B
buffalo
Guest
They are rooted in logic and natural law too.
- Status
A
apromisemade
Guest
I was talking to the OP, not you.
E
exan
Guest
You make a comparison that does not makes sense. Its badly chosen, because you compare an example with two people consenting with one where one has no consent. You are free to think as you do, but its kinda sad you opt out of the discussion with a non argument and cut it off.
S
StevieD
Guest
I accept the teaching of the Church in this matter but there are good reasons for the secular world to re-consider its attitude to gay sex (not that they will). The incidence of:
Sexually transmitted disease
Suicide
Sexual and physical abuse within relationships
Early death from drugs, alcohol and violence
Mental illness and
Reliance on prescription drugs
Is considerably higher in the ‘gay’ world than outside it. The gays and their apologists admit this but claim that this is a result of the pressures of discrimination. However these things are happening more frequently now than in the past, when there was immeasurably more discrimination and more frequently in ‘gay friendly’ countries such as Holland than in countries with a less friendly attitude to them.
I constantly hear people say that Jesus had nothing to say about sexual morality but he did have something to say to the woman taken in adultery about her sin and to the woman at the well about her many partners. We should also remember why John the Baptist died, if that sin did not matter under the new covenant then why did not Jesus intervene?
Sexually transmitted disease
Suicide
Sexual and physical abuse within relationships
Early death from drugs, alcohol and violence
Mental illness and
Reliance on prescription drugs
Is considerably higher in the ‘gay’ world than outside it. The gays and their apologists admit this but claim that this is a result of the pressures of discrimination. However these things are happening more frequently now than in the past, when there was immeasurably more discrimination and more frequently in ‘gay friendly’ countries such as Holland than in countries with a less friendly attitude to them.
I constantly hear people say that Jesus had nothing to say about sexual morality but he did have something to say to the woman taken in adultery about her sin and to the woman at the well about her many partners. We should also remember why John the Baptist died, if that sin did not matter under the new covenant then why did not Jesus intervene?
A
apromisemade
Guest
Three things…
- Gay tolerance was not necessarily lower in the past depending on where in the world you were.
- You don’t give any exact timeframe when you say “in the past.” For all I know you could mean 200 years ago when the population was a lot lower and therefore there would be fewer gay people and fewer such cases. Besides…
- You say a disproportionate number of gay people are deviant and self destructive? A disproportionate number of kids from racial minorities drop out of high school, a disproportionate number of practicing Christian men look at pornography, a disproportionate number of men versus women cheat on their spouses, a disproportionate number of african american children are born out of wedlock, drug abuse among all people is higher than its ever been.
A
apromisemade
Guest
:bowdown2: :bowdown2:
S
StevieD
Guest
S
StevieD
Guest
My point? Re-read my comments carefully, it is perfectly clear and then spend 10 minutes in a Google search - all the stats are available. I am suprised that a truth-seeker like yourself was really unaware of them.
A
apromisemade
Guest
Yes, I read your statistics, but what are you trying to prove? I’m forced to assume your suggesting homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals and are somehow biologically predisposed to do drugs or commit crimes. I suppose you also think a high percentage of African American kids drop out of high school because that’s “just how they are.”
E
exan
Guest
In Holland gay acceptance used to be better than it was, not thanks to christians who are fairly open minded here, but thanks to new muslims who now live here. They are very intolerant and the posts here remind me a bit of them. Rejection by the surroundings is the main factor of gay suicide. Parents and surroundings rejections are the main factors in gay teen suicide. Its a shame some churches still contribute to those. As said, I am not an antitheist, have no problems with normal christians, but fundamentalists like these do not act very moral. I would recommend reading the website “Better dead than gay”. Its about gay christians who suicided because they were gay, and could not live with that because of their surroundings.
