Social conservatism is grounded for me personally in biblical principles, because it is an extension of my religious faith. The entire conception of anti-gay conservatism is really flawed, the Christian faith is about embracing people regardless of differences. Do we disagree about a lifestyle of homosexuality? Yep. But the people are the ones that matter not what they do.
No. Just no. This line refuses to die and we have to make a point of calling people out on it:
Mt 10: [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Obviously the reason Christ came was not to bring war, but that is the effect of His Gospel: Those who reject it will hate those who accept and spread it (and those who accept it must not compromise for the sake of political correctness: " [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me").
This is the patent meaning of the whole passage.
Again, did Christ embrace the money changers regardless of the personal differences He had with them?
Truth is divisive. Charity, yes. But charity in truth. You can't deny the truth to avoid giving Pharisaical scandal.
I find this conception of so called "intolerance" does not spill over to the other sins like lying or stealing or cheating on a spouse. Even if you disagree, social conservatism is from the viewpoint that all our actions are choices and that choice is the bad thing, not the person.
Yes of course, we love the sinner and hate the sin. But the logic is a mess as it is here being applied. You must recognize that people's choices have enduring consequences that will attach to the one who makes the choice.
Let me descend to an illustration:
How do you apply this dichotomy of choice and person to a cold-blooded murderer? Sure we love him, pray for his conversion, treat him like a human, and so on. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discriminate against murderers by say, oh I don't know, outlawing murder.
Also, I should note that I do discriminate against those who lie, steal, and cheat on their spouses, at least if it is clear that the acts in question weren't the result of occasional weaknesses but of deliberate, unrepentant, long-term self-determination, a self-determination that is daily renewed.
Lying is a sin, and I do not lie and am firmly against it. But would I protest liars? No. That would not make any sense, similarly why would I protest gay groups? That would actually be counter-productive to spreading the message of CHRIST.
This is just too dumb to pass on. Let's think about this a minute: The reason we don't protest liars is that liars do not identify themselves as such. When was the last time you encountered a militant liars' organization? The whole idea of liars self-identifying is ridiculous--liars don't want to be known as liars because, not only does no one like a liar (i.e., the entire world universally discriminates against liars), but more importantly no one believes a liar and the whole damned point of lying is to be believed.
However, I'd be willing to bet that if this author ever met an inveterate liar he'd discriminate against him just the like the rest of the world.
I think some people on here may have skewed conceptions of Christian principles and should read what CHRIST said and not what people do.
Back attcha, those lines from Matthew were what Christ said.
No comments:
Post a Comment