Some advocates for tolerance run into a similar problem because apparently they believe that everything should be tolerated except for those views or actions they consider intolerant. It cannot be expressed without violating its own meaning.В You cannot advocate for non-judgmentalism without judging those who are (in your estimation) judgmental. That is why the вЂњyou have no right to judge anotherвЂ™s sinsвЂќ line of reasoning is nonsense. And when they say it, they are apparently completely oblivious to the fact that by reproving others for being judgmental, they are themselves judging another for what they consider a sin.

What they say is that because we are all sinners it is inappropriate for anyone to judge another for what they consider a sin. In ongoing conversations about religion, law, sexuality and culture it has become increasingly common for people to argue that the only sin that it is acceptable to reprove is the sin of вЂњreproving the sins of othersвЂќ. But that does not mean we should pretend that they are not sinning any more than it means that we should feign that we are not sinners. We should love and value people regardless of their sins.

But like all pithy slogans, this statement loses nuance in favor of brevity. Alternate Title: You keep citing that story of Jesus and the woman taken in adulteryвЂ“ I do not think it means what you think it means.Д«efore I jump into this topic, let me say that there is merit in the idea that we shouldnвЂ™t judge people for sinning differently than we do.

Too sweet to pass up empire of sin