[J.A.K.]

The tolerance issue is somewhat disingenuous, in that the expectation is ALWAYS that the church is the one to yield, reinterpret, or annul it's position on scripture rather than the individual yield to the principle. I suspect it's because the principle is often suggested by a hypocrite through invective. However, this is a non-issue for non-believers because you are not bound by the Christian faith.

My hipocrisy lies in the fact that I know certain acts to be wrong according to my faith (i.e. lying, getting drunk) but I do them at times anyway. But I do not desire the scripture to be less condemning or more "tolerant" of such things. It is my duty to overcome these, so "hate the sin and love the sinner" is not a license for perpetuity. "He that is without sin cast the first stone" was followed by "go and sin no more". But I note that Christ was alone with her when he said the last part which I think is significant because the things that matter are always between the individual and God.

I feel in interpreting much of the scripture the fundy will see what he wants as will the agnostic, atheist, and even myself. It is a struggle to truly read with an open heart and open mind when we are taught that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) and "Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright; but they search for many schemes." (Ecc 7:29)
The kookie fringe is not hard to spot and avoid, but getting out of my own way is another matter.