Tolerance

[Matthjar]

The evolution of modern thought seems to be synthesized in the following statement... " Tolerance is this most important virtue; therefore, any dissenting opinion will NOT be allowed."

Would you agree or not agree??

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

[Rose]

The evolution of modern thought seems to be synthesized in the following statement... " Tolerance is this most important virtue; therefore, any dissenting opinion will NOT be allowed."

Would you agree or not agree??

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

Basically what the statement is saying is that INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

A simple agree or disagree cannot be given, because one must first know what it is being applied to ... for example: murder should never be tolerated!

[Matthjar]

Good Catch ROSE!!!! Definitely it matters what it applies too...... ;-)

The thought not only says "Intolerance will not be Tolerated" and at the same time "Toleration can only be achieved in Intolerance." It is an fallacy. It is much better to state things either as "Right" or "Wrong". The language of "Tolerance" and "Intolerance" is really just a vehicle for One to Impose their Morality on another. How else can we explain that we should "Tolerate Intolerance" or "Intolerate Tolernace"?

Mostly I am speaking of this in respect to Free Speech, and definitely NOT in respect to Free Action. It is fairly obvious that we should not "Tolerate" Actions that we judge to be "Wrong, Evil, Unhealthy." This is not debated. The Modern Language of Intolerance however does not pertain to Actions as much as it does to Speech. Even if we perceive that another persons Speech promotes (in our perception) something Wrong, Evil, Unhealthy they should not be silenced or denied their Voice.

If another person is engaging in Speech that we perceive to be such then we have two realistic choices..... choose not to listen or not engage the speech.... or to Speak back and debate the Wrongness or Rightness of the Speech. It should not be our object to Silence the speaker.

Of course we have limits of immediate Public Safety to consider .... like yelling Fire in a crowed Theater..... using that Analogy though i think that it is important to make that distinction that the rightness or wrongness of that speech is wholly determined by whether said fire exits or not... that speech would only create a undue Public Safety hazard if there was no Fire.... if there was a Fire it is actually increasing Public Safety. I believe Most all speech should be Tolerated in the spirit that if all Speech is allowed eventually the best Speech will Win out because it is based in the Truth of Reality... if Speech is not True then eventually it will be seen for what it is a falsehood.

For example if i want to claim that "Philadelphia is the capitol of the United States" then that should be Tolerated and not silenced but instead combated by either "Not listening too" or "By logical discussion pointing out that the statement is false." In this way Intolerance or censorship is much more dangerous than Tolerance because it kills the discourse on the subject.... thereby allowing people to not be challenged on their ideas. Censorship maintains the Status Quo."
,
This is why i think people should be allowed to engage in speech that is unpopular, inflammatory, racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, so that the ideas can be transparent brought out into the public discourse were they can be dealt with and addressed. Too many times today though we see that in the interest of protecting peoples feelings we were rather stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everyone shares our worldview.

I am currently astonished by the formation of very small "Free Speech Zones" at many of our institutions of Higher Learning... with every other Zone being the Censored Zones.... is this really how we reach Higher Learning by suppressing ideas by there non-expression... or through discussion and discourse. The other danger of course is "Who draws the Line", who is it that should determine what things should be discussed and what should not.... I submit to you that it should be the individual SPEAKER..... Everyone should have their own voice, how else will we ever reach equality if some voices are considered valid and some are not.

With utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar.

Personally I think that is always better to Speak that which you are FOR, and worse to constantly Speak that which you are AGAINST. In the Wisdom of that I would much rather say i am for Tolerance, even more so than i am against intolerance. ;-).

[David M]

Basically what the statement is saying is that INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

A simple agree or disagree cannot be given, because one must first know what it is being applied to ... for example: murder should never be tolerated!

Hello Rose

Then why do you argue against God for times when he did not tolerate child sacrifice and killed off reprobate people? You accuse God of murder, but when God intervenes and exercises the death penalty on those guilty and deserving of it you also accuse God. In other situations, God is seen as merciful and harsh. At these times, if we do not see the wisdom of God in what he does, then we have to look for it. Those who expect to find it,will find it, and those who do not want to find it, will not.

