Is Christian Tolerance Tolerable Anymore?

[82Marine89]

Intolerance may be one of the most serious charges in America today. It seems to carry much emotional firepower without requiring much evidence. And it often seems the greatest offenders are Christians. Our modern code of “tolerance” has been the public’s answer to those who differed from them, yet the church’s understanding of moral truth often offends the “do your own thing” crowd.

Tolerance means respecting to the beliefs and practices of others, and learning to live peacefully with what we believe to be wrong. We are not tolerant of something unless we first object to it. Tolerance allows for the free flow of ideas. It assumes that all points of view will be fairly considered, even when they may not be popular. A person does not tolerate something they are indifferent to, because it requires nothing of them.

“Tolerance” can be harmful when it becomes a tired response for indifferent neutrality to every moral issue. It can be the virtue of people who believe in nothing. Today, “tolerance” has made passing judgment unfashionable on many attitudes and behaviors.

To avoid judgment is not to be sensitive or tolerant. It is to avoid responsibility. Teachers judge the work of their students, and students the work of their teachers. Parents judge their children’s study and viewing habits, and their friends. Without judgment there can be no standards or rules to govern behavior. We see the human cost every day in our urban streets, drug rehabilitation centers, emergency rooms, crisis pregnancy centers, and divorce courts. It is defended by the call for “tolerance.”

We need to distinguish between diverse and tolerant attitudes, and morally bankrupt ones that can’t call depravity for what it is. The real issue is not whether we are tolerant, but what we are tolerant of. Modern “victims” often position themselves against Christianity, when the Gospel ironically created what makes their movement possible when Jesus took the side of the victim.

As Christians, we know that God hates sin, but is he tolerant of it? And how should we be? Many portray God as morally uncompromising, and sure to punish evil. But he is also portrayed as patient, and slow to anger. It seems he does tolerate sin, at least for while.

Perhaps the most illustrative story about God’s attitude toward tolerance is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The religious leaders brought her to him as a trap. Either Jesus would deny the law and lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he would agree to condemn the woman and lose the sympathy of the people. He surprisingly does neither. Jesus tells them the one who is without sin should cast the first stone. He tells the woman he does not condemn her. Then, he critically says what no politically correct activist today would say, “Go and sin no more.”

Click for full text...

[Dilloduck]

Intolerance may be one of the most serious charges in America today. It seems to carry much emotional firepower without requiring much evidence. And it often seems the greatest offenders are Christians. Our modern code of “tolerance” has been the public’s answer to those who differed from them, yet the church’s understanding of moral truth often offends the “do your own thing” crowd.

Tolerance means respecting to the beliefs and practices of others, and learning to live peacefully with what we believe to be wrong. We are not tolerant of something unless we first object to it. Tolerance allows for the free flow of ideas. It assumes that all points of view will be fairly considered, even when they may not be popular. A person does not tolerate something they are indifferent to, because it requires nothing of them.

“Tolerance” can be harmful when it becomes a tired response for indifferent neutrality to every moral issue. It can be the virtue of people who believe in nothing. Today, “tolerance” has made passing judgment unfashionable on many attitudes and behaviors.

To avoid judgment is not to be sensitive or tolerant. It is to avoid responsibility. Teachers judge the work of their students, and students the work of their teachers. Parents judge their children’s study and viewing habits, and their friends. Without judgment there can be no standards or rules to govern behavior. We see the human cost every day in our urban streets, drug rehabilitation centers, emergency rooms, crisis pregnancy centers, and divorce courts. It is defended by the call for “tolerance.”

We need to distinguish between diverse and tolerant attitudes, and morally bankrupt ones that can’t call depravity for what it is. The real issue is not whether we are tolerant, but what we are tolerant of. Modern “victims” often position themselves against Christianity, when the Gospel ironically created what makes their movement possible when Jesus took the side of the victim.

As Christians, we know that God hates sin, but is he tolerant of it? And how should we be? Many portray God as morally uncompromising, and sure to punish evil. But he is also portrayed as patient, and slow to anger. It seems he does tolerate sin, at least for while.

Perhaps the most illustrative story about God’s attitude toward tolerance is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The religious leaders brought her to him as a trap. Either Jesus would deny the law and lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he would agree to condemn the woman and lose the sympathy of the people. He surprisingly does neither. Jesus tells them the one who is without sin should cast the first stone. He tells the woman he does not condemn her. Then, he critically says what no politically correct activist today would say, “Go and sin no more.”

Click for full text...

Interesting--I think the point that sinning (making bad moral judgement causing harm to yourself or others) is tolerated by God for awhile is a valid one. Unfortunately the only consequence we are given for continued sinning without repentence seems to be an eternity in hell. Are people just willing to suffer the earthly consequences of sinning and hoping there is no God and therefor no eternal punishment ?

[actsnoblemartin]

outstanding, one of the most well thought out threads ive ever read

Intolerance may be one of the most serious charges in America today. It seems to carry much emotional firepower without requiring much evidence. And it often seems the greatest offenders are Christians. Our modern code of “tolerance” has been the public’s answer to those who differed from them, yet the church’s understanding of moral truth often offends the “do your own thing” crowd.

Tolerance means respecting to the beliefs and practices of others, and learning to live peacefully with what we believe to be wrong. We are not tolerant of something unless we first object to it. Tolerance allows for the free flow of ideas. It assumes that all points of view will be fairly considered, even when they may not be popular. A person does not tolerate something they are indifferent to, because it requires nothing of them.

