Grace & Peace!
+Sheen’s use of both bear and tolerate as terms in opposition to each other is merely
rhetorical–the difference is semantic, not actual.
Yes it is actual. In the case of the present sin under discussion. One bears the evil (repercussions) that result from it. We need to because we live in this world and are not immune from it. But we must not be silent and say oh well, it is the same as a heterosexual relationship because they are committed, loving, etc, etc. This is hogwash.
We must say it is disordered. That is what it means to not tolerate it. The consequences of it we must bear.
As I have said before, bear and tolerate in Christ’s instance are two different thing. He bore our sins, but He did not tolerate it.
We see that difference. That you don’t…
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. 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”?
Precisely that, that you hate evil. How else are you supposed to feel about evil? You have not answered that question.
Hatred of what what must be hated is not degrading.
There is a reason for this negative feeling. We must feel negative about what is negative.
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.)
If evil is the absence of good, what are we to feel about its absence?
You see people, killing, raping, maming, abusing other, blaspheming God, etc, etc, etc, These are evils. Are you supposed to NOT FEEL anything about it? Sounds psychopathic to me.
Nonsense. See sin for what it is–a disease in need of cure.
Sin is NOTt a disease in need of a cure. It is simply SIN - a turning a way from God. What it needs is forgiveness NOT CURE. The effects of sin need a 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.
Not quite. We are not giving sin more substance than it has. We are merely recognizing it for what it is: evil, and so must be hated.
But I do agree that the way to fight sin is to increase the good. None the less, sin still must be hated for there is no other way way to feel about it.
As a matter of fact, after that long reply, you have not said at all how one must feel about that ‘absence of good’ for it is not a nothing as you imply. For the simple fact is that the absence of good has resulted in evil. Other wise it would be just a case of “good or nothing” and not “good or evil”.
Nothing is precisely that… nothing. Neither good nor evil.
