Tolerance defined by Liberals...

[simchat_torah]

I'm sure there is going to be quite a reaction to this thread, but none the less, I feel that it is important to establish this idea before continuing.

It always amazes me how intollerant liberals are.

"What?" you say. "Aren't Liberals the proponents of tolerance???"

Yes... and no.

Liberals say it is evil to not have tolerance for a particular group. Let's take a real life example: The Boy Scouts.
The Liberals want to abolish the 'law' that the Boy Scouts hold to regarding the authority within the organization refraining from homosexuality. In otherwords, if you are a homosexual, you will not be allowed to lead a pack of boy scouts. Liberals then jump up and shout, "INTOLERANCE!" at the top of their lungs, and try to force this group to allow what they feel is 'morally wrong'.... in otherwords, the liberals are imposing their belief system upon another group.

Is this not contradictory in nature?

If a particular organization is Christian, Jewish, whatever, do they not have the right to express their own beliefs (within the boundaries of governmental law)? Are not the liberals in turn being intollerant to the beliefs of this christian organization?

I'm not making a case soley for the Boy Scouts, but rahter using this as purely an example to emphasize an truth.

Relativism...

Relativism essentially states that there is no absolute truth.

As a philosophy minor, I always found this belief to be rather humorous. In itself it is an oxymoron. To say there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth! Ha ha ha... follow?

The first law of relativism: there is no absolute truth.
yet, this statement, for all intents and purposes, is a law or truth according to Relativism.

This is the easiest way to debunk relativism... 'what's good for you and what's good for me are both right', the relativists claim. But what if the two beliefs are contradictory? What then? What if I have a belief that is an absolute truth, and you have a belief that is an absolute truth, how can we both be right???
Obviously we can't. One must be wrong and one must be right. It is the inherrant law of the universe...
Physics, Science, Math, and yes, even Religion are all founded on absolute truths.

However, we are limited, or finite, in our understanding. We may 'believe' a certain idea to be a truth, but in essence it is a lie. If we desire to do what is right, then we are under an obligation to search out truth. We are under an obligation to research, study, and find what it is that is right.

There is a common theme among mankind as a whole.... Morality.

Granted, there are minor variations but these variations are either due to the nature of something being out of whack, or simply misguidedness. But as a general rule of thumb, humanity has a common sense of morality.

For example, we all believe (for the most part) that taking another human life is wrong. Inherrently we have this 'inner voice' that tells us "This thing is wrong, don't do it"... and if you do go through with that action you feel 'guilty'.

Where did this common theme of morality come from. I shall call this 'common morality' the "Law of Morality". Who wrote this law? Surely we all didn't just coincidently purely by accident choose the same exact set of moral obligations? No, there is an origin behind our moral law.

Who is the Law writer? Who authored this moral law?

Finding out and discovering this 'being' or 'thing' would then be the highest form of seeking truth, as we are now going to the origin of this moral code. Remember how I stated that in order to do what is right, we must search out or seek the truth on the matter (as proven earlier, there explicitly must be an absolute truth)?

Thus, when we seek out the moral law giver, we have entered into the realm of 'religion', and through the process laid out here it has been shown that only one religion (absolute truth) can be correct.

All in all, I can not say, "Sure, you be a good Muslim, I'll be a good Jew and it's all gravy." No, because one of us will be wrong, especially since our 'absolute truths' (religions) contradict one another.

What this all boils down to is that we, as humans with a 'moral law' written upon our hearts, are obligated by nature to seek out the one true G-d. We cannot declare a life of apathy, self proclaimed righteousness (as the morality is greater than an individual level, thus we cannot be G-d), and relativism.

Shalom to everyone as they weigh this out in their minds.

-Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

After reading the above post, my wife asked me, "So you think that only one religion is right?"

I think that possibly I need to clarify a few points here...

I do not necessarily accept the idea that any particular religion in perfeft in it's expression. Rather, I was speaking of 'religions' in an ethereal sense, or better put, as the idea of a set of truths.

Where two acclaimed 'truths' contradict, then only one can be true, or implying that only one of the two "relgions" (or truths) can be true.

However, it must be stated that most religions hold many of the same values and truths. (This common theme moreover shows the existence of a lawgiver) It is where the truths conflict that we must seek what is right and what is wrong.... which proclaimed 'truth' is good and which is a lie.

If this doesn't make sense, I'll explain further.

However, let me move on...

I just want to touch a bit on the issue of us not being G-d.

There is a sense of morality that everyone feels burdened in their heart to fulfill. If we were g-d we would write our own moral code... each of us individually would make up what we feel is morality. However, this isn't the case. Every human understands this voice, a conscience, that speaks to us a common message.

In otherwords, we are all subject to something higher than our own minds. Something beyond who we are dictates to us what morality is. Granted, we still have free choice and can choose to deny this voice speaking to us, but we will also feel the guilt associated with rejecting this 'voice of morality' (or moral law).

Where does this law come from?

Again, not an individual level, because we don't write our own moral code, but are bound to a higher law.

Who is this "law-giver"?

That, my friends, is why we are here seeking at Tzaddikim.

Shalom,
Yafet.