C
Corki
Guest
It is not loving to confirm someone in her sin.
- Status
C
Country_Gal
Guest
It’s a religious school, not a public one. How can a practising lesbian sign a contract that she knew she was going to violate? The school should sue her for fraud.
I’m not a big anti-gay person, I even voted to allow gay marriage. But, it really irks me that gays can’t seem to accept that some religions or persons disapprove of them. Part of tolerance is accepting that others disagree with your beliefs or way of living.
I’m not a big anti-gay person, I even voted to allow gay marriage. But, it really irks me that gays can’t seem to accept that some religions or persons disapprove of them. Part of tolerance is accepting that others disagree with your beliefs or way of living.
R
Rosebud77
Guest
Have you read the Word of God on this as He is very clear that homosexuality is far from harmless; it is on this that we base our beliefs
Please elucidate on the Golden Rule as you think it applies in this case.
Thank you
R
Rosebud77
Guest
Interesting; please define “loving”
In my experience most gays refuse to be loved unless you support their lifestyle.
How would you handle that please.
I have known many gays all of whom rejected my friendship when they realised I am Christian
At present I am very careful indeed when talking to eg a blatantly camp librarian and ditto shop assistants
Always courteous and pleasant
What would you think appropriate if one of them told me re an active gay lifestyle and expected me to support him in that…NB I have no idea if that is the case and do not want to frankly.
Because this is the reality we are really talking about not some vague emotional response
These are very serious issues with deep spiritual consequences
Q
quiet52
Guest
Have Christians forgotten that we are to hate sin? Hating sin, not condoning sin, not following others who want to legitimize sin, is an act of love. It is not hating the sinner.
We can pray for and love Ms. Hale and her partner. It is not out of hatred for her that she was terminated. It was out of love for the children whose formation in faith trumps the importance of Ms. Hale’s violating her contract.
Is tolerance a virtue?
catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0093.html
Tolerance is not a Christian virtue (Archbishop Charles Chaput)
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-prelate-on-the-catholic-political-vocation
We can pray for and love Ms. Hale and her partner. It is not out of hatred for her that she was terminated. It was out of love for the children whose formation in faith trumps the importance of Ms. Hale’s violating her contract.
Is tolerance a virtue?
catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0093.html
Tolerance is not a Christian virtue (Archbishop Charles Chaput)
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-prelate-on-the-catholic-political-vocation
C
carpenter383
Guest
The truth dosen’t change no matter how bad you want it to
R
ronaldmiller
Guest
I think the problem is that some Christians and even Catholics are unable to distinguish sins from sinners. That is no matter how clear you make it, if you criticize a sin, you are critizing the sinner.
Sad indeed.
R
Rosebud77
Guest
Sure as that is how they will see it. This is what I have been saying that there are two sides here and that how gays perceive what we say is very different from what we mean.
when that business came up o in Scotland, when they were giving rules that gay relationships must be taught as a way to live family life, I involved in the debate on the letters page of the local paper.
I had a friend nearby, and knew she was gay and had a live in partner but had said nothing. As soon as she realised I am Christian, she attacked and rejected friendship
would; not even speak to me again.
H
Holly3278
Guest
There is nothing hateful about condemning a sin. It is hateful to condemn a person but it is not hateful to condemn a sin. Rather, condemning a sin is the loving thing to do. When we tell a person that they are committing a serious sin and we warn them to repent then we are doing a loving thing. It is loving because we are doing it out of concern for their soul and their salvation. We are doing it because we want them to go to Heaven when they die and not to Hell.
A
aemcpa
Guest
In the case of homosexuality, the sinners themselves identify as the sin. They do this on purpose to bully people into abandoning the distinction between the sin and the sinner, because they know that people of good will ultimately will have to accept the sinner, and this tactic forces them then to accept the sin. We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, after all.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Really, that’s the bottom line. She signed a contract. She didn’t live up to it. She was let go because of it. Whatever our feelings of sympathy may be for her, this is really a clear cut case.
