Sick of the idiots
Twice in the past few weeks I've had to write something along these lines on twitter: "You can't SAY you support traditional marriage politically and not LIVE support for traditional marriage personally." Yes, you Sen. Ensign. Yes, you Gov. Sanford.
Liberals, have at it. Supports of gay marriage, have at it. There is nothing I can or will say to defend such men, who lied at every turn and treated supporters, votes, their staffs and most importantly their families with such disdain and disregard.
There is personal grace and forgiveness, but there should be none politically for these two cowards and liars. Michelle Malkin said it best: Bastard.
It’s the only fitting word for a man who abandons his wife and four sons on Father’s Day weekend to indulge his “overdrive” on an Argentinian fling.
Mark Sanford: Bastard.
My only request is that you do not assume that every conservative is cheating on their wife, but at this point I can't blame you if you did.
UPDATE: Here's Gov. Sanford wife's eloquent and classy statement. She deserved and deserves better.
I disagree… I think that yes he made a mistake (a huge mistake) personally but politically he is still the best fiscally conservative Republican out there.
He stepped up and admitted what he had done before the media found out about the other woman. I pray for him and his family.
Obviously, we should pray for his family and him, but he didn't admit anything until after he got caught lying to EVERYONE. Sure he confessed, but it doesn't change what he did for 8 YEARS!
He could be the greatest fiscal conservative ever, but I'd never vote for him to be dog catcher much less a higher office. He cannot and should not be trusted to hold office. He is a liar who should seek personal forgiveness from those that he wronged and then go away.
I cannot separate "personally" from "politically." Republicans criticized Clinton and Democrats for trying to say the two were separate. I'm not changing just because Sanford was a politician I supported.
As I recall, Jesus had some words for this situation, but christianist conservatives seem incapable of applying them to themselves.
I wonder if all the gay marriages in the U.S. caused these two jackasses to cheat. According to you guys, that must be the case.
btw: I do think that this is "traditional marriage." From decades of observation, both personal and societal, traditional marriage (ie, heterosexual marriage) comes complete with divorce, adultery, wife-bashing, child abuse, incest, and failure (50% in America). Sometimes I wonder why any self-respecting gay person would want to have anything whatsoever with such a corrupt and destructive institution if it wasn't for the legal perks involved. You creeps can have it!
Again you have done a good job of destroying those straw men you set up.
First of all, if you are referencing Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery. I agree. Gov. Sanford should "Go and sin no more." He should work the rest of his life in trying to earn back the trust of his wife and family that he threw away. I don't need to forgive him. He didn't wrong me. But besides forgiveness does not mean removal of temporal consequences. I can be forgiven for murdering someone on death row, but that doesn't mean that I can or should be let go.
Secondly, you know full well how I feel about your straw man claim about gay relationships "causing" the failure of marriages. You also know full well how I feel about all the perversions of marriage that you straw man cartoon you linked to. You can say "according to you guys" all day long, but it does not make it true.
Thirdly, it may come to the point where I agree with you that I don't want to have anything to do with state sponsored marriage. I do not want my relationship to my wife to be considered or viewed as the same as so many of the failed marriages and poorly considered ones. Perhaps, my favorite writer was correct when you spoke of separating church-sanctioned marriages from state-sponsored marriages.
Also, as you know, I have said I was in favor of laws that extended rights such as visitation, wills, etc. to couples outside of married couples.
However I would not that many of those things you mentioned as failures of marriage are just as prevalent in gay relationships as they are in straight marriages. Also wife-bashing is more likely girlfriend bashing. Domestic violence is much more common among live-in couples than in married couples.
But again because of the idiocy of those who claimed to champion the values that I support, I will take your jab of "creeps" and move on.
However, I do think it is unfair to judge everyone by the sins of some. I know that you do not want the entire gay community judged by the actions of a few stereotypical gay men, neither do I want to be judged by the actions of Sanford and Ensign. I would think we both would acknowledge that those who fit the negative stereotypes within our communities make our lives and discussions with others much more difficult.
CORRECTION: I said in an earlier comment that he had been cheating for 8 years. That is not correct. He knew the woman for that period of time, but the elicit part of the relationship has only been going on for the past year. Again, none of that changes my opinion and assessment of Sanford and the situation, but I did want to be factually correct as much as possible.
However, I do think it is unfair to judge everyone by the sins of some. I know that you do not want the entire gay community judged by the actions of a few stereotypical gay men, neither do I want to be judged by the actions of Sanford and Ensign.
