Here is what I think about homosexuality and Christianity

[crazzeto]

Grace & Peace!

Let’s get a little more serious.

Please

1–The Greeks followed natural law in this regard if by natural law one understands the idea that the realm of women should be separate from the realm of men and that sex in either realm is oriented to different purposes and subject to separate kinds of cultural regulation and sanction.

They followed natural law, in so far as women and men had roles to play. On no terms, did the ancient Greeks ever attempt to blur the line between man & woman, which is exactly what is going on with today’s culture and all this talk about “same sex marriage”.

2–Homosexual marriage was not allowed for two reasons–A) why debase a perfectly good sexual friendship by associating it with the womanly world of domestic marriage? B) Same sex relationships were already recognized in society under a different social structure. Why? Because same sex relationships and marriage relationships served different social functions–they therefore had their own socially recognized structures.

They were not recognized because “same sex marriage” has no validity.

3–We, on the other hand, as a culture, do not have these separate structures, nor do we have the sense of the absolute inviolability of the masculine and feminine realms, particularly since a: the advent of the idea that romance is required in a marriage and; b: the end of WWII and the entrance of women into the workforce in which the masculine and feminine social realms mixed irrevocably. Therefore, it makes more sense for us to speak of gay marriage than for the Greeks due to the difference in our cultural values (specifically due to the difference between how we conceive of the masculine and the feminine) in addition to the lack of any broadly recognized *specific *social structure in which a same sex relationship can be conducted openly. Marriage is the limit of our vocabulary in this regard and by it we are culturally forced (for all intents and purposes) to understand any loving commitment between two people by this term–we have no other option.

I would only agree that there are people such as your self who are trying to convince everyone else in the world that there is absolutly no difference in any way between a man and a woman. The problem is no matter how many words you try to use, no matter how “evolved” you try and make it sound, no matter how academic your speach and arguments it doesn’t change the basic facts. There are differences between men and women, men carry the seed of future generations and women bare them. This is not a commantary on equality, this is a realization of a basic fundamental fact which can not change. These differences, principally biological bleeds over into psychological differences which are real and stark. Again, no commantary on the equality of men and women, it is just another basic fact. We are in fact different, God made us different for a purpose, so that one man would cleve to one woman and bare childeren with her. Even if you remove God from the equation (and I have no problem doing so for th purposes of this argument), nature dictates the very same. There is a feminine and masculine for a reason.

4–The Greeks were not pro-gay. They did not have our understanding of gay or straight or what have you. They understood sexuality to be complex, to have various purposes which could be expressed in various contexts. They understood that there was a relationship between beauty and sexual desire and created structures within which that desire could be celebrated or expressed. They understood that one should not become a slave to one’s passions. They understood that a sexual relationship between two men was fundamentally different than a sexual relationship between a man and a woman and they did not feel it necessary to make either sort of relationship culturally anathema. Both relationships were to be conducted according to specific cultural guidelines relating to the specific spheres in which the relationships took place. There is no understanding of gay, straight, or bi here.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

The were pro-gay, by our standards.

 

[Liraco]

Over time, many have engaged in homosexual acts, but have not self-identified as homosexual, or even bisexual. The overt personal identification as homosexual, or “gay”, appears to be a modern phenomenon.

As Peter Kreeft wisely noted, he said “I think homosexuals are the only group of people who identify themselves with their sin”. You are a man or a woman, THAT is your sexuality. You are not homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual… how you choose to have sex is a thing you DO, not what you are.

You are what you are, NOT what you do.

A baseball player who retires, does he stop being a man? No. He stopped one thing he DID, but that doesn’t mean he no longer is. If you stopped engaging in homosexual acts, what are you then? You’re still a man or a woman, regardless.

 

[benedictus2]

I recognize that there are many gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and that many of these relationships are markedly superior to some married heterosexual relationships.

How can an illegitimate relationship be “markedly superior” to a legitimate relationship. Commitment and dis-ordered love does not make for a “markedly superior” relationship.

Would an incestous relationship where both partners are 'committed" and “in-love” with each other be considered a good relationship at all?

No homosexual relationship will ever be better than heterosexual relationship because it is a relationship that one should not be in at all.

