Tolerating intolerance

[bricklayer]

Intolerance of the sins of others is often tolerated in oneself.

 

[BurningKnight]

Can you explain this a bit more? It's got me scratching my head!

 

[juvenissun]

Intolerance of the sins of others

For example, I can not tolerate homosexual. The intolerance is 100%.

is often tolerated in oneself

.

But I am not going to kill a homosexual. This tolerance is also 100%.

So I don't think what you said is necessary an inconsistency.

 

[xxxxxxtra]

I understand what you are trying to say.. I just don't understand your reasoning behind saying it..
What i am thinking is that you are saying that us christians tend to not tolerate sin, such as sexual immorality for example. Then we ourselves do such things.. If i am correct. Then there are explanations for this behavior.. One being that christians do hate theses sins.. But we also are in a fallen state and also enslaved to our own carnal desires.. The good news is that as we grow in the Lord, we become less and less ourself, and continually more Christ like.. This being the workings of the Holy Spirit in us..

 

[bricklayer]

Christians have no excuse to pass judgment on someone else.
At whatever point we judge another, we are condemning ourselves because we do the same things. (Rom2:1)

For example:
Heterosexual Christians who condemn homosexuals before heterosexual fornicators.

"Those who cast the first stone"

Those with "boards in their eye"

Those who are more intolerant of other people's sins than they are of their own.

I am guilty of doing this. I repent.

Sometime I'd prefer an AA meeting over a bible study just to get away from the finger pointing.

 

[Lilly Owl]

Revelation 13:1-18

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?” And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. ...

In order to tolerate someone's actions you have to disagree with their actions, while compromising your personal ethics and morals and allowing their behavior that you disagree with.

I'd hope no Christian would assault someone they are not tolerant of in their behaviors, immorality, sin.
I'd hope they'd love them as fellow souls and hope to save them from their damnation as they commit to behavior that need be tolerated.

I think the mistake many Christians argue is when they're not honest in their faith. And they accept the notion they must be tolerant of the most immoral of acts, in order to be 'nice' and appear to be Christ like in the process of bearing the name Christian.

But Jesus wasn't tolerant of immorality and sin. If he as he wouldn't have come to save the world from it.
Nor is God tolerant of immorality and sin. If he was Hell wouldn't exist as a place wherein the unrepentant sinners who were tolerated in spite of their damnation reside.

Christianity isn't nice!
It's a doctrine that teaches hellfire and brimstone await those who don't change their evil ways.
Hebrews 10:26-28



For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Christianity wasn't founded to tolerate evil! It was founded to vanquish sin.

1 John 3:4-8 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

 

[bricklayer]

In order to tolerate someone's actions you have to disagree with their actions, while compromising your personal ethics and morals and allowing their behavior that you disagree with.

I'd hope no Christian would assault someone they are not tolerant of in their behaviors, immorality, sin.
I'd hope they'd love them as fellow souls and hope to save them from their damnation as they commit to behavior that need be tolerated.

I think the mistake many Christians argue is when they're not honest in their faith. And they accept the notion they must be tolerant of the most immoral of acts, in order to be 'nice' and appear to be Christ like in the process of bearing the name Christian.

But Jesus wasn't tolerant of immorality and sin. If he as he wouldn't have come to save the world from it.
Nor is God tolerant of immorality and sin. If he was Hell wouldn't exist as a place wherein the unrepentant sinners who were tolerated in spite of their damnation reside.

Christianity isn't nice!
It's a doctrine that teaches hellfire and brimstone await those who don't change their evil ways.
Hebrews 10:26-28



For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Christianity wasn't founded to tolerate evil! It was founded to vanquish sin.

Exactly. Tolerance of others implies disagreement. Intolerance of others implies a lack of gratitude.
Intolerance of the sins of others is a sin often tolerated in ourselves.

 

[seeingeyes]

Sometime I'd prefer an AA meeting over a bible study just to get away from the finger pointing.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. You are not alone in this determination, not by a long shot.

Christ didn't come to bring condemnation, but folks bearing his name quite often do.

 

[juvenissun]

Christians have no excuse to pass judgment on someone else.
At whatever point we judge another, we are condemning ourselves because we do the same things. (Rom2:1)

For example:
Heterosexual Christians who condemn homosexuals before heterosexual fornicators.

Sometimes yes, but sometimes not. I think your OP is deeper than your explanation.

