Polycarp does not tolerate homosexuality,

Great Debates
1

and I do not tolerate Parminder Nagra.

This is not a new idea, but it needs repeating.

In this thread, SCCajun and Theologue are pretty undeniably civil and indeed quite friendly. Nonetheless, they are criticised by Case Sensitive and elanorigby. All well and good, except that the criticism is not that the beliefs are incorrect or untrue, but that they are inherently morally wrong. The former says that

The latter asks

Both of them have the same problem … they find Christians’ beliefs “judgemental.” But as SCCajun explained here, making judgements doesn’t mean the same thing as being judgemental. I’m pretty sure that SCCajun would say some of my beliefs are incorrect; but I don’t think I have to worry about him screaming “die, heretic” and shoving me off a bridge.

As Father Brown observed, to believe in something necessarily means not believing in other things. If I am persuaded that A is true, I may allow that B is also true; but logic demands I hold that anti-A is false. Case Sensitive and elanorigby seem to object to thinking someone else is wrong; which amounts to the same thing as objecting to believing anything at all.

Which leads me back to tolerance, which, by definition, involves the attitude towards what one finds wrong, disagreeable or offensive. I do not tolerate Parminder Nagra; on the contrary, I think she’s the most kissable woman on the planet. Polycarp does not tolerate homosexality; on the contrary, he has no objection to it theologically, morally or emotionally. If wish we to know whether or not Poly is a tolerant person, his attitude towards homosexuality will tell us nothing. Instead, we would have to look at his attitude towards that which he does dislike or disagree with.

The way the word is (wrongly) used by so many is to suggest that finding something wrong or disagreeable is itself intolerant. If in fact you find that you don’t think anyone is wrong or disagreeable, then by definition you aren’t tolerant: you’re not intolerant, either; the term just doesn’t apply. You like and agree with everyone … which frankly suggests to me that you don’t believe in anything at all yourself, but I suppose to some people that may be a virtue.

The significance should be plain. The second sort of tolerance – where no one has any opinions or beliefs – is impossible or anyone with an I.Q. larger than Gilligan. On the other hand the sort of tolerance Case Sensitive finds a fit subject of sarcasm (“you’re at least polite in pronouncing eternal damnation upon me”) is pretty much exactly what a multi-ethnic/cultural/religious society must have to survive. We mock it at our peril.

2

I tolerate Parminder Nagra quite a bit!

3

Sorry. I’ll er… leave this thread. I should read things before I reply to them.

4

Now the crackers in bed … that’s an example of tolerance.

5

furt, personally, I think you would do better to have started this in the pit, but, oh well. Your belief that people can make judgements, without being judgemental, sounds like a whole lot of <something better left in the pit>. Literally, that may be true, but in practice, it is used in the way people see it as. Also, the concept of living in a state of sin, re: your link, has enough problems of it’s own, but that is a subject for another thread.

6

What?

OK-last time. I have asked 2 questions of Theologue and Cajun in those threads. As far as I know, they have not answered me, as yet.

Since when is asking questions a demonstration of intolerance and/or stupidity? Since when is asking questions a form of criticism (it can be, but not in this case).

I asked the questions in order to get answers. You are making any number of assumptions about my character, faith and intelligence in this thread. If my intelligence is on par with Gilligan, you are Lovey Howell.

Who is being judgemental here? Where did I say that the beliefs of Christians are"inherently morally wrong"?

And since when did MY tolerance of different belief structures ipso facto mean that I believe in nothing at all? I have never taken a logics/philosophy course, but even I can see that that makes no sense.

I most sincerely hope this ends up in the Pit. I cannot post here on the morrow, d/t work, but will be back on Tuesday, full of grrr, I’m sure.

7

If I wanted invective, sure. If you want to address the OP in a mode worthy of GD, please do.

8

Agree; the opposite of intolerance is acceptance, not tolerance (which often implies tacit disapproval).

9

In that case, read my second sentence.

10

Read mine.