Most of the problems mentioned are part of gay unacceptance, not gay aceptance. Nt beeing accepted in a community, forced to live in a relationship with someone who you do not love, hate the sex with… Its not much of a suprise. However you address these issues to the wrong motives, namely gay acceptance, where statictis show gay unacceptance and forced marriages to someone of the not loved sex contribute to these problems, instead of the other way around.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Bordering on the ridiculou. Sexual intercourse makes the humongous difference. These guys are celebate.
You see it is not the living together that is the problem.
Here’s a joke to illustrate:
A young man goes to confession and says: Father forgive me for I slept with my girlfriend.
The priest went: there is no need to forgive you for sleeping with her. The problem is you guys did not sleep.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Not quite. The “bear” in this case “is not synonymous with tolerate”. Tolerate implies a condoning. Jesus bore the evils of the world but Jesus did not tolerate the evils of the world.
Bearing the evil has a positive effect ( Etty Hillesum comes to mind) whereas tolerate signifies a wishy, washy let and let live attitude that either ignores the evil or else puts the evil on par with the good.
But to use the word sanction is not the correct term either. Sanction is not a mere passive condoning but a an active approval of the evil which is not what Sheen is on about.
It seems you are the one who did not give the quote a lot of thought. Sheen did not say that we should hate the sinner. He said we should hate the sin. And unless you have a real hatred for sin, you will end up becoming lovey dovey with it because it is so beguiling.
Sheen was not implying otherwise. Again it seems you are the one who did not get the drift.
Zeal for His Father’s house indedd. But to those who were desecrating His Fathers house?
Sorry but it does indeed. What are you so supposed to do… love evil? You have got to be joking.
So what do you do with evil? Non-chalance? Be lukewarm and wishy washy about it?
It may be true that you can diminish evil by increasing the good but you still have not said how you are supposed to feel about evil.
So do you love or hate it?
B
benedictus2
Guest
How can you be Christian and support gay marriage?
C
Charlotte408
Guest
I wonder this ALL the time!! Just a drive down the road from me theres a christian church- idk if its presbyterian or what and it really doesnt matter- christian is christian, but they have the christian, you know- ‘fish’ out on their front billboard thingy…and its colored in with a rainbow!!! i personally find it offensive…like if someone put a rainbow flag in christ’s hand on the the cross
but whatever i have to be honest and admit i dont know the history of that fishy thing, but as a symbol of my faith, i still feel its been- messed with…
but how CAN they be christians, and be ok with homosexuality??? do they just, LOL, NOT read the parts concerning the matter??? they must skip those pages…
I mean, how do you KNOWINGLY know, that something IS there, CLEAR as day, right in front of you, but you just, ignore it…but then still call yourself a follower of it…???
Its like me claiming to be pro-life, then turning around and dropping my sister off at PP…
they are only hurting the people they are lying to…
B
buffalo
Guest
They are eating the apple all over again.
I wonder this ALL the time!! Just a drive down the road from me theres a christian church- idk if its presbyterian or what and it really doesnt matter- christian is christian, but they have the christian, you know- ‘fish’ out on their front billboard thingy…and its colored in with a rainbow!!! i personally find it offensive…like if someone put a rainbow flag in christ’s hand on the the cross
but whatever i have to be honest and admit i dont know the history of that fishy thing, but as a symbol of my faith, i still feel its been- messed with…
but how CAN they be christians, and be ok with homosexuality??? do they just, LOL, NOT read the parts concerning the matter??? they must skip those pages…
I mean, how do you KNOWINGLY know, that something IS there, CLEAR as day, right in front of you, but you just, ignore it…but then still call yourself a follower of it…???
Its like me claiming to be pro-life, then turning around and dropping my sister off at PP…
C
Charlotte408
Guest
THEY ARE!!! and you know whats worse?!?!
its its said that, you know, ‘to whom much is given, much is expected’
and reaaaaally the only way that Christ would deny someone, is if they’ve denied Him-
So these people are RECEIVING the word of Christ, they KNOW his teachings- but they are REJECTING the teachings, and therefore REJECTING Him!!
talk about eating the apple and CHOKING on it!
