T Nation

Intolerance Against Intolerance


If it is intolerant to say that only one religion is true and that all other religions are false, then the Christian faith cannot be more intolerant. Jesus Christ asserts through the Bible that He is God, that He is the only Savior--and as such will save only those for whom He died and will damn all those for whom He did not die--and that Scripture is His only verbal revelation. In this sense, Christianity is intolerant, but so what? I have never heard a tolerant argument against intolerance. Those who advocate what they call "tolerance" say that it is "intolerant" to claim that only your group is right and that all the others are wrong; however, by asserting this, he is saying that only his group is right (in being "tolerant") and that all the others are wrong (in being "intolerant"). So the tolerant person can never say that it is wrong to be intolerant; otherwise, he has lost his tolerance.




Tolerance is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others; it has nothing to do with what you just described. Tolerance does not mean that one must agree with someone nor does it mean they cannot call someone intollerant. This is just silly.


I say everything in moderation....including moderation!


Here's the error, this isn't intolerance. Funny that you would confuse tolerate with extol or laud.


I never said that tolerance means that one must agree with someone. Also, who would you describe as intolerant? Do you have the capacity to respect the beliefs of others whom you disagree with?

I believe that your belief that "this is just silly" is asinine. Do you respect that belief?




I by no means confused the words you mention above. If I reject the claims of other religions on the grounds that these religions are false, then I am certainly NOT tolerating them as true. And if I am not tolerating them as true (since I say that they are false), then I am being intolerant towards their claims. And since I extol and laud Jesus' exclusive claims, I will necessarily exhibit an attitude of uncompromising intolerance towards those religions that contradict His claims.

I do not merely "tolerate" Jesus Christ. I laud and extol Him as the Holy and Sovereign One who saves whom He wills and damns whom He wills (Romans 9:18).

I laud and extol the intolerant words of Christ in John 14:6. Christ does NOT tolerate other ways to the Father. Christ does NOT respect those (or their beliefs) who disagree with His intolerant claims. On the contrary, He calls them things like "sons of hell" and "fools and blind."

This is what Christ says to those who are intolerant of His intolerant claims:

"You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do" (John 8:44).


Maybe you should look up the words tolerate and tolerance before we hold a discussion on them.

Bah, fuck it, never mind, just make shit up.


I would agree with you, but our society has played with the definition. To merely mention the fact that someone is wrong is viewed as intolerant. I happen to believe that being intolerant is not necessarily a bad thing. Other religions are just as or more intolerant than Christianity. We just tend to proselytize more.

Me Solomon Grundy

tol?er?ance (t l r- ns)
1. Decreased responsiveness to a stimulus, especially over a period of continued exposure.


See, this is were go wrong.

Tolerance does not mean that you have to
like, understand or even agree with other peoples ideas.

In theory it would be a nice thing if you could be open for the possibility that they might be right and you?re not (because they might), but in real life it is probably enough if you do not burn them on stakes.

Not spitting, yelling and/or throwing rotten fruits at them would probably mean to polish the surface to a socially acceptable degree.

Tolerance means you tolerate. As in you suffer them to live. That is hard enough for some people.


It's not silly at all, it's true and valid. It's a good illustration of the hypocritical nature of modern, PC ideologies which fall under the banner of "moderatism". Moderatism tries to take elements from opposing ideologies and blend them together to arrive at some watered-down "middle ground". The problem is that no coherent, non self-contradictory position can be derived from such a clusterfuck of mixed ideologies.

As an example, take current attitudes regarding race. We are told that people of all races are necessarily equal, and that to think otherwise is racist. Yet what is racism, if not a pre-concieved notion about some races as they compare to others?

In the case of the so-called "racist", the pre-concieved notion is one of INequality (that one race is superior to another).

In the case of the mainstream, PC moderate, the notion is one of EQuality (that no race is inherently superior to another). This, nevertheless, does not make it any less of a racist stance than the former. It follows that everyone who has any pre-concieved notion whatsoever regarding different races, is a racist.

At the most basic level, racism is the practice of grouping individuals together on the basis of their skin color. To recognize "white people", for instance, as an entity seperate from other races, is the very foundation of racism. Racism will be around as long as nature enables humans to create mental generalizations of others based on skin color and other attributes.

