What is a good Christian?

[Neutraligon]

No, he did not evangelize, he simply set forward what a good person should do...regardless of who they are.

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

I would not say they are particularly Christian in nature, though I do agree that he was highly influenced by his own Christianity. Christianity does not get to lay claim to kindness or tolerance.

[Neanderthaland]

No, he did not evangelize, he simply set forward what a good person should do...regardless of who they are.

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

To be clear, if your idea of evangelizing is to be more like Mr. Rogers: then I am absolutely fine with you evangelizing.

Most of the evangelizing I've encountered has not been of this kind. And it doesn't seem to be what a lot of Christians mean when they use the word.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

"Pissing people off is the best way to approach a group."

Not if you are trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong.

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I don’t know, pissing people off and then beating down their objections, etc, has worked before in my own experience. Take my word for it or not, I don’t really care.

[Luminesa]

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I think with some people it’s unavoidable that they will be angry or hurt even if someone doesn’t intend to make them angry by talking about their faith, but we live in an angry and hurting world. Part of evangelizing well, in my opinion, is listening to others and showing mercy.

[Jedi Council]

No, he did not evangelize, he simply set forward what a good person should do...regardless of who they are.

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

He also never came to my door with tiresome, manipulative tactics.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I think with some people it’s unavoidable that they will be angry or hurt even if someone doesn’t intend to make them angry by talking about their faith, but we live in an angry and hurting world. Part of evangelizing well, in my opinion, is listening to others and showing mercy.

So the post that I was responding to was advocating for pissing people off as "sometimes the best option"

That's not "doesn't intend to make them angry." That's being obnoxious.

[Jedi Council]

"Pissing people off is the best way to approach a group."

Not if you are trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I don’t know, pissing people off and then beating down their objections, etc, has worked before in my own experience. Take my word for it or not, I don’t really care.

Even if this does work, I dont think any religion being seen to beat down on anyone is good for their image.

[Luminesa]

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

I would not say they are particularly Christian in nature, though I do agree that he was highly influenced by his own Christianity. Christianity does not get to lay claim to kindness or tolerance.

Kindness is a gift of the Holy Spirit listed by St. Paul. Compassion, which is even more beautiful than simple tolerance, is the highest form of love. We can tolerate anyone, whether they’re a family member who annoys us or a co-worker who doesn’t do their job, but is still somehow on the force. Compassion takes a step further. You choose to love the co-worker or the annoying family member. That’s most certainly a Christian virtue, though not exclusively only for Christians.

[Luminesa]

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

He also never came to my door with tiresome, manipulative tactics.

I’m guessing your experience is more with JWs or Mormons? (I don’t get door-to-door people cause I live in the country.)

[Luminesa]

"Pissing people off is the best way to approach a group."

Not if you are trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I don’t know, pissing people off and then beating down their objections, etc, has worked before in my own experience. Take my word for it or not, I don’t really care.

I think the issue is that while debates are fine, and even exciting, we have to remember that we are talking to a person, not an argument. Sometimes it’s hard to do that, especially on the internet. We are people behind the screens, after all. And we all have souls we want to be happy and loved.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I don’t know, pissing people off and then beating down their objections, etc, has worked before in my own experience. Take my word for it or not, I don’t really care.

Even if this does work, I dont think any religion being seen to beat down on anyone is good for their image.

The faithful being able to effectively defend their Faith verbally by ‘beating down‘ (It’s a word phrase, don’t get your panties in a twist, mate) objections and criticisms will always look good,

[Neutraligon]

I would not say they are particularly Christian in nature, though I do agree that he was highly influenced by his own Christianity. Christianity does not get to lay claim to kindness or tolerance.

Kindness is a gift of the Holy Spirit listed by St. Paul. Compassion, which is even more beautiful than simple tolerance, is the highest form of love. We can tolerate anyone, whether they’re a family member who annoys us or a co-worker who doesn’t do their job, but is still somehow on the force. Compassion takes a step further. You choose to love the co-worker or the annoying family member. That’s most certainly a Christian virtue, though not exclusively only for Christians.

