"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[Balsiefen]

you won't find me protesting in front of abortion clinics, strip clubs, casinos, porn shops and the like. But I do have convictions that these thing are/can be sinful. Do, I judge the person who walks into these kind of places? No, and I don't run up to them and "force" my convictions on them. This is a forum, by your own free will you came to this site, came into this thread, read my posts and replied to them. Where is the "force" you claim I have done?

In fact you could even be described as being tolerant of these things. Tolerance isn't a state of agreeing with everything, but having a disagreement and not forcing convictions on them.

If someone lacked tolerance entirely they would kill someone as soon as see them

[Skittles!]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

So, a nuke I guess would be the best option there, going by your thinking.

No, because that would destroy life by the radio-activity going on in that area.

After many deaths of humans, I'd rather have a world as to which future generations can live on and not fear of the fragility it would be via a mass war or nuke.

[Anarchy Ninja]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

So, a nuke I guess would be the best option there, going by your thinking.

Death solves all problems, no man no problem

[heavycola]

Again, Jesus didn't "tolerate" the tax collectors in the temple.... he flipped tables!

Even i know they were money changers...

I'm not sure where you are getting "arrogance" from. Is it because I believe in absolute right and wrong that makes me arrogant?

Honestly? This is where the moral case against religion lies, as far as i'm concerned. As a christian you have a moral code - much of it overlaps with mine, some of it doesn't.
Two things spring to mind, however:
- first, that tacked onto those rules are beliefs that, for those who don't share them, seem a little outlandish. And they don't change, because the whole shebang is based on the perceived authority of a higher power. People have done a lot of bad as well as good things based on divine command. It's strange how diffeently god's immutable law is understood by different protestant groups, let alone different religions.
- second, the absolute never changes. But god has. It used to be OK to burn protestants/witches/etc at the stake. Women never used to be allowed to be clergy. So christian attitudes to moral questions do change. Are you saying that right now, your set of beliefs about what god wants and thinks are unquestionably right?
My point is that appealing to a higher power for a set of codes that, frankly, are then interpreted a million different ways, gives them an immoral amount of credibilty in the eyes of those who hold them, unblinkingly and sheeplike, in the face of an ever-changing world.

[MeDeFe]

So what was initially argued went along the lines of "There are no absolutes." - "Are you absolutely sure of that?" answer yes or no and you're screwed, and let's hurry on and pretend that this has proven that there are absolutes of whatever kind. That's what I meant by "jumping from one definition to an other", I haven't redefined anything, I'm merely trying to point out that a pun won't hold for long once serious discussing begins.

Well, that's the point of my post (what you refer to as a pun). Of course I'm going to point out what I believe to be flawed logic when I see it. In order for the statement - "there is no absolute right or wrong" to be correct, it would rely on the absolute rightness/correctness of the statement itself. That's a fallacy!

You recognized that immediately and tried to pick apart the meaning of the word 'absolutely' instead of dealing with the point. If you're going to be this picky about what I write, then I expect you to use the same standard for everyone else posting here...including Backglass' numerous puns.

absolute noun 1 a rule, standard, etc which is thought to be true or right in all situations. 2 (the absolute) philos that which can exist without being related to anything else.
(from Chambers Reference Online)

Tell me, how do you get from these definitions to "complete". What do they have to do with "absolute" (adjective) as it is used in everyday language? As I see it: nothing. A person can easily state that "there is no thing that can exist without being related to anything else" and be completely sure of it. The pun is gone and so is the perceived fallacy.


There are more definitions than just "complete" for the adjective, too, if you like.
2 without limits; not controlled by anything or anyone else. 3 certain; undoubted. 4 not measured in comparison with other things; not relative • an absolute standard. 5 pure; not mixed with anything else.

With definition 2 being how I would use the word "absolute" and 4 not too far behind.

So I'll try to put forth why I think "tolerance", as it's been redefined in today's culture, is not a correct way of thinking. Under the new definition, every point of view would be considered equally valid. That would mean the witch doctor's voodoo is just as respectable as someone who's been to medical school. The student's opinion of being disrespectful towards a teacher is just as valid as the teacher who wants to maintain order in a classroom. The lawbreaker has equal credibility as the law enforcer. I personally do not believe that two directly contradictory views can both have equal validity at the same time. In short, nothing is wrong or right...everything is acceptable.