I do not tolerate homosexual (100%), but I will never be homosexual myself (not guilty at all on that).
The key problem is "how do I treat myself on my intolerance to that"?
Then, there are various degrees of tolerance on that intolerance. I might become an anti-gay activist. I might not.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I hate being tolerated. Tolerance implies patiently putting up with something until it ended, gave up, or ceased to be. It is placing oneself above the area/thing of annoyance and just soldiering on despite the discomfort. It puts one in a superior position than that of the thing being tolerated, and in my opinion is unChristian. The feeling of superiority I had when I "tolerated" people is not a feeling I want others to have towards me.

Just had to get that out of the way before I gave my .02.

I think in our culture there is a general mix up of tolerance, acceptance and condoning. Tolerance like I said before, places us on a higher moral ground than those around us.

Acceptance is too often confused with condoning, that is being in favor of a particular behavior. Condoning is looking at behavior (good or bad) and saying "I approve of what you're doing right now" The Bible says we don't have to condone the bad behavior of others. In fact it says we're to decry it.

Acceptance is reaching beyond the behavior and saying "I accept the fact you have this weakness, and I accept the fact I have my own weakness so let's work on this together"

It's saying that the behavior does not make the person, and it acknowledges that we are so much more than just the mistakes we make. It allows for human error, but keeps us from placing ourselve above another person, or from condoning behavior we see as bad.

 

[bricklayer]

I hate being tolerated. Tolerance implies patiently putting up with something until it ended, gave up, or ceased to be. It is placing oneself above the area/thing of annoyance and just soldiering on despite the discomfort. It puts one in a superior position than that of the thing being tolerated, and in my opinion is unChristian. The feeling of superiority I had when I "tolerated" people is not a feeling I want others to have towards me.

Just had to get that out of the way before I gave my .02.

I think in our culture there is a general mix up of tolerance, acceptance and condoning. Tolerance like I said before, places us on a higher moral ground than those around us.

Acceptance is too often confused with condoning, that is being in favor of a particular behavior. Condoning is looking at behavior (good or bad) and saying "I approve of what you're doing right now" The Bible says we don't have to condone the bad behavior of others. In fact it says we're to decry it.

Acceptance is reaching beyond the behavior and saying "I accept the fact you have this weakness, and I accept the fact I have my own weakness so let's work on this together"

It's saying that the behavior does not make the person, and it acknowledges that we are so much more than just the mistakes we make. It allows for human error, but keeps us from placing ourselve above another person, or from condoning behavior we see as bad.

Tolerance is acceptance of what one does not condone.

 

[jasonsloss]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. You are not alone in this determination, not by a long shot.

Christ didn't come to bring condemnation, but folks bearing his name quite often do.

correction yes Christ did bring condemnation read John 3:15-19...

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved .18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Tolerance is acceptance of what one does not condone.

In my opinion tolerance is akin to putting up with something bad, but with the underlying hope things will change.

Acceptance is looking at the bad thing, saying "Okay that's a bad thing, but here's how the situation can be good" and coming to the realization things May not change, and being okay with it.

For example I have an anxious personality. I am currently seeking therapy with the full knowledge I may always have the tendency to have anxious feelings and thoughts. This doesn't mean I don't seek help or live with the consequences of having needless anxiety attacks over my relationship and career (both of which are stable). To sit back and allow whatever happens to me happen is tolerance (IMO). It means I can't find away to fix the issue so I'll live with it instead, even though I'm miserable.

Acceptance means that I've come to realize I have issues that I need to work on, and by the grace of God I'll be healed, or I won't. Either way, it's in God's hands, and for whatever purpose it will all be okay. THAT is acceptance of self.

Now to turn that externally, acceptance of others means you may not condone their behavior, but because you realize God is working on them individually, you let it be. You accept the fact they are behaving in a way you disagree with and either continue in love to lead the way as a light, or you dust your feet and continue on your way without any judgemental thoughts actions or behaviors.

The Father in the Prodigal Son is a good example of acceptance. He didn't chase after his son, he didn't begrudgingly give up his fortune for the kid. He allowed his son to do what he was going to do, and when the kid messed up and came back home, the father was ready for him, with open arms. I think THAT is the mentality we must have when dealing with others. Allow God, and life to bring them back. Live as you can, as an example, but ultimately leave the punishment (and the healing restoration of the heart) to God.