 

[benedictus2]

As Peter Kreeft wisely noted, he said “I think homosexuals are the only group of people who identify themselves with their sin”. You are a man or a woman, THAT is your sexuality. You are not homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual… how you choose to have sex is a thing you DO, not what you are.

You are what you are, NOT what you do.

A baseball player who retires, does he stop being a man? No. He stopped one thing he DID, but that doesn’t mean he no longer is. If you stopped engaging in homosexual acts, what are you then? You’re still a man or a woman, regardless.

Bravo!!!:clapping::clapping:

Trust Peter Kreeft to come up with excellent reasoning.

 

[benedictus2]

Listen. Bottom line here is Christ already knows what you are to become before you are born. As a child finds out he is gay at such a young age, if he suddenly died, I doubt God would send him straight to hell. God loves everyone regardless. People need to realize this and treat gays as they would treat themselves, with respect and kindness, as stated in our Catechism.

Treating gays with kindness does not mean that we should accept homosexual activity as okay.

Love the sinner hate the sin. The homosexual act is a sin. We can’t be wishy washy about this.

Love and Truth has to go together.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

How can an illegitimate relationship be “markedly superior” to a legitimate relationship. Commitment and dis-ordered love does not make for a “markedly superior” relationship.

Would an incestous relationship where both partners are 'committed" and “in-love” with each other be considered a good relationship at all?

No homosexual relationship will ever be better than heterosexual relationship because it is a relationship that one should not be in at all.

What I meant to say is that some homosexual relationships are marked by fidelity and constancy, over many years. Many heterosexual relationships are not. I agree, as you see from my posting, that homosexuality is not sanctioned in the Bible. Please see my posting as displaying all the reasoning that brought me to my final conclusion.

I know several gay couples who were “married” in 2008. They are family and/or friends. Having to say their relationship is wrong is painful to me. Therefore, I say that the case is at best unproven. That is the best thing I can say. Otherwise, I should say that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.

This is not an easy thing for me, and I am straight.

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=Usbek de Perse;5934100]I am an Episcopalian who has been wrestling with this issue for a long time. I am not gay, but the issue has vexed me for a long time.

So, I have wrestled with this a great deal. Frankly, the prohibitions in Leviticus are not that pursuasive, as the law of the ancient Hebrews reflected a need to procreate in family units in order to preserve the race.

But the world of Jesus and of St. Paul was a very different time. It was as cosmopolitan as our world of today. Survival of any race was not a issue then or now. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Usbek,

One of the ten commandment is “thou shall not kill” is it ok to start killing now because the world is full of people? NO!

Homosexuallity is wrong! Even if the Worlds population is busting at the seams we still must procreate. Therefore a Man must leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. And if any religion tells you otherwise wether by preaching or by their actions is a wrong religon and you must leave it ASAP.

Ufam Tobie

 

[StrawberryJam]

Charlotte 408,

Can you explain your post to me (number 36) in further detial? I am confused by your reply and frankly dissapointed by it.

But, don’t feel alone. I was looking for others to comment on it, and at least you bit at it, no matter how it turned out for you.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Usbek,

One of the ten commandment is “thou shall not kill” is it ok to start killing now because the world is full of people? NO!

Homosexuallity is wrong! Even if the Worlds population is busting at the seams we still must procreate. Therefore a Man must leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. And if any religion tells you otherwise wether by preaching or by their actions is a wrong religon and you must leave it ASAP.

Ufam Tobie

Read my whole post before jumping to conclusions. I agree with you. I am not leaving one error to jump into another.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

They followed natural law, in so far as women and men had roles to play. On no terms, did the ancient Greeks ever attempt to blur the line between man & woman, which is exactly what is going on with today’s culture and all this talk about “same sex marriage”.

If this is the extent to which we are considering natural law here, then I suppose I’m inclined to agree–the Greeks did indeed believe in some inviolable boundaries between the worlds of men and women.

Again, though, we have to consider that the Greeks viewed sex differently than we do. It was permissible for two men to have some sort of sexual relations within a given set of generally understood cultural bounds. This was, in fact, part of what it meant to be a man and a citizen in Greek society (particularly in Athens and Thebes and, to some extent, Sparta).