Sure, but then Kindness and Compassion tend to be virtues of many ideologies. Hell there is a religion where kindness and compassion to bugs is the expected norm.

[Jedi Council]

He also never came to my door with tiresome, manipulative tactics.

I’m guessing your experience is more with JWs or Mormons? (I don’t get door-to-door people cause I live in the country.)

The most recent ones we JWs but I seem to get alot, cannot confirm all the different denominations since I live in a very diversely Christian area.

The line the most recent ones used after saying hello was "Do you want the world to end?"

I wish I had had the wit to merely say yes and close the door.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.

I would not say they are particularly Christian in nature, though I do agree that he was highly influenced by his own Christianity. Christianity does not get to lay claim to kindness or tolerance.

Tolerance especially, given the religions less than accepting history.

[Neutraligon]

I’m guessing your experience is more with JWs or Mormons? (I don’t get door-to-door people cause I live in the country.)

The most recent ones we JWs but I seem to get alot, cannot confirm all the different denominations since I live in a very diversely Christian area.

The line the most recent ones used after saying hello was "Do you want the world to end?"

I wish I had had the wit to merely say yes and close the door.

I was raised Jewish, I had to deal with antisemitism of the explicitly Christian variety.

[Joohan]

Mathew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We fully expect to make some people upset and angry with the gospels we bring, but that is mission none the less. At the best of times ( to steal an analogy from Plato ), we're like candymen giving the people what they want - at the worst, we are doctors giving the people the truths that they need.

Mr. Rogers was an Evangelist, though in a more unorthodox style of things. He seldom outright stated the origins of the lessons he was trying to teach, but what he taught was no less holy than a sermon. I will not speak of God, I shall show you his grace.

Someone who does something seriously wrong will of course be hated, playing the victim just makes them seem worse.

There have been terrible things done by Christians in the name of the Lord, no one is saying anything to the otherwise. For one who is truly filled with the holy spirit though, to spread the truth of the gospels is never wrong.

I would not say that MR Rogers was evangelizing.

Evangelism takes many different forms. It's not all sermons and liturgies. The word of the lord isn't simply passed down by word alone - equally so, it is shown through deeds.

James 2:24
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

I'm kind of using this verse out of context, given what it's usually used for, but it shows how important the act of the deed is. Mr. Roger's sermon did not consist of speaking the name of Christ, but in acting upon what he said. That is Evangelism.

You are not the candyman who gives people what they want nor the doctor who gives hat they need, you are the used car salesman at best...at the orst evangelists can be the murderer.

We don't expect everyone to delight in what it is we have to say, but we must go on anyway. Men filled with the Holy Spirit don't travel half way across the world, put themselves in danger, and shed the luxuries of life for one of mission for personal gain. We've a 2000 year history of martyrdom as a sober reminder that Evangelism is dangerous - but yet they go anyway. They know that what the nations of the world need, is to know the love of the Lord. People will hate them, hurt them, torture them, and try to silence them - but the missionary carries on because God loves all his people, and he has commanded his children to tell the world of his love.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Good morning to everyone!

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.



A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

A few things;

1. You quote a passage wherein the beating of children is endorsed, and you claim it is not evil?

2. So by your contention, a good Christian is, while not "good" in the perfect, Christ-like sense, is generally morally good by their mere association with God? My contention has never meant that "good" means perfect, rather that it merely means moral, ethical et cetera. And I do not believe that just because you subscribe to a certain faith, you automatically are a moral person.

3. You compare non-believer to addicts and thus you should help them see the truth, even if that means forcing them to do so. But then you say they must assent freely? How do you square that?

4. I think the idea of the universality of love is not that controversial. If you disagree with how I have defined it, how do you define love? Because, ad we have seen, all people can feel love, and all people can have love for another being, and anyone who judges people for that love is, in my view, not a moral person.