“Tolerance” can be harmful when it becomes a tired response for indifferent neutrality to every moral issue. It can be the virtue of people who believe in nothing. Today, “tolerance” has made passing judgment unfashionable on many attitudes and behaviors.

To avoid judgment is not to be sensitive or tolerant. It is to avoid responsibility. Teachers judge the work of their students, and students the work of their teachers. Parents judge their children’s study and viewing habits, and their friends. Without judgment there can be no standards or rules to govern behavior. We see the human cost every day in our urban streets, drug rehabilitation centers, emergency rooms, crisis pregnancy centers, and divorce courts. It is defended by the call for “tolerance.”

We need to distinguish between diverse and tolerant attitudes, and morally bankrupt ones that can’t call depravity for what it is. The real issue is not whether we are tolerant, but what we are tolerant of. Modern “victims” often position themselves against Christianity, when the Gospel ironically created what makes their movement possible when Jesus took the side of the victim.

As Christians, we know that God hates sin, but is he tolerant of it? And how should we be? Many portray God as morally uncompromising, and sure to punish evil. But he is also portrayed as patient, and slow to anger. It seems he does tolerate sin, at least for while.

Perhaps the most illustrative story about God’s attitude toward tolerance is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The religious leaders brought her to him as a trap. Either Jesus would deny the law and lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he would agree to condemn the woman and lose the sympathy of the people. He surprisingly does neither. Jesus tells them the one who is without sin should cast the first stone. He tells the woman he does not condemn her. Then, he critically says what no politically correct activist today would say, “Go and sin no more.”

Click for full text...

[April15]

Intolerance of others ideas or religion is just a precurser to revolution.

[Dilloduck]

Intolerance of others ideas or religion is just a precurser to revolution.

naaaaa---you can be intolerant and never act on it.

[actsnoblemartin]

the article you found online and posted here was so well written that it inspired me to make my own thread, in my own words about a similar subject

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=12250

Intolerance may be one of the most serious charges in America today. It seems to carry much emotional firepower without requiring much evidence. And it often seems the greatest offenders are Christians. Our modern code of “tolerance” has been the public’s answer to those who differed from them, yet the church’s understanding of moral truth often offends the “do your own thing” crowd.

Tolerance means respecting to the beliefs and practices of others, and learning to live peacefully with what we believe to be wrong. We are not tolerant of something unless we first object to it. Tolerance allows for the free flow of ideas. It assumes that all points of view will be fairly considered, even when they may not be popular. A person does not tolerate something they are indifferent to, because it requires nothing of them.

“Tolerance” can be harmful when it becomes a tired response for indifferent neutrality to every moral issue. It can be the virtue of people who believe in nothing. Today, “tolerance” has made passing judgment unfashionable on many attitudes and behaviors.

To avoid judgment is not to be sensitive or tolerant. It is to avoid responsibility. Teachers judge the work of their students, and students the work of their teachers. Parents judge their children’s study and viewing habits, and their friends. Without judgment there can be no standards or rules to govern behavior. We see the human cost every day in our urban streets, drug rehabilitation centers, emergency rooms, crisis pregnancy centers, and divorce courts. It is defended by the call for “tolerance.”

We need to distinguish between diverse and tolerant attitudes, and morally bankrupt ones that can’t call depravity for what it is. The real issue is not whether we are tolerant, but what we are tolerant of. Modern “victims” often position themselves against Christianity, when the Gospel ironically created what makes their movement possible when Jesus took the side of the victim.

As Christians, we know that God hates sin, but is he tolerant of it? And how should we be? Many portray God as morally uncompromising, and sure to punish evil. But he is also portrayed as patient, and slow to anger. It seems he does tolerate sin, at least for while.

Perhaps the most illustrative story about God’s attitude toward tolerance is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The religious leaders brought her to him as a trap. Either Jesus would deny the law and lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he would agree to condemn the woman and lose the sympathy of the people. He surprisingly does neither. Jesus tells them the one who is without sin should cast the first stone. He tells the woman he does not condemn her. Then, he critically says what no politically correct activist today would say, “Go and sin no more.”

Click for full text...

[avatar4321]

Intolerance of others ideas or religion is just a precurser to revolution.

So the left is preparing a revolution? Why exactly?

[April15]

So the left is preparing a revolution? Why exactly?

It could be the religious are the ones conspiring.

[diuretic]

That was good. I read the references to judgement and it occurred to me that "judgement" and its offsider "discrimination" have been given a bum rap lately. I mean, the term "judgemental" has turned into a pejorative as in, "he's a really judgemental type", which is usually said in a disapproving tone.

But judgement and discrimination are really neutral. They're just mental tools. It's what fuels them that's important.

The guide for judgement and for tolerance shouldn't be religion, that way lies the theocracy but I sense that's what the writer is urging, using Christian values (as he sees them at least) as the touchstone for judgement and tolerance. Where secular values - eg the law - are the basis for judgement and tolerance then we all know where we stand. The advantage of secular values and in particular as they're embedded in the law is that they are arrived at by consensus. Religious values are arrived at by various means, depending on the religion and whichever is the dominant denomination.

It seems to me that the writer is calling for Christian values to prevail over secular values. If that's the case then my intolerance for that view will get a workout.

[gabosaurus]

This thread is getting difficult to tolerate.

[diuretic]

This thread is getting difficult to tolerate.

And even more difficult to ignore