11

Ok, I have read the second sentence of each of your posts,(as well as the rest of em’)

Now, can you return the favorite, and tell me if you agree, or disagree with the second sentence of my first post to this thread? Oh, and and the stuff below it, too. Just to make it easier, I will repost it below.

12

And in any case, I take objection to the entire approach used to define terms here. This being GD, I will leave it at that. But I strongly feel this thread requires moving.

13

Hmm. Is this what this is about? Semantics?

Ok-my Webster’s has as the first definition of “tolerance”:* a fair and objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race and religion, nationality or the like differ from one’s own.*

yes, “tacit disapproval” can be a shade of meaning/connotation. That subtext of meaning is listed obliquely in definition #4 in my Webster’s:the act or capacity of enduring.

I would hazard a guess that I not only tolerate conservative Christians --I also accept them. In fact, I would go further and say I have no stance on what they believe in at all(which is not to say that I have no beliefs)–until they attempt to correct the “error” of my ways. Then I ask them (nicely) to leave me alone and respect, tolerate and accept my non-adherence to their views.

Sadly, this tends to make them angry. Sorry to paint with a broad brush here, but like I have said 3 times now-I saw a chance to ask a courteous and intelligent “fundie” about this evangelism–so far, no answer.

In the same vein, while I cannot and do not speak for polycarp -I would say, from what little I know of him, that he also accepts and tolerated homosexuals–I don’t know his stance on Paminder-me, I think she is hot as hell.

14

Sorry, Polycarp. While I seem to be one of the few people here who feels like it is worth my time to comment on this more than once, I am wrong to think that. Looking at the past thread that furt has complained about, while I disagree with what you (Polycarp) have said, I do so in a manner completely different from the OPer. This topic is indeed not worthy of being in GD. furt, when you strongly disagree with someone, you…Oh, this isn’t even worth elaborating on. I quit.

15

eleanorigby, you’re overreacting and taking as personal something that is not. I did not call you intolerant or stupid, nor did I make any assumptions about you; I was responding to this post, which I linked to and quoted.

Please take note of phrases like "Case Sensitive and elanorigby seem to object to thinking someone else is wrong, " and “**If ** in fact you find that you don’t think anyone is wrong or disagreeable.” These are invitations to point out that I have misunderstood your position or to say that “No, in fact there are beliefs that I think are very wrong but still tolerate.”

Despite the impression you seem to have, the OP was not directed at you personally. It was addressed at a quite widespread idea which I viewed your post as reflecting. Again, if I have misunderstood you, feel free to clarify.

As was pointed out :

Based on that post, it appears to me you hold that it wrong to say that another religion is incorrect or false. Again, if this not the case, explain.

Many (not all) belief systems are mutually contradictory. I* cannot *be an atheist without believing that Muslims are incorrect about the existence of God; it’s in the definition. Thus, the only person who could not “judge” another person’s beliefs as “wrong” at least some of the time is a person who has no beliefs of their own.

16

Disagree. I have known people who could judge without being judgemental. I had dinner with two of them last night as a matter of fact. I would not dispute that many people are judgemental; heck we all are at times, me included. But it is not neccessarily the case, which was my whole point.

17

Not true.

http://www.answers.com/atheist&r=67

a·the·ist (ā’thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

There are “hard atheists” and “soft atheists”. One can be a soft atheist and not hold that Muslims are necessarily incorrect.

18

:confused: Why? Unless your objections involve personal attacks or profanity? If I’ve wounded you somehow by using your name as an attention-getting device, I apologized; I truly thought you would see it as harmless. email me if you wish to discuss it privately.

19

That’s certainly how I read it. Yes, the dictionary defines tolerance as something quite neutral and egalitarian, but I’m of the opinion that it in everyday usage, it implies a sort of grudging and reluctant acceptance under duress.

20

Yes; but the very definition you quoted is thgat of hard atheism. I’m quite aware of the distinction, and assumed everyone would get tht that’s what I wa referring to. Should have put “hard” in there, though.