A
apromisemade
Guest
The priest went: there is no need to forgive you for sleeping with her. The problem is you guys did not sleep.
A
apromisemade
Guest
People do it all the time.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I remain unconvinced that +Sheen is actually saying anything when he says love bears but doesn’t tolerate. He’s just engaging in word play in order to produce a rhetorical effect. Meaning here is secondary to feeling. This leads me to believe that +Sheen’s point was less to edify and more to polemicize. As such, his text assumes a character of pious affectation in which an understanding of good and evil consistent with the Fathers and traditional Christian theodicy can be thrown over for a flourish (most often an aphoristic syllogism) or some other affect. It is all highly artificial.
This is part of my point. It sounds noble to say, “I hate evil.” But hatred itself is particularly degrading. What do you actually say when you say, “I hate evil”?
My contention: you say absolutely nothing. But you produce an affect of rhetorical righteousness. Why do I believe this?
Because evil (according to the Fathers) has no substance. The only realm in which it can be said to have substance is when it is considered rhetorically or metaphorically. Only the good has substance. Only the good can be loved or hated. Evil, having no substance, is no fit object of any emotion. There’s no there there. What is the point of hating nothingness? What is the point of having contempt for an absence of being? (See Origen, the Gregorys (Nyssa and Palamas), Julian of Norwich, and others.)
This lovey-dovey talk is rubbish and speaks more to a political fear than to an actual concern for correct theodicy.
[Continued…]
+Sheen’s use of both bear and tolerate as terms in opposition to each other is merely rhetorical–the difference is semantic, not actual.Not quite. The “bear” in this case “is not synonymous with tolerate”. Tolerate implies a condoning. Jesus bore the evils of the world but Jesus did not tolerate the evils of the world.So do you love or hate it?
I remain unconvinced that +Sheen is actually saying anything when he says love bears but doesn’t tolerate. He’s just engaging in word play in order to produce a rhetorical effect. Meaning here is secondary to feeling. This leads me to believe that +Sheen’s point was less to edify and more to polemicize. As such, his text assumes a character of pious affectation in which an understanding of good and evil consistent with the Fathers and traditional Christian theodicy can be thrown over for a flourish (most often an aphoristic syllogism) or some other affect. It is all highly artificial.
You’re right, condone is a much better word! Consider, though, that if +Sheen had employed condone as opposed to tolerate, he would have found it difficult to write the rest of his text, relying as it does on affect and not actually on meaning. Again, this is one of my problems with his text.
I never said he did. My problem is with a rhetoric of hate which seeks to enoble hatred. What that hatred is directed at doesn’t address my problem. +Sheen is building such a rhetoric.
This is part of my point. It sounds noble to say, “I hate evil.” But hatred itself is particularly degrading. What do you actually say when you say, “I hate evil”?
My contention: you say absolutely nothing. But you produce an affect of rhetorical righteousness. Why do I believe this?
Because evil (according to the Fathers) has no substance. The only realm in which it can be said to have substance is when it is considered rhetorically or metaphorically. Only the good has substance. Only the good can be loved or hated. Evil, having no substance, is no fit object of any emotion. There’s no there there. What is the point of hating nothingness? What is the point of having contempt for an absence of being? (See Origen, the Gregorys (Nyssa and Palamas), Julian of Norwich, and others.)
Nonsense. See sin for what it is–a disease in need of cure. See evil for what it is–a lack of the good. If you give evil more substance than that, it will (not unsurprisingly) seem more substantial, it will prove a distraction to a focus on the good, and it will wind up becoming mesmerizing. Not to mention that you’ll wind up secretly subscribing to some sort of manichaean dualism.
This lovey-dovey talk is rubbish and speaks more to a political fear than to an actual concern for correct theodicy.
