The Tenets of Tolerism™

[Aos Si]

Well I think all of you are twats.

Sue me.

Criticisng idiots who think Jesus could have rode on a dinosaur is not just my non-Christian duty it is a laugh too, fuck 'em. They are clown shoes.

[HomerJay]

another big pseudo-intellectual fail I'm afraid your Sethness.

You need to make at least some effort to distance yourself from your historical subjectivity.

You've created the false dichotomy between faith and secular and let your mind run riot.

Try re-writing but without mentioning God or religion etc.

[Seth]

The urge to disparage could be based on evidence.

Is it better to resist atavistic urges or to indulge them?

For instance, given many of your comments since joining this forum, contrasted with your statements here, I doubt you're a tolerist.

Maybe I'm just not a very good Tolerist. Or perhaps this is an appropriate discussion forum for sharp criticism and debate, and the Tenets are intended to apply primarily to personal interactions in real life.

[Seth]

another big pseudo-intellectual fail I'm afraid your Sethness.

You need to make at least some effort to distance yourself from your historical subjectivity.

You've created the false dichotomy between faith and secular and let your mind run riot.

Try re-writing but without mentioning God or religion etc.

Why? Religion is an important part of many people's lives and is a ubiquitous feature of society, so it must be addressed, since the point of Tolerism is to tolerate the free expression of religion so long as it is peaceable.

And since it's my religion, I guess I can engage historical subjectivity if I choose. that's part of MY free exercise of religion.

[.Morticia.]

Not sure the use of the word tolerance is being used in the same way.

Tolerance to me is not valueing or respecting a person views who are different from mind, its not smacking them in the face or locking them up for having them.

I tolerate Islam and Christianity but I don't respect them and in turn I don't require anymore from people who follow these religions

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is what tolerance is.

[hadespussercats]

The urge to disparage could be based on evidence.

Is it better to resist atavistic urges or to indulge them?

For instance, given many of your comments since joining this forum, contrasted with your statements here, I doubt you're a tolerist.

Maybe I'm just not a very good Tolerist. Or perhaps this is an appropriate discussion forum for sharp criticism and debate, and the Tenets are intended to apply primarily to personal interactions in real life.

Since when is responding to evidence atavistic?

Where's your line between "sharp debate" and disparagement? For instance, when you characterize an opponent in an on-line debate as being too simple or rigid or foolish to appreciate your side of an argument (a not-uncommon tactic of yours, here), how is that commentary relevant to debate? It seems like it's a disparagement of your opponent, no?

[Hermit]

The Tenets of Tolerism™

It's what you get when you give Ayn Rand's rants a coat of quasi-religious paint.

[Seth]

The Tenets of Tolerism™

It's what you get when you give Ayn Rand's rants a coat of quasi-religious paint.

It's not "quasi-religious," it's entirely and completely religious. It's the articles of my religious faith, which I observe devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics and conscience.

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

Now, did someone mention wanting a Bishopry? I've got a special sale going on for the first 10 customers...

And no, I'm not kidding.

[Seth]

The urge to disparage could be based on evidence.

Is it better to resist atavistic urges or to indulge them?

For instance, given many of your comments since joining this forum, contrasted with your statements here, I doubt you're a tolerist.

Maybe I'm just not a very good Tolerist. Or perhaps this is an appropriate discussion forum for sharp criticism and debate, and the Tenets are intended to apply primarily to personal interactions in real life.

Since when is responding to evidence atavistic?

It's not that you respond, it's how you respond.

Where's your line between "sharp debate" and disparagement? For instance, when you characterize an opponent in an on-line debate as being too simple or rigid or foolish to appreciate your side of an argument (a not-uncommon tactic of yours, here), how is that commentary relevant to debate? It seems like it's a disparagement of your opponent, no?

It's stimulative. It's provocation as a Socratic tactic to move the debate forward. Generally it's used to break past the facade and barriers to deep discussion that are erected in such fora by provoking an emotional reaction. I find that it is often necessary to probe past the smarm and flippancy to get to the meat of the debate. That's mostly why I got banned from Ratskep, because I was being deliberately provocative and was eliciting "emotional responses" from members in an attempt to penetrate the intellectual armor.

