Intolerance of Conscience?

Published on July 12, 2008 By erathoniel In Current Events

Go to a public high school and you will find curiculum made to teach "tolerance". In reality, what I find most taught "tolerance" to be is a pile of drudged up drek made to desensitize or demonize those long-standing establishments of moral standards. Tolerance cannot be taught. Children will not learn tolerance by these means, merely the intolerance of conscience.

My question is this: Why is it so wrong to have a conscience? I believe that homosexuals are wrong. I do not hate homosexuals no more than I hate those who I'd disagree with on matters of politics or science. I believe that God exists. I do not hate those who say that God does not exist, I merely disagree with them. This comes with no "tolerance" training that I accepted, other than what I heard at church. Is it so much that we secularize the nation, but also blame the preachers of tolerance as the distributors of slander? I have never heard a pastor preach any form of anger or intolerance (other than, of course, the righteous anger towards those who attack innocents or undermine the church), so why should children be tought "tolerance"? Children are perfect innocence, and intolerance is only instilled on them by outside factors. Therefore, should we not eliminate the creators of intolerance before breaking down logic and reason via "tolerance" training?

Comments (Page 4)

erathoniel

on Jul 17, 2008

Sorry, you still haven't explained to me where in the passage from Paul there is that option. There is nothing in there about 'Assuming that it does not violate God's Law'.

In Jewish Law, at that date, there were many laws just assumed by the Pharisees to gain some sense of holier-than-thou power for themselves. Therefore, it was unwise to make a statement there since the actual knowledge of God's Law was repressed.

However, if you study God's Law, there is no contradiction between it and any law that is not a gross violation of human rights.

Basmas

on Jul 17, 2008

Sorry but are you saying that the bible isn't the exact way god wanted it to be but was actually influenced by what was happening at the time?

Basmas

on Jul 17, 2008

However, if you study God's Law, there is no contradiction between it and any law that is not a gross violation of human rights.

oh. How about 'Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.'

lulapilgrim

on Jul 17, 2008

Basmas posts: #33

But the law of god is to obay any and all laws. Going against the 'ordinance of man' is itself going against the law of god.

It is actually Peter 2:13 '"Submit yourself to every ordinance of man...'
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/obeylaw.html
or
http://www.biblegateway.com
'Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men:'
And you quote different parts of the bible none of which appear to conflict with these versions of the same thing which say nothing about just laws, in fact they quite clearly state 'every' law must be followed.

Okay. Thanks for citing St.Peter 2:13 which as you have already noticed goes along with Romans 13.

If the king makes an unjust law then he is going against God's law but it is still God's word that people obey it.

ERATH POSTS:
Assuming that it does not violate God's Law, yes. If the king were to make a law that required contradiction of God's Law, then it is the people's responsibility to disobey it, though not to rebel or riot, merely disobey.

For sure. Christ taught the obligation of conscientious fulfillment of civic duties. St.Matt. 22:21-22; 17:24-27. and this is what St.Paul echoed in Romans 13: 1-7. Therefore, I seriously doubt that St.Paul meant that Christians must obey whatever a given ruler commands. Romans 13:5 tells us that citizens then are bound in conscience to obey...accordingly the responsibility of the rulers is clear. When citizens are under the oppression of a civil authority which oversteps its competence, it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against abuses of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the Gospel.

If we think back, the early Christians defied their rulers when ordered to renounce Christ, and also, Christians disobeyed the Emperor refusing to honor them as a god. They all ended up being honored as martyrs for their disobedience.

Basmas

on Jul 17, 2008

You may seriously doubt what he meant I thought that we had to go by what he wrote otherwise we open up the entire bible to interpretation

dharmagrl

on Jul 19, 2008

Truth is absolute.

Not when it comes to religion, it's not. It's subjective. My truth is that there is no god and that you're living your life based on a book of fairy tales. You truth is that there is indeed a god and that I'm going to hell. Both of us believe ourselves to be true.

Are you sure you're not Lucas Bailey in disguise?

erathoniel

on Jul 19, 2008

Then you are wrong.

Wherever do you get any contradictions in nature? It makes logical sense there would be no such contradictions in the supernatural realm.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 19, 2008

Truth is absolute.

Not when it comes to religion, it's not. It's subjective. My truth is that there is no god and that you're living your life based on a book of fairy tales. You truth is that there is indeed a god and that I'm going to hell.

Dharmagrl,

There is no such thing as my truth---your truth...as there is only one truth in religion and in everything else when you think about it.

Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true because we happen to believe them. Truth is in possession. It's also consistent.

If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I don't possess the truth. And if I'm right, you haven't go the truth.

If you want to go to the mall by bus, but got on the wrong bus, would you ignore the busdriver's advice, and say, "my truth....your truth" argument? Of course not. Same is true in religion.

One of us has possession of the truth regarding if there is a God or not.

Dr Guy

on Jul 22, 2008

Exactly. Facts are black and white. The interpretation of the facts are not. God created the world is an interpretation. So is Random chance.

That the world was created is a fact. How it was is interpretation and as Dharma says, my truth is not always the same as yours.

There is no such thing as my truth---your truth...as there is only one truth in religion and in everything else when you think about it.

You forgot "Per person". There is only one truth for an interpretation for each person. Absent absolute knowledge, there is no truth that is absolute for every person.

erathoniel

on Jul 22, 2008

You forgot "Per person". There is only one truth for an interpretation for each person. Absent absolute knowledge, there is no truth that is absolute for every person.

Yes, but the universal thing is true, universally, truth is just a matter of perception then?

CharlesCS

on Jul 22, 2008

universally, truth is just a matter of perception then?

Bingo! As the saying goes "The truth is in the eye of the beholder".

erathoniel

on Jul 22, 2008

Bingo! As the saying goes "The truth is in the eye of the beholder".

Yes, but then truth is not correct, making everyone's truth (save God's) meaningless.

SanChonino

on Jul 22, 2008

Everyone's 'truth' is meaningless.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 22, 2008

You forgot "Per person". There is only one truth for an interpretation for each person. Absent absolute knowledge, there is no truth that is absolute for every person.

There is no such thing as my truth---your truth...as there is only one truth in religion and in everything else when you think about it.

You forgot "Per person". There is only one truth for an interpretation for each person.

This is a description of relativism and can't be for it's putting truth under man's control. Truth must not be accomodated to our mental variations, rather our mental outlook must be accomodated to truth. We can't take what suits us and call that our personal truth and reject what does not.

Absent absolute knowledge, there is no truth that is absolute for every person.

I don't know if it's absolute knowledge, but the human mind can attain a genuine truth.

For example, demonstrated natural truth is human knowledge....It's infallibly true that the earth is a globe.

CharlesCS

on Jul 23, 2008

Yes, but then truth is not correct, making everyone's truth (save God's) meaningless.

Thank God for the right to your own opinion, right? Unless you think you are a God and are perfect and so your words are supreme. I bet you've seen Bruce Almighty and wish you could have had such a chance to be God. Seeing as how your opinions are prone to thinking of yourself as perfect.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!