I’d imagine that many teachers just think of it as one of those “legal mumbo jumbo” things they sign to keep their job without really pausing to consider all that it entails. As most of us tend to think that our lifestyle choices are moral, it may not necessarily register immediately what the morality clause means. They may just figure that they’re basically a good person and so it’s not anything they would have to worry about.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suggest you watch this video on tolerance by Fr, Barron for a clearer view of what being “loving” means, i.e., to will the good of the other. That does not reduce to willing what the other wills, especially when what they will is bad for them. We are not showing love to a drug addict by fostering their addiction.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your position is that we tolerate and include all values, even the most malevolent ones simply for the sake of including the agent or person that holds them. As Fr. Barron concludes in the video, that attitude means we will be compelled to include the devil himself and all his values for the sake of tolerance. I am not clear that will renew the life of the Church, since, as Christ points out, a house divided against itself will not stand. Surely tolerating opposing values is simply going to wreck havoc precisely because those opposing values will tear any thus founded structure apart.
The answer is to enunciate clearly the values of the Church, demonstrate why those values are enduring, life giving, and are the values that rightfully exclude other false or capricious pretenders and then, finally, allowing people to make their own clear choices. That is, at least, treating them with the dignity of moral agency. Pandering to mediocrity or codependency is not going to foster the well being of others, it will simply enable them to keep making the poor choices that keep them enslaved to sin. Jesus came to free us all from sin, not to excuse and enable sinfulness under the guise of tolerance.
Following your advice, the Church will simply be subsumed into the values of the culture at large and disappear. The Church does not need the vindication or approval of the “world,” since God himself is its life giving sustainer.
Modern western culture will burn itself out in its own “conflagration of inclusivity” precisely because the opposing values can only be superficially held together. Like a random concoction of dangerous chemicals the “culture” of tolerance will show its “explosive” and chaotic nature very soon and promoters of this culture will be caught in the resulting firestorm.
I am certain that the less naive advocates of inclusivity will poetically insist on memorializing this brainchild as the “fire of love” as they stand at a safe distance from the burning mess. This response, paradoxically would be the most consistent since having no special attachment and being non-committal or faithless is precisely the fertile ground upon which this beast of tolerance was spawned.
C
Country_Gal
Guest
Promoters of inclusivity and tolerance rarely mean that to include conservative religious folk, unless they are Muslim, of course.
meltzerboy
New member
That may be because it is difficult for them to include and tolerate people who they believe to be exclusive and intolerant.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is very insightful, but leads to a number of other discussion points.
When someone says, “Love the sinner, but not the sin,” they are ostensibly promoting being tolerant and accepting of the person, but not necessarily being tolerant and accepting of a behaviour.
For someone to promote tolerance and acceptance but exclude those ** persons** “they believe to be exclusive and intolerant” would seem to mean, essentially, to tolerate and accept all behaviours, but not necessarily all people.
In other words, does it entail being tolerant of the sin only by making oneself absent to it and absolutely not tolerating or loving the sinner?
The Christian would seem to bear the more onerous task since they are charged with loving the person “no matter what they do.” However, the tolerance advocate need only tolerate the person if the person is, in fact, being tolerant. In other words, for the tolerance advocate, love, defined as caring for the well-being of others, stops at the condition of their being tolerant, otherwise no need to care about them at all.
meltzerboy
New member
The separation between a person and their behavior is, I think, a dubious one. True, one can love a person in the sense of respecting their humanity, essence, and soul, but the person’s behavior is also a significant part of who they are and how they identify themselves, even though the behavior may, at times, be sinful according to another’s moral code. In other words, a person’s soul as well as their thoughts, emotions, drives, and behaviors are all essential parts of who that person is.
When I say that some people may believe they cannot include those who are exclusive and intolerant, I’m referring to the behaviors of those people, which define, in part, who they are.
R
RandomRhino
Guest
Show me scientific proof that homosexuality is malevolent and dangerous to gay people.
You want to know what being tolerant includes? Not calling gay people as sexual deviants, referring to homosexuality as a deviant that resulted from sin. It’s like saying that black people are not bad in and of themselves. Acting like a black person is bad, and we shouldn’t tolerate black actions because then we’d be including the devil himself and all his values. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mary J. Blige! Right?
Becoming addicted to drugs requires the choice to actually use drugs. Becoming a gay person does not require actually performing gay actions. You can eventually stop doing drugs and no longer be an addict. You can’t stop having gay sex and suddenly become straight.
A
aemcpa
Guest
“Acting like a black person”???
A
aemcpa
Guest
But you can stop having gay sex and live a life as a gay man that is in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.
R
RandomRhino
Guest
It was an example to point out how ludicrous the statement that being gay is okay, but “gay actions” are immoral and an offense to God. Because would you honestly say that being black is okay but acting like a black person isn’t?
- Status