Then, for God's sake, please stop your opposition to gay equality, particularly in regards to civil marriage. "Laws" granting (as if this is largesse from on high and not a civil right all citizens have) a few privileges already enjoyed as a matter of course by straights are inadequate, condescending, and insulting. We are human beings and citizens, covered by the Declaration of Independence (remember, "all men are created equal" doesn't mean all straight men!). Marriage conveys over a thousands rights and privileges which your paltry laws would not cover. This is unjust and insulting, and based on nothing but stereotypes and bigotry. Add to this your support of so-called "reparative therapy" programs to convert gay people to straight (condemned by virtually the entire psychology profession as harmful to gay people and false), and I have to say that I just don't believe your protestations on wanting to treat gay people fairly and justly. Until you repent of your bigotry towards gay people, I will just not pay the slightest attention to your protestations otherwise. You have my e-mail address. If you want to make this a private declaration (I know the professional beating you would take from your evangelical buddies, which raises another question entirely of course) I will keep it under my hat. Until then, I will continue to judge you by both what you say and what your community believes.
Christian "conversion therapy" camp.
Another reason to distrust Aaron and his "christian" ilk.
OK, here's why I don't much care for socially conservative politicians – they mix their religious ideas with their politics. Yes, Sanford is entitled to be as Christianist as he wants, more power to him. But for Christ's sake, the man is an idiot.
He goes AWOL, as the Governor of SC, for 8 days and thinks he needs to apologize to the public for being – an adulterer??? Who cares! He needs to apologize to his WIFE for that.
He needs to apologize to the public for not doing his job and abdicating his political responsibilities. He should resign.
p.s. I tend to have low expectations for the morals of self-professed Christian conservatives anyway, especially Southern ones. Anyone who feels the need to make such a big issue out of private morality is probably repressing some internal demons anyway.
Why don't these clowns realize they get LESS respect from the thinking public every time they talk about Jeebus? Yes, we know all about your Jeebus. Who, despite apparent similarity, bears no resemblance to the actual Jesus who you people daily desecrate with Pharisaical morality.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/…
How do white male southern conservatives manage to look at themselves in the mirror, let alone presuming to lecture the rest of us on morality?
What gets me about these comments is that, once caught, these cretins always try to appear as if they are apologizing when, in fact, they are not:
"I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."
If I offended anyone? Obviously he did or there wouldn't be any problem. It's really a defiant non-apology and an attempt to slither past the situation without admitting guilt. An apology is worthless unless you admit that what you did was clearly wrong and you are repentant.
Of course, consider the source, southern, white, Republican.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, generally recognized as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. President Obama spoke to a group of gay people and our supporters in a moving tribute to those who began and continue this movement for liberty and justice for all. This is why, though disappointed at the pace of his actions, I still support him. He is a man who truly understands the struggles and suffering of his fellow human beings, and who puts this understanding ahead of ideological dogmas (in this, he is a true Christian). All I hear from Republicans and other conservatives is NO! in every form it is possible to speak that monosyllable. Well, they have had their time in power and have failed (miserably). Obama speaks for the future, and for those of us who seek true justice.
I agree!
your friend
Keith
>>> Of course, consider the source, southern, white, Republican.
Can northern, minority, Democrats not say and do stupid things? I doesn't excuse the idiot in SC for the stupid remark. He is a moron who should lose any political job or influence he has. It was an offensive statement. He shouldn't have to say, "If I offended anyone," it was offensive.
However, as a southern, white Conservative, I have to say that he does not speak for me anymore than idiot stereotypes speak for Californians or gays or minorities or Democrats or liberals, etc.
I can go pull up a horrific, derogatory image of Sarah Palin done by some Democrats. I can even do the same for one that a Democrat activist and state party blogger did distorting the face of her down's syndrome baby, Trig. I can pull some images that Democrats did putting black face on Republicans. The ones with Condi Rice were horrible. Do those speak to the same ills being present within every Democrat or liberal? Of course not.
I could have posted links to all those in a post and made some statement about how could liberal Democrats look at themselves in the mirror, let alone lecture anyone else on tolerance.
None of that changes who's a moron and who's not. I'm not going to use their sins and idiocy to tar and slime you. But what you do with the stereotypes of Republicans is up to you.
Hi Aaron:
Yuo wrote (about Louis calling Obama a true Christian):
Don't I get in trouble when I try to say who is a "true Christian?" How do you, someone who admittedly no longer considers himself a Christian, get to determine that?
