tolerance - how much is *right*?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

There seems to be lots of talk about *tolerance* in politics, in relationships, in religions, etc., on TV, in editorials, even in forums.

My question is, just how much tolerance is *right*? Is tolerance always the best thing to do? Do we tolerate to the nth degree on everything? Is tolerance a godly trait?

It seems to me that at some point (not sure where, though) that tolerance turns into impassivity - that events or behavior that should rightly invoke indignation and confrontation, or, at least *concern* in us end up being blown off with a *que sera sera* platitude, or *we must not let anyone's behavior, words, or actions bother us* attitude.

Is that really true? Must we as Christians ALWAYS endeavor to be tolerant?? []http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/Rudywoofs/icon_confused.gif[/]

[Dr. Shane]

I believe that tolerance most certainly is a godly trait. Love and tolerance seem to go hand and hand.

That said, God's tolerance does have a limit. Lucifer was cast out of heaven. The pre-duluvian world was destroyed. The Earth will one day be clensed with fire.

When we should be tolerant and not tolerant ought never be based on selfishness. Parents do not tolerate certain behavior from their children so the child's charachter will be molded into that which will be beneficial for both child and society. It isn't about what is best for the parents, it is about what is best for the child and society.

[Naomi]

Good question.

I do believe we should be tolerant of others and their opinions, life-style, race, etc.

however, being tolerant does not mean we should allow ourselves to be push-overs in our personal or professional life, taken advantage of due to our Christian behavior.

What good can be accomplished by being tolerant of allowing others to abuse us whether it be verbally, physically or financially?

Even when we are "standing up" for ourselves/rights we can do it in a firm, straight-forward manner. Often more is accomplished without the harsh words, drama, etc.

"So what about "turn the other cheek?" If I went to church and the same person was always standing by the front door, and one Sabbath, for no apparent reason, this person hit me. I'm pretty sure that I would not return the hit ... but, I can promise you that the next time I went to church, if that person was standing by the front door, I would go in through another door.

[there buster]

Tolerance is not a virtue.

Tolerance is the flab that sticks to our character when we cease to exercise our moral fiber.

Tolerance is a passive response to a negative stimulus. In medicine, it is the ability of the body to withstand a toxin. In engineering, it is the amount of allowable error. In human relations, it is overlooking the disagreeable.

Think about it. No one "tolerates" delicious food, or beautiful scenery, or delightful people. We tolerate things which are disagreeable, even dangerous.

Tolerance is the moral substitute for respect. Where tolerance is passive, respect is active. Where tolerance puts up with other's beliefs, respect esteems those who hold the beliefs.

Tolerance says, "OK, you want to drink yourself into oblivion, well, 'your body, your choice.'" Respect says, "God gave you a brain, and talents. You're destroying them with alcohol."

Tolerance says, "We can look past skin color, ethnicity, etc." Respect says, "We can celebrate God's variety."

Tolerance devolves into "All beliefs are equal." Respect says, "All believers are equal and due respect, but some beliefs are true, and some are false, and some are niether."

Tolerance says, "If, for example, if Muslims believe in honor killings, that's their culture, that's the way they are, and we have to accept that."

Respect says, "Honor killings are wrong, and Muslims are capable of learning that, but whether they learn it or not, we will not tolerate such things."

[Gail]

I respectfully disagree.

Tolerance gives room for the other person to grow. It also gives us allowance for times when we might not have all the information needed to make a right judgment

The church of the Middle Ages was intolerant. They were wrong and scary

I do believe, though, that there is (or should be) a limit to tolerance

[there buster]

So you would rather receive tolerance than respect?

[Gail]

No, but I do think that there is a time and place for tolerance.

It is not the ideal but I would rather have tolerance than intolerance. To me I see intolerance as the bully with the large stick that rules by fear

Ideally it should be as you have stated, with respect. If we are all equals it works. But people do run to conclusions before they should, they are dogmatic, they are immature, etc even in the church and family (where they shouldn't be) and fail us.