What you describe is not tolerance. Voodoo vs. medical schooling, take a look at who has the higher success rate in terms of making people well again and you'll see why one should be preferred over the other.
The student is keeping the teacher from doing his job as well as keeping the other students who may or may not want to learn something from doing so. One could say he or she is being intolerant of them and their wishes.
I don't know what you mean by "credibility" in your third example. Credibility in front of court after a law has been broken and the person has been arrested? If so, if there is no further evidence and one police officer is saying "I saw him do it" and the accused is saying "No I didn't", well, in that case they are equally credible and the case would probably be dropped due to lack of evidence. But I don't see what this would have to do with tolerance.


And the lack of absolutes doesn't mean that there is no wrong or right, just that things are relatively wrong or right. And I'm not using "relative" as "comparative" where you compare two things and say that one is more right or wrong than the other. Rather that things are right or wrong depending on a complex network of relations including but not limited to laws, rules, social norms, emotions of those involved, logic and reason. It's a more complex system than saying "These things are right, everything else is wrong", but it can work just as well or even better.

[jay_a2j]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

Let me start by suggesting consistent psychotherapy.


And the 6.5 billion population now on the Earth will be dramatically reduced after China kills 1/3 of mankind. Its in Revelation...Army of the East. So we're looking at around 4,200,000,000 remaining. So much for the population reduction excuse.

[heavycola]

And the 6.5 billion population now on the Earth will be dramatically reduced after China kills 1/3 of mankind. Its in Revelation...Army of the East. So we're looking at around 4,200,000,000 remaining. So much for the population reduction excuse.

Let me start by suggesting consistent psychotherapy.

[jay_a2j]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

[Skittles!]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

Let me start by suggesting consistent psychotherapy.


And the 6.5 billion population now on the Earth will be dramatically reduced after China kills 1/3 of mankind. Its in Revelation...Army of the East. So we're looking at around 4,200,000,000 remaining. So much for the population reduction excuse.

Army of the East. You know, that could plausibly be America, seeming that is more East of the Middle East... Oh wait, only Asia could be the Army of the East, and what else but a Communist country! Of course that's what it is.

Jay, can't you see that Christianity, nay all religion, is killing the world. They say "bring forth more children" and all that shit.
More people = More resources = Killing of Earth = End of humanity.

4.2 Billion is still a dramatically big population. That's still a lot of waste of resources.

[heavycola]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.

Bollocks. God's laws are apparently not absolute. 'Thou shalt not kill' seems pretty clear to me - so why is the death penalty so embraced by the bible belt states? Why is it OK to kill someone in a war? As you say, somethign is either right or wrong. God said killing is worng. So is killing wrong in these cases? If you deviate, then it's not an absolute position.

[jay_a2j]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.

Bollocks. God's laws are apparently not absolute. 'Thou shalt not kill' seems pretty clear to me - so why is the death penalty so embraced by the bible belt states? Why is it OK to kill someone in a war? As you say, somethign is either right or wrong. God said killing is worng. So is killing wrong in these cases? If you deviate, then it's not an absolute position.

I think it is safe to say that the English translation of scripture is just that.... a translation. The word "kill". If someone knows the original word used in scripture please chime in. The the English word "kill" can take on several meanings. Kill...as in murder? Kill...as in self defense? Kill... as in war? Does scripture mean all killing or just murder? We can not know reading the English version. I have always been against the death penalty, even after other Christians have made a pretty good case in allowing it. I think if Jesus can forgive those who crucified him then we ought to do the same. This boils down to the defining of the word "kill" and if that is as good an English word we could come up with in translating from the original.

[Skittles!]

You're against the death penalty but you're still Conservative?

Ooookay then.

[jay_a2j]

You're against the death penalty but you're still Conservative?

Ooookay then.

Yeah, and with my pro-life position, someone once called me a "consistent conservative".

