[kelnos]

> The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm.

That seems like a foolish ideal that has the end result of you being marginalized, with people who would do harm to you and others gaining control of society. Frankly, it sounds like just another system of control invented by religious leaders.

People who actively do us harm should be swiftly and firmly disabused of the notion that what they're doing will ever be tolerated. Anything less is folly.

[generalizations]

Tolerance doesn't mean you never resist. Tolerance means you're willing to have a conversation, and you can be friends in spite of fundamental differences.

Christians who live up to the ideal are willing to have a civil relationship with anyone. That's the point. That's tolerance.

It means you actually know the other person, and you're not making (possibly misinformed) assumptions about them. The next step in the relationship may very well be to 'firmly disabuse them', but it's not the first step.

[kelnos]

I don't think that's the definition of "tolerance" that most people think of. To me, it means to allow someone to do something that you don't agree with or thing is harmful. Not to get to know them and then convince them not to do it.

Getting to know them and convincing them not to do it implies that you will not tolerate their actions, but have wisely decided that a soft touch is likely to get you better results.

[amanaplanacanal]

I can be friends with many despite our differences. But surely there are some that are just not worth the effort. Life is too short.