Christian Tolerance

Zombrex · 24-02-2010 7:25pm

PDN wrote: »

And, in fairness, this is the Christianity forum where we discuss Christian issues and refer to the Christian Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

What does that have to do with what I posted?

You said it doesn't take an idiot to recognize the difference between moral and ceremonial laws. No, it takes someone who has already accepted the Christian tradition of which is which.

There is nothing in the laws themselves that is self evidently moral or ceremonial, the distinction did not exist when they were written, it was added (arbitrarily according to some) by Christians.

It isn't obvious from the laws themselves at all, so your rather snide post was pointless.

PDN · 24-02-2010 7:40pm

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that have to do with what I posted?

You said it doesn't take an idiot to recognize the difference between moral and ceremonial laws. No, it takes someone who has already accepted the Christian tradition of which is which.

There is nothing in the laws themselves that is self evidently moral or ceremonial, the distinction did not exist when they were written, it was added (arbitrarily according to some) by Christians.

It isn't obvious from the laws themselves at all, so your rather snide post was pointless.

I think you're wrong, but please read my preceding post. If you want to discuss Leviticus or whatever then feel free to start a new thread. This one may have some life in it yet before it disappears down the usual rabbit trails.

Anyone got any more contribution to the discussion about toleration?

I Drink It Up! · 25-02-2010 1:03am

How can anyone "tolerate" homosexuality? What a word..."tolerance"........the instruction is simple..."Do unto others"...."Love one another"......The instruction was never to "tolerate, put up with, get along with...barely get by".....you either respect these people wholeheartedly and in accordance with The Word...or you do not, and thus fall outside the teachings.

PDN · 25-02-2010 1:09am

I Drink It Up! wrote: »

How can anyone "tolerate" homosexuality?

Quite easily, if you're a tolerant kind of person.

I Drink It Up! · 25-02-2010 1:32am

PDN wrote: »

Quite easily, if you're a tolerant kind of person.

I dont want to "tolerate" them. I want to regard them as being no different.

"Toleration" is implicit of a judgment that something is wrong, but will be put up with.

Fanny Cradock · 25-02-2010 2:47am

I Drink It Up! wrote: »

How can anyone "tolerate" homosexuality? What a word..."tolerance"........the instruction is simple..."Do unto others"...."Love one another"......The instruction was never to "tolerate, put up with, get along with...barely get by".....you either respect these people wholeheartedly and in accordance with The Word...or you do not, and thus fall outside the teachings.

Perhaps you have a different definition of the word tolerance to other people. If I tolerate someone I don't "put up" with them (the connotation here is unmistakeably negative). I would try to show a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality that differs from my own. Straight from the good book

The fact of the matter is that a straight person is different from a gay person, a man is different from a woman, An Irish person is different from a Chinese and so on. We're not heterogeneous beings. You can't simply ignore these obvious differences. And this is where both tolerance and intolerance play their parts.

ISAW · 28-02-2010 12:17am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you have a different definition of the word tolerance to other people.

It isn't just about allowing people do what they want. It is also about allowing them to do things you specifically don't want.

Fanny Cradock · 28-02-2010 12:37am

I was hoping that my last post made the definition of tolerance clear. I don't understand the point of your post.

looksee · 28-02-2010 12:44am

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: definition of tolerance...
Etymology: Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare to endure, put up with; akin to Old English tholian to bear, Latin tollere to lift up, latus carried (suppletive past participle of ferre), Greek tlēnai to bear

I agree with I drink it up, and I find the suggestion of Christian tolerance in respect of homosexuals to be very condescending. If you don't approve of homosexuality then you are entitled to that opinion, your approval doesn't make it right or wrong.

Saying that you tolerate homosexuality suggests that you consider yourself to be on a moral high ground from which to be generous to the afflicted. (No, before anyone bleats, I am not saying homosexuality is an affliction).

PDN · 28-02-2010 7:55am

looksee wrote: »

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: definition of tolerance...
Etymology: Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare to endure, put up with; akin to Old English tholian to bear, Latin tollere to lift up, latus carried (suppletive past participle of ferre), Greek tlēnai to bear

I agree with I drink it up, and I find the suggestion of Christian tolerance in respect of homosexuals to be very condescending. If you don't approve of homosexuality then you are entitled to that opinion, your approval doesn't make it right or wrong.

Saying that you tolerate homosexuality suggests that you consider yourself to be on a moral high ground from which to be generous to the afflicted. (No, before anyone bleats, I am not saying homosexuality is an affliction).

Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. You would be better advised in future to concentrate on the meaning of a word rather than on its etymology (otherwise you'll end up thinking a hippopotamus is a species of horse that lives in a river). The dictionary you refer to (Merriam-Webster) gives as one definition of tolerate: "to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction". In other words, live and let live.

The point of this thread is whether Christianity has generally promoted such a 'live and let live' attitude or not, particularly in regard to homosexuality.

looksee · 28-02-2010 12:34pm

Heavens, more condescention. I think I will go and play somewhere else.

krudler · 28-02-2010 1:32pm

PDN wrote: »

Quite easily, if you're a tolerant kind of person.

Its really not up to you to tolerate anyone tbh

Zombrex · 28-02-2010 3:16pm

I Drink It Up! wrote: »

"Toleration" is implicit of a judgment that something is wrong, but will be put up with.

Are you a Christian?

If you aren't the point is some what irrelevant.

If you are a Christian do you believe that homosexual acts are not wrong?

antiskeptic · 28-02-2010 3:38pm

looksee wrote: »

Heavens, more condescention. I think I will go and play somewhere else.

It wasn't condescension, it was pointing out your error in your use of a dictionary - by way of refutation of your postion. Rather than flee, you should deal with the fact that the word tolerance has a definition and that that definition doesn't need to involve moral judgementalism.

Zombrex · 28-02-2010 3:51pm

I Drink It Up! wrote: »

How can anyone "tolerate" homosexuality? What a word..."tolerance"........the instruction is simple..."Do unto others"...."Love one another"......The instruction was never to "tolerate, put up with, get along with...barely get by".....you either respect these people wholeheartedly and in accordance with The Word...or you do not, and thus fall outside the teachings.

That doesn't make much sense?

For example, I hate the smell of amonia. I tolerate my sister dying her hair in the kitchen (when I was living at home) because I respect and love her and realized that she needs to do it.

I could have not tolerated it, thrown a bit tantrum, demanded she stopped (though she probably wouldn't have listened to me), but that would have been a bit a bit of a sucky thing to do.

Tolerating is putting up with something you don't like or agree with, but where did you get the idea that you wouldn't do this out of love or respect.

It is hard to think of an example of tolerance where it isn't an act of love or respect

PDN · 28-02-2010 4:13pm

krudler wrote: »

Its really not up to you to tolerate anyone tbh

Au contraire, whether I tolerate anyone or not is entirely up to me. Who else do you think should decide what I do or don't tolerate?

antiskeptic · 28-02-2010 5:39pm

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense?

For example, I hate the smell of amonia. I tolerate my sister dying her hair in the kitchen (when I was living at home) because I respect and love her and realized that she needs to do it.

I could have not tolerated it, thrown a bit tantrum, demanded she stopped..

Alternatively, and instead of exhibiting this tolerant grace, you could have taken to wearing your motor oil stained overalls around the house (a smell she'd have presumably hated) by way of an eye for an eye.

Zombrex · 28-02-2010 6:55pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Alternatively, and instead of exhibiting this tolerant grace, you could have taken to wearing your motor oil stained overalls around the house (a smell she'd have presumably hated) by way of an eye for an eye.

You mean get Old Testament on her ass :P

antiskeptic · 28-02-2010 9:01pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You mean get Old Testament on her ass :P

Quite.

The Other Option .. as it were. I'm sure all of us have utilised both options to deal with issues. Indeed, we probably apply both options (or even combinations of both) numerous times each day.

recedite · 01-03-2010 6:06pm

PDN wrote: »

The countries with the longest historic exposure to Christianity also tend to be those with the most liberal attitudes to homosexuality. Also, and I find this very to be an interesting sociological phenomenon, those countries with a tradition of diverse opinions and denominations within Christianity (such as Scandanavia and northern Europe) tended to develop such liberalism much sooner than those who lived under a monolithic single system (such as Catholic southern Europe or Orthodox eastern Europe). This is understandable, since societies that value diversity of opinion will tend to be more tolerant than those with less diversity.