[Neutrino]

Because, assuming God is. He sets what is right or wrong, good or evil. Not man. Many people find nothing wrong with getting drunk, yet God says in His word, "Do not get drunk". It's an absolute. I can see God now asking, "Which part do you not understand, the "Do" or the "not"?"

I don't believe anything or anyone to be "good" except God.

Yet the interpretations of what god means change dramatically as the years pass and the social structure changes. A few hundred years ago god was anti-minorities; whether they be black, Asian, homosexual or female. Now, he's pro-everyone-except-homosexuals. How can you believe god to be immortal and unchanging, when 'His' (I notice the interpretation of this hasn't changed yet. It's only a matter of time; if some form of Christianity survives, I am betting within a few hundred years they will be worshiping a female god. What do you think about that, Jay ) opinions on many things are constantly flip-flopping?

[luns101]

absolute noun 1 a rule, standard, etc which is thought to be true or right in all situations. 2 (the absolute) philos that which can exist without being related to anything else.
(from Chambers Reference Online)

Tell me, how do you get from these definitions to "complete". What do they have to do with "absolute" (adjective) as it is used in everyday language? As I see it: nothing. A person can easily state that "there is no thing that can exist without being related to anything else" and be completely sure of it. The pun is gone and so is the perceived fallacy.


There are more definitions than just "complete" for the adjective, too, if you like.
2 without limits; not controlled by anything or anyone else. 3 certain; undoubted. 4 not measured in comparison with other things; not relative • an absolute standard. 5 pure; not mixed with anything else.

With definition 2 being how I would use the word "absolute" and 4 not too far behind.

OK, so you want to dissect the meaning of the word 'absolute' in order to avoid the fallacy of the argument. People who are fluent speakers of English use the words interchangeably without having to define it to the people they're speaking to. So I'll go along with it. You can choose to use any word you want. You understand the point I'm making and are attempting to avoid it.

If you say "there is no absolute right or wrong" then it would rely on the absolute correctness, the complete correctness, correctness without restriction, flawless truth, or outright correctness of the statement itself. That is a fallacy.

Whether you realize it or not, you are appealing to me with your arguments using absolutes. You are stating that there is an absolute, complete, or true way to correctly use words in the English language. I have violated those grammatical rules, and you now attempt to point out the absolute standard by which they must be used correctly. Either you admit the fallacy used previously or you should admit the fallacy of how you are making your appeals. Either way, there's a fallacy.

What you describe is not tolerance. Voodoo vs. medical schooling, take a look at who has the higher success rate in terms of making people well again and you'll see why one should be preferred over the other.
The student is keeping the teacher from doing his job as well as keeping the other students who may or may not want to learn something from doing so. One could say he or she is being intolerant of them and their wishes.
I don't know what you mean by "credibility" in your third example. Credibility in front of court after a law has been broken and the person has been arrested? If so, if there is no further evidence and one police officer is saying "I saw him do it" and the accused is saying "No I didn't", well, in that case they are equally credible and the case would probably be dropped due to lack of evidence. But I don't see what this would have to do with tolerance.

Yes, exactly! You see the ridiculousness of how this new definition of tolerance plays out. You correctly identified the consequences in each of the three examples if it's taken to the ultimate conclusion. What I described is, in fact, not tolerance...but rather a justification to do what one wants to do.

And the lack of absolutes doesn't mean that there is no wrong or right, just that things are relatively wrong or right. And I'm not using "relative" as "comparative" where you compare two things and say that one is more right or wrong than the other. Rather that things are right or wrong depending on a complex network of relations including but not limited to laws, rules, social norms, emotions of those involved, logic and reason. It's a more complex system than saying "These things are right, everything else is wrong", but it can work just as well or even better.

...and that would be a real danger IMO because then everyone would be able to justify any type of behavior based on relative situations. Laws would, in effect, lose their true power.

[joecoolfrog]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

Oh well thats easy then - there is no absolute right or wrong
It truly saddens me though that this sort of fundamentalist dogma is actually swallowed by so many people,disasters like Iraq are the end result of such thinking. How on earth can supposedly sane people justify so much that is transparently evil on the moronic grounds that it is Gods will,there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

[jay_a2j]

there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

ROFL! It's people like you that concern me.