Extremists on all sides are actually less mentally distorted and closer to the truth than so-called "enlightened" moderates. Moderatism is a disease. Look at the way it is applied to religion, where people embrace mysticism and "spirituality", under the false impression that there is anything novel about their approach to a concept that has existed in various forms throughout all of human history.


One 'tolerates' an infant crying on a transcontinental flight.

One 'tolerates' a person who believes the moon is really made of cheese.

Often, people confuse 'tolerance' with 'approval.' They are not the same thing.


Well, people are morons... and it's a good thing there are laws, or we'd be able to kill off the morons and improve the gene pool.


One definition in Webster's mentions respecting the disagreeable ideas of others. Can you hate a person's idea and respect it at the same time? It seems that definition of tolerance necessarily implies that although you may disagree with an idea, you also must respect it. That is a definition given by Webster's dictionary.

Vroom voiced an idea in jest (I assume). I disagree with his idea spoken in jest. Also, I do not respect this idea spoken in jest. It was a moronic idea and I do not respect moronic ideas; nor do I respect the morons from whence these ideas come. I do not tolerate any of vroom's moronic ideas. But unlike vroom, my intolerance of morons like him does not cause me to jest about his demise-but it will cause me to jest about him.


Main Entry: tol?er?ate

Etymology: Latin toleratus, pp. of tolerare to endure, put up with; akin to Old English tholian to bear, Latin tollere to lift up, latus carried (suppletive past participle of ferre), Greek tlEnai to bear.

1 : to exhibit physiological tolerance for (as a drug)

2 a : to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with.

Main Entry: tol?er?ance

1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA

2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

4 a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult with repeated use or exposure (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food.

Hey Vroom. Here is one of the definitions given above for the word "tolerance":

2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

This thread topic exposes the hypocrisy of certain people who would say that I should "sympathize" with their "tolerance" while at the same time they refuse to "sympathize" with my "intolerance." Maybe you should read Nominal Prospect's post, seeing that you are clueless on this simple matter.

Apparently it is hard enough for Vroom. If not for laws, he would have all morons killed off. But he is guilty of applying a double standard here. For he would not apply this same standard to himself, seeing he too, is a moron. Speaking of which I will add something to try and clarify a bit for the slower folks like vroom:

One who rejects the notion that a religion or worldview may be exclusively true is
already practicing exclusivity in saying that it is exclusively true that no religion may
make exclusive claims. All exclusive religions are to be excluded from acceptance. The appeal to tolerance or to be inclusive in our theology (or views or ideas) is often an excuse to avoid dealing with the numerous and irreconcilable contradictions between worldviews. The non-Christian should stop being an intellectual coward, face reality, and admit that because of these contradictory claims, not every worldview can be true.


I do not know where the problem is.

Of course I think I?m right and you are wrong (when it comes to Christianity f.E), but why should that stop me from tolerating you having different ideas and voicing them.

That monotheistic religions allmost by definition are intolerant is not new to me, though several Christians on this forum seem to strongly disagree.

Maybe you should ask how Christians somehow developed the idea that their religion is a religion of tolerance?


Hate and respect? No:
Hate- To feel hostility or animosity toward.

Respect- To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

However, intolerance isn't hatred:

intolerant- Unable or unwilling to endure.

While hatred (hostility) may cause intolerance (unwillingness), all intolerance is not hatred. My choosing option A doesn't confirm my hatred or intolerance of option B.

True, my disagreement with something isn't inherently linked to my respect for it.


I am definitely for tolerating others voicing their different ideas in the sense of not trying to stop them with physical force (i.e., murder or sending a suicide bomber in their direction). Yet I do not tolerate these ideas in the sense of showing some kind of antichristian "sympathy" to ideas that are antithetical to Scripture:

==All Scripture is God-breathed[theopneustos] and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)==

The intolerance I show is theological and intellectual. It is NOT a physical one that says that the infidel must die.

I am both tolerant and intolerant depending on how one defines these terms.

Some montheistic religions show their intolerance by not suffering (i.e., allowing; permitting) you to live. The aforementioned count you an enemy of their god, and by extension their enemy. This is how they deal with their enemies.

