When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
gay marriage - I’ll even include polyamorous marriage (assuming consent)
drugs - any restrictions should merely protect those who don’t use it (e.g. BAC limits for driving)
prostitution
gambling
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
Love God
Love neighbor as yourself
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
tolerance - allow gay people in your church, but don’t do anything proactive about it
compassion - feel bad for gay people, and offer to help them overcome it
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
I feel like “tolerance” is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for “compassion” you’d be closer to the mark.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Sure, but also “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Compassion still feels more appropriate.
True. I just want to point out that isn’t a quote from the Bible though, it’s from Saint Augustine.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.