The Objective One
He stands alone in the middle, a man with no voice. He doesn’t belong to one side, but to some of the both. Some say he is ignorant. He is neither a Democrat or Republican, left or right wing, religious fanatic or a heathen. The only thing he opposes is subjectivity, the vice that fuels hatred toward a certain belief. A mouth that gathers up biased opinions will choke on its superfluity in due time.
He takes a little bit from each category, and lives by that little bit that makes sense to him through his discernment; not somebody else’s. He is a complete man living through his chosen beliefs, the way that God created him to do. He recognizes the faults of the majority, and chooses not to follow them. He knows that he is an outsider, but is at peace with himself for not submitting to subjective ways.
If he had chosen to support the burning of the “witches” in Salem, he would have gone against God’s will. If he had chosen to join forces in the support of fanatical Islamic beliefs, he would have gone against God’s will. It is that objective benevolence that is part of our moral inheritance that lives in our soul.
If he used foul language, or sometimes ingested alcohol, would that make him immoral? If he did these things while upholding morality, would that make him an immoral person? Should morality be judged by people with biased opinions or by God?
Jesus turned the water into wine, that intoxicating beverage, at the wedding. Does that mean he did something immoral if he instigated drunkenness? After the crucifixion, he went to hell “that naughty swear word,” before he went back up to heaven to be with his father. Does that mean that somebody who says that “hell word” is immoral? Religious leaders use it in their speeches all the time. It is that place where moral people don’t want to end up in. Aren’t they allowed to know what it is?
The middle of both
It is not the black
Nor the white
But the gray