They did not have a revulsion for same sex marriage because they believed that sex was only to occur between a man and woman within the sanctity of the marriage bond. On the contrary, a belief in marital sex as singularly valuable was non-existent. Sex between men had its own cultural value, too. There was, therefore, no need to speak of the value of same sex sexual relationships in terms of the value of marriage because same-sex sexual relationships were already accorded a particular social value. There were two different value structures–one for relationships with women, one for relationships with other men. If we had a parallel structure, like the Greeks did (and one could argue that the homosexual subcultures which became mainstream in the sixties and seventies provided this parallel structure before they became mainstream), we, too, would not be having conversations about same sex marriage.

They were not recognized because “same sex marriage” has no validity.

The question of validity is unrelated to why the ancient Greeks did not have same-sex marriage. They did not have it because same-sex sexual relationships were valued differently and did not need to be valued in terms of man-woman marriage in order to have cultural prestige and significance.

It seems like you’re trying to make an argument that the Greeks didn’t have same-sex marriage because they recognized the exclusive sanctity of man-woman marriage. This is simply untrue. They didn’t have it because it was unnecessary–same-sex relationships had their own socially recognized value.

I would only agree that there are people such as your self who are trying to convince everyone else in the world that there is absolutly no difference in any way between a man and a woman.

You’re making me party to a set of beliefs in which I hold no stock. There is absolutely a difference between men and women.

What you’re subsequently struggling to articulate is that that difference does not mean that there is an inequality of value. There are surely differences both qualitative and quantitative. But those differences do not mean that one sex is of greater value than another.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

There are differences between men and women, men carry the seed of future generations and women bare them. This is not a commantary on equality, this is a realization of a basic fundamental fact which can not change.

Okay. Are men and women different? YES! Are they equal? Depends on the context in which you’re asking the question–a man makes a very poor birth-mother, for instance. Men tend to be, generally, physically stronger than women. Women tend to have, generally, a higher pain threshold than men. And on and on. But are men and women equally valuable? YES! But believing these things, what do we do about them?

Our ancestors relegated women to the home. Business, government, culture etc. were occupations for men. The roles for men and women in society were clearly delineated–one deviated from those roles at one’s peril. Women entering the workforce was one of the great cultural shifts which paved the way to our current discussion of same-sex marriage. So should we argue that women should leave the workforce? Are we prepared to go that far? Keep in mind that our ancestors also believed that women were inferior to men–this belief was very helpful to them in maintaining the separation of the sexes. But we don’t believe this. In part, we don’t believe this because the women who broke down the barrier between the genders taught us differently. So what are we to do?

Making a fuss about same-sex marriage isn’t going to come close to addressing the issue, which is a broader cultural problem: How do we recognize the equal value of men and women and how do we celebrate their differences while at the same time affirming that they are not, in all ways, equal? How can we characterize them as distinct while refusing to make a value judgment on the distinctions we make? These are hard questions. But these are the questions that need to be asked and resolved, not “is same-sex marriage a good idea?” That question is moot until the other questions are answered.

At any rate, the real problem in our culture with homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage is not whether or not the Bible, our church, or nature thinks its wrong. The real problem relates to having to deal with the concept of the feminized or “penetrated” man and/or the masculinized or “penetrating” woman. This is the stuff of our collective Freudian nightmare. But its not part of the conversation. Why? Because dealing with a peripheral question (gay marriage) seems easier to tackle when in fact, that question barely scratches the surface of the cultural problem in which we find ourselves mired.

(We can start addressing the broader problem by asking how we discover and affirm value as a culture. Unfortunately, we’ll find that value is related to commerce in our culture. If we can find other ways to discover and affirm value that don’t have to do with money, perhaps we can begin to get somewhere…)

There is a feminine and masculine for a reason.

This is a different question altogether. Feminine and masculine are cultural constructs. This is why homosexuality generally presents a problem to us, but did not present a like problem to the Greeks–their notions of the masculine and feminine were different. In other words, what men and women are qua men and women is one thing–a fact. What they do, how they relate to their culture, how the express their man-ness, their woman-ness is cultural determined–this is what we call masculine and feminine.

The were pro-gay, by our standards.