[MeDeFe]

OK, so you want to dissect the meaning of the word 'absolute' in order to avoid the fallacy of the argument. People who are fluent speakers of English use the words interchangeably without having to define it to the people they're speaking to. So I'll go along with it. You can choose to use any word you want. You understand the point I'm making and are attempting to avoid it.

If you say "there is no absolute right or wrong" then it would rely on the absolute correctness, the complete correctness, correctness without restriction, flawless truth, or outright correctness of the statement itself. That is a fallacy.

Whether you realize it or not, you are appealing to me with your arguments using absolutes. You are stating that there is an absolute, complete, or true way to correctly use words in the English language. I have violated those grammatical rules, and you now attempt to point out the absolute standard by which they must be used correctly. Either you admit the fallacy used previously or you should admit the fallacy of how you are making your appeals. Either way, there's a fallacy.

Not at all, I'm stating that there is a clearer, less ambiguous way of using this particular word 'absolute' and discussing the question whether there are such things as absolutes or not. And you still haven't said how you get from "there is no thing that can exist without being related to anything else" to "completely".

Yes, exactly! You see the ridiculousness of how this new definition of tolerance plays out. You correctly identified the consequences in each of the three examples if it's taken to the ultimate conclusion. What I described is, in fact, not tolerance...but rather a justification to do what one wants to do.

So why do you call it tolerance if you know it isn't?

And the lack of absolutes doesn't mean that there is no wrong or right, just that things are relatively wrong or right. And I'm not using "relative" as "comparative" where you compare two things and say that one is more right or wrong than the other. Rather that things are right or wrong depending on a complex network of relations including but not limited to laws, rules, social norms, emotions of those involved, logic and reason. It's a more complex system than saying "These things are right, everything else is wrong", but it can work just as well or even better.

...and that would be a real danger IMO because then everyone would be able to justify any type of behavior based on relative situations. Laws would, in effect, lose their true power.

Now that's something I don't see all.
[2 minutes later]
no, I really don't see that. Even if a crime can be justified I don't see how a law could lose it's power. Maybe you could elaborate a little on this point.

[unriggable]

there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

ROFL! It's people like you that concern me.

Well you love your religion and you assume common sense as being bullshit. I mean really, you think the grand canyon was formed from a flood. Anybody with half a brain will know that when you build a sandcastle on the beach and the tide comes in, it will be flattened, and even the fish, as dumb as they are, seem to know that there simply isn't enough water on the planet for a global flood.

While they're busy hiding in caves you're busy attacking the science community.

[luns101]

Not at all, I'm stating that there is a clearer, less ambiguous way of using this particular word 'absolute' and discussing the question whether there are such things as absolutes or not. And you still haven't said how you get from "there is no thing that can exist without being related to anything else" to "completely".

Because I don't see the need to dissect the use of the word in order to avoid the fallacy of the statement. People who use the word do not have to go through the toil of defining it for the person who they are speaking to. Those who don't want to admit that there are absolutes will obviously try to pick the word apart instead of dealing with the fallacy. Yes, you are appealing to me with the use of absolutes.

Since there are absolutes, people feel uncomfortable with that and attempt to explain it away. Mankind continually tries to do this by justifying his behavior. People will be held absolutely (or completely if you wish to use that term) responsible for breaking spiritual laws. I'm sure you knew where I was going with this.

So why do you call it tolerance if you know it isn't?

Because that's how people could apply it if they wanted. I also had to think of a way for you to get to see things from my point of view since I know you won't agree with me. At least you'll understand my position.

no, I really don't see that. Even if a crime can be justified I don't see how a law could lose it's power. Maybe you could elaborate a little on this point.

Because the law would be watered down with mitigating circumstances. The law would be viewed in the light of relativity to the situation in which it was broken. Over time, the law could even be seen as unnecessary. It's not something that happens overnight.

Now I would like to ask you a question...people on this site keep saying that their definition of tolerance would stop at the point where they infringe on another person's rights or do physical harm to someone else. Is this your position or close to it?

[jay_a2j]

there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

ROFL! It's people like you that concern me.