IMO this is the most significant comment in this whole thread.
But unfortunately for PDN's argument, I must point out that the Scandinavian countries were the last European countries to adopt Christianity and the first ones to abandon it. It is no coincidence that the most peaceful and tolerant countries are those with the least proportion of their population practising religion.(Of any sort).
The actions of repressive authoritarian dictators have nothing to do with it.

monosharp · 01-03-2010 10:58pm

recedite wrote: »

IMO this is the most significant comment in this whole thread.
But unfortunately for PDN's argument, I must point out that the Scandinavian countries were the last European countries to adopt Christianity and the first ones to abandon it. It is no coincidence that the most peaceful and tolerant countries are those with the least proportion of their population practising religion.(Of any sort).
The actions of repressive authoritarian dictators have nothing to do with it.

I haven't been able to reply for some time but that's exactly how I've wanted to put it since the start.

PDN · 02-03-2010 1:17am

monosharp wrote: »

I haven't been able to reply for some time but that's exactly how I've wanted to put it since the start.

Really? Then you've got a real problem because none of your posts, some of which were very long, never came close to making such a point.

monosharp · 02-03-2010 2:42am

PDN wrote: »

Really? Then you've got a real problem because none of your posts, some of which were very long, never came close to making such a point.

I pointed out that most of the countries you claimed were 'bad' (anti-homosexual) because of communism/dictatorship (atheist) were not indeed back because of it.

North Korea for example was and is the most religious country in the world.
The USSR while officially been atheist had a very strong religious past coupled with reverence for the 'leader' similar to North Korea. etc

When you worship your government, when people believe that a Stork came down from heaven to carry your ex-leaders body away when he died then that's hardly atheism is it ?

I also made the point that homosexuality was tolerated before Christianity and christianity played a large part in changing this.

And even now, regardless of the wording of it, Christians largely do not accept homosexuality. You yourself aren't 'anti'-homosexual but you have stated that you believe its against gods wishes.

It reminds me of the many liberal Christians in the states you see and read about. They themselves are quite sane and don't have these intolerant views but they also don't distance themselves from their more 'right' leaning colleagues either. (I'm not talking about Fred , i'm talking about the 'homosexuality is a sin', sending kids to jesus camp or the curing' homosexuality camp gang.

Do you consider that tolerance ?

PDN · 02-03-2010 9:20am

monosharp wrote: »

I pointed out that most of the countries you claimed were 'bad' (anti-homosexual) because of communism/dictatorship (atheist) were not indeed back because of it.

North Korea for example was and is the most religious country in the world.
The USSR while officially been atheist had a very strong religious past coupled with reverence for the 'leader' similar to North Korea. etc

When you worship your government, when people believe that a Stork came down from heaven to carry your ex-leaders body away when he died then that's hardly atheism is it ?

I also made the point that homosexuality was tolerated before Christianity and christianity played a large part in changing this.

And even now, regardless of the wording of it, Christians largely do not accept homosexuality. You yourself aren't 'anti'-homosexual but you have stated that you believe its against gods wishes.

It reminds me of the many liberal Christians in the states you see and read about. They themselves are quite sane and don't have these intolerant views but they also don't distance themselves from their more 'right' leaning colleagues either. (I'm not talking about Fred , i'm talking about the 'homosexuality is a sin', sending kids to jesus camp or the curing' homosexuality camp gang.

Do you consider that tolerance ?

The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

If you want to use 'religion' in such a loose term then you are free to do so, but in that case you probably want to take it to another forum than Christianity.

When you worship your government, when people believe that a Stork came down from heaven to carry your ex-leaders body away when he died then that's hardly atheism is it ?

Atheism, as certain posters in A&A love to remind us, simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods. The fact that some atheists are more gullible or stupid than others does not lessen the fact that they are atheists.

Non-stamp collectors remain non-stamp collectors even if they choose to collect coins or Mars Bar wrappers.

I don't get to redefine 'religion' so that it only includes the enlightened type of religion that suits me, nor do you get to define 'atheism' so it only includes the kind of atheism that suits you.

I also made the point that homosexuality was tolerated before Christianity and christianity played a large part in changing this.

No, all you've demonstrated is that certain societies before Christianity tolerated older men forcing themselves on slaves and young boys - in other words, child rape and sexual exploitation.

However, I am happy to concede that Christianity played a large party in reducing such paedophilia and rape.

And even now, regardless of the wording of it, Christians largely do not accept homosexuality. You yourself aren't 'anti'-homosexual but you have stated that you believe its against gods wishes.

Now you're trying to change the subject. I thought you wanted to talk about tolerance?