If God does not step in and do something, you accuse God of condoning the situation. Either way, you claim to win the argument for having something to accuse God of. Your failure as I see it, is not to balance what God does and look for any justice, or wisdom behind what God does. All that you once believed, you have abandoned.

You might have good reason for saying there is male bias in the Bible, but that does not alter the situation against many other things you once understood about God, which do not change.

That is my observation. I won't be making a discussion out of it.

All the best
David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=65646#post65646)
Basically what the statement is saying is that INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

A simple agree or disagree cannot be given, because one must first know what it is being applied to ... for example: murder should never be tolerated!

Hello Rose

Then why do you argue against God for times when he did not tolerate child sacrifice and killed off reprobate people? You accuse God of murder, but when God intervenes and exercises the death penalty on those guilty and deserving of it you also accuse God. In other situations, God is seen as merciful and harsh. At these times, if we do not see the wisdom of God in what he does, then we have to look for it. Those who expect to find it,will find it, and those who do not want to find it, will not.
Hello David,

The Biblegod's idea of justice is gross injustice! He commands the Hebrews to kill innocent men, women and children, because the Canaanites are killing their own innocent children ... how crazy is that?? :confused: One simple solution to the Canaanite problem of child sacrifice, for an all powerful god, would be to dry up all the wombs of the Canaanite women ... tada! No more babies to sacrifice!


If God does not step in and do something, you accuse God of condoning the situation. Either way, you claim to win the argument for having something to accuse God of. Your failure as I see it, is not to balance what God does and look for any justice, or wisdom behind what God does. All that you once believed, you have abandoned.

That's not true! I accuse the Biblegod of giving specific laws and ordinances that promote and condone gender bias and gross human rights violations.


You might have good reason for saying there is male bias in the Bible, but that does not alter the situation against many other things you once understood about God, which do not change.

That is my observation. I won't be making a discussion out of it.

All the best
David

Yes, I do have good reasons for claiming the Bible is male-biased, and because of those good reasons I have come to the conclusion that the Biblegod was made up in the minds of primitive men who lived in a patriarchal society, thus they patterned their deity after their misogynistic male mindsets. The Biblegod is a perfect reflection of how men think!


Thank you for sharing your observations, :thumb:

Rose

[Bradford]

"The Biblegod's idea of justice is gross injustice! He commands the Hebrews to kill innocent men, women and children, because the Canaanites are killing their own innocent children ... how crazy is that?? One simple solution to the Canaanite problem of child sacrifice, for an all powerful god, would be to dry up all the wombs of the Canaanite women ... tada! No more babies to sacrifice!"

Rose,
They weren't innocent! The Canaanites were Nephilim. Genesis 6:1-4.
Half angel and half human. "Bene Ha Elohim", fallen angel/human mix. In other words, these were nasty things that the fallen angels made. They binged on human blood. They corrupted the DNA of their kind. They mixed their DNA with animals. They fed their children to first & 2nd generation Nephilim.
God was ordering their death because they weren't human. Little homework and you'll sort it I'm sure. -Bradford

[Brother Les]

"The Biblegod's idea of justice is gross injustice! He commands the Hebrews to kill innocent men, women and children, because the Canaanites are killing their own innocent children ... how crazy is that?? One simple solution to the Canaanite problem of child sacrifice, for an all powerful god, would be to dry up all the wombs of the Canaanite women ... tada! No more babies to sacrifice!"

Rose,
They weren't innocent! The Canaanites were Nephilim. Genesis 6:1-4.
Half angel and half human. "Bene Ha Elohim", fallen angel/human mix. In other words, these were nasty things that the fallen angels made. They binged on human blood. They corrupted the DNA of their kind. They mixed their DNA with animals. They fed their children to first & 2nd generation Nephilim.
God was ordering their death because they weren't human. Little homework and you'll sort it I'm sure. -Bradford

Bradford,
You are painting with a very broad brush to make all Canaanites to be Nephilim.... The verses do not say that.

Your statement also seems to say that the 'sons of god, mixed their dna with animals, ie 'sons of man'? Where do you fall in that category? Angel or animal?

I am not sure where in the Bible that it ever says that 'they' fed their children to 'Nephilim'?

Your statement to Rose seems to be a little disjointed and confusing.