Jesus was not tolerant.
God is not tolerant.
We are called to be like Jesus.
Christians should not be tolerant.
We do not tolerate wrong-doing.
We do not tolerate injustice.
Jesus was intolerant of wrong-doing. Christians should be intolerant towards wrong-doing. Jesus was tolerant toward the sinner, but intolerant of the sin. Christians should be tolerant of the sinner, but intolerant of the sin. Jesus was intolerant of hypocrisy. Christians should be intolerant of hypocrisy. I use the word ‘wrongdoing’ because the Church has commandeered the word ‘sin’.
Jesus most of his life rebuking people. “You are a den of vipers.” Swear words of their time. “You are a bunch of low-life snakes.” He was not ‘Mr Nice Guy’ as the Church protrays.
He was entirely intolerant of whatever he decreed was wrong. Jesus was quite disagreeable. He certainly was not tolerant of evil, nonsense, and hippocracy. For the bible punchers, Jesus once said
“Whoever practices vile things hates the light [of truth].”
Jesus as reported by John 3:20
Tolerance may be a virtue in some cases but is not a virtue in other cases. “Let him slap me three times.” On the fourth time – I get him – I do something about it or I stand my ground. Jesus effectively taught us to stand up against wrong-doing. You are explicitly commanded to be intolerant of ‘wrong doing’.
- I do not need to be tolerant of somebody abusing me.
- I do not need to be tolerant of evil.
- I do not need to be tolerant of anybody abusing anybody.
- I do not need to be tolerant of incest. (Nor imitations of it in pornography.)
- I do not need to be tolerant of items contrary to Christian values.
- I do not need to be tolerant of Marxism.
- I do not need to be tolerant of cultural destruction.
- I do not need to be tolerant of genocide.
- I do not need to be tolerant of racial genocide.
- I do not need to be tolerant of LGBT
- I do not need to be tolerant of homosexuality.
- I do not need to be tolerant of graft.
- I do not need to be tolerant of corruption.
- I do not need to be tolerant of pedophilia.
There is a need for intolerance. Tolerance is not virtue, just as ignorance is not a virtue. Just as stupidity is not a virtue. Ambivalence is not a virtue. Tolerance should not be used in the same sentence as virtue. Tolerance entirely depends on the nature of what is being tolerated.
Satan’s Pulpit preaches tolerance and multiculturalism. When it is becomes obvious that the resultant dystopia is dysfunctional, they scream “All systems are equal”. Satan’s Pulpit desires that we tolerate their tragic creation. Logic is disbanded. They give an answer that is dysfunctional. They need not even believe what they are preaching. They create a ‘groupthink’. When you say one thing that doesn’t fit the ‘groupthink’, they will be totally intolerant and they will actively work to destroy your life. Your logic is irrelevant. It is children’s tactics. They scream at you if you don’t go along with their way of thinking. Stand your ground. You are not required to tolerate the intolerable.
In the name of tolerance, we have allowed intolerance from people who do not respect the culture, rights, and wishes of the population. We are being tolerant towards people that are intolerant of ourselves. Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple. He was intolerant of those that mistreated the general populous.
They are tolerance of you and your views, provided you remain tolerant of what they are preaching.
This is an old book that describes the Roman world shortly before the fall of Rome:
“It would be unsavory to describe how far the worship of indecency was carried; how public morals were corrupted by the mimic representations of everything that was vile, and even by the pandering of a corrupt art… The social relations exhibited, if possible, even deeper corruption. The sanctity of marriage had ceased. Female dissipation and the general dissoluteness led at least to an almost entire cessation of the marriage. Abortion and the exposure of newly-born children were common and tolerated; unnatural vices, which even the greatest philosophers practiced, if not advocated, attained proportions which defy description.”
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume 2 By Alfred Edersheim
This aptly describes the climate in the West at present. We have become tolerant of sin and immorality. We are following Satan in place of Christ Jesus. The Church becomes more tolerant of the worldly sins and less tolerant of the ‘Philosophy of Jesus’. Thus was the case in the dying days of the Roman Empire. We must be wary that we become tolerant of sin.
