random thought
I have recently been talking with many people about the topic of homosexual tolerence. Being LCMS (the real lutherans parker :P) I am totally against the stance of homosexuality. So living in liberal minnesota (even though a pretty conservative area) I have been accused of being intolerant, ignorant, and bigoted. I was once told that 'I should never hate someone, but tolerate them because I haven't walked in their shoes.' But the opposite of hate isn't tolerance... it's love. So I say don't tolerate others, love them. I love my sister (you know what I mean john) and if she decides to do drugs I am not gonna tolerate that. I am not gonna hate her but I am gonna hate her doing drugs. I believe that non-christians will go to hell. How can I not but doing something if I believe that someone I care for is going to endure eternal punishment? And when I put it's easy for me to see that I haven't done enough. So next time you accuse someone of being intolerent maybe you should put yourself in their shoes...
posted by jobble @ 8:47 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Oh Josiah.
Not bad. You never struck me as the intolerant type, Josiah.
That doesn't change the fact that you are unfairly being intolerant.
are you joking john?
If by "tolerance" you mean letting things happen, then fine.
Should we call people "intolerant" if they punish others for crimes they commit? Is the California legal system being "intolerant" to Michael Jackson for not allowing him to, well, do whatever it is that he does?
That's ignorance.
PS - upon reading my comment, "intolerant" should be in quotations in my first comment. I'm with you on this one, Jo.
You guys obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm simply saying that despite Josiah's "reasons" for being intolerant, that doesn't make him correct. He has not right to pass judgement on anyone, homosexual or otherwise.
Also, was Michael Jackson convicted of anything? No. So, legally speaking, California does tolerate MJ because he did nothing illegal.
John, I do hope that you yourself realize that you cannot force people to "tolerate" anything. This is a loop situation. By making people be "tolerant" you yourself are not tolerating their beliefs.
That obviously goes both ways on any issue, so I'm not laying blame. I'm just illustrating the situation.
But my intolerance is inherently right in the free country that we live in. Morally and logically, my intolerance of intolerance is acceptable because it is intolerance of something bad.
Because the laws of the United States of America determine right and wrong.
My intolerance of homophobia has nothing to do with the laws of the United States.
"But my intolerance is inherently right in the free country that we live in."
Whatevs. That's not the point.
As you've proven yourself, intolerance is easily justified if the person doing it believes that what they are not tolerating is wrong.
For someone who is against homosexuals, you come off as pretty homoerotic.
Oh shit burn.
Post a Comment
<< Home