But he makes reference to Christianity by quoting from the Bible anyway.
What do you think?
I can respect someone for having faith.
I can respect them for having commitment to that faith.
I do not respect their need to preach it at everyone else on every possible occasion.
If their faith is part of who they are, then that is their prerogative, if they were a sports nut and "preached" their sports as part of their make up, would you feel so "offended". We don't get offended at Charles' MU preaching do we?
Some of us do and find it very irritating,
Strangely, John, I was thinking of you as I typed that.
I don't find this sort of thing unacceptable at all, but I do find it generally very boring.
Good luck to him, I say. Like BG, it would have bored the pants off me and I would have marked him down as a bit strange but I would admire his
determination to do what he thought was right. Free speech and all that.
And its not as if he is in a position of influence or anything.
I'm just back from a 13 hour day which included prize giving. Not one reference to God but lots of stuff about loving your fellow man and making your own luck in life with hard work.
Which is why I quoted the word in the first place. The MU preaching can be irritating, but we do not get "up in arms" about it ('cept john, that is), why, then, should we be any more irritated when someone mentions religion, of any sort. Heck, we even tolerate different political views with less vehemence. It is just something that I find strange that as soon as any religion, especially Christianity, is mentioned, suddenly, we get all "offended" and want to shut the person down.
If I may make a point for tolerance, here--the young man had a very short length of time in which to say something he felt important. It is not as if he had a captive audience for an hour's oration. I think, for such a short time, one could tolerate a joke you didn't find funny, or music not to your liking, or any of a number of such things.
But, he was making a wider point or else it would have never made it into the media. Someone who just put in a "little bible quote" would have just done that and been done with it. The fact that people in Scotland and Australia now know about it rather proves that he had an agenda and only those too blinded by a similar liking of religiousity would think that appropriate.
But why make an issue of it? Had he gone into some sort of racist right wing rant, it might have been an issue but not this.
And he probably can't help himself. Poor thing.
Actually I don't get irritated by religious rants (each to his /her own) but I do get irritated by continually bragging posts about 11 men kicking a ball about and going well over the top with it.
Actually football means nothing to me either. Its been a real social handicap.
Edit: When I say "either" I didn't mean to imply it means nothing to you, John. I meant it means as much to me as religion does.
Actually, mary, were it not for scholar's OP, neither you, or I would probably have heard about it. So, I'm not entirely certain that the student had an "agenda" other than to make a point about his faith in relation to his studies.
But it's all over the American media. scholar couldn't have pointed us in that direction unless it was. I'm not saying the speaker wanted to reach Scotland, I'm saying he wanted to reach a wider audience than those in the room he spoke in.
Two words; "The Blaze". Seems to be tho only news source that Scholar quotes.
LOL - The Blaze. hahahaha
Which would be fair enough if you were equally tolerant of those who got up and professed their values came from the Spaghetti Monster or Bahá'í.
I've seen comments you've made on here about other "false" religions. Some lack tolerance.
e.g. the "rubbish" comment here
The root meaning of tolerate is to put up with something, even something which is inferior or of which one disapproves. Historically, toleration and
tolerance were both noun forms of this. In recent times, "tolerance" has sometimes been used to refer to an attitude which regards every viewpoint
as equal--and, frankly, that is stupid: false assertions are not equal to true assertions, and bad things do not become good things just because they
In the case of the so-called Gospel of Thomas, the writer (who is not Thomas) puts forth, in an era later than Jesus, teachings which do not match the teachings recorded in the four Apostolic Gospels. It is as if someone from a later time period wrote that Churchill admired Nazi Germany and wanted to be governed by them. That which is written earlier and established by multiple authors stands, while that which comes later and contradicts the earlier, better-informed record falls.
Whether Christianity or any other religion is inferior remains a matter of personal opinion and belief. Tolerance means putting up with listening to views you don't necessarily agree with. "Rubbish" - your comment - displays lack of tolerance.