democracy
Peace and blessings
In your third book in the trilogy, you explain that Torah and morality are two different categories and that there are times when morality prevails, and therefore you conclude that since democracy is moral, you will be democratic and will not break idols or burn down mosques, etc.
Question: In the first book of the trilogy, you explain at the end in a very convincing way that God gave the Torah to his people Israel, and if there is such a choice regarding tradition, why should I give space to someone else’s beliefs? This is about facts, and if I believe that the Torah was given, then a fact is the truth.
thanks.
I didn’t understand the question.
Is it moral to give another religion a place because we do not have 100 percent certainty in our faith, and if so, when the prophecy returns and there is certainty in our faith, would it not be moral to leave the other beliefs? Or is it a dilemma that even when we had 100 percent certainty in our faith, it is always moral to leave the other religions, and so why? And even if we do not have 100 percent certainty, but only 90 percent, we still understand and understand that the rest is nonsense, and why were they given a place?
Nothing to do with certainty. You don't make decisions for others and you certainly don't hurt them, even if you are certain.
But if there is certainty that there is a Torah, then all the decisions of others are just a statement without justification, and what I consider them to be, so that the Rabbi will understand, I do not mean the time when the power is not in our hands. I am preparing if we [the religious] control what is given place in the country for foolish opinions, and the intention is not to kill them, but to not give them freedom of worship.
Because people have the right to be wrong. Tolerance is not pluralism (multiple truths or doubts). It is a value in itself.
But such a discussion is unnecessary because you cannot imagine such a situation. When we live in it, if ever, we will know how to behave.
But that's exactly the question. The right to make a mistake is agreed upon. But to what extent does the Rabbi believe this is a mistake and from where is it just nonsense that one should not be patient with? After all, even the Rabbi has things that he understands are just nonsense. Will the Rabbi be patient with all of this?
I am actually a person with a very large imagination, and this is probably the reason why I am on this site to moderate it, and according to the Rabbi's explanations, now I ask the Rabbi, will you be patient even then?
There is no limit. As long as he does not harm others, he will act according to his understanding.
“Then” his mouth will be filled with anger. I wrote that there is no point in such a discussion.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
