Philotic Web

I read this comment on a Digg story just a moment ago:

The Fundies are against tolerance. They think tolerance is what brought America Gay marriage.

Hell, if Jaysus was preachin' his "love everyone" message today, it would be the Fundie Christians that would crucify him again.

What do you think? I totally agree with what he's saying. 'Nuff said.

I'm not sure if there are many who would disagree.

On a more serious note, I tend to suspect that the word "tolerance" is a terrible one for our society. So often we divide people into tolerant and intolerant, and those who are in the tolerant group cannot tolerate intolerant people.

I like to think that I tolerate intolerant people. Not very well mind you, but I tolerate them.

I like to think that I tolerate intolerant people. Not very well mind you, but I tolerate them.

I've always believed people say they are tolerant of everyone should tolerate all views. You do, but it seems most of the "tolerant" people believe that everyone should tolerate people.

These people don't tolerate racists, sexists, homophobics, and other discriminatory viewpoints. Tolerant people expect others to have an open mind. I don't agree with that, there is a place in this world for all types of people.

As for the Fundies, I think they're more pro-Bible than anti-tolerance.

As for the Fundies, I think they're more pro-Bible than anti-tolerance.

Read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. Yes, it has a lot of atheistic content, but he makes some very good points about how far out of touch from the Bible fundies are. The atheist stuff isn't related to this stuff that I'm talking about, btw.

The "intolerance" is one of the biggest things that makes me uncomfortable with organized religion unwittingly representing my personal faith. I feel like the church is so caught up in deciding what's right and what's wrong, who's right and who's wrong, what's a sin and what's not, that they get distracted from the most challenging thing Jesus commanded, which is for us to love. Period. Christianity has become wound and mixed up in the technicalities of everything, to such an extent that they've developed a comfortable tolerance toward the life-long command of those who believe in God to aim at loving anybody, always.

I realized this on my road trip. My friends and I were in Portland, and found ourselves staying at a cheap hotel (the only hotel of the trip actually) above the homosexual community -- at least we think so, but it might have just been the gay club/bar area, I don't know the layout of the city. Anyway, we started talking about homosexuality, whether it's a sin, how we'd like to figure it out, etc, etc, and I realized that I don't really care about all that and it makes me forget the love command, which is hard enough to follow constantly and consistently, without getting caught up in technicalities.

The "intolerance" is one of the biggest things that makes me uncomfortable with organized religion unwittingly representing my personal faith. I feel like the church is so caught up in deciding what's right and what's wrong, who's right and who's wrong, what's a sin and what's not, that they get distracted from the most challenging thing Jesus commanded, which is for us to love. Period. Christianity has become wound and mixed up in the technicalities of everything, to such an extent that they've developed a comfortable tolerance toward the life-long command of those who believe in God to aim at loving anybody, always.

Well said, well said.

IMO, being tolerant towards everybody is nearly an impossible job: everybody is either intolerant initially, or are intolerant towards people who are intolerant initially. Thus, nobody is fully tolerant- not even the hardest trying person.
However, the difference between the two types is why are they intolerant: the first type is the "bad" type, intolerant because of pre-assumptions, "sacred" texts (excuse my atheistic behavior) and perhaps even worse things, whilst the other type is intolerant to those people BECAUSE they're intolerant due to...well, you get the point.

Whoa, I didn't think this would every happen, but to both of you, Well Said!

On a more serious note, I tend to suspect that the word "tolerance" is a terrible one for our society. So often we divide people into tolerant and intolerant, and those who are in the tolerant group cannot tolerate intolerant people.

Aren't you just basing that on that you only hear about people who complain? Not everyone has to go around fueling arguments with people they disagree with. You may not hear of the universally tolerant because they're not shouting about stuff they're not tolerating.

That is true, and part of why I phrased it as being "so often", however it did come out ambiguously. I do believe that it is relatively safe to say that almost everybody comes out as failing the tolerance test to some degree, though, and that tolerance is over-rated. There has to be some better ideal to shoot for than something so problem-causing as tolerance.

Heh, this thread reminded me that I tend to get much more pissed off and annoyed by other Christians than by atheists, agnostics, or people of other faiths. In fact, I'd say the attitudes and actions of my religion leads me to much more doubt than the influence of others' beliefs.

There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

I tolerate the intolerant. As in, I put up with intolerance and am civil to those who I think are intolerant. Furthermore, I believe in their right to hold intolerant views (although, I don't believe they have a right to practice intolerance when it interferes with the civil rights of other people). I believe that they are wrong, but I tolerate this and consider them to be humans, with rights like any other humans. I do not use hate-speech against them or go out of my way to upset them. I try to be open minded and fair.

But although I tolerate intolerance, I do not accept it. I do not agree with it. I do not admire people who strike me as intolerant, or have a great deal of empathy for them, or love them for that aspect of themselves. Acceptance and tolerance are different. And it seems to me that people who preach to those who ask for tolerance, "You're not tolerating me! So now who's intolerant?" are confusing the two.

Regarding "Fundies" -- I hate all generalizations

Seriously, though, there are people who I know and care about and love who do hold fundamentalist views. It's like any other group of people -- once you put a face on it and have some empathy for it, stereotyping and generalizing become, well, intolerable. Which means I really dislike exaggerations and misrepresentations of those beliefs and that community even though I disagree with almost everything about it.

Heh, this thread reminded me that I tend to get much more pissed off and annoyed by other Christians than by atheists, agnostics, or people of other faiths

Me too! I want to shake them by their shoulders and tell them that they ought to know better than to act like that!

Heh, this thread reminded me that I tend to get much more pissed off and annoyed by other Christians than by atheists, agnostics, or people of other faiths

Me too! I want to shake them by their shoulders and tell them that they ought to know better than to act like that!

I am Christian, tolerate me or to hell with you!

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

What Kirsten said. In spades.

Aye, Kirsten took the words out of my mouth about the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

One of those clauses is a lie.

Eriador, this is EL the Mod.

Do not claim to know other people's beliefs better than they do. Do not call other members liars when they speak of their beliefs.

This is not a reprimand subject to debate or discussion. Do not do it. End of story.

When the core texts of Christianity say that you may only accept one view of God, one of those statements must be a lie. I refuse to retract what I said.

There is a difference between a lie and a contradiction. The latter is acceptable, the former is not. You may not call other members liars here.

I reject the distinction, and therefore, the rule.

That is not a wise thing to do when the distinction has been declared by a moderator of the boards...

Read Locke and get back to me

Like I said, this is not open to debate. You are not the arbiter of what is acceptable here, I am. These are the rules, and if you cannot abide by them, you will not be welcome to post. It's pretty simple, really, and most posters here manage just fine.

The health of any community is best evaluated by how it deals with the fringe, not the mainstream.

Eriador,

EL is actually being pretty fair handed, I'd say.

More than being impudent, you're being a dick. Knock it off. Or I'll knock you off. Of the boards. And this would be a permanent ban.

What would that say about the health of this community?

The community would be healthier without a life-draining tumor. I'm serious man. I'm not just busting your balls. Be cool, or get iced.

Well, I'm putting a lot more life into this place than you are, so that argument is bull. However, I'll accept that I made a mistake in giving you guys too much credit. Maybe I should have said: "The way I see it, one of those clauses is blatantly untrue. How can you reconcile a faith that insists on the acceptance of a single God with your acceptance of everybody else's view?"

And that would have been acceptable. Too bad you opted for the unacceptable version.

I am with Ollie 100% on this. Abide by the rules, or leave. I'm sick of dealing with this bullshit.

Cancer cells divide uncontrolled -- don't confuse that with life, or at least productive life. But yes, you did make a mistake and your rephrasing is an improvement that allows for continued intellectual discourse.

I'd rather be cancer than dead Ollie.

As to the rephrasing, what's the difference? I said the same thing but in more words.

The difference is that now you are allowing for the possibility of other people being able to explain their stance. Don't pull that. I know you're not tragically stupid. You know what the difference is. My conclusion is that you are simply trying to be difficult, and if I had to guess why, I'd say for the same reason I was intentionally difficult when I was younger. But it gets old, man. And no one attributes wit to simple cantankerousness.

Well, I'm putting a lot more life into this place than you are, so that argument is bull.

Ollie is less annoying than you are.

Zero, I'm surprised you haven't already learned that life is, by definition, annoying.

As to Ollie, I had the same intention with both. It was just that one failed to carry the message as well. Thanks for elaborating.