This book from 1883 gives the type of thing Jesus was intolerant of:
But among these sad signs of the times three must be specially mentioned: the treatment of slaves; the bearing towards the poor; and public amusements. The slave was entirely unprotected; males and females were exposed to nameless cruelties, compared to which death by being thrown to the wild beasts, or fighting in the arena, might seem absolute relief. Sick or old slaves were cast out to perish from want. But what the influence of the slaves must have been on the free population, and especially upon the young – whose tutors they generally were – may readily be imagined. The heartlessness towards the poor who crowded the city is another well-known feature of ancient Roman society. Of course,there was neither hospitals, nor provision for the poor; charity and brotherly love in their every manifestation are purely Old and New Testament ideas. But even bestowal of the smallest alms on the needy was regarded as very questionable; best, not to afford them the means of protracting a useless existence. Lastly, the account which Seneca has to give of what occupied and amused the idle multitude – for all manual labour, except agriculture, was looked upon with utmost contempt – horrified even himself. And so the only escape which remained for the philosopher, the satiated, or the miserable, seemed the power of self-destruction! What is worse, the noblest spirits of the time of self-destruction! What is worse, the noblest spirits of the time felt, that the state of things was utterly hopeless. Society could not reform itself; philosophy and religion had nothing to offer: they had been tried and found wanting. Seneca longed for some hand from without to lift up from the mire of despair; Cicero pictured the enthusiasm which would greet the embodiment of true virtue, should it ever appear on earth; Tacitus declared human life one great farce, and expressed his conviction that the Roman world lay under some terrible curse. All around, despair, conscious need, and unconscious longing. Can greater contrast be imagined, than the proclamation of a coming Kingdom of God amid such a world; or clearer evidence be afforded of the reality of this Divine message, than that it came to seek and to save that which was thus lost? One synchronism, as remarkable as that of the Star in the East and the Birth of the Messiah, here claims the reverent attention of the student of history. On the 19th of December a.d. 69, the Roman Capitol, with its ancient sanctuaries, was set on fire. Eight months later, on the 9th of Ab a.d. 70, the Temple of Jerusalem was given to the flames. It is not a coincidence but a conjunction, for upon the ruins of heathenism and of apostate Judaism was the Church of Christ to be reared.
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Alfred Edersheim 1883
‘A mire of despair’ still occurs and will occur again if we allow ‘law and order’ to decay. This occurs in the aftermath of war or civil strife. Those girls shouting for revolution should be aware that females suffer dreadfully when males are not kept in line by the female sponsored ‘patriarchy’. King Louis of France stepped down when a group of women with pitchforks marched on his Palace de Versailles. Chaos ensued and many of the marching women lost their heads to the guillotine by the very evil conniving usurers that orchestrated their march on Versailles.
It was the Christian’s intolerance of the concept of slavery, that ended slavery in its regions of influence, pushed by an errant colonial nation, the southern states of what became the USA. Slavery never got expunged from Africa, Islamic texts, or Jewish texts. Heavy Jewish dominance in the Atlantic slave trade is exemplified by this simple statement:
“If a slave auction fell on a Jewish festival, it was postponed due to lack of buyers and sellers.”
Matthew Nolan
Much of what ‘Satan’s Pulpit’ is selling at present is related to ‘Collective Guilt’. Nobody is responsible for the activities of their ancestors. Individuals (or groups) that engage in prohibited activities are to be penalized. Punishing an attitude presents a problem. The attitude can be condemned, but only actions can be acted upon. Jesus said it was wrong to even think it (adultery). The legalistic state using ‘Moses laws’, can only act when illegal actions occur.
Racism creates a problem as it is unclear what constitutes racism. We have almost reached ‘guilty by accusation’. Current race theorists and their devoted activists have pushed their definitions to include what they call “systemic racism” and “white privilege”. You are guilty by simply being ‘white’. You are guilty because you belong to a ‘system’. You can only absolve yourself by overthrowing the system and decrying your ‘whiteness’. There is no escape clause. You are guilty without due process. No argument or reason will absolve you of ‘your’ guilt.
Now an inarticulate rant from loopy Urban Dictionary contributor that makes a point that people don’t like to talk about:
Race: Made up shit that’s tearing us all down because we all know that we are all humans, but because of location, melanin and different Ethnicity/Cultures, we supposedly believe that there is only Black, White, Red, Yellow and brown. They say they divided this up by facial features but that makes no sense because anyone can have any feature, exactly why I can’t tell the difference between Ethiopian and Indian or Spaniards and North Africans.
And another rant about ‘Race’:
Basically, it’s just a made up thing that’s hundred percent invalid that only negatively divides us. And it’s funny how people are using these negative words that divide us to create ‘peace’ (blacklivesmatter). Even science doesn’t back this shit up, because DNA doesn’t automatically tell you you’re ‘black’ or ‘white’.
Race is a “social construct” in that it separated people into groups. Black people prefer to congregate with other black people. It then becomes part of an economic identity and that economic identity over-rides the ethnic identity. Non-whites, who have succeeded in this system, get ‘grouped’ with ‘white’ by virtue of their success. The groupthink promoted about race has created ‘Collective Guilt’ against the very group that had forefathers with the moral fortitude to follow the instructions of Jesus to ‘stand up against wrongdoing’. The people pushing this are called “Cultural Marxists”. In the Russian Revolution, the evil group was the well-off who made use of the labours of the less-well-off. Communism successfully made them all equally in poverty and hard labour and eventually killed sixty-six million of them. Under ‘Cultural Marxism’, the evil doer is the white male. Here is an explanation from ‘GotQuestions’:
Cultural Marxism is a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world. Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.
https://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-Marxism.html
…
Beyond question, there is a purposeful effort in parts of Western culture to reject traditional values and aggressively replace them with more (supposedly) progressive ideals. This often results in an extreme imbalance in criticism and cultural sensitivity. For instance, derogatory attitudes toward men, whites, Christians, fathers, heterosexuals, and so forth are often celebrated or encouraged. Equally critical comments directed at women, minorities, Muslims, mothers, homosexuals, and so forth are readily condemned as “hateful.”