That is why I said that sometimes we need to give them (and us) space to grow.

But, as I've stated, I do believe there is a limit

[there buster]

Well, as I said, tolerance is a passive response to a negative stimulus.

So we agree that not acting on a negative impulse is often--though not always--better than acting on that negative impulse.

But tolerance is not a virtue, but rather the lesser of two evils.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ideally it should be as you have stated, with respect. If we are all equals it works.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It's precisely when we're not equals that respect is most necessary, and tolerance is most disrespectful. Tolerance does tremendous damage to the disadvantaged, and is used to excuse inaction on the part of the advantaged.

I understand that I'm opposing THE sacred cow of contemporary society, and that most will find my opposition both incomprehensible and, well, intolerant. That's OK. The spirit of the age is almost always wrong.

But, I've had my say, and will resort to tolerance for the rest of the discussion, that is, I'll disagree silently.

But I'll respect you all enough to say that the discussion will be unable to be resolved, since tolerance knows no bounds, there will never be "enough" until there's too much.

Pam put her finger on the basic problem in the original question.

[Gail]

I know that when I have been wrong, I appreciated when others are tolerant of me. It gave me space to breathe and a desire to try again.

And I agree, that it is a sacrifice to the person doing the tolerating. But sometimes time is needed before enough becomes clear to get to the solution.

God must tolerate a LOT with us humans- but there does come a time and ultimately there WILL come a time when that point has passed

[Clio]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

Tolerance is not a virtue.

Tolerance is the flab that sticks to our character when we cease to exercise our moral fiber.

Tolerance is a passive response to a negative stimulus. In medicine, it is the ability of the body to withstand a toxin. In engineering, it is the amount of allowable error. In human relations, it is overlooking the disagreeable.

Think about it. No one "tolerates" delicious food, or beautiful scenery, or delightful people. We tolerate things which are disagreeable, even dangerous.

Tolerance is the moral substitute for respect. Where tolerance is passive, respect is active. Where tolerance puts up with other's beliefs, respect esteems those who hold the beliefs.

Tolerance says, "OK, you want to drink yourself into oblivion, well, 'your body, your choice.'" Respect says, "God gave you a brain, and talents. You're destroying them with alcohol."

Tolerance says, "We can look past skin color, ethnicity, etc." Respect says, "We can celebrate God's variety."

Tolerance devolves into "All beliefs are equal." Respect says, "All believers are equal and due respect, but some beliefs are true, and some are false, and some are niether."

Tolerance says, "If, for example, if Muslims believe in honor killings, that's their culture, that's the way they are, and we have to accept that."

Respect says, "Honor killings are wrong, and Muslims are capable of learning that, but whether they learn it or not, we will not tolerate such things."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You have clearly defined when tolerance is too much Ed.

But I believe that there is also a time and place for tolerance.

A new believer is struggling to the cross, studying through various concepts in the NT, beginning to make changes in their life through the power of the Holy Spirit. But they are not anywhere close to the SDA "norm" or even the Christian "norm". Still, they are earnestly seeking, fully embracing and internalizing every truth they learn.

I respect them, I love them, I encourage them. I also allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives, one change at a time. In the meantime, I don't castigate, rebuke, or exhort on those areas that are not salvation issues with which they still struggle. I tolerate some things I believe to be wrong without excusing or condoning, but I don't judge them or the state of their relationship with Abba.

I have found to my intense relief that the Holy Spirit tends to work on one area at a time with me. Then He graciously allows a period of rest, refreshing, and encouragement. Who am I to demand more of others?

I encourage them, I remain their friend. I pray for them and with them. It's part of meeting them where they are in order to befriend them, and to encourage, uplift, and minister to all in every way possible in order that some may be saved.

[Nicodema]

Tolerance is usually only defined as something negative by those who have none.

Being tolerant of others does not mean you have to agree with them on everything. It just means you allow them room to exist as they are without seeking to impose your will or preferences upon them.

[Clio]

Yes indeed Nico. Very succinct and put well.