There are lots of things that I think are against God's wishes. For example, I don't think God wishes people to engage in heterosexual sex outside of marriage, or to get drunk, or to curse and swear, or to be Muslims. However, I tolerate such things in that I defend the right of others to practice them.

It reminds me of the many liberal Christians in the states you see and read about. They themselves are quite sane and don't have these intolerant views but they also don't distance themselves from their more 'right' leaning colleagues either. (I'm not talking about Fred , i'm talking about the 'homosexuality is a sin', sending kids to jesus camp or the curing' homosexuality camp gang.

Do you consider that tolerance ?

Let's see.....

They disagree with homosexual acts, but defend the right of others to engage in such acts if they choose.

They disagree with the Jesus Camp people, but defend their right to believe such things if they wish.

Do I consider that tolerance? Absolutely - it is the very essence of tolerance.

prinz · 02-03-2010 10:18am

recedite wrote: »

It is no coincidence that the most peaceful and tolerant countries are those with the least proportion of their population practising religion.(Of any sort)..

...and just what are you basing the levels of peace and tolerance on? Is it the assassination of politicians? The murder of journalists? Hate crime murders? A Nazi-style white power underground movement? The forcing of authors to go into hiding? I'm just going on Sweden here by the way.. as you mentioned Scandinavia...

monosharp · 02-03-2010 1:02pm

PDN wrote: »

The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

So according to you my Buddhist relatives here in Korea are not religious because they don't believe in a god or gods ?

How about Shinto ? Animism ? Dualism ?

What about Confucianism ? I believe we had this discussion before about the religious nature of Confucianism.

All of these 'religions' are not actually religions anymore ?

If you want to use 'religion' in such a loose term then you are free to do so, but in that case you probably want to take it to another forum than Christianity.

wikipedia wrote:

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Where in that definition does it say "religion requires worship of a god or gods" ?

Atheism, as certain posters in A&A love to remind us, simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods. The fact that some atheists are more gullible or stupid than others does not lessen the fact that they are atheists.

So your saying a supernatural belief in Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il is not religious ? Care to explain why ? For all intensive purposes Kil Il Sung is a god in North Korea.

No, all you've demonstrated is that certain societies before Christianity tolerated older men forcing themselves on slaves and young boys - in other words, child rape and sexual exploitation.

Yes child rape and sexual exploitation occurred as well as consensual sex just like it does today.

However, I am happy to concede that Christianity played a large party in reducing such paedophilia and rape.

And intolerance of consensual homosexuality.

They disagree with homosexual acts, but defend the right of others to engage in such acts if they choose.

No, the majority of them do not defend it, they are just less vocal against it.

They disagree with the Jesus Camp people, but defend their right to believe such things if they wish.

PDN are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ? Because there are mountains of evidence which say such camps are damaging to the children they try and 'cure'.

PDN · 02-03-2010 1:29pm

monosharp wrote: »

PDN are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ? Because there are mountains of evidence which say such camps are damaging to the children they try and 'cure'.

No, I didn't suggest any such thing, and nobody who has even a basic of understanding of the English language would get that from what I said. :rolleyes:

I said that the 'liberal' Christians you mentioned were tolerant of different things. There was not the slightest hint of any value judgement as to the relative merits of the things they tolerate.

Do you want to discuss tolerance or just play silly games?

monosharp · 03-03-2010 1:54am

PDN wrote: »

No, I didn't suggest any such thing, and nobody who has even a basic of understanding of the English language would get that from what I said.

You know almost every single time I have 'thought' you said something outrageous I have given you the benefit of the doubt and I did the same here. I didn't say you said that, I asked you did you mean that and I accept you didn't mean it.

I said that the 'liberal' Christians you mentioned were tolerant of different things. There was not the slightest hint of any value judgement as to the relative merits of the things they tolerate.

They are tolerant of intolerance ? Aren't these the same people who have no problem saying condoms in schools are bad, ritual killing is bad etc ?

They seem to have a lot of opinions about what is right and wrong except when it comes to people of similar beliefs.

Like the Nationalists and the Republicans up north ? Nationalists not anti-protestant themselves but fairly careful when it comes to condemning their 'own' terrorists ? And likewise for the other side of course.

I'm sure these liberal Christians condemn child abuse but the majority of them don't condemn the homosexual curing camps which according to many people and a lot of evidence are child abuse.

Do you want to discuss tolerance or just play silly games?

I want you to answer my question about what is and is not a religion and not ignore it.

Are my Buddhist relatives religious ? Because they don't believe in any god/gods ?

Same for Shinto ? Animism ? Dualism ? Confucianism ? *

(*depends of course on your definition of a god for some branches of some of them)

ISAW · 03-03-2010 5:03am

monosharp wrote: »

So according to you my Buddhist relatives here in Korea are not religious because they don't believe in a god or gods ?

Yep. Bhuddism can be viewed as a form of atheism.

How about Shinto ? Animism ? Dualism ?

Shinto - same as Bhuddism. Animism could be paganism and therefore has gods.
Dualism if you refer to greek philosophy or esoteric sufi or Hericletian stuff can also be atheistic.

What about Confucianism ? I believe we had this discussion before about the religious nature of Confucianism.

Yep could easily be classified atheistic . Like mathmatics.

All of these 'religions' are not actually religions anymore ?

communism can be claeesd as a religion but atheistic as can bhuddism.
You are getting a type distinction problem.

Where in that definition does it say "religion requires worship of a god or gods" ?

Economics can be a religion. Here we are talking about "belief in a single God" - monotheism. specifically christianity - it is in the GROUP PROFILE to which you are posting!
and the basis for traditional treatment of homosexuals.

So your saying a supernatural belief in Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il is not religious ? Care to explain why ? For all intensive purposes Kil Il Sung is a god in North Korea.

It isn't Christianity. It isn't monotheism. If you are going to move the goalposts every time someone points out a "non- religious society" as an example of how religion was good for the world then you can win any argument with a "only true scotsman" fallacy!

Yes child rape and sexual exploitation occurred as well as consensual sex just like it does today.

the fact that people still chose to do evil has nothing to do with the argument of positive influence of "religion" i.e. monotheism on society

And intolerance of consensual homosexuality.

Objection to is not intolerance. homosexuality isn;'t a crime in most Christian countries.

PDN are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ? Because there are mountains of evidence which say such camps are damaging to the children they try and 'cure'.

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. it isnt a case of one must ne homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp.

monosharp · 03-03-2010 6:07am

ISAW wrote: »

Yep. Bhuddism can be viewed as a form of atheism.

wikipedia wrote:

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Shinto - same as Bhuddism.

Shinto is a religion in where practice (actions) and ritual, rather than words, are of the utmost importance. Shinto is characterized by the worship of nature, ancestors, polytheism, and animism, with a strong focus on ritual purity, involving honoring and celebrating the existence of Kami (神?). Kami are defined in English as "spirit", "essence" or "deities", that are associated with many understood formats; in some cases being human like, some animistic, others associated with more abstract "natural" forces in the world (mountains, rivers, lightning, wind, waves, trees, rocks). It may be best thought of as "sacred" elements and energies. Kami and people are not separate, they exist within the same world and share its interrelated complexity.

Animism could be paganism and therefore has gods.

Animism (from Latin anima "soul, life")[1][2] is a philosophical, religious or spiritual idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment

Yep could easily be classified atheistic . Like mathmatics.

Right so when my wife spends a day cooking and preparing food, sets up a feast on a table with said food and alcohol at midnight, opens the door of our apartment and the subsequent outer door to allow the spirit of her ancestors to come in for a bite to eat, that's atheistic is it ?

Economics can be a religion. Here we are talking about "belief in a single God" - monotheism.

Last time I checked economics didn't say anything about the divinity of money.

It isn't Christianity. It isn't monotheism.

I never said it was Christianity and I never said it was monotheistic. I said it was a religion.

If you are going to move the goalposts every time someone points out a "non- religious society" as an example of how religion was good for the world then you can win any argument with a "only true scotsman" fallacy!

North Korea is the most religious country in the world, Kim Il Sung is their god and Kil Jung Il is the son of a god.

They believe Kim Il Sung is not dead, he has simply gone back to heaven, they think hes watching them all the time, they think he performed miracles when he was here on earth.

Please explain how that is not a religion.

the fact that people still chose to do evil has nothing to do with the argument of positive influence of "religion" i.e. monotheism on society

Nor has it anything to do with the argument of negative influence of religion on society.

PDN stated Christianity helped to combat one evil which has always existed.

Objection to is not intolerance. homosexuality isn;'t a crime in most Christian countries.

When it was a crime how many churches jumped behind homosexuals to decriminalise it ?

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. it isnt a case of one must ne homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp.

On the contrary, I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends. So my question has nothing to do with the middle.

Christian Tolerance

Comments