Problem is, though, our standards have nothing to do with them. I can call William Blake a Romantic poet because he shares some qualities with the later Romantics, but the fact is, he’s not a Romantic poet. I can call William Burroughs a beat writer because he hung around with Ginsberg and Kerouac, but the fact is, he’s not a beat writer. I can call Buchner’s Woyzeck Brechtian in its episodic structure, but that’s dishonest. I can call the early community of the apostles a socialist collective, but the fact is, socialism had nothing to do with it. The Greeks were not pro-gay. Period.

To bring all of this to a personal level–I’m gay and have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for over 11 years now. I’m not interested in the rite of marriage being read over my partner and me. The rite of marriage is a particular rite which assumes particular participants of two different genders. Anything else, I think, is a bit disingenuous. I wouldn’t mind a blessing. A blessing would be nice. But a blessing that looked like the marriage rite would be uncomfortable to me. The old adelphopoiea rites look like a step in a truer direction. With regard to the state, however, I would like us to enjoy the various benefits and responsibilities which any heterosexual “married” couple enjoy. I generally see the offices of the state and of the church to be two different things entirely.

Anyway…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[benidict]

I am an Episcopalian who has been wrestling with this issue for a long time. I am not gay, but the issue has vexed me for a long time.

I recognize that there are many gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and that many of these relationships are markedly superior to some married heterosexual relationships. And I recognize that it is not likely possible to switch from being gay to being straight.

So, I have wrestled with this a great deal. Frankly, the prohibitions in Leviticus are not that pursuasive, as the law of the ancient Hebrews reflected a need to procreate in family units in order to preserve the race.

But the world of Jesus and of St. Paul was a very different time. It was as cosmopolitan as our world of today. Survival of any race was not a issue then or now. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

St. Paul did, especially in Romans. He saw homosexuality in a modern context, and he reacted to what he saw. There is no reason to imagine that St. Paul did not understand that there were committed relationships among the homosexuals and lesbians he saw in his time.

Now, back to Jesus. Again he said nothing. And since nothing else in his Gospels suggests that he would license novel sexual practices, it is hard to imagine that he would license homosexuality as an alternative to committed life-long heterosexual marriage.

I have wrestled with this for some time. I want to liberal and “fair”. I want to see gay relationships as close to equal to straight relationships, but I can’t. Study of scripture and a reasoned understanding of history shows me this is not possible.

And so, with some reluctance (really), I conclude that the case for homosexual marriage, or any openly accepted homosexuality in Christianity is at best not proven.

I am not about to abandon my church, either for another Anglican group or for Rome. I will stay as a reasoning witness.

hi. the words gay and marriage, do not fit together. the history of the homosexual movement at least in america was an anti marriage movement. but be that as it may, and to be fair. have studied jewish rabbinical writings on this subject, and it is interesting to note. that although male homosexuality is soundly comdemned in the law of moses, lesbianism is not. you get a huge uhhhhh. when it comes to this. basically the rabbis taught that a husband should discourage his wife from partaking in such relationships. but if a woman did this, she did not sin. she could not however be married to a priest, and she could not be considered a virgin. just and aside. i think if you wanted to study the rabbinical writings on this issue, you would find them very interesting. dont get the wrong idea, im personally very much against the lifestyle, but not against the people who live it. and no its not so much on moral grounds, as it is a health issue, societal issue ie. raising children, and adoption. etc. God bless you and yours. peace

 

[CatholicsCame1s]

Treating gays with kindness does not mean that we should accept homosexual activity as okay.

Love the sinner hate the sin. The homosexual act is a sin. We can’t be wishy washy about this.

Love and Truth has to go together./

So what you are saying is that ALL gay people, which is BTW quite a lot, are ALL going to hell? That simply is not true. And to state such a lie is terrible. I am not gay nor am I a man. I do not support gay marriage either. God would NOT send children to hell no matter what you tell me. He knows what you are to become from birth, even before birth. You seriously sound like a homophobic.
God is the only one who can judge others. Not you.

 

[Scottgun]

**

So what you are saying is that ALL gay people, which is BTW quite a lot, are ALL going to hell? That simply is not true. And to state such a lie is terrible. I am not gay nor am I a man. I do not support gay marriage either. God would NOT send children to hell no matter what you tell me. He knows what you are to become from birth, even before birth. You seriously sound like a homophobic.

