Does love equal tolerance?

[Autumnleaf]

I was listening to Catholic radio yesterday and the Priest was mentioning how important it is to love people. He then said loving people doesn't mean letting them do whatever they want and being quiet about it, especially if they are doing mortal sins. He said, if someone is seriously sinning we should speak up to warn them out of love and concern. What do you think of such reasoning?

 

[JGG]

Its selective reasoning, and therefore incorrect.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Its selective reasoning, and therefore incorrect.

I suppose such religious Catholics might say it is selective reasoning, therefore incorrect, to demand tolerance of sin.

 

[JGG]

I suppose such religious Catholics might say it is selective reasoning, therefore incorrect, to demand tolerance of sin.

Firstly, be careful about generalizing, it does not add credit to your position. But more importantly how do you figure?

 

[trunks2k]

I don't think tolerance means letting people do whatever they want and being quiet about it if you disagree. It would be more like allowing people to do what they want (within reason, i.e. as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) but still being free to voice your disagreement provided it does not infringe on the rights of the other person.

Tolerant: I disagree with you being gay and fear for your salvation let's have a rational discourse over it.

Intolerant: I disagree with you being gay and want to make it illegal to engage in same sex acts, and block all positive depictions of gays and lesbians in the media.

Tolerant: I'm your mother/father and disagree with you wanting to marry somone of a different race, I'll voice my opinion on that.

Intolerant: I'm your mother/father and disagree with you wanting to marry someone of a different race. Until you change your mind, you are out of the will and all contact will be cut off from your family.

Another example, I tolerate christian fundamentalists. I totally disagree with their views and feel that those views are harmful, and am not too shy about arguing with them over it. But I respect their right to hold that position and out of love for them, I would never try to have their opinion forcefully stamped out or silenced. Again, provided that their means of expressing that opinion does not hurt other people - there can be some grey areas here.

I think that love implies tolerance and respect, but is not equivalent.

 

[jayem]

He said, if someone is seriously sinning we should speak up to warn them out of love and concern. What do you think of such reasoning?

Anyone has a right to express their opinion. Ideally in a non-antagonistic way.

But what you consider "seriously sinning" might not be the same as someone else thinks. So be prepared if someone else tells you to flip off and mind your own business.

 

[knightlight72]

I have to say I agree that love does not equate to letting people do what they want. Why would you let someone hurt themselves. A good example of this is your child wants to do some kind of illegal drug that has a harmful effect to their body in some fashion. (Doesn't matter if it's mental or physical). The overwhelming majority of parents love their child, and do not want them to be hurt, or injured. It's going to happen, and mistakes are a part of growing up. But loving them does not mean letting them make every mistake, or to encourage them to make mistakes.

Love does not equal allowing them to harm themselves. Why would you want them to harm themselves? Just as a parent stops their children from doing things that are harmful, so does God want us to stop doing things that are harmful.

 

[Spherical Time]

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise that just because someone is a Christian, they know what is best for me.

 

[JGG]

I have to say I agree that love does not equate to letting people do what they want. Why would you let someone hurt themselves. A good example of this is your child wants to do some kind of illegal drug that has a harmful effect to their body in some fashion. (Doesn't matter if it's mental or physical). The overwhelming majority of parents love their child, and do not want them to be hurt, or injured. It's going to happen, and mistakes are a part of growing up. But loving them does not mean letting them make every mistake, or to encourage them to make mistakes.

Love does not equal allowing them to harm themselves. Why would you want them to harm themselves? Just as a parent stops their children from doing things that are harmful, so does God want us to stop doing things that are harmful.

This is perhaps true, but you're ignoring something. These are your children you are talking about, of whom you have legal authority, and responsibility over.

Let's look at it this way...let's say I tell my 15 year old son that he has a curfew of 10:30pm, and must be home by this time because I don't want him getting hurt, in the big bad city out there, late at night. Fine.

