Skip to main content

The Truth About the Tolerance

In this postmodern, relativistic, and pluralistic society we live in, it is not unusual for those who believe in absolute truth to be accused of being intolerant and narrow minded. Are those charges and accusations true? Well, let’s consider them more closely:

(1) On the charge of being narrow-minded, there may actually be some truth to that, not because those who believe in absolute truth are narrow-minded themselves but because truth is narrow by definition. For example, if one person states that France is in Asia while another states the France is in South America, is the person who rejects those statements as being false because he happens to know that France is in Europe, intolerant? If somebody who knows that 5 + 5 = 10 rejects somebody else’s statement who says that 5 + 5 = 7, because he has never studied any math, does that make him intolerant? That is nothing more than political correctness run amuck. Truth is narrow by definition because it says that if something is true, then its opposite must be false.

(2) Hypocrisy reigns among those who argue that absolute truth is too narrow. Why? Because the one’s making those claims are as guilty of being narrow-minded as the people they accuse of being narrow-minded, since their claim is made by using absolute truth statements. I am intolerant and narrow-minded when I say that absolute truth exists (an absolute truth statement), but they are not intolerant and narrow-minded when they say truth is relative and there is no such thing as absolute truth (two absolute truth statements). Once again, a self-refuting, circular, and hypocritical argument is being used.

(3) Just because people, particularly Christians, disagree with worldviews or philosophies about truth other people hold, doesn’t mean they are intolerant. By accusing people of intolerance, they prove they don’t understand what intolerance means. Intolerance has nothing to do with truth itself; instead it has to do with the attitude in which one holds truth. Their accusation confuses what is held (truth) with how it is held (attitude).[19] Truth be told, the only way anybody is going to avoid being accused of being intolerant, is to agree with those making the accusations, to accept their claims. Is that not intolerance? When I disagree with their point of view I am intolerant, yet when they disagree with my point of view they are not. Do you see the hypocrisy? If I am intolerant, then they are just as guilty of intolerance as well!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant Word

  All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).   Our primary and final safeguard against false teaching is the Word of God. Verses 16 and 17 of 2 Timothy 3 are among the most important and significant in all the New Testament. They clearly declare the Source of Scripture and thus the Scripture’s authority. Second Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21 for the basis for our conviction that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Paul points out three important truths here: First, all Scripture is God-breathed. When Paul writes in that all Scripture is inspired , he is saying that the entire Bible and every word in it originates with God. Tom Constable correctly states that the Bible “does not merely contain the Word of God or become the Word of God under certain conditions. I...
Post a Comment
Read more

Key Figures in the Tribulation (Part 3)

  His Career      The career of the Antichrist can be broken down into four stages. These stages or phases characterize his progression and ultimately his demise. Prior to the Tribulation     According to Daniel 7, the Antichrist ( “ little horn” ) will come out of the revived Roman empire which means that he is coming from the West. At this stage, he will most likely be the political leader of a powerful western country, powerful enough to enter into a covenant with Israel and guarantee her safety. The restored Roman empire will result from the coming together of a western federation of nations, which appears to take place after the beginning of the tribulation. We may very well be witnessing the initial stages of this prophecy as we witness the coming together of many western European countries who have forged a federation or union socially, politically, and economically.      According to Revelation 6:2, early in the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Her Past, Present, and Future: Understanding the Role of Israel in History (Part 4)

  The Palestinian (Land) Covenant      Four crucial aspects of the covenant amplify the land aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. First, from the beginning of the covenant relationship, God promised Abraham land (e.g., Genesis 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:7; 17:7-8). The land covenant not only reaffirms God’s commitment to give Israel the promised land, but it develops and adds important truths related to the land (e.g., Numbers 34:1-12; Deuteronomy 30:1-10). Second, the land covenant is an unconditional covenant since it is an elaboration of the land aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Nothing, not even Israel’s rebellion and disobedience could nullify the covenant. Yes, Israel’s sin caused them to lose the right to live on the land, but the covenant has not been set aside. Any conditions were connected to the receiving or losing of blessing, not the fulfillment of the covenant promise.      Some argue that Deuteronomy 30:1-3 makes the covenant conditi...
Post a Comment
Read more