You make a great point here. Honestly, who's true and who's not is pretty much something visible only to God. On the other hand what Louis is saying about true Christians seems pretty true–he is saying that bigotry and judgmentalism is NOT the mark of a true Christian, sacrificial love is. You and he might disagree on a lot of issues (even deeply fundamental issues) but I know you agree about the supremacy of love over bigotry. That's one of the reasons I like you so much:-)
your friend
Keith
However, as a southern, white Conservative, I have to say that he does not speak for me anymore than idiot stereotypes speak for Californians or gays or minorities or Democrats or liberals, etc.
Stings, doesn't it? Stereotyping and prejudice always does when you're the victim of it. You might think about that next time you advocate "conversion therapy" for gays, or espouse certain "Biblical" attitudes towards hx, or oppose equal treatment in issues like marriage or military service. These positions you hold are based on inaccurate and unjust stereotypes of hx, and when you voice them I get the same feeling you describe above. You may think you are exempt from criticism because you are sincere in your beliefs, but you aren't. If you don't want to be labeled unjustly, stop doing it to others.
>>> On the other hand what Louis is saying about true Christians seems pretty true–he is saying that bigotry and judgmentalism is NOT the mark of a true Christian, sacrificial love is.
Agreed very much. We are just going to disagree who that is manifest in the lives of individuals. Christianity is not a faith of bigotry, but of love. But often love is tough as it does not shy from calling a sin a sin. It does not discriminate either in calling out the sins of others or of the sins of oneself.
Hi Louis:
This is where the rubber meets the road as it were. Here's my take. A person might believe that God has revealed that homosexual behavior is sinful WITHOUT that person holding any stereotypes about gays at al. He could easily have no idea WHAT is sinful about homosexuality and hold no malice toward gays. You would (understandably and quite properly IMO) disagree with that religious belief and even consider such a theology to be the moral equivalent to the racist belief that some other person's race is inferior. It seems to me that such a person COULD be a person of good WILL with a bad BELIEF. Your reaction might be (and maybe this reaction is perfectly proper): it doesn't matter if the person IS of good will, his loathsome belief hurts me and lots of decent people and is worthy of condemnation. But (this is my opinion mind you) morality is a FUNCTION of will–good will or bad will–and IMO the good-willed bigot is not IMMORAL for his erronious belief.
your friend
Keith
>>> Stings, doesn't it? Stereotyping and prejudice always does when you're the victim of it.
How often have I spoke here about the need for conservative and Christians to move past the stereotypes of gays. You know I have, so don't pin those on me.
What you oppose of what you think is my opinion is not stereotypes. It is not a stereotype of gays to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is an attitude and position on marriage, not on gay individuals. The idea that people can change is one born out by individuals (both who have become straight and those who have become gay).
>>> You may think you are exempt from criticism because you are sincere in your beliefs, but you aren't. If you don't want to be labeled unjustly, stop doing it to others.
You are sorely mistaken if you think I hold myself exempt from criticism because of sincerity. Sincerity doesn't mean much apart from truth to me. I have no problem with you criticizing me or my positions, as long as I believe you are doing it fairly. But even if you do it unfairly, that is your right as it is mine to challenge you on it.
You may believe that I label you unjustly, but I don't believe I have ascribed gay stereotypes to you. If you can find places I have done so, please bring those to my attention.
I do think we (everyone) could have much better dialogue on issues if we dropped thinking of the other person in terms of what stereotype they belong. That goes for all of us.
What you oppose of what you think is my opinion is not stereotypes. It is not a stereotype of gays to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is an attitude and position on marriage, not on gay individuals. The idea that people can change is one born out by individuals (both who have become straight and those who have become gay).
Oh, please! This kind of hypocritical misinformation just makes me want to gag! What else can your marriage position be but about gays? If there were no gays who wanted to get married, would it even be an issue. Of course, it's about gay individuals! Everything comes down to individuals; every issue, every political/social/religion is about individuals. If it isn't, it involves the abuse and destruction of the individual. Your attempt to excuse yourself from the ramifications of your beliefs concerning hx is, at best, self-delusion and, at worst, participation in evil. As far as I'm concerned, the belief that gay people can be turned straight by your "therapy" is, ipso facto, proof of stereotyping and bigotry. I'm sorry, but a hard, bright line must finally be drawn on this issue: the entire legitimate psychological field has agreed that such "therapy" is impossible and extremely harmful to the individuals bullied into it. Too, it betrays a swamp of assumptions about hx and hx persons that are, in and of themselves, bigoted. Why else promote "conversion" if you didn't believe the negative stereotypes and fallacious theories re: hx? The fact that you cannot or will not see this has forced me to conclude that you inhabit a totally different, alien weltanshauung which precludes understanding or communication.
Keith: …IMO the good-willed bigot is not IMMORAL for his erroneous belief.