Mary-Lou Who's parents have set up a curfew of 11:30pm for their child. I don't particularly want to see Mary-Lou Who get hurt either. Are you suggesting I tell Mary-Lou that she has to be home by 10:30pm as well?

What about Bobby Brown further down the street who is 19. I don't want to see him get hurt either, should I set up curfews for him as well?

 

[MethodMan]

I don't think tolerance means letting people do whatever they want and being quiet about it if you disagree. It would be more like allowing people to do what they want (within reason, i.e. as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) but still being free to voice your disagreement provided it does not infringe on the rights of the other person.

That is called indifference.

Tolerant: I disagree with you being gay and fear for your salvation let's have a rational discourse over it.

Agree

Intolerant: I disagree with you being gay and want to make it illegal to engage in same sex acts, and block all positive depictions of gays and lesbians in the media.

One could easily add, "I demand special dispenstion of the law and be allowed to flant my sexuality for all to see and demand to be deemed acceptable."

Another example, I tolerate christian fundamentalists. I totally disagree with their views and feel that those views are harmful, and am not too shy about arguing with them over it. But I respect their right to hold that position and out of love for them, I would never try to have their opinion forcefully stamped out or silenced. Again, provided that their means of expressing that opinion does not hurt other people - there can be some grey areas here.

I think that love implies tolerance and respect, but is not equivalent.

To the Christian, it should be as written,"
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." Our tolerance for evil should be zero. It would be blantantly hypocritical to say we respect a person that puts forth evil as good.

 

[Spherical Time]

One could easily add, "I demand special dispenstion of the law and be allowed to flant my sexuality for all to see and demand to be deemed acceptable.

I know, isn't it horrible how Christians make those kinds of demands? It's selfish to think that it's okay for them but not for others.

 

[knightlight72]

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise that just because someone is a Christian, they know what is best for me.

The premise isn't about what is right, but what is love. Is love willing to accept anything someone does? Or is love about protecting them. Certainly we can disagree about about a christian knowing what you need, but that's not what was being asked.

For example, I think you would agree that love does not equate to allowing anything as well. You feel it is helpful to point out something you feel is harmful.

 

[mpshiel]

I think the parable of the man who was forgiven a great debt answers this - which is that so as God is tolerant of us even in our acts against him, so we should be tolerant of others.

Or if you don't like that one, how about in Rom 1 where God specifically tell individual christians to Judge THEMSEVES not others because those people are on an individual journey with God.

People who are intolerant, of say, same sex couples (since it is already alive and kicking in judgement on this thread) kind of remind me of an evil Mother Teresa who slaps babies into unconsciousness when they cry becuase they are "bad" babies. If a person really believes gay relationships to be hurtful and the person harming themselves - does it really reflect God to act like a bully?

Did you know that Jesus, in his ENTIRE ministry on earth did not met ONE person who wasn't a sinner - and yet he managed to act with kindness and civility (with exception to those who felt the need to lord over others thier need to judge thier actions) - why don't we try and copy that.

 

[knightlight72]

This is perhaps true, but you're ignoring something. These are your children you are talking about, of whom you have legal authority, and responsibility over.

Let's look at it this way...let's say I tell my 15 year old son that he has a curfew of 10:30pm, and must be home by this time because I don't want him getting hurt, in the big bad city out there, late at night. Fine.

Mary-Lou Who's parents have set up a curfew of 11:30pm for their child. I don't particularly want to see Mary-Lou Who get hurt either. Are you suggesting I tell Mary-Lou that she has to be home by 10:30pm as well?

What about Bobby Brown further down the street who is 19. I don't want to see him get hurt either, should I set up curfews for him as well?

First, you have to remember the issue isn't about giving a curfue to anybody. It's about loving them. Do you feel it's important to let people do whatever they want? That you should just let them hurt themselves, and say nothing? Why can't you step forward, and bring up the problem?