 

[Harry3142]

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (I Corinthians 5:9-13a,NIV)

We Christians have a code of conduct which we are to adhere to. Those who call themselves nonbelievers are not to be measured against this code, but rather are to be left for God himself to judge as he sees fit. However, if a person claims to be a fellow Christian, only to conspire to convince others that we are to abandon the code of conduct which applies specifically to us and instead adopt whatever he claims to be moral behavior, that person is to be shunned.

Our code of conduct is stated clearly in Scripture, so there is no excuse for anyone's claiming that it is vague enough so that he can either insert his own moral code into it, or even reject it altogether in favor of whatever moral code he favors:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

We all 'fall down' as we journey through life. None of us is perfect in-and-of himself. We get up after the fall, dust ourselves off, and continue through life. We don't use our own weakness as a reason to reject the code of conduct found in Scripture. Instead, we recognize our own weakness for what it is and resolve to do better in the future, while continuing to accept the Christan's moral code as appropriate for us to adhere to.

Those who do reject that moral code we must reject as conspiring to undermine Christian morality in order to replace it with their own immorality. We need to take the old saying to heart: "Just because a mouse lives in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie." For someone to claim to be a Christian while insisting that the basic tenets of proper Christian behavior are to be abandoned in favor of his own desires is for that person to align himself with those who would have us turn our backs on Christian morality, and instead accept their desires and motivations as our 'new morality'. Those people we must shun.

 

[pshun2404]

We are all sinners in need of grace (period). Christ died for them all but all will not receive Him. We can and should preach the condemnation of sin even applying this rule to ourselves and thanking God for His grace through Christ.

Paul

 

[jasonsloss]

We are all sinners in need of grace (period). Christ died for them all but all will not receive Him. We can and should preach the condemnation of sin even applying this rule to ourselves and thanking God for His grace through Christ.

Paul

amen...

 

[ArtherEld]

Tolerance is the least you can do. It's the simplest requested method. It is not acceptance. You're not being asked to make new friends. It's not a stinkin marriage proposal.

If you are against tolerance, what is the method of your pursuit of INtolerance? Open commentary on your interpretation of the Scriptures is still within the bounds of tolerance, you can voice opinion about certain acts as they relate to "sin". Anything beyond that exists in the land of Unethics (hate crimes), or at least flirts with it (political campaigning).

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm.

It's a good OP. As a liberal atheist, my motto was: tolerate all but the intolerant. On the grounds of justice, you see.

Now I've become a liberal Christian, I am inclined to tolerate even the intolerant. I don't need to agree with them. I don't need to like them. But I am called to love them. And that entails tolerating them, in the hope that they will eventually become as enlightened as I am!

If that's condescending, then tough. It's how I am, right now.

Cheers, 2RM.

 

[Joykins]

Tolerance is like manners. It isn't a moral or ethical thing. It's a social lubricant that allows you to interact in a positive manner with people who aren't a lot like you.

 

[DPMartin]

Christians have no excuse to pass judgment on someone else.
At whatever point we judge another, we are condemning ourselves because we do the same things. (Rom2:1)

For example:
Heterosexual Christians who condemn homosexuals before heterosexual fornicators.

"Those who cast the first stone"

Those with "boards in their eye"

Those who are more intolerant of other people's sins than they are of their own.

I am guilty of doing this. I repent.

Sometime I'd prefer an AA meeting over a bible study just to get away from the finger pointing.

I can relate to the preference of company kept, but I do believe its more a disregard for sin, then tolerance. One might say disregard the sin, not the sinner. Case in point would be Jesus Himself disregarded the sin, but not the sinner.

Some people don’t understand how God hates a thing, He disregards it, as in, will not hear it, will not hear its out cry for Mercy. He really don’t have to do anything to it, just leave it to its own choices.

You are right about those who have more regard for sin and its power of death then the power of God who forgave it. What seems to be disregarded amongst those who seek to point out sins of others, like it’s a dutiful calling or something, is, if you are a Child of God, then God the Father sees you through His Beloved Son in whom He is well pleased, and disregards the rest.

Hence the Life of Christ given to those who believe, and those who dutifully point out sin after sin of others saying its for the benefit of the accused is full of it, when it’s the goodness of God that causes repentance, not the accusations of fellow sinners.

If you look at the sins of the accused, you might not notice the sins of the accuser, seems to be the real motive.