He is if he has been shown, time and again, that his belief are immoral and malicious. This idea that there's some kind of pristine innocents out there who haven't heard anything about real, live gay people and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for these evil beliefs is absurd. And, in the case of Aaron, after years of contact with my opinions, certainly doesn't qualify. His beliefs concerning gay people and our rights to equal treatment are evil. End.
(Sorry a little more commentary got lost because I ran out of time to edit.)
This is one reason why I am so suspicious of certain types of Christianity: it enables its adherent to clothe his evil in righteousness and inoculates him against reason. Thus, he can tell himself that he's not committing an evil act when he is clearly doing so because it's "the will of God" (especially when the type of religion is legalistic as we see here). Aaron and seeker and Rep. Sally Kern of Oklahoma (southern, white, Republican, "Christian") do so with a clean conscience because their religion tells them so.
btw: Why Sally Kern? Read the proclamation she introduced and weep (or cheer, I suppose):
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national
moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and
many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking
the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused
to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of
Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States
disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to
an immoral behavior;
What caused the economic crisis? Gay People!
I really have tried to reach out to the likes of Aaron (I've long since given up on stinker), but it's a fool's errand.
btw: A new axis of evil to worry about.
I really am getting sick of the idiots (speaking of which, I wonder if Rep. Sally is joining?).
Hi Louis:
You wrote: He is if he has been shown, time and again, that his belief are immoral and malicious.
But Louis how do you show his moral belief is IMMORAL? Presumably you'd be applying some OTHER moral principle, but how would you show him that his different moral principle is wrong? IMO, moral principles are about compassion and love, and it seems to me that a person could (wrongly) believe that homosexuality was a sin while at the same time having a compassionate ATTITUDE toward gays–explicitly NOT being malicious toward gays. How would you SHOW the immorality of his belief? To use an analogy: suppose a person thinks that the blue car over there is his but suppose he's wrong on the fact. Acting on his belief, the person drives off in the car. Technically he stole the car and his taking of the car damages the real owner. But he was not acting immorally, he just made a mistake.
This idea that there's some kind of pristine innocents out there who haven't heard anything about real, live gay people and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for these evil beliefs is absurd.
I honestly don't get your point here. What observation should he have made to show that God didn't divinely reveal that homosexuality was a sin? I do want to reiterate: I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible declares that God is love and that wherever love is, God is also. The gay relationships I have personally encountered seem to me to be every bit as loving as heterosexual relationships that I know of. So whatever it is the Bible means when it refers to what is translated as "homosexual" in modern translations, I do not believe it is referring to gay marriages. But it seems to me that for a person who for whatever reason believes that those anti-gay interpretations are God's own words, it's not ignorance of homosexuals that is the problem. It is a mistaken theology (they would no doubt disagree with my theology).
And, in the case of Aaron, after years of contact with my opinions, certainly doesn't qualify. His beliefs concerning gay people and our rights to equal treatment are evil. End.
His beliefs lead him to oppose marriage equality, and that leads to your rights being denied. So I can certainly understand your saying his BELIEFS are evil–his beliefs take away your rights. But IMO beliefs (that is, thinking X is true rather than false) are neither moral nor immoral. They are either correct or incorrect, they are head things. But morality is a heart thing. At least that's how I see it.
your friend
Keith
Keith:"…it seems to me that a person could (wrongly) believe that homosexuality was a sin while at the same time having a compassionate ATTITUDE toward gays–explicitly NOT being malicious toward gays."
To this I can only reply that believing hx to be a "sin" is evidence of malice towards gays, and that their supposed compassion is self-delusion. I can tell you this because I see it from the other side, as the object of their "compassion." I know malice when I feel it. It doesn't matter what they think they are doing at all: what matters is what they are actually doing. I recall reading about the Inquisitors using torture and fire on "heretics" thinking they were being compassionate because they were saving their victims' souls. How could anyone in their right minds judge this as anything but self-delusion and repressed malice?
Keith: "How would you SHOW the immorality of his belief?"
The answer is so obvious that I'm stunned that I need to point it out. I would show it by pointing out the results of his belief. A healthy tree doesn't produce poisonous fruit. And the fruit of homophobia, no matter how innocently held, is suffering and death to its victims. To me, this is the bottom line where morality is concerned. I suppose a true believer (or a fanatic absolutist) would say that God decides what is moral, but since religions constantly produce conflicting ideas of God's will, I prefer a more pragmatic approach.