At work, you'd have no problem telling a co worker it's wrong to steal from the company. You're equating God's word as a curfew. However, instead of trying to point out an angle on my analogy, try and refernce this from God's word. As a christian yourself, do you feel it important or not important to share the word? If you feel the word of God is important to share, just as the word says, then there is nothing wrong in sharing something that will help that person.

 

[outlaw]

I know, isn't it horrible how Christians make those kinds of demands? It's selfish to think that it's okay for them but not for others.

Agreed…no one, not even Christians have the special right to discriminate

 

[Spherical Time]

The premise isn't about what is right, but what is love. Is love willing to accept anything someone does? Or is love about protecting them. Certainly we can disagree about about a christian knowing what you need, but that's not what was being asked.

Unfortunately, it's integral to the question. You might say that being gay is hurtful to me, I say that lying and suppressing my sexual orientation is hurtful. When I say that Christians don't know what I need, it's a valid criticism because in order to "love" someone the way that you suggest, you actually have to know what is hurtful and what is helpful.

For example, I think you would agree that love does not equate to allowing anything as well. You feel it is helpful to point out something you feel is harmful.

Allowing anything? Maybe not. But I can almost completely guarentee that what I consider sinful and evil is different than what you consider sinful and evil. Specifically, I think that if you try to stop me from being who I am, then you are evil.

First, you have to remember the issue isn't about giving a curfue to anybody. It's about loving them. Do you feel it's important to let people do whatever they want? That you should just let them hurt themselves, and say nothing? Why can't you step forward, and bring up the problem?

Once again, what if you're wrong? What if, and bear with me here, by stepping forward and telling someone that they're doing something wrong when they're not hurts them. I disagree with you when you say that sharing can't hurt. Yes, sharing can hurt someone.

Further, people are different. Even if something is right for you, that doesn't mean that it is still right for someone else. And, even if something is wrong for you, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for me.

After all, I never just assume that being gay is right for everyone. I know that it's not, just as being straight is not right for me.

 

[knightlight72]

Unfortunately, it's integral to the question. You might say that being gay is hurtful to me, I say that lying and suppressing my sexual orientation is hurtful. When I say that Christians don't know what I need, it's a valid criticism because in order to "love" someone the way that you suggest, you actually have to know what is hurtful and what is helpful.

How does that matter what love is?

Allowing anything? Maybe not. But I can almost completely guarentee that what I consider sinful and evil is different than what you consider sinful and evil. Specifically, I think that if you try to stop me from being who I am, then you are evil.

So are you trying to stop me from being who I am? And yet what we consider sin is different.

Once again, what if you're wrong? What if, and bear with me here, by stepping forward and telling someone that they're doing something wrong when they're not hurts them. I disagree with you when you say that sharing can't hurt. Yes, sharing can hurt someone.

Further, people are different. Even if something is right for you, that doesn't mean that it is still right for someone else. And, even if something is wrong for you, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for me.

After all, I never just assume that being gay is right for everyone. I know that it's not, just as being straight is not right for me.

Isn't the point about love. If something is done out of love, then really, what are you going to tell someone, 'please hate me.'?

Something done out of love is really a good thing. It's the best you can do. (What can be done better? Letting people do what they want even if it is harmful is the alternative, remember?)

To prove my point, you spoke up didn't you? You didn't do it out of hate, but rather of a want to help. I understand that, and might disagree with you. But i don't feel that you dislike me, or have any hate for me because we disagree. You're doing something out of a want to help.


I think you speaking up actually strengthens my point. If you love someone, you don't let them try and hurt others.

 

[Spherical Time]

How does that matter what love is?

. . . uh . . . It matters a lot. If you're determined to help someone, is telling them the wrong thing going to help them? Is physically restraining someone helping them? Is making something illegal that isn't a sin helping people that do it?

You're claiming that approaching someone is always the right thing to do . . . but you also don't seem to accept that sometimes what you say is wrong. Are you perfect in your knowledge of what is wrong for me? To paraphrase CaDan: "Are you my God?"