[olger]

Edward...Edward...

You surprise me...in...a...tolerant sort of way... and I respect that <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I would like to sit down and chat with you. This format will have to do in the meantime.

On the TJTA test, tolerance is the opposite of hostility. That puts it in a more desirable setting. I do think that there is a positive place for tolerance. I must sign off, but this is a good discussion.

all the best,

olger

[Morning Glory]

Ed,

I had never thought of tolerance in those terms. I had defined it for myself more along the lines of what Gail, Clio, and Nico posted.

Thank you for making me think, ya all.

Morning Glory

[gina i]

All of you have some very good points.

[Tom Wetmore]

Spot on, Nico!! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> I agree!

The problem as I see it is that the arguments against tolerance tend to be built around a variety of false premises, definitions and straw men examples for the word that bear little resemblance to its actual meaning. Invariably the drift is toward arguing for the opposite of tolerance, i.e., intolerance. A couple moments with the dictionary and thesaurus would be helpful. One would suspect that if "tolerance is not a virtue" then it is to be avoided as lacking value or virtue. In most instances if something is not a virtue its opposite is most likely a virtue. The logical opposite of tolerance is intolerance and highlighting th opposite really unmasks the error. The dictionary definition of intolerant is "1 : unable or unwilling to endure

2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED." One is hard pressed to find virtue in any of that. But even more revealing is the thesaurus entry:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Entry Word: intolerant

Function: adjective

Text: 1) unable or unwilling to endure <intolerant of pain>

Synonyms - impatient

Related Words - uncompromising, unforgiving, unyielding; complaining, fussing, griping, grumbling, protesting, squawking, whining

Near Antonyms - accepting, forgiving, long-suffering, resigned, uncomplaining, willing; indulgent

Antonyms - abiding, enduring, forbearing, patient, tolerant

2) unwilling to grant other people social rights or to accept other viewpoints <intolerant people supported racism>

Synonyms - bigoted, narrow, narrow-minded, prejudiced, small-minded

Related Words - conservative, hidebound, old-fashioned, reactionary; insular, parochial, provincial; biased, one-sided, partial, partisan

Near Antonyms - extreme, progressive, radical; impartial, objective, unbiased

Antonyms - broad-minded, liberal, open-minded, tolerant, unprejudiced

(Source: Merriam-Webster Online)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Really now, true tolerance is a virtue and related to a bunch of other like-minded virtues. It is also not necessarily passive, and respect really is part of the tolerance equation.

Tom

[there buster]

Post deleted by Ed Dickerson

[Nicodema]

Post deleted by Nicodema

[LifeHiscost]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gail said:

God must tolerate a LOT with us humans- but there does come a time and ultimately there WILL come a time when that point has passed

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[:"red"] "Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"

Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." [/] Matt 18:21,22 NASB

I've always accepted Jesus' counsel as a figure of so far a distance of circumstances, that when 490 occurred, it would be beyond most men to remember how far along they were to the end of tolerating. However I've since learned there are some who will keep that meticulous a record. I'm supposing that for those who do finally reach that place where they no longer need to tolerate, their character will be set, and but for the grace of God, they will end up where that type of character will end up.

[:"red"] "And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.

He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still.

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is." [/]

Rev 22:10-12 ASV

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />

[olger]

The Bible speaks of "forbearing." It means to overleap the sins/faults of others even as Christ has done for us.

Following Christ means that we must be willing to confront others according to Matthew 18. That works! We have tried it and were both reconciled each time.

olger

[LifeHiscost]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

olger said:

Following Christ means that we must be willing to confront others according to Matthew 18. That works! We have tried it and were both reconciled each time. olger

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

With willingness, I find no fault. The imperative may be your salvation. I do not see it as a universal need. Some are more comfortable in not making an issue of it. Many have fought devastating wars, with much collateral damage as a direct result of confrontation they were unwilling to drop, in order to prove the "rightness" of their position.

[:"red"] "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back." [/] Luke 6:30 NASB

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />