love debate equally (if not more) than you do.

[Brave]

I -DO- disagree with you on "assimilation" weakening the human race conceptually, because the race is ultimately stronger when collaborating with one another as opposed to working independently.

• I feel like "assimilation" is the wrong word to use in that instance. "Cooperation" sounds more appropriate since, as I said, the former word has some negative connotations attached to it. At least for me; when I hear it, I picture no variation across a population and that is always a bad thing. We can agree on one thing here, at least: We're much stronger together than apart.

Personally, my biggest issue with conservatives (mostly the ones like Mikes Pence and Huckabee) is the fact that they are beholden to outdated practices. What worked or was acceptable in their time is no longer in the current era but they insist on it. I won't get into the Supreme Court ruling too much, but it does help illustrate my point pretty well. Whether intentional or not, sometimes conservatism can come across as bigoted because traditional values clash with the reality of today, and often the staunch refusal to accept said reality comes across as intolerant (see Kim Davis). It doesn't help that coded language is involved when discussing certain topics, and used as a way to sort of cheat the system by creating loopholes in state legislatures. The silent majority of conservatives who hold no ill will towards others get no ill will from me, but I think their silence might just be a part of the greater issue, y'know? IDK, I just wanted to clarify on that. It's good to know there are people like you in the world.

[Chase]

You're probably one to something about assimilation in the sense that it's not okay to reject or cast out our own individual identities for the sake of a group in full - but I think "assimilation" also gets those negative connotations unfairly as well. Talking about legal immigration for example, the most confrontational part of that kind of assimilation is forcing someone to learn a different language before they can enter a country. Most of the rest of that conditioning is psychological (pledging allegiance, passing a citizenship test) as opposed to replacement of values. The goal of assimilation with regards to social constructs is that the individual GAINS the group's constructs, not LOSES their own - ideally.

---

With Pence and Huckabee it's important to recognize that they are politicians before they are conservatives. Right, Left, or in the middle, political figures are beholden to groups. That's just part of the game. When you have the support of a group, that group will help you get elected to the office you are hoping to win. Just because men like Pence and Huckabee garner support from the religious right - it definitely doesn't make them "good shepherds" of the Gospel themselves - nor does it mean all Christians are buying that Trump is a better alternative to Clinton (With regards to Trump, what often goes unreported is his stark approval for same-sex marriage - much to the chagrin of the people that are supposed to vote for him in many cases.)

It's also important to recognize the true nature of something before you call it "outdated". It doesn't take rocket science to understand that most of the world is heterosexual and that homosexuals happen to be a minority group. Also, the majority of the planet believes in some form of higher power than humanity. It's certainly NOT that tradition is outdated - it's that liberal social issues are "trending".

Finally, what you said about Davis may be true as that's what the media will have you believe about her actions. The reality of the situation isn't that Davis was being intolerant of homosexuality because she hates homosexuals. Her personal belief system dictates that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman - and therefore it would be a logical "farce" to issue a homosexual couple a marriage license for her. Therefore, she refused on the basis of her faith and her philosophical approach in exercising it as opposed to personal dislike of the parties opposite her.

I think we can all agree that her job at the state office isn't the best fit for her if exercising her beliefs was that big of a deal - but that doesn't automatically make her actions hateful. People like to throw the word "bigot" around in such instances to further their agenda on the other side.

---

Here's where you're right though. Today's world is one where liberalism - particularly "progressivism" - is the trend, and traditionalism is the opposing force. It just so happens that many conservatives are in absolute denial as to what's going on when it comes to things like "New Atheism" and the sudden importance of issues such as homosexuality and gender identity - things that to them have been set in stone since the world was created. It's understandable that they would push back for "the good 'ole days" when their Scripture had everything laid out for following legislature to mirror.

This is where the book of Revelation is important. If we truly believe the Bible is "God's Word" then this Earth that we live on has a shelf life - and if we were to pair that up with modern science we are only affirmed twice over in that regard.

In other words, fighting for so-called values and rebirth on a dying world is a lost cause. It would be better then - to focus our efforts in loving others as Christ asked us to.