So are you trying to stop me from being who I am? And yet what we consider sin is different.

Uh . . . no, you misunderstand my intension. I've debated here before, and I doubt that I can change your mind. It isn't out of "love" for you that I debate this point with you.

Isn't the point about love. If something is done out of love, then really, what are you going to tell someone, 'please hate me.'?

Something done out of love is really a good thing. It's the best you can do. (What can be done better? Letting people do what they want even if it is harmful is the alternative, remember?)

To prove my point, you spoke up didn't you? You didn't do it out of hate, but rather of a want to help. I understand that, and might disagree with you. But i don't feel that you dislike me, or have any hate for me because we disagree. You're doing something out of a want to help.

Uh . . . if anything, I would characterize my speaking up as a gesture to combat what I see as a hateful approach to other people. Then again, I don't honestly think that we're really talking about the same thing either. I think that we have different definitions of "love" because I wouldn't claim to love you.

I think you speaking up actually strengthens my point. If you love someone, you don't let them try and hurt others.

I wouldn't necessarily characterize that as love.

 

[knightlight72]

Actually, regardless of your love or indifference, you take the time to speak up. That is exactly what should be done if you feel something is wrong. Why is this any different or less true if someone is a christian? You do what you can. You're doing it out a sense to help. While I feel you are wrong, I know you do it because you want to help others.

You state you don't do this to change me, and I am assuming you don't take the time here because you like to hear your own voice. If you hate someone, you would let them suffer.

I stated earlier, if you love someone, you don't sit by and just let them harmselves. To be clear, if you felt otherwise, you woud have just kept on reading, and then ignore the responses as posting anything would not have been important to you if you didn't want to help someone reading this.

Trying to help is often the best you can do. You certainly cannot "make" someone change, (neither can I, this isn't about me as somehow magical and can change people)

 

[JGG]

Do you feel it's important to let people do whatever they want?

In a society where we are supposed to be free...yes, so long as it doesn't interfere with the autonomy of others. I can have an opinion on what others do, but I can't do anything about it, and I can't force my opinion on them unless they ask for it.

That you should just let them hurt themselves, and say nothing? Why can't you step forward, and bring up the problem?

Firstly, because I don't think they're hurting themselves any more than I'm hurting myself in an average day. Gays know that you think they're sinners, if they're Christian they probably know they're sinners. But, I know I'm a sinner, and I don't need people to point it out to me on a daily basis.

Secondly, we're also dealing with tolerance. Do you tolerate other types of sin? Tomorrow (Friday), go into a Wendy's or a McDonald's, and make sure you tell each person eating a burger that they're sinners. On Saturday, go to the Gap, and tell each person you see who tries on a clothing of mixed fabrics that they're sinners. Then on Sunday, go any place you'd like, where people are working on the Sabbath, and tell them they're sinners. Make sure that at any given time, if you see anyone who is divorced that you tell them that they're a sinner.

We tolerate all of these other sinners, but we don't tolerate gays. Why do you suppose that is?

At work, you'd have no problem telling a co worker it's wrong to steal from the company. You're equating God's word as a curfew. However, instead of trying to point out an angle on my analogy, try and refernce this from God's word. As a christian yourself, do you feel it important or not important to share the word? If you feel the word of God is important to share, just as the word says, then there is nothing wrong in sharing something that will help that person.

I disagree. Everyone has a different belief. I have never had a Jew tell me I'm a sinner for eating pork. I have never had a Hindu give me a speech on how I will never find Nirvana because I ate beef. I have never had a Muslim tell me I'm a sinner for not praying at the appropriate time. So, why should I run around pointing out anybody else's sins? Its very literally not for me to judge anyone else.

At the same time, no Christian takes the time to point out all of my sins to me, but I assure you that I'm a sinner. Why such a selective group to choose to preach to?

Besides, do you think homosexuals haven't picked up on how Christians think they are sinning by now? I choose to accept them no matter what they decide to do. That's tolerance.