God is the only one who can judge others. Not you.**

I would suggest doing benedictus the courtesy of not reading things into his comment that he did not say or even imply. Let’s try it this way:

Is murder wrong?
Is bank robbery wrong?
Are homosexual acts wrong?

The truth is that not only are they wrong, they are gravely wrong, and it is not being judgemental to say so because we are talking about an act independent of the actor. Now:

Are ALL murderers going to Hell?
Are ALL bank robbers going to Hell?
Are ALL homosexuals going to Hell?

The truth is that this is God’s judgement and not any of ours because while we know all those acts are gravely wrong (and can and should say so), what we don’t know is their personal culpability for committing those wrongs. And finally:

Are children born with violent tendencies going to Hell?
Are children born with kleptomania going to Hell?
Are children born with attraction to the same sex going to Hell?

The truth is not because of these dispositions in and of themselves.

 

[Liraco]

Charlotte 408,
Can you explain your post to me (number 36) in further detial? I am confused by your reply and frankly dissapointed by it.

Animals that are “homosexual” are rare, and in if you’re going to use animals to explain human’s validity in twisting their nature then would you’d have to accept rape. Seriously. Drakes rape other ducks (sometimes killing them). Does an animal doing something justify humans doing it? I would hope not, and I’d assume you’d agree.

Rather than look at the exceptions, look at the norm. Most animals all have male and female, even if there are a few cases where roles are inverted (seahorses for example). It should also be noted in the case of “gay” animals, they make those pairings because of an imbalance in the gender of the population (in the case of male “couples”, they steal eggs from others to raise as their own). Not something praise-worthy.

So what you are saying is that ALL gay people, which is BTW quite a lot, are ALL going to hell?

Three requirements must be met for sin to be mortal: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.

Someone who is not Catholic or not properly taught may not have full knowledge, some may not even give deliberate consent as some are coerced, but in ALL cases there is grave matter.

As has been said though, no one can judge someone’s soul. We can and SHOULD call a spade a spade, a sin a sin, but that doesn’t mean we’re judging the person. How loving would it be if I saw you trying to stick a fork in the wall and didn’t tell you to stop before you hurt yourself?

Also, the Church has never taught that anyone is in hell. Why? Because God is the judge. We can say what is wrong but we can certainly count on Him to be the ultimate and fairest judge.

If a child were really born gay, He knows. If a child was forced into homosexuality, He knows. If a person’s cross is same-sex attraction, He knows. We all have our crosses, but they must be carried, not dropped.

 

[exan]

I don’t have much problems with religion over all but when I read threads like this it does make my eyebrows raise. Tolerance or a bit of considerance towards other people is not what some posters show. And I’m not talking about what jesus might or might not have though, but the peoples harsh opinions themself and the way they express them. Not very friendly to gay people.

“Love the sinner”? Do you people have any idea how hatefull some comments sound? Thats no “love”. I do not see such harshness towards divorced people. Theres a very different measuring with two standards here.

Treating gays with kindness does not mean that we should accept homosexual activity as okay.

Love the sinner hate the sin. The homosexual act is a sin. We can’t be wishy washy about this.

*"Treating christians with kindness does not mean that we should accept christian beliefs as okay.

Love the deluded hate the delusion. The christian belief is a delusion."*

Its like I hear a bunch of antitheists discussing, but then in christian form. And some milder people, but not many.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin”. This kind of “love” is about the same kind of love Richard Dawkins shows to christianity. Such a loving man. sarcasm.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t have much problems with religion over all but when I read threads like this it does make my eyebrows raise. Tolerance or a bit of considerance towards other people is not what some posters show. And I’m not talking about what jesus might or might not have though, but the peoples harsh opinions themself and the way they express them. Not very friendly to gay people.

“Love the sinner”? Do you people have any idea how hatefull some comments sound? Thats no “love”. I do not see such harshness towards divorced people. Theres a very different measuring with two standards here.

*"Treating christians with kindness does not mean that we should accept christian beliefs as okay.

Love the deluded hate the delusion. The christian belief is a delusion."*
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5945124
*
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.* Its like I hear a bunch of antitheists discussing, but then in christian form. And some milder people, but not many.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin”. This kind of “love” is about the same kind of love Richard Dawkins shows to christianity. Such a loving man. sarcasm.