On the other hand, some monotheistic religions show their intolerance by saying that you are lost and your deeds are evil. They (I) would say that all non-Christian beliefs, regardless of sincerity are moronic and evil:

==Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22)==

The word "moron" is derived from the Greek moros. Paul uses it in Romans 1:22. There it is translated "fools," but of course that means the same thing as "morons." That's talking about all non-Christians.

==The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! (Psalm 14:1).==

Psalm 14:1 refers not only to atheists, but it also applies to all "people of faith" who disbelieve in the God of Scripture. For instance: Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all professing Christians who believe that Christ died for everyone without exception.

In sum, all atheists, all Muslims, all professing "christians" who deny that Jesus Christ is Savior by believing that He died for those who perish are stupid and wicked morons (Romans 1:22; Psalm 14:1). True Christians believe that a Savior can actually save people. The aforementioned morons are enemies of the true and living God, and by extension my enemies. BUT unlike those mentioned above, I do not kill my enemies but love them and pray for their salvation:

My heart's pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of my enemies is for them to be saved (Romans 10:1). I desire to do good to them (Mathew 5:44). And I would not be doing good or showing love to them by saying everything is alright any more than an M.D. would be doing good or showing love to a patient who is terminally ill, but yet will lie to them by saying everything is alright.

There are also many people who profess a monotheistic belief who show an unbiblical and antichristian tolerance towards people of other religions. For instance, on May 31, 1997, world famous heretic Billy Graham spoke of the possibility of everyone without exception going to heaven regardless of their beliefs in an interview on television:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer - you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that's what God is doing today - he's calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

My comment now: Orion, as you can see, these aforecited religionists who profess monotheism are VERY tolerant.

As you can see above, there are professing Christians like Billy Graham who are VERY tolerant. But then there are also professing Christians who would show intolerance by contradicting such tolerant views as espoused by Billy Graham and Robert Schuller.

I think maybe the professing Christians that you have corresponded with are misunderstanding you. I think that when you say that they are being "intolerant", images of suicide bombers comes immediately to their minds. If you ask, "What about things such as the Inquisition, where professing Christians killed those who disagreed with them?" The answer is simple: They were just consistent atheists pretending to be Christians.


OMG. You are such a retard.

Even after quoting the definitions it's apparent you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

It's asswads like this, who can't read or understand anything, who then go and claim they understand other written material better than everyone on the planet, who are just scary.

Believe whatever the fuck you want, that's tolerance.

Are you going to force me to believe other than I believe? No? Well, you are tolerant too... boohoo.

You may also want to figure out the difference between the concepts of humor, sarcasm and serious discussion -- if you are capable to doing so.


Read definition 2a you genius you (That's sarcasm by the way).

2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own 2b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

I do know what I'm talking about. In your quote of my usage of the word "tolerance" I added the phrase "or to be inclusive in our theology." Do you know what that means? It certainly means more than saying believe whatever you want. Look again at definition 2a. Do you know what it means to sympathize or to show sympathy toward another's beliefs or ideas? It is you that does not understand.

I never claimed, nor even remotely implied that I "understand other written material better than everyone on the planet." It looks like you are the one who is having trouble reading and understanding other written material.

That's NOT the complete definition of tolerance that I was using. Read definition 2a yet again:

2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own 2b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

It looks like you're limiting me to the 2b definition. My usage of the word in the paragraph you quoted was the 2a definition.

Read definition 2a yet again:

2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own 2b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

OF COURSE I am tolerant in the not-forcing-you-to-believe-other-than-you- believe sense. But I am NOT tolerant of you in the definition 2a sense. I refuse to show an iota of sympathy to the windbag known as vroom.

It is you rather, that may want to figure out "the concepts of humor, sarcasm, and serious discussion." But hey, in an internet forum sometimes it's hard to know if a person is being sarcastic or not, so maybe I ought to cut an ignoramus (i.e., vroom) some slack.

I hope I've shown to all reading this thread that vroom is a hypocrite. He says that I'm the one that does not understand. But since he's not allowing me the freedom to use the first and primary definition(2a)of the word "tolerance" it is obvious that he is the one who does not understand.