Hi Louis:
To this I can only reply that believing hx to be a "sin" is evidence of malice towards gays, and that their supposed compassion is self-delusion. I can tell you this because I see it from the other side, as the object of their "compassion." I know malice when I feel it. It doesn't matter what they think they are doing at all: what matters is what they are actually doing. I recall reading about the Inquisitors using torture and fire on "heretics" thinking they were being compassionate because they were saving their victims' souls. How could anyone in their right minds judge this as anything but self-delusion and repressed malice?
Definitely, what matters to the victim is what actually is done, not what the person doing the deed thinks he is doing. But I think I can sum up what I am saying by answering your last question. Consider the Inquisitor who tortures heretics to (supposedly) save their souls. How could their actions be anything but self-delusion AND repressed malice? By being NON- self delusions brought about by a wrong belief about a fact. The mere fact that an action causes pain doesn't mean the inflicter harbors malice toward the victim, otherwise all surgeons would be malicious. You point out that a healthy tree doesn't produce poisonous fruit and that the fruit anti-gay theology has caused suffering and death. I agree; I do not agree with anti-gay theology, the same as I don't agree with racist theology.
your friend
Keith
Your surgeon analogy is false: he performs his "harmful" actions on a patient – a willing victim, if you will – while the bigot, while perhaps well-meaning, inflicts pain on an unwilling person.
This reminds me of a sexual harassment seminar I had to take for work. We learned that it doesn't matter what's in the harassers mind (ie, his intention) but how his victim perceives the action. The harasser can believe his actions to be mere "kidding around" or benign or even beneficial, it doesn't matter. All that matters is how the recipient of his attentions experiences the actions.
All this matters because it is very easy to con yourself into believing that your actions are benign or beneficial when they are actually harmful. We used to call it an ego-trip. You have to constantly check your perceptions with reality by consulting with other people and ruthless self-examination. Religious homophobes refuse to do this because they believe already they know the answer: the Bible, God, church, whatever. If they have God on their side, how can they be wrong? How do their victims challenge that?
Sorry, Keith, though I admire your desire to go the extra mile to find the good in everybody, sometimes you have to call them out and demand change.
And here's why I refuse to buckle under to Aaron's position. Though he will exclaim with horror at this incident and deny responsibility, his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities as were Christian anti-semitism to Auschwitz. J'Accuse!
Hi Louis:
You make great points and I want to address them. Not in the order they were raised:
All this matters because it is very easy to con yourself into believing that your actions are benign or beneficial when they are actually harmful. We used to call it an ego-trip. You have to constantly check your perceptions with reality by consulting with other people and ruthless self-examination.
I agree with this completely. I often try (not frequently enough no doubt) to apply such honest appraisal of my own behvavior and attitudes precisely BECAUSE it is so easy to fool yourself. For example, it is my instinct to give people benefit of the doubt in personal encounters. Is this my Quaker "Looking for that of God in all people" (sometimes I KNOW it is) or is it my not liking confrontation (sometimes I KNOW it is)? Rationalizations are very easy.
Religious homophobes refuse to do this because they believe already they know the answer: the Bible, God, church, whatever. If they have God on their side, how can they be wrong? How do their victims challenge that?
I suspect that SOME of the anti-gay religious alsio refuse to do this because they don't want to confront the fact that their antipathy toward homosexiality is born of malice not a sincere desire to obey God. Their biblical literalism is itself a rationalization. But for those who are literalists first, it STILL may not be possible for you to rationally challenge their belief. Sometimes not even honest and respectful discussion can resolve a dispute–rationality has it's limits.
Your surgeon analogy is false: he performs his "harmful" actions on a patient – a willing victim, if you will – while the bigot, while perhaps well-meaning, inflicts pain on an unwilling person.
Then change the analogy to a child receiving surgery. Sometimes compassion and love is perfectly consistent with causing short term pain. Therefore the mere fact that pain is caused doesn't imply the cause of thr pain is malicious. Still, pain was caused and if the pain wasn't a necessary to help the victim of the pain then the victim is perfectly justified in not being consoled by the well-wishes of his ignorant "benifactor". The religious anti-gay SAYS they love you enough to warn you of your sin. Oftentimes I think they are lying to themselves abut their true motivations. But MAYBE sometimes (I am sure of it actually, I beieve I KNOW some people just like this) they are just wrong about the fact. They do in fact "love the sinner" and they recognize that all of us ARE sinners. I'd say you are within your rights to call them on their belief, you are within your rights to demand that they see the pain they cause and not hide from the reality their anti-gay laws cause you. I just don't know that you can accurately read their minds enough to know their true MOTIVATION. And if you give them benefit of the doubt about MOTIVATION, you might find that some are persuadable, at least enough so that society will no longer actually steal from you the minimum amount of decent treatment that you as a human being should be able to expect.
your friend
Keith
>>> Though he will exclaim with horror at this incident and deny responsibility, his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities as were Christian anti-semitism to Auschwitz.