[Continued…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…continued and completed]
How should we feel about evil? Did not Paul answer this question when he said, “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Was Paul a liar? Did he not know what he was talking about? In Philippians 4, does he once mention that there is a virtue in hatred, that we should overcome evil by hating it?
This concept that there is nothing in evil to hate or to love is really not particularly difficult to grasp. It surprises me that it should prove so problematic.
It is ultimately my argument that it is impossible to actually hate evil. As I wrote above, there is simply nothing to hate. There is also nothing to love. How should we feel about something that lacks all presence? This is a ridiculous question! We should focus on what is there: a wounded good. Because the good is all there is to love or hate. We fall into error and sin when we love the decayed condition of the decayed good–that’s perversion. We fall into error and sin when we hate the decayed good–that doesn’t help anyone or anything (although it may help us to feel nice about how righteous we can sound or feel–but that’s just ego, emptiness, and sin).
We would do well to love the good, to preserve it, to heal it. And if we must have a relationship to the decay of the good, then let it be one of mourning, of holy tears, of fasting, of praying, in trusting in the strength of the good grace of the Good God to overcome the decay of evil, in rejoicing in love in the good that God has given. Hatred is mere solipsistic self-aggrandizement, a pomposity based on our belief that some kind of righteous hatred can somehow accomplish God’s will. To borrow a term from Lutheranism, that’s simply works-righteousness, pure and simple. Utter illusion and folly.
This remains part of my problem with love the sinner hate the sin sort of talk. It’s rubbish. It’s absolutely cynical in its suggestion that love and hate go hand in hand, that you can love a person by hating their sin. Or that hating their sin is particularly productive of anything but cheap rhetoric. Shouldn’t loving the person be enough? If it isn’t, doesn’t that suggest that there’s a problem with how we love, or with our faith in what love can do?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
To what degree do you lack faith in the power of good to overcome evil? To what degree do you not believe that love is sufficient that you must augment it with hatred?So what do you do with evil? Non-chalance? Be lukewarm and wishy washy about it?
It may be true that you can diminish evil by increasing the good but you still have not said how you are supposed to feel about evil.
So do you love or hate it?
How should we feel about evil? Did not Paul answer this question when he said, “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Was Paul a liar? Did he not know what he was talking about? In Philippians 4, does he once mention that there is a virtue in hatred, that we should overcome evil by hating it?
This concept that there is nothing in evil to hate or to love is really not particularly difficult to grasp. It surprises me that it should prove so problematic.
It is ultimately my argument that it is impossible to actually hate evil. As I wrote above, there is simply nothing to hate. There is also nothing to love. How should we feel about something that lacks all presence? This is a ridiculous question! We should focus on what is there: a wounded good. Because the good is all there is to love or hate. We fall into error and sin when we love the decayed condition of the decayed good–that’s perversion. We fall into error and sin when we hate the decayed good–that doesn’t help anyone or anything (although it may help us to feel nice about how righteous we can sound or feel–but that’s just ego, emptiness, and sin).
We would do well to love the good, to preserve it, to heal it. And if we must have a relationship to the decay of the good, then let it be one of mourning, of holy tears, of fasting, of praying, in trusting in the strength of the good grace of the Good God to overcome the decay of evil, in rejoicing in love in the good that God has given. Hatred is mere solipsistic self-aggrandizement, a pomposity based on our belief that some kind of righteous hatred can somehow accomplish God’s will. To borrow a term from Lutheranism, that’s simply works-righteousness, pure and simple. Utter illusion and folly.
This remains part of my problem with love the sinner hate the sin sort of talk. It’s rubbish. It’s absolutely cynical in its suggestion that love and hate go hand in hand, that you can love a person by hating their sin. Or that hating their sin is particularly productive of anything but cheap rhetoric. Shouldn’t loving the person be enough? If it isn’t, doesn’t that suggest that there’s a problem with how we love, or with our faith in what love can do?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
- Status