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
*Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
*which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[Scottgun]

"Treating christians with kindness does not mean that we should accept christian beliefs as okay.

Love the deluded hate the delusion. The christian belief is a delusion."

I think you intended this twist in an attempt to make “Love the sinner, hate the sin” look ridiculous, but it doesn’t. If someone said it to me, I wouldn’t take offense at all because a). I DO expect to be treated at best with kindness and at the least with civility by people even if one does not think my beliefs are ok b.) it is an opening to discuss the facts and I can provide a rational, non-deluded basis for my faith to anyone with willing ears. and c.) the only way I can think of in which I would take offense is if my beliefs were merely an ideological facade to cover something else and the cognitive dissonance stirred me to lash out.

But anyway, let me offer this to everyone here. It’s the testimony of David MacDonald, who was able to overcome a disasterous lifestyle and overcome homosexual temptations: davidmacd.com/web_pages/gay_testimony.htm

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

*Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
*Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
*which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

Buffalo, I know you’re fond of quoting +Sheen, particularly in threads dealing with homosexuality, but I wonder if you’ve given this text more than a merely cursory glance.

First, the idea of toleration includes the idea of bearing and enduring. They are, in fact, synonyms (to bear, to tolerate, to endure). Which makes sense, given that the Latin from which the word tolerate comes (tolere, I believe) means to bear, to tolerate, to endure. So +Sheen’s opening line that love bears but does not tolerate evil is, in fact, meaningless. His infelicitous use of a synonym renders his argument absurd–he basically says, “Love bears evil, but it does not bear evil.” Hmmm. It would have been better had he written, “Love endures evil, but does not sanction it.” That’s his meaning. But his desire to make a rhetorical point regarding tolerance gets in the way of actually making a meaningful point.

But perhaps the most disturbing idea in this text is the notion that true love requires true hate. This is fundamentally ridiculous and unsupported by the gospel. The invocation of the casting out of the money-changers lends only tenuous support–nowhere, to my knowledge, is it mentioned that Jesus hated the money changers. Or that hatred was a motivating factor at all. In fact, it would be more accurate to say Jesus’ love motivated the cleansing of the temple (as in the Psalmist’s statement regarding zeal for God’s house consuming him). The idea that there is some sort of dialectic going on between love and hate in the hearts of the truly faithful is an absurdity which admits an element of dualism–we should hate the evil as we love the good. What? Since when did Christian theodicy admit a dialectic between good and evil, as if they were two opposite poles on a moral continuum? It is not for nothing that we are counseled to resist not evil. Why? Because evil has no positive existence (see the theodicy of Augustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, the Capadocian Fathers, etc.). When we “resist evil”, we accord it a positive existence it does not have, setting it up on the same moral plane as the good, thereby actually denigrating the good by suggesting that it has something in common with evil! As such, we are not called upon to hate evil–because it’s an absurd enterprise. The idea that hating evil accomplishes anything particularly good is akin to the idea that you can light up a room by slowing removing spoonfulls of darkness from it. No no no. You light up a room by turning on the light. You combat evil not by hating it, but by loving the good, the true, the beautiful wherever it may be found. This is how evil is truly resisted. Hatred has nothing at all to do with it.

That so much of +Sheen’s text here is devoted to a message of positive hatred is deeply troubling and should give one pause. Either he has no understanding of Christian theodicy, has a weak view of the good, does not trust in the power of love…or is merely indulging in a bit of rhetoric. The former options are troubling with regard to +Sheen’s grasp of doctrine. But the latter is even more troubling as it suggests that he is willing to throw the doctrine he knows perfectly well out the window for the sake of a rhetorical flourish or clever aphorism which does little more than romanticize hatred.

Charity may not be a mild ‘live and let live’ sort of affair. But it certainly doesn’t demand hatred in order to be true or compelling, no matter how nobly one wishes to characterize that hatred. After all, the anger of men does not accomplish the righteousness of God.

I realize this is all off topic, but I’ve seen this text thrown into threads often enough not to comment on its questionable content.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[JC_Forgiven]

But perhaps the most disturbing idea in this text is the notion that true love requires true hate.

I personally think your looking for meaning beyond the original intent. It’s simple, the more you draw closer to God, the more you will hate sin… even the garments…You know, If you love me you will keep my comandments…God hates sin, Right?