5. You were the one who mentioned the Ten Commandments, which, as I have said, are not really that great. If there are more laws you believe a good Christian should follow, I'm all ears.

1. Disciplining your child is not evil. If you intend to discipline, then you ought to do what is necessary. Slapping their hand, spanking their bottom, etc.
2. If someone truly follows God, and becomes a ‘Good Christian’, then they’re necessarily a moral person.
3. The Church condemns forced conversions because those forced to convert do not genuinely worship God; therefore, it is better that they arrive to the faith without violence. It is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

4. There different types of love. But the pertinent ‘love’ is wishing good-will on your fellow man.
5. No, I don’t think I did. I said, ‘the commandments’. Yes, the Decalogue are commandments, but all that God commands is a commandment.

That's the sort of Christianity I prefer, tbh. Winning souls with good deeds as example tugs even at the heartstrings of a danged ol' atheist like me.

Yup. This old Catholic has a deep and abiding respect and love for Mr. Rogers, who was a Presbyterian minister.

You do not believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, you’re not Catholic.

[Green October Z]

The most recent ones we JWs but I seem to get alot, cannot confirm all the different denominations since I live in a very diversely Christian area.

The line the most recent ones used after saying hello was "Do you want the world to end?"

I wish I had had the wit to merely say yes and close the door.

I was raised Jewish, I had to deal with antisemitism of the explicitly Christian variety.

I am deeply sorry that you experienced that. Some people are very ignorant and they forget that Jesus himself was a Jew and that he preached love and compassion, not hate.

[Jedi Council]

Someone who does something seriously wrong will of course be hated, playing the victim just makes them seem worse.

There have been terrible things done by Christians in the name of the Lord, no one is saying anything to the otherwise. For one who is truly filled with the holy spirit though, to spread the truth of the gospels is never wrong.

I would not say that MR Rogers was evangelizing.

Evangelism takes many different forms. It's not all sermons and liturgies. The word of the lord isn't simply passed down by word alone - equally so, it is shown through deeds.

James 2:24
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

I'm kind of using this verse out of context, given what it's usually used for, but it shows how important the act of the deed is. Mr. Roger's sermon did not consist of speaking the name of Christ, but in acting upon what he said. That is Evangelism.

You are not the candyman who gives people what they want nor the doctor who gives hat they need, you are the used car salesman at best...at the orst evangelists can be the murderer.

We don't expect everyone to delight in what it is we have to say, but we must go on anyway. Men filled with the Holy Spirit don't travel half way across the world, put themselves in danger, and shed the luxuries of life for one of mission for personal gain. We've a 2000 year history of martyrdom as a sober reminder that Evangelism is dangerous - but yet they go anyway. They know that what the nations of the world need, is to know the love of the Lord. People will hate them, hurt them, torture them, and try to silence them - but the missionary carries on because God loves all his people, and he has commanded his children to tell the world of his love.

Herein is one of the biggest reasons why I rejected religion. The arrogance of assuming that your preferred club has the answers the rest of the world needs, or is clamoring for. It comes off as incredibly patronizing.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I would not say they are particularly Christian in nature, though I do agree that he was highly influenced by his own Christianity. Christianity does not get to lay claim to kindness or tolerance.

Tolerance especially, given the religions less than accepting history.

Tolerance is overrated, after all, we wouldn’t be very Christian Christians if we passively tolerated the things we find morally repugnant. Of course, tolerance is sometimes the correct approach when dealing with certain situations.

[Jedi Council]

Tolerance especially, given the religions less than accepting history.

Tolerance is overrated, after all, we wouldn’t be very Christian Christians if we passively tolerated the things we find morally repugnant. Of course, tolerance is sometimes the correct approach when dealing with certain situations.

"Tolerance is overrated..."

Dangerous words if there ever were any.

[Neutraligon]

Someone who does something seriously wrong will of course be hated, playing the victim just makes them seem worse.