They talk of “derogatory attitudes toward men, whites, Christians, fathers, heterosexuals” suggesting that Cultural Marxism is essentially anti-Christian. From a Christian standpoint, Cultural Marxists are on the side of evil. They hate family, tradition, and moral values. The world has been encouraged to become increasingly tolerant of anti-white racism. Without criticism, you can be critical of Christians, males, straight ‘white-guys’ and now Chinese, but you dare not be critical of Muslims or Jews or black people or minorities in general. People speak of being respectful of minorities but globally whites are a minority – and increasingly so.! ‘Collective Guilt’ is a classic Marxist ploy. Don’t fall for it.
Tolerance is currently encouraged as a ‘virtue’ in Western societies. However, this is done without fully analyzing the full meaning of ‘tolerance’, nor understanding what we mean by a ‘virtue’. It is thus encouraged as a ‘virtue’ to destroy that which came before – ‘Western White culture’.
Whilst the citizenry are required to practice tolerance, the police do the opposite. They claim: “Zero tolerance”. In practice, ‘Zero Tolerance’ gives the police almost limitless power. They give themselves authority to ‘stop and search’, and harass individuals at will. ‘Zero Tolerance’ is mathematically equivalent to ‘No Tolerance’. Yet the police would not ‘tolerate’ anybody questioning their ‘Zero Tolerance’ implementation. Jesus had Zero Tolerance for sin. Christians have ‘zero tolerance’ for wrongdoing. Police have zero tolerance for crime.
The definition of Tolerance appears to have changed of late:
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
A wag at Urban Dictionary shouts:
Tolerrance: The highest virtue of those who have no deep convictions. It formerly was the respectful exchange of ideas between two parties in spite of significant disagreement on the topic.
It has now been distorted by liberals to demand agreement with, condoning of, and enabling of a point of view regardless of the other party’s beliefs and convictions. One demanding this brand of ‘tolerance’ offers no respect to the other party, does not offer either type of tolerance, and often viciously goes on the attack with labels.
Example: “You can’t say homosexuality is wrong!! That’s not showing tolerance! You’re just a hateful bigot!”
Alas, there has been a large shift in the way we comprehend tolerance. It moved from ‘defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs’ to ‘affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct’. This has an implication for Western culture. It affects our democracy, debate on good and evil, and Christian beliefs.
This ‘new tolerance’ is socially dangerous and intellectually debilitating. It creates an intolerance to all who try to retain their beliefs and those that reject the doctrines of Marxism re-manufactured as ‘Cultural Marxism’.
The propagandists with the loudest microphone promote tolerance of Marxism whilst promoting intolerance of the ‘Philosophy of Jesus’ which stands as the core philosophy of ‘The West’. Logic ceases to apply because they use the volume of their megaphone to ‘shout down’ dissenters.
As Christians, we can acknowledge that the world does not tolerate Christians. Our families must learn to live as the ‘Philosophy of Jesus’ requires, even when the world around us denies us the right to live as Christians. The propagandized “New Tolerance” is not to our benefit. The ‘New Tolerance’ encourages persons to believe whatever they like provided it follows the desires of the leftist propagandists. One cannot be a Christian and believe in the Marxist ‘New Tolerance’ propaganda.
Today’s definition of ‘tolerance’ differs radically from the traditional dictionary definition. The traditional definition of tolerance means to ‘endure’ or ‘put up’ with something, such as a person’s behavior, attitudes or beliefs, without necessarily agreeing with them. In other words, love the sinner, hate the sin. However, today’s definition of tolerance is more like ‘love the sinner, love the sin.’ Today’s definition of tolerance states that a person’s behavior, beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from who he or she is. Therefore, any attack on behaviors, beliefs or attitudes is seen as a personal attack. The evolution of tolerance is the result of the evolution of other aspects of human existence, including the concept of truth, over three distinct eras.
What has developed in our society is an anti-Christian culture promoted by anti-Christians and non-Christians. We have the hippocracy of the intolerance of intolerance.
The pope really seems to be a Cultural Revolutionary who is hellbent, along with the rest of them, to destroy the great heritage of Christian Europe and the great era of ethnic Europeans. May he fail in his destructive mission. This pope is the worst pope in history. He needs to go.
