DISAGREEMENT – TOLERANCE – JUDGMENT
If disagreement did not exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. Real differences exist between real people, therefore tolerance is a necessity to co-existence.
Dialogue between persons of differing viewpoints requires respect, not agreement. Tolerance is best defined as we agree to disagree, with respect. The understanding by both parties that two differing views cannot be right is in itself an impetus to engage in constructive dialogue. True tolerance grants the right to dissent.
Morality is considered relative by some in our American culture, but this view cannot be sustained because it is illogical and unlivable. There must be distinction between virtue and vice, or else there can be no trust – no relationships. Society based on relative morality would self-destruct. A society without absolute standards is existentially dysfunctional to say the least.
There is no logical basis for consistency in thought or action of individuals or nations without morality as a restraint of the immorality inherent in mankind. Are we so far removed by our relativist philosophy that we can say that there is no difference between Hitler and Billy Graham? Can we really logically believe that, relatively speaking, your views are true for you, but not for me? Or, that your views are true for me, but not for you? Does that mean my views are acceptable provided they agree with yours? Who, then, has the authority to judge the validity of anything, especially ethics?
Many people are capable of establishing their own personal refined moral standards without religion. But these systems are based on their strengths and designed to hide their weaknesses. These same self-righteous people judge the world and those around them by these self-made hypocritical virtues. Man can never live up to his own moral standards.
There must be, by necessity, objective authority to establish and enforce principles of moralistic survival.
We cannot deny the moral objectivity of our institutions without denying our nature. God, therefore, extended to humanity in the divine laws of establishment the relational and survival principles that relativists seek to deny. To deny moral authority and obligation is to dismiss God from the equation of life. This is a fatal mistake.
There is a relationship between moral obligation and human dignity which cannot be dissolved by humanistic reason or debate – believe it or not. Just as sin is inherent, morality is inherent. Sin is obvious; therefore, moral law is a necessity.
We are moral beings created after the fashion of a moral God. God is the only rational answer to relativism or secularism. The more relative the issue, the more we should see God in the equation.
Denying God does not eliminate God.
Both right and wrong decisions have consequences in life. Humility and volition are critical issues in each of our lives. The Bible proclaims that God has written morality on the heart of man. His Laws of Divine Establishment are for the benefit of society as well as our very survival. We are free to accept (humility) or reject (ego-arrogance) these moral principles to include the divine inspiration of Scripture. Each of us must stand alone on the choices we make in life toward God, His Word, and morality. Jesus Christ, on the cross, paid the price for our immorality. God Himself provided the only way of salvation from His own wrath.
What more can God do for you? Believe on the cross-work of Jesus Christ and be saved from God’s wrath (John 3:36).