An Interlocutor such as myself often has to probe and pick at the cracks in the deflecting arguments in order to get to the truth, and people tend to open up their defensive perimeter if I can raise their ire by finding a weakness in their argument. Once the penetration is completed, return to more rational and reasonable debate and discussion becomes possible...sometimes.

It's a tactic of on-line debate I've been using for more than two decades now. If you have the wit to notice, you'll see that whenever an intellectual opponent turns from defensive smarm and sarcasm to legitimate reasoned debate, I'm quick to do the same. That's quite deliberate.

[hadespussercats]

The urge to disparage could be based on evidence.

Is it better to resist atavistic urges or to indulge them?

For instance, given many of your comments since joining this forum, contrasted with your statements here, I doubt you're a tolerist.

Maybe I'm just not a very good Tolerist. Or perhaps this is an appropriate discussion forum for sharp criticism and debate, and the Tenets are intended to apply primarily to personal interactions in real life.

Since when is responding to evidence atavistic?

It's not that you respond, it's how you respond.

Where's your line between "sharp debate" and disparagement? For instance, when you characterize an opponent in an on-line debate as being too simple or rigid or foolish to appreciate your side of an argument (a not-uncommon tactic of yours, here), how is that commentary relevant to debate? It seems like it's a disparagement of your opponent, no?

It's stimulative. It's provocation as a Socratic tactic to move the debate forward. Generally it's used to break past the facade and barriers to deep discussion that are erected in such fora by provoking an emotional reaction. I find that it is often necessary to probe past the smarm and flippancy to get to the meat of the debate. That's mostly why I got banned from Ratskep, because I was being deliberately provocative and was eliciting "emotional responses" from members in an attempt to penetrate the intellectual armor.

An Interlocutor such as myself often has to probe and pick at the cracks in the deflecting arguments in order to get to the truth, and people tend to open up their defensive perimeter if I can raise their ire by finding a weakness in their argument. Once the penetration is completed, return to more rational and reasonable debate and discussion becomes possible...sometimes.

It's a tactic of on-line debate I've been using for more than two decades now. If you have the wit to notice, you'll see that whenever an intellectual opponent turns from defensive smarm and sarcasm to legitimate reasoned debate, I'm quick to do the same. That's quite deliberate.

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

[Seth]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

[Aos Si]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

It certainly frowns on it though doesn't it, well unless you're stupid enough to think the Laws of the Levite Jews for the twelve tribes in The OT, apply equally to gentiles then you are probably just some strange sectarian cult its become au fait to mock.

Mark 12:28-31

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mathew 12:21-43

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister

will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The words of Paul which also are mentioned by Jesus although it's paraphrasing:

Romans 14:1-23 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him...One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind...But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another any more, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

1 Corinthians 10:31-32 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:"

It does become hard to see how Christianity became such a blood thirsty and provocative religion with such basic tenants, but then such is the politics of the faithful. Given enough rope any religion can hang itself. And Christianity if not Christians has certainly hung itself many times over.

Jesus religion is one of peace tolerance, forbearance and lack of provocation for others. I wonder if any Church ever really followed it through its course through history, well any of the larger churches that have been established for some time. Can't speak for some cult in wherever, founded 40 years ago.

[egbert]

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Let's see the tax exemption number. (It's an offense not to disclose it when asked.)

[hadespussercats]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Hard to provoke if you don't resort to less respectful address. Provocation, by its very nature, isn't particularly respectful.

[Seth]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Hard to provoke if you don't resort to less respectful address. Provocation, by its very nature, isn't particularly respectful.

It can be, if the purpose of the provocation is honorable. Provoking someone to think about something that they may have done wrong, for example, is a way of causing them to examine an error in judgment or action. The same is true of provoking debate and discussion, particular in fora dedicated to that purpose.

Provoking someone for no reason other than to make them angry or insult them, on the other hand, is not a tolerant or respectful thing to do.