Well you love your religion and you assume common sense as being bullshit. I mean really, you think the grand canyon was formed from a flood. Anybody with half a brain will know that when you build a sandcastle on the beach and the tide comes in, it will be flattened, and even the fish, as dumb as they are, seem to know that there simply isn't enough water on the planet for a global flood.

While they're busy hiding in caves you're busy attacking the science community.

I don't "love my religion", I love God. Did I ever say how the Grand Canyon was formed? It could have been moving ice during an Iceage. It's called evaporation mixed with now frozen water at the poles. Al Gore would disagree with you. But yes, there was a flood.

[MeDeFe]

Not at all, I'm stating that there is a clearer, less ambiguous way of using this particular word 'absolute' and discussing the question whether there are such things as absolutes or not. And you still haven't said how you get from "there is no thing that can exist without being related to anything else" to "completely".

Because I don't see the need to dissect the use of the word in order to avoid the fallacy of the statement. People who use the word do not have to go through the toil of defining it for the person who they are speaking to. Those who don't want to admit that there are absolutes will obviously try to pick the word apart instead of dealing with the fallacy.

Since there are absolutes, people feel uncomfortable with that and attempt to explain it away. Mankind continually tries to do this by justifying his behavior. People will be held absolutely (or completely if you wish to use that term) responsible for breaking spiritual laws. I'm sure you knew where I was going with this.

You don't see the need to express things clearly because your argument is built around what only seems to be a fallacy and once someone starts picking at it it falls apart. I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this matter. I see this as a fledgling attempt at a real discussion, you seem to say it's no more than small-talk. Under those circumstances we won't be able to come to an agreement on how to use the necessary technical terms.

So why do you call it tolerance if you know it isn't?

Because that's what many people apply it. I also had to think of a way for you to get to see things from my point of view since I know you won't agree with me. At least you'll understand my position.

So because many people are wrong you go with the flow and end up making other people argue against both what you see as wrong as well as against the view they perceive you to hold that what they see as tolerance (which you might never have been against in the first place) is something to be condemned.

Really, this is an other prime example of why it's often useful to express oneself clearly and not to be ambiguous.

no, I really don't see that. Even if a crime can be justified I don't see how a law could lose it's power. Maybe you could elaborate a little on this point.

Because the law would be watered down with mitigating circumstances. The law would be viewed in the light of relativity to the situation in which it was broken. Over time, the law could even be seen as unnecessary. It's not something that happens overnight.

You mean unnecessary like laws that said you would have stones thrown at you until you die if you commit adultery. Or like laws that prohibited certain religious groups from doing certain jobs. I'm not talking about 70 years ago either, I have the middle ages in mind in case you're wondering. Or like laws that prohibit certain ethnic groups from owning a house, I remember hearing about a case like that a few years ago, apparently the law dated back to the 1930s or 40s and had never been formally abrogated, and the Romany was pissed off to say the least.

Laws are a product of the time when they were written, and as times change, laws need to be revised and, should it be necessary, changed or abolished. How is that a bad thing?

Now I would like to ask you a question...people on this site keep saying that their definition of tolerance would stop at the point where they infringe on another person's rights or do physical harm to someone else. Is this your position or close to it?

Exactly who or what are you referring to with the "they" I put in bold type?

Anyway, an initial, very rough idea of what "tolerance" means for me... you don't have to do it yourself, you don't have to like it or agree with it, but as long as it doesn't harm anyone you should let other people get on with it.
An example would be this vegetarian I know. He doesn't eat any sort of meat and I'm fairly positive he doesn't like the fact that others eat meat, but he tolerates that the rest of us eat meat and doesn't let it get in the way of our social relationships.
Or religion, as long as they don't burn any witches or demand 10% of everyone's money (including people who have noting to do with them) people can go on being religious if they like, I'm fine with them asking me if I want to talk about god (of whatever name, Allah, Quexalcoatl or Yahweh), the afterlife or the general state of my immortal soul, too. You can't prohibit human interaction after all. But if I tell them 'no' that should be that.