So I am to blame for every atrocity committed by anyone in the history of mankind and even every act committed by non-Christians who you deem to be influenced by Christian beliefs?
You heap scorn on a Representative for tying gay marriage with economic troubles, yet you see no problem in doing the same to those with whom you disagree.
That's my problem with all these discussions Louis. You want, demand, me to see everything from your perspective. You say unless I answer every question to your liking and acquiesce to all of your public policy request that I must be hateful and a bigot. You say I have no understanding for those that disagree with you and ultimately my beliefs lead to violence against others.
I have constantly tried to go past stereotypes and explain my positions rationally. I have spoken out against Christians who participated in unfair discrimination and harassment of gay individuals. But yet, you see no need to understand me or my positions. You see no need to extend the same tolerance to me that you demand from me.
Of course not, you answer. Because you really KNOW me, better than I know myself. You know that secretly I hate gay people. You know that I really want to participate in the physical harm of gay individuals. You know that I would abort all unborn babies with a "gay gene" if I had the chance. You KNOW that I really fit the stereotype you have in your mind and you KNOW that I think of you in the same way – the gay stereotype.
It all seems to be a bit of projectionism. You refuse to see me as an individual apart from the stereotypes you have formed in your mind, so you accuse me of the same thing.
I have not been shown that my beliefs are immoral. I have been told my beliefs are immoral. There is a difference. You believe that what I believe is immoral. What makes your belief right and mine wrong? How it effects you? Then what if your belief causes me harm, does that make your belief wrong as well?
You say that it only matters what the other person thinks, not what was intended. How in the world does that make sense? If I feel your comments about Christianity and Christians are hurtful does that automatically make you wrong? Obviously, people hide behind "jokes," but there has to be some standard outside of people's feelings or everything could be determined to be discriminatory. Or does it only matter who the target is? Certain people can be attacked, while other people cannot be? Who gets to decide that? I feel certain that I will fall under the category of someone who can safely be attacked without it being wrong.
You constantly champion ideals that others should live up to in the way they relate to you, yet you either refuse to judge yourself by the same standard or you are unaware of the hypocrisy. Repeatedly here, you have stated some type of desire for physical violence against Christians. I take it as hyperbole and move on, yet you would not afford me the same. You would take it as proof of my real intentions. That's my point. If you want to be treated by a certain standard, then start applying it to everyone, including yourself.
We definitely do disagree on the theological issue you raise. I think you focus on "God is love," without acknowledging and incorporating "God is holy." But I appreciate your generous attitude toward someone with whom you disagree with.
Hi aaron:
Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood. In fact, I'd say that follows from Jesus' summation of the Law and the Prophets: Jesus said that the whole law could be summed up as: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. It seems to me Jesus was defining holiness IN TERMS of love. You might agree with me about this while still not agreeing with me on the theological ramifications of homosexuality.
your friend
Keith
As usual, Aaron deflects criticism back at his critic, thus avoiding the topic entirely. He always does this when cornered. That's why I call it the "Aaron Defense."
After years of this futile roundelay, I have come to the conclusion that it's pointless to argue with him on this topic. As a religiously-motivated person, he looks to the teachings of his version of his religion rather for guidance rather than reason or the experience of others. And there is no arguing with a religiously-motivated person for their source is "God" and therefore unassailable. I'm through.
>>> As usual, Aaron deflects criticism back at his critic, thus avoiding the topic entirely. He always does this when cornered. That's why I call it the "Aaron Defense."
There is no tactic here to deflect anything. I'm merely asking you to display the tolerance and understanding that you so loudly demand from others.
You expect me to simply sit idly by while you essentially blame me for the beating of a gay man in NYC? It's funny that the whole stereotype was Southern conservative white men, yet this attack happened in New York.
What specifically would you like for me to respond to that I avoided? It seems when I respond in a way that does not suit your viewpoint, you ignore my response or deem it as the "Aaron Defense."
Unless I totally agree with you on every position, I'm responsible for physical violence against gays. How can I respond to that? What would you do if I did that? How about if I blamed gays for the downturn in the economy or worse, blame you for church shootings? How should you even respond to such absurdity? How am I supposed to do so?
>>> Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood.
I agree, but obviously I think you misunderstand holiness by simply viewing it as subservient to love. God is sinless and holy. He displayed both in the crucifixion of Jesus. God demanded a perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for sins, but He displayed His love for us in sending His Son. That is being both holy and loving. Sin is not ignored or downplayed, but the price is paid on our behalf. I believe we do ourselves and God a disservice by trying to play down our sin as well as sin in the culture.