There have been terrible things done by Christians in the name of the Lord, no one is saying anything to the otherwise. For one who is truly filled with the holy spirit though, to spread the truth of the gospels is never wrong.

No true Scotsman. And ignoring the actual point.

I would not say that MR Rogers was evangelizing.

Evangelism takes many different forms. It's not all sermons and liturgies. The word of the lord isn't simply passed down by word alone - equally so, it is shown through deeds.

James 2:24
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

I'm kind of using this verse out of context, given what it's usually used for, but it shows how important the act of the deed is. Mr. Roger's sermon did not consist of speaking the name of Christ, but in acting upon what he said. That is Evangelism.

No his actions where purely secular for a reason. He was a good Christian because he was a good person first.

You are not the candyman who gives people what they want nor the doctor who gives hat they need, you are the used car salesman at best...at the orst evangelists can be the murderer.

We don't expect everyone to delight in what it is we have to say, but we must go on anyway. Men filled with the Holy Spirit don't travel half way across the world, put themselves in danger, and shed the luxuries of life for one of mission for personal gain. We've a 2000 year history of martyrdom as a sober reminder that Evangelism is dangerous - but yet they go anyway. They know that what the nations of the world need, is to know the love of the Lord. People will hate them, hurt them, torture them, and try to silence them - but the missionary carries on because God loves all his people, and he has commanded his children to tell the world of his love.

Just like the carsalesman or the cult leader does not expect everyone to delight in what you have to say, but you must go on anyway. And actually...yes they do. Do you think salvation is not a personal gain? You do not have 2000 years of martyrdom (and martyrdom is not necessarily a good thing), you have a few hundred years of martyrdom and centuries upon centuries of intolerance, violence, and hatred. Tell that to ISIS, who believes what they are doing is the will of their god.

[Joohan]

They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian.

There are many Christians who act this way.

No Christian is perfect

Well there goes the entire monastic tradition...

Monasteries have had a wide and varies set of roles throughout history. Some were places of education and learning, others were dedicated to the proliferation of religious material, others were refugees and places of charity for local communities.

The monastic tradition isn't about retreating from the world, it's about retreating from the things that don't matter.

[North American Environmental Alliance]

A true Christian is one that follows the laws God has laid before them, including the "rude and bigoted" verses. Attend Church, pray every day, resist sin on all levels, be strong, hate what threatens what you love, call out fake christians, know the real enemies of Christ, reject false gods, and reject pessimistic/nihilistic views. Do good and die great in the name of the Lord. Serve family, nation, God, and yourself. Embrace true eternal happiness as described within the pages of the Bible through understanding the gifts, stories, and sacrifices God has done. Reject false churches and false christians that wish to go against verses, messages, and traditional practices held by real Christians for the longest time. (For example, true Popes from long ago forewarned of false Popes that might wanna take the Vatican City over and rule churches, big and small, for seriously messed up purposes. You should ignore them and even overthrow them for they go against God.)

A recommendation I suggest to my friends when thinking about Christianity and bettering their lives under God is this: Do not argue that God doesn't exist for He acts in mysterious ways that you don't agree with, rather argue that YOU shouldn't exist because you don't act how God wants you to. You were not born by accident, but rather God crafted and placed you here at this time in history for purpose. The sooner you realize it, the closer you are to accepting His gifts and achieving eternal happiness, also securing a place within Heaven, where you can call one of the many mansion Jesus has built for us and frolic through the fields of the Garden of Eden.

Sorry for the rant but as a devout Christian, I have lots to say but I don't want to make a large paragraph, so I made some summed up points on my best answer to the question.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Tolerance is overrated, after all, we wouldn’t be very Christian Christians if we passively tolerated the things we find morally repugnant. Of course, tolerance is sometimes the correct approach when dealing with certain situations.

"Tolerance is overrated..."

Dangerous words if there ever were any.

If a Christian should say that we should tolerate sin then they have no integrity nor conviction.