[luns101]

You don't see the need to express things clearly because your argument is built around what only seems to be a fallacy and once someone starts picking at it it falls apart. I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this matter. I see this as a fledgling attempt at a real discussion, you seem to say it's no more than small-talk. Under those circumstances we won't be able to come to an agreement on how to use the necessary technical terms.

I don't see the need to pick apart a word in order to avoid the fallacy of an argument. I found numerous sources stating the interchangeable aspects of the words "absolute" & "complete". In order to avoid that I believe you are being picky about the word instead of dealing with the argument. Of course, I see that you believe you're tearing apart the argument so I guess we are indeed at an impasse.

I don't think you're the only one that does this. All of mankind plays this way with terminology in order to avoid the uncomfortable realization that ultimately he will be held accountable for breaking God's absolute laws.

So because many people are wrong you go with the flow and end up making other people argue against both what you see as wrong as well as against the view they perceive you to hold that what they see as tolerance (which you might never have been against in the first place) is something to be condemned.

Really, this is an other prime example of why it's often useful to express oneself clearly and not to be ambiguous.

...or an attempt to get someone to see things from a point of view that they originally would not consider. Since we're at an impasse on defining certain words in the English language, it was another alternative.

You mean unnecessary like laws that said you would have stones thrown at you until you die if you commit adultery. Or like laws that prohibited certain religious groups from doing certain jobs. I'm not talking about 70 years ago either, I have the middle ages in mind in case you're wondering. Or like laws that prohibit certain ethnic groups from owning a house, I remember hearing about a case like that a few years ago, apparently the law dated back to the 1930s or 40s and had never been formally abrogated, and the Romany was pissed off to say the least.

Laws are a product of the time when they were written, and as times change, laws need to be revised and, should it be necessary, changed or abolished. How is that a bad thing?

In terms of absolute right and wrong I was moving towards God's spiritual laws. Instead, we humans think in terms of laws needing to change to meet the times, as you stated. Really, if there were no absolutes, there would be no reality on which to base things. You could just say everything is relative. People have no problem saying there are absolutes when it comes to mathematics or scientific laws, but as soon as you mention morality (right & wrong) then people through up the flag. It's uncomfortable for mankind to admit there's going to be a day of reckoning for the breaking of God's spiritual laws. Instead, he tries (in vain) to proclaim that he knows better and that he can decide what's right and wrong for himself.

Anyway, an initial, very rough idea of what "tolerance" means for me... you don't have to do it yourself, you don't have to like it or agree with it, but as long as it doesn't harm anyone you should let other people get on with it.

Ok, then why do you draw the line at not harming someone else?

[radiojake]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

Moral Standard?? Bollocks to that! Morals are nothing but a religious guilt that keeps people in line. I have no morals, I have ethics. Ethics that I came about through my own experience on this planet and how I choose to live and how to treat other people. I wouldn't steal the old lady's purse not because God says its 'wrong' but because I wouldn't want someone stealing my bag. I don't eat animals because I don't agree with the ethics of the meat industry.

God defines absolute right or wrong?? Again, crap. The bible was written over 2000 years ago (by a human). It is completely outdated for the society we live in.

no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God

HA! How do you like that one eh? I'm pretty sure no-one would think it was wrong today for anyone fitting those descriptions to do as such.

God defines absolute right and wrong?? Well humans have the commonsense to update and change with the times when it is required.


Plus, it's interesting how the original topic was about tolerance, and whether or not you had no conviction while you were tolerant of others. I'm assuming, Jay, that if you saw a homosexual couple walking down the road hand in hand, you wouldn't like it (Not saying you'd do anything about it, but you wouldn't like it, because God says its 'wrong') And you somehow have 'conviction' because you know in your mind it's 'wrong' and you wouldn't tolerate it if you could.
I think the idea of tolerance is to let and let live if it does not affect you adversely. Two men who sleep together in their own bed doesn't put anyone out whatsoever, why would you even give a shit about it?? Oh wait, because GOD says its wrong. Well why don't you make your own mind up about topics and actually get some real conviction to your thoughts, not just a walking bible amplifier.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I always find it funny when people say "there are no absolutes."

Because that's an absolute right there.