Hi Aaron:
Continuing the discussion:
Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood.
I agree, but obviously I think you misunderstand holiness by simply viewing it as subservient to love.
But I DON'T view holiness as subservient to love. I think holiness is DEFINED in terms of love. I claim that's what Jesus was doing when he summed up the law and the prophets as "love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself". I think you think something out of balance follows from my view, but I think you are wrong about my view entails. For example: your belief that homosexuality is sinful could fit within my theology of love, depending on the facts about homosexuality. Now I don't believe that proper biblical understanding DOES show homosexuality to be a sin, and this does derive in part from my "theology of love", combined with other observations I make regarding my gay friends. But that's kind of a more involved discussion.
God is sinless and holy. He displayed both in the crucifixion of Jesus. God demanded a perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for sins, but He displayed His love for us in sending His Son.
I'm not sure I buy that this was a DEMAND of God, but otherwise I do agree with your comments–it fits perfectly within my theology of love.
That is being both holy and loving. Sin is not ignored or downplayed, but the price is paid on our behalf. I believe we do ourselves and God a disservice by trying to play down our sin as well as sin in the culture.
I don't think my theology does downplay sin–it simply claims that sin is a function of being out of phase at it were with love. IMO the conservative theological frame that suggests that love is different from holiness creates a conflict between the two and makes it logically impossible to obey God's commands. It creates a situation where you sometimes have to choose between obeying love or obeying a legalism. I think Jesus' Gospel of Love explains the error in that view.
your friend
Keith
Aaron accused (absurdly):
You expect me to simply sit idly by while you essentially blame me for the beating of a gay man in NYC?
Unless I totally agree with you on every position, I'm responsible for physical violence against gays.
This mini-tantrum was in response to my charge,
"…his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities…"
Your beliefs, not you. Get it? Your beliefs are evil, not you.
I suggest a course in close reading of texts.
Your beliefs, not you. Get it? Your beliefs are evil, not you.
I suggest a course in close reading of texts.
So wait let me get this straight, I should not equate you calling my beliefs evil with you calling me evil. I should not equate you saying that my beliefs led to physical violence against gays and the holocaust, because you did not say me specifically.
But it is wrong and hurtful to you if I said homosexual actions are evil, even though I did not say you personally were evil. If I were to call evil something that you value as part of who you are, I am in essence calling you evil. But when you call evil something that I value as part of who I am, you are not held to the same standard.
I'm sure you believe those to be totally different issues, could you please explain why I should not be offended or try to defend myself when you call my beliefs evil, but it is entirely offensive and unpardonable for someone to call your sexuality evil. (That's not even my position, but that is the way you take my position to be.)
let's put this to a test with a link of my own. You said my beliefs were to blame for a gay man being beaten in NYC. What if I blamed your sexuality or beliefs for a gay man living with his boyfriend trying to sell his adopted five year old son for sex. He said he had to subdue the boy with medicine in order for him to be used for sex. Can I blame your beliefs for that? Maybe I can blame Keith's. The man claimed to be a liberal Christian. Maybe I can blame myself because I'm a Duke basketball fan and the man worked at Duke University.
Is that at all fair? I don't think so. I think it is an overly emotional ploy to attempt to silence (or inflame) those with whom you disagree.
For the record, I don't blame you or Keith. I don't blame your or Keith's beliefs. I blame the individual involved and his beliefs. But would it be acceptable for me to do the same as you have done and then when you protest call your objections a "mini-tirade" and suggest that you learn to read better?
Again, all I'm asking is that you apply the same standards to yourself as you demand from everyone else.
IMO the conservative theological frame that suggests that love is different from holiness creates a conflict between the two and makes it logically impossible to obey God's commands. It creates a situation where you sometimes have to choose between obeying love or obeying a legalism.
You misunderstand my position if you believe it creates a situation where you have to chose what to obey. The question is always who to obey – that being God and he is both perfectly holy and perfectly loving. There is no conflict and both are equally as much of who He is as the other, as taught by Scripture.
So wait let me get this straight,
Not knowing what you have said, you have said it.
I should not equate you calling my beliefs evil with you calling me evil…
But it is wrong and hurtful to you if I said homosexual actions are evil, even though I did not say you personally were evil.
Don't you know the difference between beliefs and actions? I think there's a vast difference. You can hold beliefs which are themselves evil mistakenly (as Keith keeps arguing and with which I partially agree), without necessarily being evil yourself. Actions indicate an internal state of which they are an outward expression. Thus, according to you, since I willfully and with full knowledge of the opinion of the conservative/orthodox/legalist conception of God, I commit "homosexual actions" I must be choosing evil, and at least to some extent, am thus evil myself.
