Placid within our low rank, toleration is permissible, within certain bounds, of course, relative to the native law of conscience. If margins for the moral compass are intrinsic, the question becomes one of origin. This is rarely, if ever, examined, disclosing insincerity from human beings that herald truth is essential to harmonious living. It is a further denial of the Lawgiver.
Why these tactile and abstract laws? The first publicly reveals our inborn state of being. The second acts as a private governor. Both also serve as reminders. An option to abstain prevails as already shown (the radius of reverenced ‘free will’ that falls hard short of righteousness).
Thresholds for rudiments and temperament vary individually, like pain. One’s conscience may inform, but intention may sway decision making. Therefore, informing the conscience offers itself as a viable endeavor. Should we choose to educate our conscience in correlation, we elicit the danger of errancy; we have already determined our motivations may be suspect.
Of course, this all hinges on Christian doctrine. A veritable Christian will petition the Lord for guidance and receive it. Disputants rather entertain a myriad of philosophies that tout individual judgment either-or resolve may trounce heinousness. Alas, upon analysis, both are unreliable but remain the accepted foundations, which is no surprise, considering humanity’s warped disposition; a principle that lacks concession and attendant emphasis.
Anon's Register 