Of course, if you insist, I won't make that assumption. If you want I'll consider you evil, and your beliefs just a function of your internal condition (sort of like seeker).
Of course, being a reasonable and forgiving type, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and see you as a victim of a dark and evil ideology who can be convinced otherwise.
Actions indicate an internal state of which they are an outward expression.
Yes, actions flow from beliefs. Isn't that why you were arguing that my evil beliefs made me, in some sense, evil? You will note that I did not disagree with you in your general assessment of me – only that I did not feel you should say that my beliefs were responsible for actions like the Holocaust and the beating of the gay man in NYC.
Thus, according to you, since I willfully and with full knowledge of the opinion of the conservative/orthodox/legalist conception of God, I commit "homosexual actions" I must be choosing evil, and at least to some extent, am thus evil myself.
No more evil than me. You do not believe your actions to be sin or evil. There are things which I know to be sinful and yet sometimes I engage in them anyway. This is willful rebellion. I'm not here, nor have I ever argued that you were any more "evil" or sinful than myself.
My point is that you say my evil beliefs led to physical violence against an individual gay man in NYC. You don't see any problem with that, but you ridicule (rightly) a Representative who says that your belief (that homosexuality should be considered equal to heterosexuality) led to the nations economic downturn.
You say my beliefs led to the Holocaust, yet I am sure you would not find it acceptable for me to say that your beliefs led to the horrific sexual exploitation of the 5-year-old in NC.
This is my whole point. I think you have understood my point or at least you seem to have calmed down the rhetoric from earlier and for that I am grateful.
That's why I wondered if you were angry at something outside of our discussion. It is easy to bring our emotions from everyday life to conversations here. I know I have done that to my shame on numerous occasions.
Picking a nit, Aaron, it is misleading to say that MISUNDERSTAND your position. I think I DO understand it: you consider divine holiness and divine love to be distinct attributes of God. I on the other hand think divine holiness is a form OF divine love. I believe that seeing them as different attributes means that sometimes you might find yourself feeling mandated by God to legalistically follow what you think is God's command even though obeying that legalism seems to you to conflict with love. You might disagree with me that this is a likely result, or you might disagree with me that this is a problem. But I think our disagreement is NOT because I don't get what you are saying. Of course, it might be just that:-)
your friend
Keith
Yet another "family values," anti-gay marriage Republican revealed as adulterous, woman-chasing, venal hypocrite. It seems that the louder they protest they are pro-family, the worse their personal lives, an inverse ratio as it were. I try not to be gleeful, but I'm only human.
Keith, I'm confused that you want to say holiness is not subservient to love, but holiness is defined in terms of love. Could you explain how you find there to be no contradiction there?
I do find it rather difficult that you bring words like "legalistically" and "legalism" as a natural outpouring of a "distinct" view of God's holiness. Yes yes yes, you say "might", but you don't present any other "might"s, so I have to think it's the main thrust you're getting at…
I put "distinct" as such above, because it also seems important to what you're saying… Are you saying that you think Aaron thinks that Holiness can sometimes be applied seperate from the application of love? In his post #40, he makes it clear that he thinks they're on equal footing. Do you think Aaron is saying sometimes God is holy and sometimes God is loving, but the two don't necessarily always meet?
Then, you go on to say that holiness and love *can* conflict. Can they really? Do you think that? Do you think Aaron thinks that?
Let me ask you this: Was Jesus unloving to the woman at the well of Sychar when he called her out on adultery? Was he being unloving when he yelled, "HYPOCRITES!" at the keepers of the law? Was he being unloving when he kicked the 'skubalos' out of the money changers in the temple? Was he being unloving when he sent away the rich young ruler?
I *think* I know what you're getting at, that love and holiness are intertwined and on equal footing. God's love IS holy, and his holiness IS loving. Is that what you're saying? It's certainly how I understand God to have presented Himself. If so, then we've got to examine all of his attributes, including justice, mercy, grace, power, majesty, beauty, intelligence, wisdom, etc…
I think it's only when you apply the difficult full balance that God IS all these things, and he is those things fully when he acts, that you can explain the very difficult to reconcile with a "loving-before-everything-else" God as Jesus presents in my examples above.
Frankly, I think a lot of the unspoken confusion boils down to what it means to be loving. I think it has not been well distinguished from "nice", nor do I think there is a well established purpose of love. How did Jesus love people, and for what purpose? Once we understand that, we should follow it, veering neither to the left nor to the right.